Core Scientific Issues:
1. The Authors' Own Admissions
The paper explicitly acknowledges that its findings "cannot establish causality," that it "does not include dosimetry," and that its attributable deaths calculation "assumes a causal relationship between exposure and outcome," an assumption the study's own design cannot validate. These are not peripheral disclaimers; they go to the heart of whether this study can support the conclusions being drawn from it.
2. No Dose Assessment
The study includes no dosimetric measurements, environmental radiation monitoring data, dose modeling, or exposure pathway analysis. Even a basic calculation using publicly available plant emission data would demonstrate that radiation doses received by populations near U.S. nuclear plants are far too low to plausibly account for the cancer mortality burden the authors describe, making the absence of this foundational step disqualifying.
3. Proximity as an Invalid Proxy for Radiation Dose
The study's sole exposure measure, an inverse-distance weighted proximity metric, is not a measure of radiation exposure and does not account for plant-specific emission profiles, wind patterns, topography, or water pathways. Using geographic proximity as a radiation dose proxy introduces severe exposure misclassification and cannot support the conclusions the study implies.
4. A Critical and Unaddressed Confounding Factor: Load-Serving Entity Territories
Nuclear power plants were deliberately sited near major population and industrial load centers, the high-demand service territories of load-serving entities where heavy manufacturing, fossil fuel combustion, and associated carcinogenic pollutants are most concentrated. No county-level statistical model can fully untangle those exposures from any signal attributed to a nuclear facility, representing a profound and unresolved confounding problem.
5. Ecological Study Design Cannot Support Causal Claims
This is an ecological study, widely recognized as the weakest epidemiological study design for establishing causation, and is appropriate only for generating hypotheses, not for estimating attributable deaths. Presenting county-level correlations as the basis for calculating over 115,000 "attributable cancer deaths" dramatically overstates what this study design can support.
6. Inadequate Confounding Control
While the authors include several county-level covariates, ecological analyses inherently cannot account for the full range of cancer risk factors present in the heavily industrialized, densely populated regions where nuclear plants are typically located. Smoking, occupational exposures, fossil fuel emissions, and socioeconomic factors, among others, remain inadequately controlled.
7. All-Cancer Outcomes Without Radiation Sensitivity Context
The study analyzes all malignant neoplasms combined rather than the radiation-sensitive cancers, such as leukemia and thyroid cancer, for which dose-response relationships are established. A credible study of this kind would demonstrate a biologically plausible dose-response relationship; this study does not.
The Broader Scientific Context:
Decades of rigorous research by the National Cancer Institute, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and international scientific bodies including the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation have not found consistent evidence of elevated cancer risk near nuclear plants operating within regulatory limits. That is the science. This study does not change that nor add to it.
Conclusion:
This study does not meet the highest scientific standards, a fact the authors themselves explicitly acknowledge with the admission that “our findings cannot establish causality.” The absence of dose assessment, a fatally limited study design, unresolved industrial confounding, and the unwarranted attribution of over 115,000 cancer deaths to geographic correlation represent serious and compounding failures. ANS stands ready to assist reporters and stakeholders in contextualizing this research within the broader, well-established body of radiological health science.
About the American Nuclear Society (ANS):
Established in 1954, the American Nuclear Society (ANS) is an international professional organization of engineers, scientists, technologists, teachers, and healthcare providers devoted to the peaceful applications of nuclear science and technology. Its more than 12,000 members represent government, academia, research laboratories, medical facilities, and private industry. ANS's mission is to advance, foster, and spur the development and application of nuclear science, engineering, and technology for the benefit of humanity.
####
-3 2x1.jpg)