 |
 |
--On 31 July 2009 11:40 +0100 Chris Swainston <[log in to unmask]> wrote: "What these poor children have "won" is that this key > argument and potential linkage has been established and proved in this > case to the satisfaction of the court so that the majority of the > plaintifs are free to persue their claim further." > > > Chris Chris, while I certainly don't wish to take away from what the families are hoping for, I'm finding it hard to be convinced that any linkage between the limb deformities and the activities taking place at the BSC sites in Corby has been "proved". What I see the judgement has shown is that the contractors and the council neglected their care of duty and made a right mess, and that the solicitors acting on behalf of the council did their best to produce witness statements to the contrary. What the figures (the stats on limb deformities in Corby compared with the rest of the KHA) have "proved" is that the number of deformities during the timeframe in question could have been purely down to chance. There's no consideration given to other potential causes of limb defects - high birth order, threatened abortion, low placental weight, low birth weight, previous malformations in the family, influenza during early pregnancy, other infectious diseases, and mother's alcohol consumption during pregnancy (Aro et al, Department of Pathology, University of Helsinki, Haartmaninkatu 3, SF-00290 Helsinki 29, Finland), Haapakoski J and Heinonen 0 P. International Journal of Epidemiology 1984, 13: 459?464), early term amniocentesis and CVS procedures, pre-pregnancy obesity and so on. Compare the cases per 10,000 in Corby with the UK national average of roughly 5, and it seems that with the exception of one selected small timeframe, the rate in Corby is not significantly different from this. What's the overall health of the population of Corby like? There is a 21% higher than average obesity risk in Corby (second highest in whole of the UK - second only to Easington, another steel town, at 22% - ref <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5299510.stm> ). Could the risk of obesity be the result of the remediation works? Most likely not, but I suspect stats could show a similar weak correlation between the presence of the works and the reported obesity figures. But again it wouldn't prove a link. How about a link between pre-pregnancy obesity and birth defects? Such a link was established in a 2007 study (ref <http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=83063> ) where it was established that major birth defects were over 30 percent more prevalent in babies born to obese mothers. More information is needed about the mothers and their pregnancies if a link between the LRDs and the remediation works is to be proven. As it stands, there are potentially other factors that could be the main contributors to the number of LRDs, including, of course, pure chance. And this is something that Corby DC could easily use to defend itself, and I'm surprised this isn't discussed, as far as could see, in the judgement. Only in one paragraph (759) is weight discussed, and that refers to how the variability in susceptibility to teragenesis by a particular chemical can be partly accounted for by maternal weight and foetal weight amonsgt many other potentially important factors related to health. And with Corby being the UKs number 2 ranked obesity blackspot, why is there no mention of this? Pete Millis Centre for Environmental Research School of Life Sciences University of Sussex Falmer Brighton BN1 9QJ And Rottingdean Garden and Landscape Services Ltd Old School House Telscombe Village Nr Lewes BN7 3HY