Comments on "A reevaluation of cancer incidence near the Three Mile Island nuclear plant".

This issue of the journal includes a critical review and reanalysis by Wing et al. (1) of a cancer study we conducted in the aftermath of the 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island (TMI) nuclear plant (2,3). We find the lengthy piece tendentious and unbalanced. No notice is taken of any of the innovations of the original study, such as the exposure model that took detailed account of prevailing winds and topography. As the findings from the reanalysis differ little from the original study, we will focus our comments on four brief points. First, both our initial views and subsequent conclusions about the possibility of an accident-related cancer increase have been misrepresented. At the time we undertook the study, we were doubtful about effects of exposure, and appropriately so, given both the very low official estimates of the TMI releases and the short latency period. Nonetheless, we did think it was possible that unmonitored releases might have been greater than those estimated and thus might have produced levels of radiation exposure greater than background levels. Analysis of the off-site thermoluminescent dosimeter data available to us toward the end of our study led us to rule this out, however, and to conclude that the releases were in fact within range of official dose estimates. If the dosimeter data had yielded a different result, our interpretation of the findings would have reflected this. The conclusions we did reach have also been misrepresented. Wing et al. (1) claim we "concluded that observed associations did not reflect an accident effect." We actually said the following: "Overall, the pattern of results does not provide convincing evidence that radiation releases from the Three Mile Island nuclear facility influenced cancer risk during the limited period of follow-up" (2). Second, contrary to what Wing et al. (1) claim, we did in fact specifically recommend follow-up of the TMI area population , both in the author's reply (4) to the commentary accompanying initial publication of the paper on cancer and radiation emissions at TMI (2) and also in official communications with the Three Mile Island Public Health Fund. Indeed, the fund accepted the recommendation for follow up , and such studies are currently under way at the University of Pittsburgh under the direction of Evelyn Talbott. Third, the initial assumptions of Wing et al. (1), and the context in which they interpret their results, are based on strictly …