CDPHE has analyzed cancer-registry data around Rocky Flats for decades. But cancer-registry analysis is not the same as monitoring the long-term health of people who may have been exposed during Rocky Flats operations. Understanding that distinction is essential to understanding what Colorado's cancer studies can—and cannot—tell us.

Existing cancer-registry studies provide useful information about people diagnosed while living near Rocky Flats—but that is not the same as following the people who lived there during historically relevant periods. RFD is advocating for independent research that considers residential history, migration, latency, exposure-informed geography and long-term health outcomes.

Rocky Flats Downwinders is launching the Truth & Transparency Campaign to ask Colorado for clearer disclosure about what existing Rocky Flats cancer studies can—and cannot—tell us, greater data transparency, independent technical review, and research designed to address the health experiences of people who actually lived near Rocky Flats during historically relevant periods.

CDPHE says decades of cancer monitoring have not found elevated rates among residents living near Rocky Flats. But who was actually studied: people present during potential exposure or people living nearby when diagnosed? Our exchange with Colorado’s cancer registry examines this critical distinction

On Mother’s Day 1969, plutonium caught fire inside Rocky Flats Buildings 776/777. Firefighters battled the blaze for hours as portions of the filtration system were damaged and plutonium escaped. The accident became a turning point—bringing questions about contamination from the secretive nuclear weapons plant into public view.

Colorado has monitored cancer incidence around Rocky Flats for decades, but an exchange with the state's cancer registry raises an important methodological question: Can data based largely on where people live when diagnosed adequately evaluate a community defined by where people may have lived and been exposed decades earlier?

In a 2018 position paper, Jefferson Parkway Advisory Committee member Randy Stafford examined decades of soil studies, health research and historical records to argue that disturbing soil along Indiana Street could create additional public-health risks. His paper brings together important evidence—and competing interpretations—at the center of the Jefferson Parkway debate.