Upper Ottawa street landfill site health study

Abstract

This report describes the design and conduct of two sequential historical prospective morbidity surveys of workers and residents from the Upper Ottawa Street Landfill Site in Hamilton, Ontario. The workers study was carried out first and was a hypothesis-generating study. Workers and controls were administered a health questionnaire, which was followed by an assessment of recall bias through medical chart abstraction. Multiple criteria were used to identify health problems associated with landfill site exposure. Those problems with highest credibility included clusters of respiratory, skin, narcotic, and mood disorders. These formed the hypothesis base in the subsequent health study of residents living adjacent to the landfill site. In that study, the association between mood, narcotic, skin, and respiratory conditions with landfill site exposure was confirmed using the following criteria: strength of association; consistency with the workers study; risk gradient by duration of residence and proximity to the landfill; absence of evidence that less healthy people moved to the area; specificity; and the absence of recall bias. The validity of these associations were reduced by three principal problems: the high refusal rate among the control population; socioeconomic status differences between the study groups; and the fact that the conditions found in excess were imprecisely defined and potentially interchangeable with other conditions. Offsetting these problems were the multiple criteria used to assess each hypothesis, which were applied according to present rules. Evidence is presented that supports the hypothesis that vapors, fumes, or particulate matter emanating from the landfill site, as well as direct skin exposure, may have lead to the health problems found in excess. Evidence is also presented supporting the hypothesis that perception of exposure and, therefore, of risk, may explain the results of the study. However, based on the analyses performed, it is the conclusion of the authors that the adverse effects seen were more likely the result of chemical exposure than of perception of risk.