Research and sources

Read the public policy documents

Download the two-page policy brief

Download the Victorian reform proposal

These are consultation drafts attributed to Safe Separations. Independent scientific and planning-law review remains pending. The full study is being held for technical review and is not a public download at this stage.

Four connected questions

Our review asks what is known about health effects near service stations, how emissions reach sensitive uses, what vapour recovery controls and leaves unresolved, and how planning can provide separation alongside operating controls.

Residential epidemiology, occupational studies, toxicology, measurements and modelling answer different questions. We keep those categories separate and do not create a new pooled risk estimate from incompatible studies.

Selected residential studies

• Quebec, 2026: large population cohort using birth-residence proximity and several exposure metrics. Our assessment is abstract-based; the complete paper and supplements remain important for technical review. [33]
• Northern Italy, 2023: case-control study examining distance and petrol supply, with considerable statistical uncertainty at short distances. Full text reviewed. [26]
• Switzerland, 2022: primary study with a null-compatible estimate, accompanied by a meta-analysis. The pooled analysis is not an additional independent population. Full text reviewed. [25]
• Tehran, 2024: hospital-based case-control study. Our account uses the adjusted Table 2 estimate; model coding and denominators remain points for clarification. Full text reviewed. [30]
• France, ESCALE: reported petrol-station adjacency and childhood leukaemia. Abstract-based assessment. [8]
• Earlier French study: the exposure category combined adjacency to a petrol station or repair garage; it must not be relabelled as petrol stations alone. [5]

See the principal estimates and interpretation.

Exposure and control evidence

• Tank vent study: measured vent emissions at two US stations and modelled short-duration concentrations off site. Modelled distances are not measured cancer-risk boundaries. [21]
• Setback modelling: illustrates how throughput, controls and the selected risk criterion change calculated distances; it does not establish a single Australian setback. [38]
• Vapour-recovery field comparison: provides evidence of lower worker exposure with controls, with differences between sites limiting causal and residential interpretation. [32]
• Health Canada assessment: evaluates station-related benzene exposure scenarios and public-health implications. Its assumptions need consideration before applying results to Australian sites. [55]

Hazard and Australian policy sources

IARC's gasoline assessment informs hazard identification. WA Health's position statement provides an Australian separation-policy reference. Victorian planning clauses and environmental duties define parts of the present regulatory setting. NSW recovery guidance illustrates operating and compliance requirements. [36] [39] [41] [42] [43] [47]

The Australian comparison links the wider jurisdiction sources and identifies unresolved implementation questions.

How the review was prepared

The September 2026 desk review searched Europe PMC, PubMed, scholarly discovery results, citation chains and government sources. It recorded study designs, exposure definitions, estimates, confounders, access status and limitations. The protocol was informed by OHAT's environmental-health assessment approach. [37]

The work used AI assistance and a single-reviewer process. It is not a completed exhaustive systematic review and has not received independent scientific or legal endorsement. Some papers were available only as abstracts. Supportive, mixed and null-compatible findings were retained; occupational and toxicological findings were not substituted for residential risk estimates.

The underlying review search date is 16 September 2026. A targeted website update check was undertaken on 22 September 2026. That check is not a rerun of every database search or a complete legal audit. Original references and outstanding evidence gaps remain part of the working study.

How evidence becomes a policy position

Research establishes the nature and strength of particular findings. Our recommendation for mandatory separation adds an explicit precautionary policy judgment: avoid creating close, long-lived interfaces where exposure can reasonably be prevented. Numerical options require consultation and implementation analysis. The evidence is not presented as proof of a universally safe boundary.

Corrections and contributions

Send a source link, the relevant passage and a short explanation to contact@safeseparations.org. We welcome technical corrections and additional evidence. We will identify substantive changes when updating the public review; supplied material will not be presented as endorsement without permission.