Response: Science, Public Health, and Objectivity: Research into the Accident at Three Mile Island

Abstract

Correspondence small tracts. We then compared cancer incidence and mortality rates in the tracts most heavily exposed with those less exposed, having taken account of both background radiation and routine plant emissions.What Wing et al. (2) themselves did about relative dose is not clear to us. In their paper, no description was apparent, nor did we recognize any consideration of background radiation or routine emissions, both strong features of our overall analysis. We assume that they made use of our estimates of radiation distribution from the accident.In our analysis, we judged observations after the accident to be the critical test in making adjustments for baseline values. We were cautious in adjusting for demographic and other such variables from the situation existing before the accident because of uncertainties in these data. No information was to be had about subsequent migration, and the target population could only be that exposed to the accident and remaining in the district thereafter.In any case, in the matter of cancers as an outcome, our study sought effects of the accident strictly in one direction. On this ground, there would seem to be reason to adjust for the baseline, but only after a positive effect was observed, and this we did. An As one of the best known technological failures of the nuclear era, the 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant has generated its share of controversy, most recently in the pages of Environmental Health . In his letter, Susser raises a number of important issues related to the context and logic of research on health effects from the 1979 nuclear accident at Three Mile Island (TMI) (17). We would like to follow his lead by giving some background regarding our involvement in the study of cancer incidence in the 10-mile area around TMI and also respond to some of his specific points regarding the logic and methods of the original study and our reanalysis.Susser notes that he and his colleagues did not seek the opportunity to study cancer incidence around TMI, but were asked to investigate the accident "on behalf of the TMI Public Health Fund" (17). The Fund, financed by the nuclear industry as a result of a legal settlement, was governed by the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, which imposed requirements regarding the conduct of research and the review and approval of reports by attorneys for the industry (1i). We do not suggest that this led Susser and colleagues to alter findings or purposefully construct research to support the industry. However, to the extent that all research is influenced by assumptions and beliefs from the framing of questions to the interpretation of evidence, the context of negotiation with industry representatives is important to understanding the research product.Like Susser, we did not seek out funding for our reanalysis and, like the original research, our work was conducted in a context that is important to understanding the product. We were asked to review Susser and Hatch's data on ...