There’s a new study out that takes a look at the state of the published research about potential cancer risks from living near coal-mining operations.  It’s called Population Cancer Risks Associated with Coal Mining: A Systematic Review, and was produced by scientists at the Southern Illinois University School of Medicine and the University of Kentucky’s School of Public Health.

Here’s the abstract:

Background

Coal is produced across 25 states and provides 42% of US energy. With production expected to increase 7.6% by 2035, proximate populations remain at risk of exposure to carcinogenic coal products such as silica dust and organic compounds. It is unclear if population exposure is associated with increased risk, or even which cancers have been studied in this regard.

Methods

We performed a systematic review of English-language manuscripts published since 1980 to determine if coal mining exposure was associated with increased cancer risk (incidence and mortality).

Results

Of 34 studies identified, 27 studied coal mining as an occupational exposure (coal miner cohort or as a retrospective risk factor) but only seven explored health effects in surrounding populations. Overall, risk assessments were reported for 20 cancer site categories, but their results and frequency varied considerably. Incidence and mortality risk assessments were: negative (no increase) for 12 sites; positive for 1 site; and discordant for 7 sites (e.g. lung, gastric). However, 10 sites had only a single study reporting incidence risk (4 sites had none), and 11 sites had only a single study reporting mortality risk (2 sites had none). The ecological study data were particularly meager, reporting assessments for only 9 sites. While mortality assessments were reported for each, 6 had only a single report and only 2 sites had reported incidence assessments.

And their conclusions:

The reported assessments are too meager, and at times contradictory, to make definitive conclusions about population cancer risk due to coal mining. However, the preponderance of this and other data support many of Hill’s criteria for causation. The paucity of data regarding population exposure and risk, the widespread geographical extent of coal mining activity, and the continuing importance of coal for US energy, warrant further studies of population exposure and risk.

It’s also worth reading the discussion section of their paper. It explains that:

… Given the wide scale and extent of coal mining in the US, the potential exposure of large populations to mining activities, the potential for significantly increased risk of cancer incidence and mortality, and the perhaps modifiable nature of the exposures, our position is that a closer and more rigorous examination of cancer risk associated with coal mining exposure is warranted based upon the Hill criteria. These criteria were originally developed for application to infectious disease, and so some may not be as suitable (e.g. specificity) or easily evaluated (e.g. temporality) when applied to cancer. For example, the cohort studies included here contribute data concerning the temporal relationship between mining activity and cancer, but this is more problematic for the case-control studies where there may be biases in remembering exposure types, dates and duration. There is some evidence that increasing exposure leads to increased cancer risk (dose-response relationship). In miners, this was seen in increased risk with longer exposure (years mining). Of the seven ecological/cross-sectional studies we identified, six of them showed increased cancer risk (strength of association), with calculated RR and OR significantly increased for 7 specific cancers reported in 7 studies, as well as total cancer reported in 3 studies. While the data from ecological/cross-sectional studies are sparse, they fairly consistently show an increased risk of cancer in association with residence near coal mining (consistency). However, only the results regarding colon and rectal cancers and total cancers are unequivocal, with some cancer risks specific to location or gender.

And:

Taken together, the concern that exposure to coal mining may result in increased risk of cancer is reasonable, and fits with models of exposure, pathogenicity, and outcome (coherence). Minerals associated with coal deposits often include human carcinogens (e.g. As, silica). Individuals may be exposed to them in multiple routes (e.g. inhalation, ingestion). There are biologically plausible pathways whereby exposure may result in cancer genesis/promotion. And finally there are population-level studies showing that residing near coal mining increases an individual’s cancer risk … 

… Given the increasing use of coal for energy production in the US, the large numbers of individuals potentially exposed to agents associated with coal mining activities, the equivocal nature of existing studies, and the plausibility for exposure to increase cancer risk, further investigation is needed. Specifically, the available data indicate that there is a need to purposefully and prospectively examine the risk of cancer to the surrounding population from coal mining activity. At this point little is known concerning routes, duration and timing of exposures; which specific agent(s) may be associated with increased cancer risk; or the population at risk in terms of residential proximity. Furthermore, while much study has been made in general concerning personal attributes and behaviors which may aggravate/mitigate exposure and cancer risk, it is unknown how these interact with exposure to coal mining activities. Such items need to be investigated if effective interventions are to be designed, implemented, and evaluated. Such studies, however, would need to be large in scale and long-term. One occupational study, for example, showed lung cancer risk lagging exposure by 15 years. Recognizing that such studies are likely quite expensive and perhaps infeasible, we propose that interim markers of exposure or increased cancer risk be developed, validated and used as proxies.