Skip to main content
Occupational Medicine (Oxford, England) logoLink to Occupational Medicine (Oxford, England)
. 2019 Aug 3;69(5):342–351. doi: 10.1093/occmed/kqz082

Cancer incidence in UK electricity generation and transmission workers, 1973–2015

T M Sorahan 1,
PMCID: PMC6704976  PMID: 31375830

Abstract

Background

Long-term health outcomes in cohorts of workers from the electricity supply industry have been studied.

Aims

The aim of the study was to examine updated cancer incidence findings among a cohort of UK electricity generation and transmission workers.

Methods

Cancer morbidity experienced by 81 616 employees of the former Central Electricity Generating Board of England and Wales was investigated for the period 1973–2015. All employees had worked for at least 6 months with some employment between 1973 and 1982. Standardized registration ratios (SRRs) were calculated based on national rates.

Results

Overall cancer morbidity was slightly below expectation in males. Significant excesses were found in male workers for mesothelioma (observed [Obs] 763, SRR 326), skin cancer (non-melanoma) (Obs 5616, SRR 106), and prostate cancer (Obs 4298, SRR 106), and in female workers for cancer of the small intestine (Obs 13, SRR 220), nasal cancer (Obs 11, SRR 407), and breast cancer (Obs 758, SRR 110). More detailed analyses showed important contrasts, particularly for mesothelioma, lung cancer, skin cancer, prostate cancer and breast cancer.

Conclusions

A clear occupational excess of mesothelioma was not matched by a corresponding excess of asbestos-induced lung cancer. Confident interpretation of the excesses of cancers of the nasal cavities and small intestine is not possible, although occupational exposures received in this industry may well not be involved. An excess of skin cancer in transmission workers may be associated with outdoor working.

Keywords: Cancer incidence, electricity supply industry


Key learning points.

What is already known about this subject:

  • This survey was set up in the 1980s to learn more about the long-term health of employees in the UK electricity supply industry.

  • In the intervening years, a series of 11 papers have found no convincing links between estimated exposure to magnetic fields and a number of health outcomes.

  • This new report was prepared to provide a more complete assessment of cancer risks in the cohort, incorporating a further 6 years of follow-up data.

What this study adds:

  • The cohort continues to experience an occupational excess of mesothelioma without any matching excess of lung cancer.

  • Outdoor working may have been a factor in excess of skin cancer (non-melanoma).

  • Excesses in females for nasal cancer and cancer of the small intestine were not matched by similar findings in males.

What impact this may have on practice, policy or procedure:

  • The findings reinforce the need for regulations that protect workers from asbestos exposure and the advice given to outdoor workers concerning sun exposure.

  • The findings provide indirect evidence that further control of magnetic fields exposure is probably not needed.

  • Employees who have been exposed to asbestos should continue to be encouraged not to smoke to reduce the risk of asbestos-related lung cancer.

Introduction

A cohort of UK electricity supply industry workers (power stations, substation or transmission sites, non-operational sites) was established in the 1980s to investigate whether such work was the cause of non-malignant lung disease. More recently, concerns that electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure may cause brain cancer, leukaemia, or have a role in neurodegenerative or cardiovascular diseases have been the focus of epidemiological studies in this industry [1–8], and a number of reviews are available [9–12]. Kheifets et al. [12] concluded that the literature on occupational EMF exposure ‘did not indicate strong or consistent associations with cancer’. Other exposures in the industry have been little considered. In 2010, cancer registration (incidence) data were incorporated into the UK cohort, and an analysis of cancer incidence for the period 1973–2008 was published in 2012 [13]. This report showed an occupational excess of mesothelioma but no excess of asbestos-induced lung cancer. There were also significant excesses of nasal cancer, and small intestine cancer in female employees; based on relatively small numbers of cases. An updated analysis of these UK data has been carried out aiming to provide a more complete monitoring of cancer risks in this cohort, and to identify any other types of cancer that merit further investigation. Details of exposure to electric and magnetic fields in this industry have been described before [5,14]. A long list of other occupational exposures present in parts of the industry before 1997 has also been published [15]. The cohort has been used in the past to test hypotheses [5–8], but this report is designed to generate rather than test occupational hypotheses.

Methods

The study population and computerized data have been described previously [5–8,13]. The cohort comprises 83 284 employees (72 352 males and 10 932 females) of the former Central Electricity Generating Board (CEGB) of England and Wales. The earlier cohort [13] has been reduced in size because 639 employees who moved to Scotland had to be deleted from the study files because a Data Sharing Agreement (DSA) is no longer in place with the General Register Office (GRO) for Scotland. This small percentage change is not expected to result in an important selection bias. All employees had a minimum of 6 months of employment with some period of employment between 1973 and 1982. The total cohort was subdivided into three categories based on the work location (industry sector) of the first known job: power stations (n = 52 928), substation or transmission sites (n = 3359), and non-operational sites (n = 21 966). There were a further 3985 employees for whom no job history was available and 1046 employees whose work history could not be classified. These latter two were combined into a single ‘unclassifiable industry sector’ category.

NHS Digital (and its forerunners) supplied mortality and cancer registration follow-up particulars. NHS Digital is the national provider of information, data and IT systems for commissioners, analysts and clinicians in health and social care in England. By the study closing date (31 December 2015), 36 302 workers had died, 1090 workers had emigrated, 44 543 workers were traced alive and 1349 workers were untraced. After excluding the 1349 untraced workers and 319 workers whose deaths had been identified only by the former UK Department of Health and Social Security (DHSS) (and for whom cancer incidence data were not available), a total of 81 616 employees were considered for the cancer incidence analysis.

Cancer incidence in the cohort was compared with expected values based on incidence rates for England and Wales, taking sex, age and calendar period into account; calculations were carried out with the EPICURE programme [16], using the double precision DOS version 2.12 (2002) of DATAB. Study subjects were entered into the person-years-at-risk (pyr) after the first 6 months of employment or the date of computerization for the region of their employment, whichever was later. Individuals were removed from the pyr on the date of death, date of emigration or the end of 2015, whichever was the earlier. Study subjects did not contribute to observed or expected numbers after their 100th birthday, in case some subjects in later age groups had been traced alive incorrectly.

Standardized registration ratios (SRRs) by malignant neoplasm (MN) site were provided by the ratios of observed and expected numbers of cancer cases to a baseline of 100. P-values and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated on the basis that cancer occurs as a Poisson process, and all tests of statistical significance were two-tailed. More detailed analyses were also carried out by year of hire (1926–59, 1960–69, 1970–82), period from hire irrespective of how long any individual works in the industry (0–19, 20–29, 30–39, ≥40 years), period from leaving employment (still employed or left employment <10 years ago, left employment 10–19 years ago, left employment 20–29 years ago, left employment >30 years ago), duration of employment (<10 years (i.e. 0.5–9.9 years), 10–19 years, ≥20 years), industry sector of first known employment in the industry (power stations, transmission facilities, non-operational sites), and type of work (manager, engineer, administrative and clerical, industrial worker, building construction). For the first four variables, tests for trend (linear component) [17] were carried out (e.g. was there a tendency for SRRs to increase or decrease with year of hire). Tests for heterogeneity [17] were carried out for the last two variables (e.g. could the differences in SRRs by industry sector represent no more than random variation in sub-groups). These tests assumed a similar null hypothesis: no trend and homogeneous SRRs. All analyses only consider contemporaneous categories for the summation of pyr.

This study was established with the approval of the Central Ethical Committee of the British Medical Association, and the author is accredited by the Office for National Statistics as an ‘Approved Researcher’. The current protocol was approved by the University of Birmingham’ Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Ethical Review Committee (project code ERN_13-0676). Computer analyses were carried out in accordance with the terms of an active Data Sharing Agreement (DSA) with NHS Digital. A privacy notice is available at http://www.emfs.info/research/studies/cegb-cohort/update/. One condition of the DSA was that findings based on fewer than five observed cases would not be published. The study has never contained any information on ethnicity, medical histories or lifestyle factors, and since 2013, no information on names, addresses, National Insurance or NHS numbers.

Results

Table 1 shows site-specific MNs for male and female employees. Compared with national rates, all MNs combined were slightly (though highly significantly, P < 0.001) below expectation for males (Obs 19 223, SRR 97) and close to expectation for females (Obs 2149, SRR 101). In males, significant deficits are shown for MNs of the tongue, mouth, pharynx, oesophagus, rectum, liver, pancreas, larynx and lung. Significant excesses are shown for skin cancer (excluding melanoma) (Obs 5616, SRR 106, P < 0.001), mesothelioma (Obs 763, SRR 326, P < 0.001) and prostate cancer (Obs 4298, SRR 106, P < 0.001). In females, a significant deficit is shown for MN of the cervix, and significant excesses are shown for MN of the small intestine (Obs 13, SRR 220, P < 0.05), nasal cavities (Obs 11, SRR 407, P < 0.001) and breast (Obs 758, SRR 110, P < 0.01). Findings for MN of the brain and all leukaemia combined were unexceptional.

Table 1.

Incidence of MNs in UK Electricity Generation and Transmission workers, 1973–2015 (71 185 males, 10 431 females)

Site of MN ICD-10 Males Females
Obs Exp SRR 95% CI Obs Exp SRR 95% CI
Lip C00 30 31.7 95 65–133 Sup.a
Tongue C01–02 75 108.7 69 55–86 11 7.6 145 76–252
Mouth C03–06 74 113.1 65 52–82 10 8.8 114 58–203
Salivary gland C07–08 41 40.7 101 73–135 Sup.a
Pharynx C09–14 104 163.8 63 52–77 Sup.a
Oesophagus C15 574 646.4 89 82–96 28 35.4 79 54–113
Stomach C16 899 902.4 100 93–106 44 41.2 107 79–142
Small intestine C17 61 59.7 102 79–130 13 5.9 220 123–367
Large intestine C18 1587 1604.5 99 94–104 158 155.3 102 87–119
Rectum C19–21 1052 1134.6 93 87–98 69 79.3 87 68–110
Liver C22 185 242.9 76 66–88 13 15.9 82 45–136
Gallbladder C23–24 98 90.0 109 89–132 16 12.2 131 78–208
Pancreas C25 457 551.9 83 75–91 56 53.6 105 80–135
Other digestive C26 32 39.0 82 57–114 Sup.a
Nose and sinuses C30–31 34 36.2 94 66–130 11 2.7 407 214–708
Larynx C32 186 279.6 67 57–77 5 6.5 77 28–171
Lung and bronchus C33,34 3162 3909.3 81 78–84 240 243.1 99 87–112
Bone C40,41 22 26.1 84 54–126 Sup.a
Melanoma C43 444 446.0 100 91–109 69 67.4 102 80–129
Skin, other C44 5616 5288.9 106 103–109 494 464.4 106 97–116
Mesothelioma C45 763 234.0 326 304–350 Sup.a
Connective tissue C47,C49 98 96.3 102 83–124 10 9.3 108 55–192
Peritoneum C48 21 20.4 103 65–155 7 5.3 132 58–261
Breast C50 52 42.0 124 93–161 758 688.9 110 102–118
Cervix C53 38 59.3 64 46–87
Uterus C54 95 103.0 92 75–112
Ovary C56 116 106.5 109 90–130
Prostate C61 4298 4073.3 106 102–109
Testis C62 89 105.9 84 68–103
Other genital rem.b C51–63 66 66.7 99 77–125 24 24.0 100 66–147
Kidney C64 495 520.6 95 87–104 31 35.7 87 60–122
Bladder C67 1257 1249.9 101 95–106 39 43.7 89 64–121
Other urinary C65–66, C68 117 103.8 113 94–135 7 5.8 121 53–239
Eye C69 34 34.7 98 69–135 5 3.7 135 50–300
Brain C70–72 335 324.9 103 93–115 21 29.6 71 45–107
Thyroid C73 48 49.5 97 72–128 11 16.3 67 35–117
Other endocrine glands C74–75 12 14.6 82 45–140 Sup.a
Secondary and unspecified cancers C76–80 794 828.2 96 89–103 82 81.9 100 80–124
Hodgkin’s disease C81 73 81.5 90 71–112 9 8.1 111 54–204
Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma C82–85 695 680.3 102 95–110 64 67.5 95 74–120
Multiple myeloma C90 311 299.5 104 93–116 22 26.1 84 54–126
Leukaemia C91–95 497 504.8 98 90–107 42 39.1 107 78–144
 Acute lymphoid leukaemia C91.0 12 15.8 76 41–129 Sup.a
 Chronic lymphoid leukaemia C91.1 238 212.4 112 98–127 15 13.6 110 64–178
 Acute myeloid leukaemia C92.0, C92.5 134 156.0 86 72–101 19 14.6 130 81–200
 Chronic myeloid leukaemia C92.1 48 49.0 98 73–129 Sup.a
 Other leukaemia rem.b C91–95 65 71.7 91 71–115 5 5.0 100 37–222
All MNs 140–209c 19 223 19 822.0 97 96–98 2149 2122.9 101 97–106

aSup = findings supressed because of confidentiality concerns about ‘disclosive’ data.

brem = remainder.

cExcluding ‘skin, other’, ICD-10 C44.

Findings in Table 1 were examined to ascertain whether smoking-related cancers other than lung cancer were in deficit in male employees. For other cancer sites identified as capable of being caused by smoking cigarettes (oral cavity, pharynx, nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses, larynx, oesophagus, stomach, pancreas, liver, kidney, ureter, urinary bladder, myeloid leukaemia) [18], the SRR was significantly below expectation (Obs 4680, SRR 91, 95% CI 88–93). The SRR for cancers not judged to be capable of being caused by smoking (and excluding skin other than melanoma and unspecified neoplasms) was significantly elevated (Obs 10 587, SRR 107, 95% CI 105–109). However, the SRR for cancers not considered to be caused by smoking or asbestos exposures (further exclusion of mesothelioma) was not significantly elevated (SRR 101, 95% CI 99–104).

Findings from Table 1 were reviewed and all MNs, mesothelioma, MN of the skin (excluding melanoma) lung, breast and prostate in male workers, and MN of the small intestine, nasal cavities and breast in female workers were selected for further investigation.

Table 2 shows observed and expected numbers of cancer registrations for all MNs in male workers by year of hire, period from hire, period from leaving employment, duration of employment, industry sector and type of work. There was a highly significant positive trend with the period from leaving employment although this was dependent on a low SRR in a single category (still employed and left less than 10 years ago). There was also highly significant heterogeneity in the findings by industry sector and type of work; SRRs were lower in transmission and non-operational site workers compared with those in power station workers, and SRRs were lower in managers, engineers and clerical (including administrative) workers compared with those in industrial and construction workers.

Table 2.

Incidence of all MNs combined (excluding skin other than melanoma) and MN of the skin (excluding melanoma) in 71 185 male UK Electricity Generation and Transmission workers, by year of hire, period from hire, period from leaving employment, duration of employment, industry sector and type of work, 1973–2015

All MNs MN of the skin
Obs Exp SRR 9 5% CI Obs Exp SRR 95% CI
Year of hire
 1926–59 5850 6014.9 97 95–100 1668 1525.5 109 104–115
 1960–69 7764 7957.0 98 95–100 2302 2123.0 108 104–113
 1970–82 5609 5850.1 96 93–98 1646 1640.4 100 96–105
Test for trend P = NS P = *
Period from hire (years)
 0–19 2006 2076.6 97 92–101 305 329.0 93 83–104
 20–29 3514 3793.1 93 90–96 821 755.8 109 101–116
 30–39 6011 6099.1 99 96–101 1576 1589.3 99 94–104
 ≥40 7692 7853.2 98 96–100 2914 2614.7 111 108–116
Test for trend P = NS P = **
Period from leaving employment (years)
 <10a 4837 5373.1 90 88–93 872 898.0 97 91–104
 10–19 6865 6859.1 100 98–103 1780 1615.3 110 105–115
 20–29 5626 5686.7 99 96–102 2114 1949.7 108 104–113
 ≥30 1895 1903.2 100 95–104 850 825.8 103 96–110
Test for trend P = *** P = NS
Duration of employment (years)
 <10 3564 3624.2 98 95–102 976 967.4 101 95–107
 10–19 6616 6715.7 99 96–101 1887 1760.4 107 102–112
 ≥20 9043 9482.1 95 93–97 2753 2561.1 108 104–112
Test for trend P = NS P = NS
Industry sector
 Power stations 13 745 13 570.1 101 100–103 3757 3599.5 104 101–108
 Transmission 857 980.6 87 82–93 348 270.2 129 116–143
 Non-operational 3508 4268.1 82 80–85 1302 1188.3 110 104–116
 Unclassifiableb 1113 1003.1 111 105–118 209 230.9 91 79–103
Test for heterogeneity P = *** P = ***
Type of work
 Managers 196 260.4 75 65–86 69 69.6 99 78–125
 Engineers 4294 5092.0 84 82–87 1703 1449.5 118 112–123
 Admin, clerical 1034 1232.4 84 79–89 358 325.8 110 99–122
 Industrial 12 469 12 146.2 103 101–105 3266 3192.3 102 99–106
 Building, constr. 250 217.0 115 102–130 52 54.6 95 72–124
 Not known 980 873.9 112 105–119 168 197.1 85 73–99
Test for heterogeneity P = *** P = ***
Total 19 223 19 822.0 97 96–98 5616 5288.9 106 103–109

NS, not significant.

aIncludes still employed.

bUnclassifiable work history or no work history.

*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001,

Table 2 shows findings for MN of the skin (excluding melanoma) in male workers. A significant negative trend is shown with year of hire (SRRs tend to be lower with more recent hires), and a significant positive trend is shown with a period from hire. There was also highly significant heterogeneity in the findings by industry sector and type of work; SRRs were higher in transmission workers compared with those in power station and non-operational site workers and SRRs were higher in engineers and clerical workers compared with those in industrial and construction workers.

Table 3 shows findings for mesothelioma and MN of the lung in males; for mesothelioma, there was a highly significant negative trend with year of hire and a highly significant positive trend with period from hire (SRRs were higher with later periods from hire). There was a highly significant positive trend with duration of employment. There was also highly significant heterogeneity in the findings by industry sector and type of work; SRRs were higher in power station workers compared with those in transmission and non-operational site workers, and SRRs were lower in clerical workers compared with those in all other types of work. Very different patterns are shown for MN of the lung. There was a highly significant positive trend with year of hire (SRRs were higher with more recent decades of hire), and a highly significant negative trend with period from hire (SRRs were lower with later periods from hire). There was a highly significant negative trend with duration of employment. There was also highly significant heterogeneity in the findings by industry sector and type of work; SRRs were higher in power station workers compared with those in transmission and non-operational site workers, and SRRs were lower in managers, engineers and clerical (including administrative) workers compared with those in industrial and construction workers.

Table 3.

Incidence of mesothelioma and MN of the lung in 71 185 male UK Electricity Generation and Transmission workers, by year of hire, period from hire, period from leaving employment, duration of employment, industry sector and type of work, 1973–2015

Mesothelioma MN of the lung
Obs Exp SRR 95% CI Obs Exp SRR 95% CI
Year of hire
 1926–59 311 65.9 472 422–527 999 1330.8 75 71–80
 1960–69 334 97.1 344 309–382 1297 1587.4 82 77–86
 1970–82 118 71.0 166 138–198 866 991.1 87 82–93
Test for trend P = *** P = ***
Period from hire (years)
 0–19 29 14.7 197 135–280 500 548.4 91 83–99
 20–29 72 38.5 187 147–234 741 847.0 87 81–94
 30–39 221 72.6 304 266–347 942 1142.2 82 77–88
 ≥40 441 108.2 408 371–447 979 1371.7 81 67–76
Test for trend P = *** P = ***
Period from leaving employment (years)
 <10a 125 44.6 280 234–333 1125 1420.5 79 75–84
 10–19 282 80.6 350 311–393 1042 1300.8 80 75–85
 20–29 267 80.2 333 295–375 739 904.8 82 76–88
 ≥30 89 28.5 312 252–383 256 283.2 90 80–102
Test for trend P = NS P = NS
Duration of employment (years)
 <10 70 41.3 170 133–213 644 658.3 98 90–106
 10–19 228 77.3 295 259–335 1191 1336.1 89 84–94
 ≥20 465 115.4 403 368–441 1327 1914.9 69 66–73
Test for trend P = *** P = ***
Industry sector
 Power stations 616 160.9 383 354–414 2416 2690.2 90 86–93
 Transmission 20 12.2 164 103–249 119 190.5 62 52–74
 Non-operational 92 52.0 177 143–216 384 803.1 48 43–53
 Unclassifiableb 35 8.9 393 278–541 243 225.4 108 95–122
Test for heterogeneity P = *** P = ***
Type of work
 Managers 10 2.9 345 175–615 17 56.2 30 18–47
 Engineers 209 66.2 316 275–361 381 940.2 41 37–45
 Admin, clerical 7 13.5 52 23–103 138 245.0 56 48–56
 Industrial 486 141.3 344 314–376 2356 2421.8 97 93–101
 Building, constr. 19 2.4 792 491–1213 45 46.1 98 72–130
 Not known 32 7.6 421 293–587 225 199.9 113 99–128
Test for heterogeneity P = *** P = ***
Total 763 234.0 326 304–350 3162 3909.3 81 78–84

NS, not significant.

aIncludes still employed.

bUnclassifiable work history or no work history.

***P < 0.001.

Table 4 shows findings for MN of the prostate. There was a significant positive trend with duration of employment. There was also highly significant heterogeneity in the findings by type of work; SRRs were higher in engineers and clerical workers compared with those in other types of work.

Table 4.

Incidence of MN of the prostate in 71 185 male UK Electricity Generation and Transmission workers, by year of hire, period from hire, period from leaving employment, duration of employment, industry sector and type of work, 1973–2015

MN of the prostate
Obs Exp SRR 95% CI
Year of hire
 1926–59 1254 1167.5 107 102–114
 1960–69 1789 1660.6 108 103–113
 1970–82 1255 1245.2 101 95–107
Test for trend P = NS
Period from hire (years)
 0–19 153 143.4 107 91–125
 20–29 548 565.4 97 89–105
 30–39 1448 1356.9 107 101–112
 ≥40 2149 2007.6 107 103–112
Test for trend P = NS
Period from leaving employment (years)
 <10a 516 503.3 103 94–112
 10–19 1719 1540.7 112 106–117
 20–29 1560 1510.7 103 98–109
 ≥30 503 518.6 97 89–106
Test for trend P = NS
Duration of employment (years)
 <10 703 724.7 97 90–104
 10–19 1417 1354.4 105 99–110
 ≥20 2178 1994.2 109 105–114
Test for trend P = **
Industry sector
 Power stations 2887 2779.4 104 100–108
 Transmission 213 207.1 103 90–117
 Non-operational 1002 899.9 111 105–118
 Unclassifiableb 196 186.8 105 91–120
Test for heterogeneity P = NS
Type of work
 Managers 47 52.1 90 67–119
 Engineers 1300 1108.9 117 111–124
 Admin, clerical 278 246.8 113 100–127
 Industrial 2454 2459.5 100 96–104
 Building, constr. 47 42.9 110 81–144
 Not known 172 163.1 106 91–122
Test for heterogeneity P = ***
Total 4298 4073.3 106 102–109

NS, not significant.

aIncludes still employed.

bUnclassifiable work history or no work history.

**P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.

Corresponding findings for MN of the small intestine and the nasal cavities in female workers were also calculated. Both findings were based on small numbers and are not tabulated because of concerns about ‘disclosive’ data. There were no significant trends or heterogeneity in the findings.

Table 5 shows findings for MN of the breast for male and female workers. There was significant heterogeneity in the findings for females by type of work; SRRs were higher in clerical workers and workers with unknown job type compared with those found in engineers and industrial workers.

Table 5.

Incidence of MN of the breast in 71 185 male and 10 431 female UK Electricity Generation and Transmission workers, by year of hire, period from hire, period from leaving employment, duration of employment, industry sector and type of work, 1973–2015

Males Females
Obs Exp SRR 95% CI Obs Exp SRR 95% CI
Year of hire
 1926–59 18 12.5 144 88–223 51 38.3 133 100–174
 1960–69 19 16.8 113 70–173 145 128.5 113 96–132
 1970–82 15 12.8 117 68–189 562 522.1 108 99–117
Test for trend P = NS P = NS
Period from hire (years)
 0–19 6 4.7 128 52–266 168 152.7 110 94–128
 20–29 11 8.2 134 71–233 225 209.0 108 94–122
 30–39 13 12.9 101 56–168 267 241.0 111 98–125
 ≥40 22 16.2 136 87–202 98 86.2 114 93–138
Test for trend P = NS P = NS
Period from leaving employment (years)
 <10a 16 11.8 136 80–216 179 164.7 109 94–126
 10–19 13 14.0 93 52–155 228 194.1 118 103–134
 20–29 16 12.3 130 77–207 213 214.7 99 87–113
 ≥30 7 3.9 180 79–355 138 115.5 120 101–141
Test for trend P = NS P = NS
Duration of employment (years)
 <10 10 7.9 127 64–226 428 400.9 107 97–117
 10–19 16 14.3 112 66–178 240 211.0 114 100–129
 ≥20 26 19.8 131 88–190 90 77.0 117 95–143
Test for trend P = NS P = NS
Industry sector
 Power stations 33 28.7 115 80–160 273 253.6 108 95–121
 Transmission 2 2.1 95 16–315 11 12.5 88 46–153
 Non-operational 16 9.1 176 104–279 417 374.0 112 101–123
 Unclassifiableb Sup.c 57 48.8 117 89–150
Test for heterogeneity P = NS P = NS
Type of work
 Managers Sup.c Sup.c
 Engineers 18 10.8 167 102–258 13 13.2 98 55–164
 Admin, clerical 5 2.6 192 70–426 566 496.0 114 105–124
 Industrial 28 25.7 109 74–155 130 140.0 93 78–110
 Building, constr. Sup.c Sup.c
 Not known Sup.c 47 38.4 122 91–161
Test for heterogeneity P = NS P = *
Total 52 42.0 124 93–161 758 688.9 110 102–118

NS, not significant.

aIncludes still employed.

bUnclassifiable work history or no work history.

cSup = findings suppressed because of confidentiality concerns about ‘disclosive’ data.

*P < 0.05.

Discussion

Overall, this study showed a clear occupational excess of mesothelioma with no matching excess of lung cancer, and unexceptional findings for brain tumours and leukaemia. Strengths of the study include its size and length of follow-up with a correspondingly large number of cancer cases, including rare cancers. Limitations include the absence of smoking data, other lifestyle data and detailed pre-1973 work histories. The latter meant that first known job had to be used to categorize individuals by industry sector and type of work (55% of the cohort had some employment within the industry before personnel records were computerized). Some misclassification in the sub-group analyses will have occurred although only 2% of power station workers had later recorded periods of working in the transmission sector and 6% of transmission workers had later recorded periods of working in power stations.

Incidence of all MNs combined was below expected in males, and morbidity from lung cancer was markedly below expectation. Findings for other smoking-related cancers were consistent with the hypothesis that this skilled workforce had below average smoking habits; a low prevalence of smoking in this industry has been published previously [13].

Mesothelioma was significantly elevated for males in all industry sectors and in all types of work except administration and clerical work; with little sign of the effects of asbestos risk having played itself out (2006–2010: Obs 159, SRR 317, 95% CI 271–369; 2011–2015: Obs 169, SRR 298, 95%CI 255–345). The most likely explanation for the excess of mesothelioma in transmission and non-operational site workers is occasional or earlier (pre-1973) periods of working at power stations where asbestos was used to lag pipes and boilers [13]. It is estimated that in the UK in 2004 there were 1937 mesotheliomas and 2223 lung cancer cases caused by earlier asbestos exposure [19]. This estimate considers that there will be 1.1 lung cancers for every mesothelioma caused by asbestos. This 1.1:1 ratio does not seem to be applicable to the UK electricity supply industry workers. The numbers in this study are so large that the absence of a lung cancer excess related to asbestos is very unlikely to be a chance finding. Low smoking prevalence in the cohort explains this to some extent, but there must be other unrecognized factors in operation.

The excess of small intestine cancer in female employees with no comparable excess in male employees indicates that occupational exposures are not important in this excess, as it is difficult to imagine exposures in this industry that would be unique to female workers. There were no important contrasts in the more detailed analyses for this excess. Risk factors for small intestine cancer have been little studied, but there is some evidence that ‘risk factors are similar to those seen with colon cancer (meat intake) and stomach cancer (salt-cured and smoked foods)’ [20]. As findings for MN of the large intestine and stomach in females were close to expectation in this study, they do not offer any indirect support for a dietary explanation for the excess MN of the small intestine, and confident interpretation of the excess is not possible.

There was a marked excess of nasal cancer in female employees with no matching excess in male employees. Nasal cancer, particularly adenocarcinoma, is associated with some occupational exposures, including hard wood dust, leather dust and hexavalent chromium exposure [21]. Exposures to leather dust and hexavalent chromium are not present in the industry under study, although there are carpentry shops in power stations. However, none of the female cases ever worked in such shops and bystander exposure seemed an unlikely explanation for this excess when there was no corresponding excess in male workers. There were no important contrasts in the detailed analyses that were carried out for this excess, and it seems unlikely that this excess is due to occupational exposures in this industry. Nevertheless, it remains possible that some of the nasal cancers in females are occupational in origin due to unrecognized factors in this industry or unknown employment in other industries.

Exposure to sunlight is an accepted risk factor for skin cancer (non-melanoma), and the higher risk in transmission workers could be attributable to outdoor working. Unfortunately, individual data on occupational and non-occupational sun exposure are not available for study, but general information on dress habits and outdoor working in the industry could be examined in future studies in terms of skin cancer fourth digit codes (e.g. wearing of short-sleeved shirts and skin cancer of the upper limb ICD-10 C44.6).

Several studies of workers potentially exposed to EMF have reported increased risks of male breast cancer [22–25], although three cohort studies of electric utility workers reported no overall excess [2–4]. There were no important contrasts in more detailed analyses that were carried out for male breast cancer in this study. The excess of breast cancer in female workers was based, mainly on an excess in administrative and clerical workers; making occupational exposures involvement in this excess unlikely.

There was a significant trend for prostate cancer in relation to duration of employment. The reason for this is unclear, but it is possible that sedentary working is involved [26]. Examination of this hypothesis would involve collection of additional work history data, possibly as part of a nested case–control study.

In conclusion, the overall elevated incidence found for mesothelioma almost certainly reflects the late health effects of earlier incidental asbestos exposure in this industry. This report highlights the need for further research in a number of areas, including the conditions that lead to some asbestos-exposed cohorts not having clear excesses of asbestos-induced lung cancer. It would be useful to review incident cancers of the nasal cavities and the small intestine in female workers in the electricity supply industry in other countries. Nested case–control studies could also be usefully carried out on skin cancer and prostate cancer. Such studies would require collection of additional data, but permissions are currently not in place to obtain such data.

These findings have implications for clinicians and policymakers; they reinforce the importance of regulations that protect workers from asbestos exposure and the advice given to outdoor workers concerning sun exposure. They provide indirect evidence that further control of magnetic fields exposure is probably not needed, and indicate that employees who have been exposed to asbestos should continue to be encouraged not to smoke to reduce the risk of asbestos-related lung cancer.

Funding

The work and the costs of an open access publication were supported by a research award from the electricity supply industry and funding was administered by the Energy Networks Association (ENA).

Acknowledgements

I thank NHS Digital and its forerunners for supplying follow-up details, and for assisting in identifying those issues needed to be addressed to maintain study permissions. I also thank the Vital Statistics Offices of England and Wales for providing cancer incidence rates. Constructive criticisms of an earlier draft of this paper were requested and received from members of the Mortality Study Steering Group (MSSG); responsibility for the final version remains with the author.

Competing interests

The University salary of the PI is funded, in part, by the research award.

References

  • 1. Thériault G, Goldberg M, Miller AB et al. . Cancer risks associated with occupational exposure to magnetic fields among electric utility workers in Ontario and Quebec, Canada, and France: 1970–1989. Am J Epidemiol 1994;139:550–572. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Savitz DA, Loomis DP. Magnetic field exposure in relation to leukemia and brain cancer mortality among electric utility workers. Am J Epidemiol 1995;141:123–134. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Kelsh MA, Sahl JD. Mortality among a cohort of electric utility workers, 1960–1991. Am J Ind Med 1997;31:534–544. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Johansen C, Olsen JH. Risk of cancer among Danish utility workers—a nationwide cohort study. Am J Epidemiol 1998;147:548–555. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Harrington JM, Nichols L, Sorahan T, van Tongeren M. Leukaemia mortality in relation to magnetic field exposure: findings from a study of United Kingdom electricity generation and transmission workers, 1973–97. Occup Environ Med 2001;58:307–314. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Sorahan T, Nichols L, van Tongeren M, Harrington JM. Occupational exposure to magnetic fields relative to mortality from brain tumours: updated and revised findings from a study of United Kingdom electricity generation and transmission workers, 1973–97. Occup Environ Med 2001;58:626–630. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Sorahan T, Nichols L. Mortality from cardiovascular disease in relation to magnetic field exposure: findings from a study of UK electricity generation and transmission workers, 1973–1997. Am J Ind Med 2004;45:93–102. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Sorahan T, Kheifets L. Mortality from Alzheimer’s, motor neuron and Parkinson’s disease in relation to magnetic field exposure: findings from the study of UK electricity generation and transmission workers, 1973–2004. Occup Environ Med 2007;64:820–826. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Santibáñez M, Bolumar F, García AM. Occupational risk factors in Alzheimer’s disease: a review assessing the quality of published epidemiological studies. Occup Environ Med 2007;64:723–732. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. National Radiological Protection Board. ELF Electromagnetic Fields and the Risk of Cancer: Report of an Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation. Chilton, Oxfordshire: NRPB, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  • 11. International Agency for Research on Cancer. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Non-ionising Radiation, Part 1: Static and Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) Electric and Magnetic Fields, vol. 80 Lyon: IARC Press, 2002. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Kheifets L, Bowman JD, Checkoway H et al. . Future needs of occupational epidemiology of extremely low frequency electric and magnetic fields: review and recommendations. Occup Environ Med 2009;66:72–80. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Sorahan T. Cancer incidence in UK electricity generation and transmission workers, 1973–2008. Occup Med (Lond) 2012;62:496–505. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Renew DC, Cook RF, Ball MC. A method for assessing occupational exposure to power-frequency magnetic fields for electricity generation and transmission workers. J Radiol Prot 2003;23:279–303. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Harrington JM, McBride DI, Sorahan T, Paddle GM, van Tongeren M. Occupational exposure to magnetic fields in relation to mortality from brain cancer among electricity generation and transmission workers. Occup Environ Med 1997;54:7–13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Preston DL, Lubin JH, Pierce DA, McConney ME.. Epicure Users Guide. Seattle, USA: Hirosoft International Corp, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Breslow NE, Day NE.. Statistical Methods in Cancer Research. Volume II—The Design and Analysis of Cohort Studies. IARC Scientific Publication no. 82. Lyon: IARC Press, 1987. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. International Agency for Research on Cancer. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Tobacco Smoke and Involuntary Smoking, vol. 83 Lyon: IARC Press, 2004. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Rushton L, Hutchings SJ, Fortunato L et al. . Occupational cancer burden in Great Britain. Br J Cancer 2012;107(Suppl 1):S3–S7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Chow WH, Linet MS, McLaughlin JK, Hsing AW, Chien HT, Blot WJ. Risk factors for small intestine cancer. Cancer Causes Control 1993;4:163–169. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. International Agency for Research on Cancer. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. A Review of Human Carcinogens: Arsenic, Metals, Fibres, and Dusts, vol. 100c. Lyon: IARC Press, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Tynes T, Andersen A, Langmark F. Incidence of cancer in Norwegian workers potentially exposed to electromagnetic fields. Am J Epidemiol 1992;136:81–88. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Demers PA, Thomas DB, Rosenblatt KA et al. . Occupational exposure to electromagnetic fields and breast cancer in men. Am J Epidemiol 1991;134:340–347. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Matanoski GM, Breysse PN, Elliott EA. Electromagnetic field exposure and male breast cancer. Lancet 1991;337:737. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Pollán M, Gustavsson P, Floderus B. Breast cancer, occupation, and exposure to electromagnetic fields among Swedish men. Am J Ind Med 2001;39:276–285. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Shephard RJ. Physical activity and prostate cancer: an updated review. Sports Med 2017;47:1055–1073. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Occupational Medicine (Oxford, England) are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES