Open Access

Research Article

Methods Top

Institutional review board approval was granted by the Washington State Department of Health and the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center before the study was begun. Using birth and fetal death records from the Washington State Department of Health, potential cases for our study were identified from all fetal death records during 1987–2001 (n = 7,095). Ten potential controls were randomly selected from among records of live-born infants during the same years (n = 70,950). After we excluded those with gestational age < 20 weeks (the state’s definition of reportable fetal death), there were 7,054 cases and 70,938 controls remaining for analysis. Vital records data included parental characteristics, variables related to the pregnancy and the mother’s reproductive history and chronic medical conditions, delivery complications, source of payment for medical care, infant/fetal conditions such as weight and presence of malformations, the mother’s residence at the time of the live birth or fetal death, and length of time she had lived at that residence. The geocoordinates (latitude and longitude) of maternal residences were derived by the Washington State Department of Health, Division of Information Resource Management using Centrus and ArcView software (Washington State Department of Health Division of Information Resource Management 2006). In this process, many different street centerline and parcel databases were used to enhance the accuracy and completeness of address matching. Geocodes were obtained for 5,302 cases and 61,455 controls (75% and 86% of the eligible subjects in each group).

Washington currently has 46 National Priority List (NPL), or “Superfund,” sites and 17 sites that have already been cleaned up and deleted from the NPL (U.S. EPA 2006a). In 1988, Washington passed the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA), which gave the Washington State Department of Ecology authority to clean hazardous waste sites and improve hazardous waste site management (Minnick et al. 2000). The potential hazard to public or environmental health of each site is rated on a scale of 1–5 in accordance with the Washington Ranking Model (WARM); NPL sites receive a ranking of 0 under the WARM method.

We obtained hazardous waste site data from the Washington State Department of Ecology Confirmed and Suspected Contaminated Sites (CSCS) Report (Washington State Department of Ecology Toxics Cleanup Program 2002). MTCA sites with WARM rankings and NPL Superfund sites listed on the 2000 CSCS were used for analysis in this study (n = 939). These data were publicly available at the time of our analysis, and were accessed in spreadsheet format from the Department of Ecology website (Washington State Department of Ecology Toxics Cleanup Program 2002). Geocoordinates were provided for each hazardous waste site in the CSCS data set. Coordinates within this database were calculated using a variety of methods including aerial photography, global positioning systems, address matching, 1990 census block and ZIP code centroids.

Using Maptitude software (version 4.5; Caliper Corporation, Newton, MA), we measured the straight-line distances in miles between the mother’s residence at the time of the live delivery or fetal death and the nearest hazardous waste site, the nearest “high-priority” waste site (defined as any Superfund site or any MTCA site with a WARM ranking of 1 or 2), and the nearest “low-priority” waste site (WARM ranking of 3–5). We treated these distances as categorical variables (within 0.5 miles, > 0.5 to 1 mile, > 1 mile to 2 miles, > 2 miles to 5 miles, > 5 miles) and collapsed categories as necessary in some subanalyses for which data were limited.

To estimate the relative risk of fetal death associated with residing at various distances from hazardous waste sites, we first conducted stratified analyses using Mantel-Haenszel risk estimators. We then used odds ratio (OR) estimates of the relative risk from multivariable logistic regression. Variables examined for their possible effects on the relationships of interest included maternal and paternal age, maternal race/ethnicity, parity, gravidity, prenatal smoking and alcohol consumption, urban/rural residence, pregnancy complications such as hypertension and diabetes, and indicators of socioeconomic status such as maternal educational level and use of Medicaid to pay for pre-natal care. We adjusted only for those variables that meaningfully altered the OR (generally by at least 10%). Unless otherwise indicated, all analyses are adjusted for maternal age, prenatal smoking status, and number of prior pregnancies. We also conducted subanalyses using cut points previously used in studies examining the timing of fetal death [< 28 weeks (early) and ≥ 28 weeks gestation (late)] (Bech et al. 2005; Tomashek et al. 2006), by the types of hazardous substances (solvents, metals, pesticides, radioactive substances) and contaminated media (water, drinking water, soil and sediment, air) at the nearest site, and the duration of time that mothers lived at their residence before the delivery or fetal death. Evaluations of specific site types (e.g., high priority) included assessment of the possible effects of proximities to the other types as well, to try to isolate any effects. Analyses were conducted with STATA statistical software, version 8 (StataCorp., College Station, TX).

Results Top

The distributions of women whose pregnancies ended in fetal deaths or live births were similar with respect to urban/rural residency and prenatal smoking status; however, those with fetal deaths were more likely to be unmarried, be > 35 years of age, have less than a high school education, have used alcohol prenatally, or be Medicaid recipients (Table 1). Women with fetal deaths were also slightly more likely to be of nonwhite race/ethnicity, and less likely to have had a prior pregnancy or birth. Similar proportions of women whose pregnancies ended in fetal deaths (18%) and live births (17%) lived within 0.5 miles of a hazardous waste site [OR = 1.06; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.90–1.25] (Table 2). Fetal death was not associated with close maternal residential proximity to a hazardous waste site, nor were significantly increased ORs observed for early (OR = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.39–2.17) or late (OR = 0.99; 95% CI, 0.80–1.23) fetal death (Table 2). These results were similar when analyses were restricted to women with proven fertility (no prior fetal losses and at least one prior live birth), urban or rural area of residence, and to the limited extent possible with these data, when stratified by the reported presence of any congenital anomaly on the fetal death or birth certificate records (data not shown).

Among women who had lived > 5 years at their residence at the time of delivery or fetal death, the OR for fetal death associated with living within 0.5 miles, relative to those living > 5 miles, of a hazardous waste site was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.57–1.11; data not shown). Results were similar for all proximities among women in this group. Among women who had lived < 12 months at their residence at the time of delivery or fetal death, the ORs ranged from 1.39 (95% CI, 0.96–2.00) for residence within > 0.5 mile to 1 mile of the nearest site, to 1.26 (95% CI, 0.86–1.83) for residence within > 2 to 5 miles.

Living within 2 miles of a high-priority site was associated with slightly but not statistically significantly increased risks of fetal death (OR = 1.11; 95% CI, 0.97–1.27 for those living > 1 mile to 2 miles; OR = 1.09; 95% CI, 0.95–1.25 for those living within 1 mile), and we observed no suggestion of a trend with decreasing distance (Table 3). None of the close-proximity categories to a low-priority site were associated with increased risk of fetal death. We also observed no associations with close residential proximities to hazardous waste sites with contaminated water, soil, or air, or with proximity to sites containing solvents or metal. However, fetal death risk was modestly increased among women residing within 5 miles of a pesticide-contaminated site, with ORs starting at 1.13 (95% CI, 1.05–1.22) for women within 2–5 miles, and increasing to 1.28 (95% CI, 1.13–1.46) for those residing within 1 mile. Reanalysis of this relationship using distance as a continuous variable indicated a 1% decrease in the OR with each additional mile of distance (p < 0.05). We observed no significant risk of fetal death among women living near a site containing a radioactive substance except for those residing > 2 to 5 miles away (OR = 1.14; 95% CI, 1.02–1.27); however, the OR for women within 2 miles was 0.87 (95% CI, 0.71–1.09).

Discussion Top

The causes of fetal death are not clearly understood and in most cases are unknown (Cnattingius and Stephansson 2002). In developed countries, 10–25% of fetal deaths are estimated to be caused by infection (Gibbs 2002; Goldenberg and Thompson 2003), and approximately 25% have been attributed to genetic or metabolic causes (Wapner and Lewis 2002). Other causes include isoimmunization, placental abruption, maternal chronic diseases such as diabetes and hypertension, umbilical cord accidents (Cnattingius and Stephansson 2002; Simpson 2002), and maternal risk factors such as smoking (Wu et al. 1998), advanced age, and obesity (Cnattingius and Stephansson 2002).

Researchers evaluating possible associations between fetal deaths and environmental factors have used various methods and definitions with varied results. Because of the complex interactive effects of various exposures and exposure routes and the timing and duration of these exposures, currently available methods of studying the associations between environmental exposures and pregnancy outcomes are fairly insensitive, making measurement of these associations difficult (Hertz-Picciotto et al. 1996). Events such as the reported high rate of pregnancy loss among women living near the Love Canal (New York) chemical waste site in the late 1970s (New York State Department of Health 1978) have raised public concern about possible reproductive effects of hazardous waste sites, and the use of existing population-based public health data in epidemiologic studies (such as we have done here) is appropriate and necessary as more accurate methods of assessment are developed.

Overall, our results provide insufficient evidence to confirm or exclude the possibility of a relationship between fetal death occurrence and residential proximity to toxic waste sites. Lack of a significant association has been observed in some (Baker et al. 1988; Elliott et al. 2001; Fielder et al. 2000; Sosniak et al. 1994) but not all (Bhopal et al. 1999; Brender et al. 2003; Dummer et al. 2003; Kharrazi et al. 1997) previous studies investigating this relationship, albeit with various methods and exposures (including evaluations of specific landfills or industrial sites). Similarly mixed results have been reported by researchers evaluating the risk of fetal malformation (one important cause of fetal death) among women residing near hazardous waste sites (Croen et al. 1997; Dodds and Seviour 2001; Dolk et al. 1998; Elliott et al. 2001).

We did observe, however, that close maternal residence to a pesticide-contaminated hazardous waste site may increase the risk of fetal death. Residential exposure to pesticides in hazardous waste sites may occur via water contamination, inhalation or ingestion of contaminated dust, ingestion of locally grown contaminated produce, or dermal contact and absorption of chemicals from contaminated particles. Pesticides may affect the developing fetus or a mother’s ability to carry the fetus to an age of viability. Exposure to pesticides may result in somatic cell mutations in the fetus (Hodgson and Levi 1996) or cause hormonal or immune function changes in the fetus (Colborn et al. 1993) or mother (Ahmed 2000; Casale et al. 1998; Stiller-Winkler et al. 1999). Results of previous studies have suggested that maternal exposure to pesticides may be associated with an increased risk of fetal malformations (Shaw et al. 1999; Weidner et al. 1998) and of associated fetal death (Bell et al. 2001), and self-reported home pesticide exposure has previously been associated with stillbirth (Pastore et al. 1997), as has maternal employment in an agricultural occupation (Arbuckle and Sever 1998; McDonald et al. 1988; Vaughan et al. 1984). Early animal studies have also indicated that parental exposure to chemicals and radiation induces anomalies in mice (Nomura 1982), suggesting that fetal loss due to congenital anomalies may be plausibly caused by residing near hazardous waste sites containing chemicals or radioactive material. Our ability to examine fetal deaths due to the presence of malformations was quite limited, but we observed that the risks of fetal death in relation to close proximity to hazardous waste sites did not differ by the presence or absence of malformations as noted in the vital records.

Although we observed a modestly increased fetal death risk among women living > 2 to 5 miles from a site containing radioactive substances, the lack of an association for those residing in the closest proximity category (within 2 miles) and the small numbers of subjects available for these subanalyses suggest that this may be attributed to chance or to the effects of unexamined factors such as topography, water drainage, or wind patterns. Our inability to account for these factors was a limitation in all of our analyses.

As summarized by Vrijheid (2000) in a review of epidemiologic studies of possible associations of health effects and residential proximity to hazardous waste sites, most prior studies evaluated specific contaminated sites and their surrounding communities rather than all sites and populations within a large area, as we have done. Although our study does not share some limitations of many single-site studies such as small sample size, the recall or reporting bias that may be present in studies prompted by public concern over perceived hazards, or dependence on self-reported exposure measurements, it has many limitations. We have no direct measurement of hazardous exposures, and assumed a general regional effect (i.e., that the level of toxicant exposure would be directly related to proximity to a hazardous waste site). This is a limitation of most previous studies of possible associations between adverse pregnancy outcomes and environmental exposures (Baibergenova et al. 2003; Vrijheid 2000). A few recent studies have directly measured pesticide levels in biological or environmental specimens in relation to distance from putative exposure sources. Close residential proximity to a pesticide source was associated with increased pesticide levels in blood (Gaffney et al. 2005), carpet dust (Ward et al. 2006), and indoor and outdoor air (Kawahara et al. 2005). Blood lead levels (Willmore et al. 2006) and some levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon urinary metabolites were greater among residents living in closer proximity to putative point sources (Bouchard et al. 2001), and volatile organic compounds measured in indoor and outdoor air samples of homes close to a factory were greater than those from homes farther away (Jo and Oh 2001). In addition to these positive studies, we also identified one study reporting that polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) levels in cord bloods of infants born to mothers living near a PCB-contaminated Superfund site were not associated with distance to the site (Choi et al. 2006). Although it was beyond the limited scope of our own exploratory study to directly measure exposures, the direction of most previous reports suggests that, particularly for pesticides, close proximity to a known contamination source may be associated with increased toxicant exposure.

Hazardous waste sites also typically contain many different chemicals, with different routes of exposures or contaminated media, so the effect of a specific exposure on the health outcome being investigated is difficult to determine. Although we examined associations by type of chemical at a site and by type of contaminated media to address some of these problems, we also lacked information on the duration, route, and dose of exposures, or reliable data regarding parental occupational exposures.

Another limitation to our study was that maternal residence in the vital records may not indicate where a woman actually lived during the relevant part of her pregnancy. Estimates of residential mobility among pregnant women range from about 12% (Fell et al. 2004) to 20% (Khoury et al. 1988), with some variation by age, race, socioeconomic status, smoking status, and other factors. To the extent that residential proximity to a hazardous waste site was misclassified nondifferentially among cases and controls, our results would have been biased toward the null. To the extent that some of these characteristics were also related to the outcome of fetal death, such misclassification may also have biased our results in other ways. Presumably, an analysis limited to women who resided at the address noted on the vital record for at least 12 months before delivery or fetal death would provide a more accurate assessment of the fetal death–proximity relationship, and would partly address the issue of timing of exposure (Hertz-Picciotto et al. 1996). However, we observed only a slightly increased OR that was not statistically significant when we restricted our analysis to these women.

Our study was also limited by the accuracy of the vital record information, especially because fetal deaths, particularly at an early gestational stage, have been underreported (Goldhaber 1989; Harter et al. 1986). In a previous Washington State study, researchers compared fetal death records with records from 16 hospitals and observed that although 92% of all fetal deaths of at least 20 weeks gestation were reported in the vital records, the level of completeness varied by gestational length, from 78% for those of 20–23 weeks gestation, to 96% for those of 36–39 weeks gestation (Harter et al. 1986). This underreporting of early fetal death is another factor that may have biased our results, especially if that under-reporting was also associated with other factors related to fetal death. Our study may have been affected by other inaccuracies in vital records data. Although the results of a recent validation study comparing information on fetal death records with medical record data for women at a tertiary care hospital in Washington State showed good agreement on many of the variables assessed, including history of prior pregnancies and chronic maternal conditions such as hypertension and diabetes (Lydon-Rochelle et al. 2005a), there was poorer agreement on several variables (e.g., placental cord conditions), and up to 25% of fetal death records were missing data for some of the factors examined. A similar evaluation of selected medical complications on birth records indicated underreporting of several conditions such as gestational diabetes (Lydon-Rochelle et al. 2005b), so we had limited ability to control for any relevant confounding. Also, although vital records contained information on the number of prior pregnancies and births, we were unable to reliably distinguish timing and types of prior pregnancy loss. An additional consideration in our study is that a residential geocode was less likely to have been determined for women with fetal deaths (75%) than those with live births (86%), and it is likely that at least some of the characteristics associated with fetal death (such as smoking and unmarried status) are also associated with use of a post office box or having address information that could not be geocoded for other reasons. To the extent these characteristics may also be associated with proximity to hazardous waste sites (e.g., if poor or unmarried women were more likely to live closer to them) this disproportionate exclusion of women with fetal deaths is another factor that may have biased our results toward the null.

Inaccuracies in the coordinates obtained from addresses in the vital records may have resulted in misclassification; however, some research indicates that geocoding of addresses using commercial software such as we employed was generally quite accurate when compared to the “gold standard” of positions obtained by using global positioning system receivers (Bonner et al. 2003). The median difference in positions obtained by the two methods was small, at 38 m (~ 0.02 mile), suggesting that the accuracy of geocoding in our study in terms of locating a specific address was probably quite good. Misclassification may also have occurred, however, because of errors in the geocoordinates for toxic waste sites, which were obtained using several methods and which we were unable to validate.

We also had access to information only about fetal deaths that occurred after at least 20 weeks gestation, and we were not able to explore whether close residential proximity to a hazardous waste site was associated with earlier pregnancy loss that may have been caused by the occurrence of severe anomalies or other conditions incompatible with maintaining pregnancy beyond very early stages. However, there did not appear to be any differences in the associations observed for early (20–27 weeks) versus later fetal death (≥ 28 weeks gestation).

Our finding of no overall significant association between fetal death and maternal residential proximity to hazardous waste sites should not delay clean-up efforts or research to develop more accurate exposure measurements. Our finding of an increased risk associated with close residential proximity to pesticide-containing sites suggests an important focus for future work, particularly in view of other evidence supporting associations of pesticide exposure and adverse reproductive outcomes (Arbuckle and Sever 1998; Perera et al. 2005).

Tables Top

Table 1.

Maternal and infant characteristics of fetal death cases and controls with live births, Washington State 1987–2001 [no. (%)].

Table 2.

Fetal death in relation to maternal residential proximity to nearest hazardous waste site during pregnancy, by gestational age, Washington State, 1987–2001.

Table 3.

Risk^a of fetal death in relation to maternal residential proximity to nearest hazardous waste site, by selected site characteristics, Washington State 1987–2001 [OR (95% CI)].

References Top

1. Ahmed SA 2000. The immune system as a potential target for environmental estrogens (endocrine disrupters): a new emerging field Toxicology 150:191–206. Find this article online
2. Arbuckle TE, Sever LE 1998. Pesticide exposures and fetal death: a review of the epidemiologic literature Crit Rev Toxicol 28:229–270. Find this article online
3. Baibergenova A, Kudyakov R, Zdeb M, Carpenter DO 2003. Low birth weight and residential proximity to PCB-contaminated waste sites Environ Health Perspect 111:1352–1357. Find this article online
4. Baker DB, Greenland S, Mendlein J, Harmon P 1988. A health study of two communities near the Stringfellow Waste Disposal site Arch Environ Health 43:325–334. Find this article online
5. Bech BH, Nohr EA, Vaeth M, Henriksen TB, Olsen J 2005. Coffee and fetal death: a cohort study with prospective data Am J Epidemiol 162:983–990. Find this article online
6. Bell EM, Hertz-Picciotto I, Beaumont JJ 2001. A case-control study of pesticides and fetal death due to congenital anomalies Epidemiology 12:148–156. Find this article online
7. Bhopal RS, Tate JA, Foy C, Moffatt S, Phillimore PR 1999. Residential proximity to industry and adverse birth outcomes Lancet 354:920–921. Find this article online
8. Bonner MR, Han D, Nie J, Rogerson P, Vena JE, Freudenheim JL 2003. Positional accuracy of geocoded addresses in epidemiologic research Epidemiology 14:408–412. Find this article online
9. Bouchard M, Pinsonneault L, Tremblay C, Weber JP 2001. Biological monitoring of environmental exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in subjects living in the vicinity of a creosote impregnation plant Int Arch Occup Environ Health 74:505–513. Find this article online
10. Brender JD, Pichette JL, Suarez L, Hendricks KA, Holt M 2003. Health risks of residential exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons Arch Environ Health 58:111–118. Find this article online
11. Carpenter DO 1994. How hazardous wastes affect human health Cent Eur J Public Health 2(suppl):6–9. Find this article online
12. Casale GP, Scott DM, Anderson JR, Vitzthum EF, Gold RE 1998. A preliminary study of immunologic and hematologic profiles of peripheral blood from Nebraska farmers who apply pesticides to their fields J Toxicol Clin Toxicol 36:183–194. Find this article online
13. Choi AL, Levy JI, Dockery DW, Ryan LM, Tolbert PE, Altshul LM, et al. 2006. Does living near a Superfund site contribute to higher polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) exposure? Environ Health Perspect 114:1092–1098. Find this article online
14. Cnattingius S, Stephansson O 2002. The epidemiology of stillbirth Semin Perinatol 26:25–30. Find this article online
15. Colborn T, vom Saal FS, Soto AM 1993. Developmental effects of endocrine-disrupting chemicals in wildlife and humans Environ Health Perspect 101:378–384. Find this article online
16. Croen LA, Shaw GM, Sanbonmatsu L, Selvin S, Buffler PA 1997. Maternal residential proximity to hazardous waste sites and risk for selected congenital malformations Epidemiology 8:347–354. Find this article online
17. Dodds L, Seviour R 2001. Congenital anomalies and other birth outcomes among infants born to women living near a hazardous waste site in Sydney, Nova Scotia Can J Public Health 92:331–334. Find this article online
18. Dolk H, Vrijheid M, Armstrong B, Abramsky L, Bianchi F, Garne E, et al. 1998. Risk of congenital anomalies near hazardous-waste landfill sites in Europe: the EUROHAZCON study Lancet 352:423–427. Find this article online
19. Dummer TJ, Dickinson HO, Parker L 2003. Adverse pregnancy outcomes around incinerators and crematoriums in Cumbria, north west England, 1956–93 J Epidemiol Community Health 57:456–461. Find this article online
20. Elliott P, Briggs D, Morris S, de Hoogh C, Hurt C, Jensen TK, et al. 2001. Risk of adverse birth outcomes in populations living near landfill sites BMJ 323:363–368. Find this article online
21. Fell DB, Dodds L, King WD 2004. Residential mobility during pregnancy Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 18:408–414. Find this article online
22. Fielder HM, Poon-King CM, Palmer SR, Moss N, Coleman G 2000. Assessment of impact on health of residents living near the Nant-y-Gwyddon landfill site: retrospective analysis BMJ 320:19–22. Find this article online
23. Gaffney SH, Curriero FC, Strickland PT, Glass GE, Helzlsouer KJ, Breysse PN 2005. Influence of geographic location in modeling blood pesticide levels in a community surrounding a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Superfund site Environ Health Perspect 113:1712–1716. Find this article online
24. Gibbs RS 2002. The origins of stillbirth: infectious diseases Semin Perinatol 26:75–78. Find this article online
25. Goldenberg RL, Thompson C 2003. The infectious origins of stillbirth Am J Obstet Gynecol 189:861–873. Find this article online
26. Goldhaber MK 1989. Fetal death ratios in a prospective study compared to state fetal death certificate reporting Am J Public Health 79:1268–1270. Find this article online
27. Harter L, Starzyk P, Frost F 1986. A comparative study of hospital fetal death records and Washington State fetal death certificates Am J Public Health 76:1333–1334. Find this article online
28. Hertz-Picciotto I, Pastore LM, Beaumont JJ 1996. Timing and patterns of exposures during pregnancy and their implications for study methods Am J Epidemiol 143:597–607. Find this article online
29. Hodgson E, Levi PE 1996. Pesticides: an important but under-used model for the environmental health sciences Environ Health Perspect 104(suppl 1):97–106. Find this article online
30. Jo WK, Oh JW 2001. Exposure to methyl tertiary butyl ether and benzene in close proximity to service stations J Air Waste Manag Assoc 58:1122–1128. Find this article online
31. Kawahara J, Horikoshi R, Yamaguchi T, Kumagai K, Yanagisawa Y 2005. Air pollution and young children’s inhalation exposure to organophosphorus pesticide in an agricultural communital in Japan Environ Int 31:1123–1132. Find this article online
32. Kharrazi M, Von BJ, Smith M, Lomas T, Armstrong M, Broadwin R, et al. 1997. A community-based study of adverse pregnancy outcomes near a large hazardous waste landfill in California Toxicol Ind Health 13:299–310. Find this article online
33. Khoury MJ, Stewart W, Weinstein A, Panny S, Lindsay P, Eisenberg M 1988. Residential mobility during pregnancy: implications for environmental teratogenesis J Clin Epidemiol 41:15–20. Find this article online
34. Landrigan PJ, Suk WA, Amler RW 1999. Chemical wastes, children’s health, and the Superfund Basic Research Program Environ Health Perspect 107:423–427. Find this article online
35. Lydon-Rochelle MT, Cardenas V, Nelson JL, Tomashek KM, Mueller BA, Easterling TR 2005a. Validity of maternal and perinatal risk factors reported on fetal death certificates Am J Public Health 95:1948–1951. Find this article online
36. Lydon-Rochelle MT, Holt VL, Cardenas V, Nelson JC, Easterling TR, Gardella G, Callaghan WM 2005b. The reporting of pre-existing maternal medical conditions and complications of pregnancy on birth certificates and in hospital discharge data Obstet Gynecol 193:125–134. Find this article online
37. McDonald AD, McDonald JC, Armstrong B, Cherry NM, Cote R, Lavoie J, et al. 1988. Fetal death and work in pregnancy Br J Ind Med 45:148–157. Find this article online
38. Minnick S, Gardiska D, Leonard T 2000. Model Toxics Control Account 2000 Annual Report. No. 00-09-046: 2. Olympia, WA:Washington State Department of Ecology
39. National Resource Council on Environmental Epidemiology 1991. Environmental Epidemiology, Vol 1: Public Health and Hazardous Wastes. Washington DC:National Academy Press
40. New York State Department of Health 1978. Love Canal—Public Health Time Bomb. A Special Report to the Governor and Legislature (Nailor MG, Tarlton F, Cassidy JJ, eds). Albany:New York State Department of Health
41. Nomura T 1982. Parental exposure to x rays and chemicals induces heritable tumours and anomalies in mice Nature 296:575–577. Find this article online
42. Pastore LM, Hertz-Picciotto I, Beaumont JJ 1997. Risk of stillbirth from occupational and residential exposures Occup Environ Med 54:511–518. Find this article online
43. Perera FP, Rauh V, Whyatt RM, Tang D, Tsai WY, Bernert JT, et al. 2005. A summary of recent findings on birth outcomes and developmental effects of prenatal ETS, PAH, and pesticide exposures Neurotoxicology 26:573–587. Find this article online
44. Shaw GM, Wasserman CR, O’Malley CD, Nelson V, Jackson RJ 1999. Maternal pesticide exposure from multiple sources and selected congenital anomalies Epidemiology 10:60–66. Find this article online
45. Simpson LL 2002. Maternal medical disease: risk of ante-partum fetal death Semin Perinatol 26:42–50. Find this article online
46. Sosniak WA, Kaye WE, Gomez TM 1994. Data linkage to explore the risk of low birthweight associated with maternal proximity to hazardous waste sites from the National Priorities List Arch Environ Health 49:251–255. Find this article online
47. Stiller-Winkler R, Hadnagy W, Leng G, Straube E, Idel H 1999. Immunological parameters in humans exposed to pesticides in the agricultural environment Toxicol Lett 107:219–224. Find this article online
48. Tomashek KM, Ananth CV, Cogswell ME 2006. Risk of stillbirth in relation to maternal haemoglobin concentration during pregnancy Maternal & Child Nutrition 2:19–28. Find this article online
49. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 2000. Healthy People 2010: Understanding and Improving Health. 2nd ed. Washington DC:U.S. Government Printing Office
50. U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) 2006a. National Priority List Sites in Washington. Available: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/w​a.htm [accessed 14 February 2006]
51. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2006b. Superfund. Available: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/about.htm [accessed 14 February 2006]
52. Vaughan TL, Daling JR, Starzyk PM 1984. Fetal death and maternal occupation. An analysis of birth records in the state of Washington J Occup Med 26:676–678. Find this article online
53. Vrijheid M 2000. Health effects of residence near hazardous waste landfill sites: a review of epidemiologic literature Environ Health Perspect 108(suppl 1):101–112. Find this article online
54. Wapner RJ, Lewis D 2002. Genetics and metabolic causes of stillbirth Semin Perinatol 26:70–74. Find this article online
55. Ward MH, Lubin J, Giglierano J, Colt JS, Wolter C, Bekiroglu N, Camann D, Hartge P, Nuckols JR 2006. Proximity to crops and residential exposure to agricultural herbicides in Iowa Environ Health Perspect 114:893–897. Find this article online
56. Washington State Department of Ecology Toxics Cleanup Program 2002. Confirmed and Suspected Contaminated Sites Report. Available: www.ecy.wa.gov [accessed 15 March 2002]
57. Washington State Department of Health, Center for Health Statistics 2006. Mortality Table G1. Available: http://www.doh.wa.gov/EHSPHL/CHS/chs-dat​a/FetDeath/download/FetalG1.xls [accessed 15 February 2006]
58. Washington State Department of Health, Division of Information Resource Management 2006. Guidelines for Address Matching and Geocoding. Available: http://www.doh.wa.gov/Data/Guidelines/Ge​ocodeguide.htm [accessed 3 February 2006]
59. Weidner IS, Moller H, Jensen TK, Skakkebaek NE 1998. Cryptorchidism and hypospadias in sons of gardeners and farmers Environ Health Perspect 106:793–796. Find this article online
60. Willmore A, Sladden T, Bates L, Dalton CB 2006. Use of a geographic information system to track smelter-related lead exposures in children: North Lake Macquarie, Australia, 1991–2002 Int J Health Geogr 5:30. Find this article online
61. Wu T, Buck G, Mendola P 1998. Maternal cigarette smoking, regular use of multivitamin/mineral supplements, and risk of fetal death: the 1988 National Maternal and Infant Health Survey Am J Epidemiol 148:215–221. Find this article online