Maternal proximity to extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields and risk of birth defects

2019 · No effect · Moderate evidence

← Research stream

No effectModerate evidencePaper 1825

Study snapshot

Publicationmanual · 2019

Study typecohort

Reported directionNo effect

Evidence ratingModerate

Abstract

Maternal proximity to extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields and risk of birth defects Auger N, Arbour L, Luo W, Lee GE, Bilodeau-Bertrand M, Kosatsky T. Maternal proximity to extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields and risk of birth defects. Eur J Epidemiol. 2019 Apr 11. doi: 10.1007/s10654- 019-00518-1. Abstract Causes of birth defects are unclear, and the association with electromagnetic fields is inconclusive. We assessed the relationship between residential proximity to extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields from power grids and risk of birth defects. We analyzed a population-based sample of 2,164,246 infants born in Quebec, Canada between 1989 and 2016. We geocoded the maternal residential postal code at delivery and computed the distance to the nearest high voltage electrical transmission line or transformer station. We used log-binomial regression to estimate risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the association of residential proximity to transmission lines and transformer stations with birth defects, adjusting for maternal and infant characteristics. The prevalence of birth defects within 200 m of a transmission line (579.4 per 10,000 per live births) was only slightly higher compared with distances further away (568.7 per 10,000). A similar trend was seen for transformer stations. Compared with 200 m, a distance of 50 m was not associated with the risk of birth defects for transmission lines (RR 1.00, 95% CI 1.00-1.01) and transformer stations (RR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00-1.03). There was no consistent association when we examined birth defects in different organ systems. We found no compelling evidence that residential proximity to extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields from electrical power grids increases the risk of birth defects. Women residing near electrical grids can be reassured that an effect on the risk of birth defects is unlikely. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Machine Enhanced Logic

AI evidence extraction

Structured fields below were generated from the paper’s abstract and metadata to make the evidence easier to inspect. Automated extraction may be incomplete or incorrect; verify important details against the original paper.

Study typecohort

Effect directionno_effect

PopulationInfants born in Quebec, Canada (maternal residential postal code at delivery used for exposure assessment)

Sample size2164246

ExposureELF

Evidence strengthModerateConfidence: 78% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

In a population-based sample of 2,164,246 infants (Quebec, 1989–2016), prevalence of birth defects within 200 m of a transmission line was slightly higher than farther away, but distance of 50 m vs 200 m was not associated with birth defects for transmission lines (RR 1.00, 95% CI 1.00–1.01) or transformer stations (RR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00–1.03). No consistent associations were observed across organ-system-specific birth defects, and the authors report no compelling evidence of increased risk from residential proximity to ELF sources from electrical power grids.

Outcomes measured

Birth defects (overall)
Birth defects by organ system

Limitations

Exposure assessed via geocoded maternal residential postal code at delivery and distance to nearest transmission line/transformer station (proximity metric; field levels not reported)
Residential location measured at delivery only (may not reflect exposure earlier in pregnancy)
Observational design with potential for residual confounding despite adjustment

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "cohort",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "ELF",
    "source": "power grids (high voltage transmission lines, transformer stations)",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": "Infants born in Quebec, Canada (maternal residential postal code at delivery used for exposure assessment)",
  "sample_size": 2164246,
  "outcomes": [
    "Birth defects (overall)",
    "Birth defects by organ system"
  ],
  "main_findings": "In a population-based sample of 2,164,246 infants (Quebec, 1989–2016), prevalence of birth defects within 200 m of a transmission line was slightly higher than farther away, but distance of 50 m vs 200 m was not associated with birth defects for transmission lines (RR 1.00, 95% CI 1.00–1.01) or transformer stations (RR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00–1.03). No consistent associations were observed across organ-system-specific birth defects, and the authors report no compelling evidence of increased risk from residential proximity to ELF sources from electrical power grids.",
  "effect_direction": "no_effect",
  "limitations": [
    "Exposure assessed via geocoded maternal residential postal code at delivery and distance to nearest transmission line/transformer station (proximity metric; field levels not reported)",
    "Residential location measured at delivery only (may not reflect exposure earlier in pregnancy)",
    "Observational design with potential for residual confounding despite adjustment"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "moderate",
  "confidence": 0.78,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "extremely low frequency",
    "ELF",
    "electromagnetic fields",
    "power grids",
    "high voltage transmission lines",
    "transformer stations",
    "residential proximity",
    "birth defects",
    "congenital anomalies",
    "Quebec",
    "population-based"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "power-lines-elf",
      "weight": 0.9,
      "reason": "Exposure is residential proximity to high-voltage transmission lines and transformer stations (ELF from power grids)."
    }
  ]
}

AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

AI-extracted fields are generated from the abstract and metadata and may be incomplete or incorrect. This material is for informational purposes and is not medical advice.

Identifiers and source

DOI: 10.1007/s10654
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library