The Council's Kidney Cancer Assessment: A Significant Finding, and the Questions It Leaves
Lancashire County Council has published a Health Cell assessment of kidney cancer near the Hillhouse site. It found a statistically significant excess of kidney cancer in two neighbourhoods, including the one next to the site, then concluded that no further investigation is needed. This post explains the finding in plain terms and sets out the questions the conclusion leaves open.
- Lancashire County Council Health Cell, Assessment of Kidney Cancer Patterns at the Hillhouse Technology Enterprise Zone, v1.0 Final, 16 June 2026.
- National Disease Registration Service (NDRS) cancer registration data, 2003-2022, used in the assessment.
- C8 Science Panel (2012): kidney cancer is among the conditions found to have a probable link to PFOA exposure. The LCC report itself refers to ’the international evidence base linking PFOA exposure to kidney cancer.'
Lancashire County Council has published an assessment of kidney cancer patterns near the Hillhouse site, carried out by a multi-agency Health Cell. This post explains what it found and the questions its conclusion leaves open. It sticks to what the report itself says.
What the report found
The assessment compared the number of kidney cancer cases in small neighbourhood areas near the site with the number you would expect for the population, based on national figures for England, over the years 2003 to 2022.
In two of those neighbourhoods, the number of cases was significantly higher than expected:
- The area to the south-east of the site, the nearest one to it, recorded 14 cases where about 6 were expected.
- An area in north Blackpool recorded 17 cases where about 9 were expected.
The report treats both as statistically significant, meaning the difference is unlikely to be down to chance alone. Kidney cancer was the one cancer the assessment looked at in detail, and the report explains why: it points to the international evidence linking PFOA exposure to kidney cancer. Kidney cancer is among the conditions the C8 Science Panel found a probable link to PFOA.
What the report concluded
Having found that significant excess, the report concludes that there is no cancer cluster, no link to the local environment, and no need for further investigation.
The questions this leaves open
Was the right test used? One of the reasons given for closing the case is that there is no pattern of more cancer the closer you get to the site. That treats contamination as if it spreads out evenly in rings from the source. The soil data does not show that. The contamination the EA’s own contractors measured is not strongest closest in: it peaks to the south-east, and it is higher at 700m than at 500m. The one area close to the site with a significant excess is also to the south-east. A test for an even fall-off with distance is the wrong test for contamination the soil shows is directional, not radial.
Higher than what? Against the national figure for England, the area is high, and the report says so. The reassurance partly rests on the area being similar to neighbouring areas. If those neighbouring areas share the same exposure, comparing them to each other can hide a difference that is real when measured against the country as a whole.
The test that could settle it was not done. The assessment did not include blood testing for PFAS, which is the direct way to measure whether and how much people have been exposed. The report lists this and other limitations, then reaches a confident conclusion the limitations do not fully support.
Where people lived when diagnosed is not where they were exposed. Kidney cancer develops over a long time. The data uses each person’s address at the point of diagnosis, not where they were living during the years of exposure. The report notes this can blur a real pattern.
What is not confirmed in available documents
These are questions, not claims of harm. The report is not fabricated, and some of its cautions are fair: the numbers in each small area are low, and that makes them unstable. The narrower point stands on the report’s own pages. It found a significant excess of the cancer most associated with PFOA, close to the site, and then concluded that no further cluster investigation was warranted, without the blood testing and exposure work that could answer the question it raised. We have asked Leigh Day to request the full underlying figures behind these results.