CDPHE’s cancer studies provide limited geographic comparisons, but they did not identify exposed residents, reconstruct residential histories, measure individual exposure, or follow people over time. Without that information—and with questions about the study boundaries and Denver metro comparison population—the health effects of Rocky Flats remain unresolved.

Rocky Flats Downwinders is seeking independent researchers in epidemiology, biostatistics, environmental health, research methodology, health policy and public-health communication to evaluate both CDPHE's Rocky Flats cancer studies and how their findings have been communicated. The objective is not to predetermine whether Rocky Flats caused disease. It is to determine what the existing evidence can—and cannot—establish and ensure that Colorado communicates those distinctions

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.

In a 2017 Denverite article, RFD co-founder Nicholas Hansen challenged the methodology of Colorado's cancer registry studies. His concerns about former residents, cancer latency, and the limitations of the state's conclusions remain central to our Truth & Transparency project today.

In a December 2002 letter, environmental researcher Bernd Franke challenged the methodology of a CDPHE cancer registry study near Rocky Flats. He questioned its statistical sensitivity, comparison population, and scientific usefulness. More than two decades later, his concerns closely parallel the questions RFD is raising through its Truth & Transparency project.