_edited.jpg){kind=logo}
Experts Urge Colorado Board of Health to Reexamine Public Health Risks at Rocky Flats
A New Call for Public Health Review at Rocky Flats
In November 2024, a group of six scientists, public health professionals, community researchers and former law-enforcement personnel submitted an extensive written public comment to the Colorado State Board of Health raising concerns about the continuing public-health implications of contamination associated with Rocky Flats.
Titled Concerns About the Public Health Risks of Rocky Flats Contamination, the 89-page document brings together several different lines of argument and evidence concerning the former nuclear weapons plant and the communities surrounding it.
The submission followed public comments made at the State Board of Health's July 2024 meeting concerning research by Dr. Michael Ketterer that identified Rocky Flats-derived plutonium in airborne dust collected during a high-wind event. According to the document, Board members subsequently encouraged outside experts to submit their concerns and studies in writing so that the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) could respond.
Six Perspectives on a Complicated History
Rather than presenting a single argument, the submission combines contributions from six authors with different areas of experience:
Dr. Mark Johnson, MD, MPH, former executive director of Jefferson County Public Health; Dr. Michael Ketterer, PhD, an analytical chemist specializing in environmental radionuclides; Shaunessy Kieng, RN, MPH, who examines disease reports within nearby communities; Jon Lipsky, the retired FBI agent who led the 1989 federal search of the Rocky Flats plant; Dr. Deborah Segaloff, PhD, a biomedical scientist and board member of Physicians for Social Responsibility Colorado; and Randy Stafford, a former member of the Jefferson Parkway Advisory Committee who has extensively reviewed Rocky Flats contamination and epidemiological studies.
Their chapters address environmental contamination, plutonium movement, health effects, regulatory standards, disease incidence and unresolved questions about how risk at Rocky Flats has been assessed.
What Are They Asking Colorado to Do?
Despite their different backgrounds, the contributors converge around a central question: Does the existing body of evidence provide enough certainty to consider the public-health questions surrounding Rocky Flats settled?
Their answer is no.
Among the actions requested in the submission are an independent review of existing Rocky Flats data and studies, an assessment of possible risks to people who live, work, attend school or recreate near the site, renewed air monitoring for plutonium, consideration of a new independent epidemiological study, recovery and public release of materials associated with the Rocky Flats Special Grand Jury, and stronger public notification about potential risks at the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge.
Some contributors go further. Dr. Deborah Segaloff calls for construction of the Rocky Mountain Greenway through the refuge to be halted, improved warning signs and routine air monitoring, and ultimately closure of the refuge to public access.
Randy Stafford identifies five areas he believes demonstrate inconsistencies in the way public-health risk at Rocky Flats has been managed, including differences in plutonium soil standards, disagreement over acceptable radiation doses, conflicting epidemiological findings, the absence of long-term health monitoring, and differing positions among government agencies concerning remaining contamination.
The Downwinder Health Question
The submission also includes data collected by Rocky Flats Downwinders and Metropolitan State University of Denver.
The earlier MSU/RFD health survey collected 1,745 responses from people who had lived within a defined area surrounding Rocky Flats between 1952 and 1992. Respondents reported 848 cancer cases, including 414 categorized by the survey authors as rare cancers.
Importantly, this was a convenience-sample community survey, not a population-based epidemiological study, so those results cannot by themselves establish that Rocky Flats exposure caused the illnesses reported.
But the authors argue that the findings are sufficiently concerning to justify more rigorous investigation.
That distinction is important to Rocky Flats Downwinders.
Community health surveys can document experiences, identify questions and reveal patterns worth investigating. Determining whether those patterns represent elevated disease rates—and whether environmental exposure caused them—requires appropriately designed epidemiological research.
The submission argues that this research remains necessary.
Why This Document Matters
For decades, questions surrounding Rocky Flats have often produced sharply different conclusions depending on which studies, regulatory standards and interpretations are being considered.
This submission does not resolve those disagreements.
Instead, it documents them.
And it asks the Colorado State Board of Health to reconsider whether additional independent investigation, environmental monitoring and health research are warranted.
For Rocky Flats Downwinders, that request reflects a concern the community has raised for years: people who lived and continue to live near Rocky Flats deserve credible information about their environment and their health.
The complete submission includes the authors' arguments, supporting studies, references and source documents. Readers who want to evaluate those claims should read the original document rather than relying solely on this summary.
Comments