Introduction

Federal health agencies conducted a major health study on people in the Hanford,

Washington area who were potentially exposed to 740,000 curies of radioactive

iodine in the 1940s and 1950s. The Hanford Thyroid Disease Study involved an

extensive attempt to reconstruct doses of people born in areas potentially exposed

to radiation from the Hanford plutonium production facility in the 1940s and

1950s. Many of these people studied were those who were offered screening

for thyroid problems [1]. The accuracy of the scientific study was a function of

a large number of assumptions including the magnitude and timing of releases,

modeling of weather conditions, dispersion of fallout through the food chain,

and individual behaviors. In the year 1999, the HTDS researchers reported that

these radioactive releases were not related to excess thyroid diseases in the

Hanford downwind area. Many of the affected people in the area could not

believe these findings, felt very strongly that the study was flawed, and saw that

there would be no further public health assistance for them from these negative

findings. This Hanford study is a critical case example for examining the ethics

and fairness of health studies and how scientific studies can benefit or harm

researched communities.