Truth & Transparency: Our Commitment to the Communities Surrounding Rocky Flats

Seeking answers, examining evidence, and asking government agencies to be clear about what is known, what remains uncertain, and what deserves further investigation. For more than seven decades, Rocky Flats has been part of the history of communities northwest of Denver. The former nuclear weapons plant shaped the landscape, affected generations of workers and their families, and left surrounding residents with questions that continue today.

Some questions concern historical contamination and environmental monitoring. Others involve public health, government decisions, and the scientific studies used to communicate potential risks.

For Rocky Flats Downwinders, these questions are connected by a fundamental principle:

Communities deserve truthful information, meaningful transparency, and access to the evidence used to make decisions that may affect their health and environment. That commitment is at the heart of our organization's work. We call it Truth & Transparency.

Truth & Transparency is more than a project

Truth & Transparency is a guiding pillar of Rocky Flats Downwinders. It reflects how we approach historical records, environmental information, public-health research, and government accountability. Our purpose is not to begin with a predetermined conclusion and search for evidence to support it. Our purpose is to ask questions, examine the available evidence, identify what remains unanswered, and encourage the responsible agencies to communicate openly with the public.

That means recognizing documented findings, acknowledging scientific uncertainty, and being willing to examine information that challenges existing assumptions. It also means understanding that a government report may provide useful findings while still having important limitations. We believe the public deserves to understand both. Transparency should not depend on whether information supports a particular position. It should be a consistent expectation whenever government agencies study, monitor, or make decisions about matters affecting public health and the environment.

When environmental studies are difficult to find

One example involves questions about radionuclide testing of elk associated with the Rocky Flats area. Wildlife moves across landscapes without regard to property boundaries. For residents concerned about historical contamination, understanding what environmental and wildlife monitoring has been conducted—and what the results show—is a reasonable public-interest question. Rocky Flats Downwinders has sought information about radionuclide studies involving elk, but we have not been able to locate the studies in the publicly accessible record available to us. That does not necessarily mean the studies were never conducted, that no relevant records exist, or that the animals were contaminated. It means we have not been able to find and examine the information needed to understand what testing, if any, was performed, which radionuclides were evaluated, what results were obtained, and how those results were interpreted. Those distinctions matter. We want to know whether relevant studies exist, where the public can access them, and whether additional examination is warranted. If testing was performed, the methods and results should be available for public review, subject to applicable records laws. If testing was not performed, that should be communicated clearly as well.

The absence of accessible information should not be mistaken for evidence of either safety or danger. The responsible response is to seek the records, clarify what is known, and identify any remaining gaps. That is what Truth & Transparency means in practice.

The same principle applies to cancer studies

Questions about the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment's (CDPHE) Rocky Flats cancer studies raise another important issue: understanding what a study can reasonably tell us—and what it cannot. CDPHE has conducted analyses using cancer registry data to examine cancer incidence in communities surrounding Rocky Flats. These studies provide information about cancer diagnoses among populations defined by particular geographic areas and time periods. But cancer registry analyses also have methodological limitations that are important for the public to understand.

For example, cancer registry information generally reflects where a person lived at the time of diagnosis, rather than providing a complete history of where that person lived, attended school, or worked throughout their life. That distinction is particularly relevant to Rocky Flats.

Someone who lived near the plant during its operating years may have moved away decades before receiving a cancer diagnosis. Conversely, someone who moved into the area more recently may be included in a geographic analysis even if they were not present during the plant's operating years. Cancer can also develop many years after an exposure, and people within the same geographic area may have very different exposure histories. A study that does not identify a statistically significant elevation in cancer incidence does not necessarily establish that no one experienced an exposure or that no health effects occurred. Likewise, the presence of cancer among people who lived near Rocky Flats does not, by itself, establish that the plant caused those illnesses. Both distinctions are essential to responsible public-health communication.

Introducing our independent expert assessment

As a specific initiative within our broader Truth & Transparency commitment, Rocky Flats Downwinders is developing: Truth & Transparency: An Independent Expert Assessment of CDPHE's Rocky Flats Cancer Studies. The proposed assessment will bring independent expertise to a careful examination of CDPHE's Rocky Flats cancer studies, their methodologies, their acknowledged limitations, and the way their findings have been communicated to the public. The purpose is not to predetermine that CDPHE's conclusions are right or wrong. It is to evaluate whether the methods are appropriate for the questions being asked, whether the findings have been interpreted within the limits of the available data, and whether public communications clearly explain what those findings can and cannot establish. The assessment is intended to consider several important questions:

• Study methodology: What populations, geographic areas, time periods, and comparison methods were used? What questions can those methods answer?

• Historical exposure and population movement: How do changes in residence and the passage of time affect what can be learned from cancer registry data?

• Statistical interpretation: How should statistically significant and non-significant findings be understood, particularly when studying uncommon cancers or smaller populations?

• Limitations and uncertainty: What limitations do the technical reports acknowledge, and how prominently are those limitations communicated to the public?

• Public-health communication: Do public summaries accurately convey the scope of the research, its findings, and the questions it leaves unresolved?

  
  

The proposed work will draw on independent expertise in epidemiology, biostatistics, research methodology, and public-health communication. Our goal is a rigorous, credible assessment that communities, researchers, policymakers, and public-health officials can examine. We want the process to be independent, the methods to be transparent, and the findings to be reported whether or not they support our initial concerns. An independent assessment should strengthen public understanding—not simply replace one set of conclusions with another.

What we know, what we don't know, and what needs more examination

This is the standard we believe should guide public information about Rocky Flats.

What do we know? We know Rocky Flats operated as a nuclear weapons production facility for decades. Historical records document environmental releases, contamination, and violations of environmental laws. We also know that government agencies have conducted environmental monitoring and cancer-incidence analyses that contribute information to the public record. Those findings should be available, accurately described, and considered in their proper context.

What don't we know? Important uncertainties remain about the historical exposure experiences of individual residents, the completeness of available environmental records, and the ability of existing health studies to address questions involving people who lived near Rocky Flats many years ago. Not every unanswered question can be resolved through existing data. And not every uncertainty means that a particular harmful outcome occurred.

What needs more examination? That is precisely what a transparent scientific and public-health process should help determine. Some questions may be addressed by locating and reviewing existing records. Others may require clarification from government agencies, independent evaluation of published studies, or consideration of additional research.

The first step is identifying the question accurately and understanding what evidence would be needed to answer it.

Transparency should be a shared responsibility

Rocky Flats Downwinders recognizes that environmental science and public-health research are complex. Government agencies must often make decisions using incomplete information. Researchers work within the limits of available data, established methods, and practical resources. We do not expect every scientific question to have an immediate or definitive answer. But we do believe agencies have a responsibility to explain the limits of their knowledge as clearly as they explain their findings. When a study has limitations, those limitations should be understandable to the public—not confined to technical sections that most residents will never read. When environmental records exist, the public should be able to find them. When information is unavailable, agencies should be clear about what is missing and why. And when legitimate questions remain, those questions should be acknowledged rather than dismissed. Transparency is not a demand for certainty where certainty is impossible. It is a commitment to communicating honestly about both evidence and uncertainty.

Our commitment to the community

Rocky Flats Downwinders began as a community group of people seeking information, sharing experiences, and asking questions about the history and potential impacts of Rocky Flats. Today, as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, that community-centered purpose continues to guide our work. We listen to the experiences of downwinders and their families. We preserve historical information. We examine scientific and government records. And we advocate for greater access to information that can help people better understand their communities and their health. Personal stories are an important part of this history. They help us understand what people experienced and why questions persist. Scientific studies and government records provide other forms of evidence. We believe both deserve attention, while recognizing that personal experiences and scientific findings serve different purposes.

Our responsibility is to respect those distinctions and seek the most complete and accurate understanding possible.

Truth & Transparency is not about creating conflict with government agencies. It is about encouraging accountability, improving public understanding, and building the kind of openness that makes public trust possible. We welcome constructive engagement with researchers, public-health officials, government agencies, and community members who share those goals.

The public deserves clear answers

The history of Rocky Flats is complicated. So are the scientific questions surrounding environmental contamination and human health. Some answers are well documented. Others remain uncertain. Some may require further investigation, while others may never be fully resolved. But uncertainty should never become an excuse for withholding information or communicating more certainty than the evidence supports. Whether we are seeking records of radionuclide testing in elk, examining the methodology of cancer studies, or reviewing historical government decisions, our commitment remains the same. We seek the truth. We ask for transparency. We want the public to understand what is known, what is not known, and what deserves further examination. That is our commitment to the communities surrounding Rocky Flats. And that is the purpose of Truth & Transparency.