The controversial new study was carried out by Professor Steven Wing and colleagues at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The new study involved re-analyzing data from a 1990 report that concluded the nation's worst civilian nuclear accident was NOT responsible for excess cancers because radiation exposures were too low. However, the new analysis takes a contradictory position. Dr. Wing comments:
"Several hundred people at the time of the accident reported nausea, vomiting, hair loss and skin rashes, and a number said their pets died or had symptoms of radiation exposure. We figured that if that were possible, we ought to look at [the data] again. After adjusting for pre-accident cancer incidence, we found a striking increase in cancers downwind from Three Mile Island... I would be the first to say that our study doesn't prove by itself that there were high-level radiation exposures, but it is part of a body of evidence that is consistent with high exposures."
Last year, U.S. District Court Judge Sylvia Rambo dismissed more than 2,000 damage claims filed against the power plant by nearby residents. Dr. Wing complained, "After she threw out the evidence that people had been injured by the accident, including part of our work, then she ruled that there wasn't enough to proceed with the case."
AN EMBARGOED PRESS RELEASE IS AVAILABLE FROM DAVID WILLIAMSON AT THE UNC-CH NEWS SERVICES AT 919/962-2091. The release is embargoed until 12:01 a.m. EST MONDAY FEB. 24. To obtain the full research paper and a reply to it from authors of the original study, both also embargoed until 12:01 a.m. EST Monday Feb. 24, call Tom Hawkins at NIEHS: 919/541-1402.