Canadian Journal of Public Health

, Volume 92, Issue 5, pp 331–334 | Cite as

Congenital Anomalies and Other Birth Outcomes Among Infants Born to Women Living Near a Hazardous Waste Site in Sydney, Nova Scotia

  • Linda DoddsEmail author
  • Rosann Seviour


Using data from the Nova Scotia Atlee Perinatal Database, rates of adverse birth outcomes were compared among residents of Sydney, Nova Scotia and residents of Cape Breton County, Nova Scotia (excluding Sydney) with birth outcomes among residents of the rest of Nova Scotia. There was a small but statistically significant increase in the rate of major congenital anomalies in Sydney (2.8%) compared to the rest of Nova Scotia (2.3%) (adjusted RR=1.25, 95% CI=1.04–1.51). Rates of anomaly sub-groups were consistently elevated in Sydney compared to the rest of Nova Scotia, but most were not statistically significant. For the most part, the increased rates of congenital anomalies observed among residents of Sydney were not evident in the neighbouring community. Since Sydney and the rest of Cape Breton County share a similar risk factor and socio-demographic profile, other factors likely explain the increased rates observed in Sydney.


En puisant dans la base de données périnatales Atlee de Nouvelle-Écosse, nous avons comparé les taux d’issues indésirables de la grossesse chez les habitants de Sydney et de Cape Breton County (sauf Sydney) à ceux des habitants du reste de la Nouvelle-Écosse. Nous avons constaté une augmentation faible, mais significative, des taux des principales anomalies congénitales à Sydney (2,8 %) par rapport au reste de la Nouvelle-Écosse (2,3 %) (RR standardisé = 1,25, 95 % IC=1,04-1,51). Les taux des sousgroupes d’anomalies étaient uniformément plus élevés à Sydney, mais dans la plupart des cas, pas de facon significative. Dans l’ensemble, les taux supérieurs d’anomalies congénitales observés chez les habitants de Sydney ne se retrouvaient pas dans la localité voisine. Comme Sydney et le reste de Cape Breton County affichent des facteurs de risque et un profil sociodémographique semblables, d’autres facteurs expliquent sans doute les taux supérieurs observés à Sydney.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Joint Action Group-Muggah Creek History (in:
  2. 2.
    CBCL Limited/Conestoga-Rovers & Associates Ltd. Phase 1 Site Assessment — Muggah Creek Watershed Sydney, Nova Scotia. January, 1999 (in: Scholar
  3. 3.
    Guernsey JR, Dewar R, Weerasinghe S, et al. Incidence of cancer in Sydney and Cape Breton County, Nova Scotia 1979–1997. Can J Public Health 2000;91(4):285–92.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mao Y, Morrison H, Semenciw R. Mortality in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, 1971–1983. Chronic Diseases in Canada Special Report No. 11. December, 1985.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Band P, Camus M. Mortality Study of Cape Breton County and Sydney, Nova Scotia. Presentation to Joint Action Group, Sydney, Nova Scotia, 1998.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fair M, Cyr M, Allen AC, et al. Validation Study for a Record Linkage of Births and Deaths in Canada. Statistics Canada Catalogue No. 84F0013XIE. Ottawa, 1999.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Arbuckle TE, Wilkins R, Sherman GJ. Birth weight percentiles by gestational age in Canada. Obstet Gynecol 1993;81:39–48.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Statistical Application Software, Version 8.0, SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, North Carolina, USA.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rothman KJ, Greenland S. Modern Epidemiology, Second Edition. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven, 1998.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Statistics Canada. Profile of Census Divisions and Subdivisions in Nova Scotia-Part B. Ottawa, 1992.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kalter H, Warkany J. Medical Progress. Congenital malformations: Etiologic factors and their role in prevention (first of two parts). N Engl J Med 1983;308:424–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sever LE. Epidemiologic aspects of environmental hazards to reproduction. In: Talbott EO, Craun GF (Eds.), Introduction to Environmental Epidemiology. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 1995;81–98.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Vrijheid M. Health effects of residence near hazardous waste landfill sites: A review of epidemiologic literature. Environ Health Perspect 2000;108(suppl 1):101–12.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Johnson BL. A review of the effects of hazardous waste on reproductive health. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;180:12–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vianna NJ, Polan AK. Incidence of low birth weight among Love Canal residents. Science 1984;226:1217–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Berry M, Bove F. Birth weight reduction associated with residence near a hazardous waste landfill. Environ Health Perspect 1997;105:856–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Goldman LR, Paigen B, Magnant MM, Highland JH. Low birth weight, prematurity and birth defects in children living near the hazardous waste site, Love Canal. Haz Waste Haz Mat 1985;2:209–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Goldberg MS, Goulet L, Riberdy H, Bonvalot Y. Low birth weight and preterm births among infants born to women living near a municipal waste site in Montreal, Quebec. Environ Res 1995;69:37–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Canadian Public Health Association 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Perinatal Epidemiology Research Unit, Departments of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics, IWK Health CentreDalhousie UniversityHalifaxCanada
  2. 2.Medical Officer of HealthNorthern Health RegionNew GlasgowCanada

Personalised recommendations