The point of these citations is to display common rhetorical techniques in conspiracy theories and pseudo-science, as described in more detail via the button below. The present page does not contain primary scientific references--for these, read the documents under science.

Dr. Harvey Nichols, Changing Denver podcast, Rocky Flats Chapter 4, July 2nd, 2018

I suspect that there is some sort of conspiracy. This wouldn’t be the first time there was a conspiracy at Rocky Flats.

There, he said it. Context: parallels between anti-Refuge activists and anti-vaxxers. Nichols has a Ph.D in meteorology, has worked in arctic paleo-ecology. Those who know the data know that a conspiracy is not possible. It would require collusion among multiple federal and academic institutions, extending from the last 1970s through the present, not simply within the U.S., but abroad [soil data, epidemiology, radiological clean-ups around the world reference the Rocky Flats cleanup]. Such a statement is an insult to public servants in Colorado and within various pieces of the federal government. Surprising that Nichols does not acknowledge the existence of credentials, reputation among peers, and professional conduct.

Dr. Sasha Stiles, transcript of March 22, 2018

I couldn't find anything. There's nothing on Rocky Flats. Now, that's not quite true. And as Randy alluded to, Carl Johnson wrote an excellent cohort study, what that means is he took he took people who lived in three different areas close to Rocky Flats, and I believe one area that was far away, and he did all the kinds of scientific research where you compare all sorts of things, to see what the relationship was. And indeed, and that was done from a window period of 1969 to 71, he found a lot of problems with plutonium, and that it was pretty clear that there was, that was a disease related to the plutonium in Rocky Flats. 

The claim is buffoonish. A quick look at my RF bibliography reveals 47 published health or epidemiology-related articles which included Rocky Flats in the title, abstract, or contents, 4 CDPHE publications (I'm sure there are many more), without counting NIOSH and technical reports. Many are about the health of plant workers, but many are also about the surrounding population. The appeal to a 52-year old references is typical of conspiracy theories--they categorically reject modern data and work by the CDPHE or DOE. FYI: Carl Johnson's raw data was found to be good, but

Randy Stafford, transcript of March 22, 2018

And there's a woman whose teenage son was diagnosed with cardiac angiosarcoma, which is an extremely rare heart cancer. And it's a radio sensitive cancer. And it's possible I would even go so far as to say probable that this boy inhaled a piece of plutonium oxide dust, and it was carried from his lungs to his heart and lodged in his heart and the alpha emissions irradiated surrounding cells. 

Radiation does not in general cause rare cancers, it causes the usual ones; many early-onset cancers are genetic. Cardiac angiosarcoma is in fact the most common of all primary malignant heart tumors, and more frequently occurs after breast cancer radiation treatment. Such treatments involve doses in the ballpark of 2 Sv doses on each of 30 days, about 60 Sv, to be compared with 3 mSv as a typical Colorado background radiation dose per year. How did he go from possible to probable? Rocky Flats workers have inhaled several hundred thousand hot particles xxxx The carefully-designed International Commission of Radiological Protection description includes many pathways between organ systems, but there is no evidence of a lung-to-heart pathway.

Randy Stafford, letter of July 21, 2019 to Broomfield City Council,

Plutonium is an insoluble alpha- emitting particle. [Not a particle; PuO2 is insoluble, not Pu]...

Why would you choose to believe Dr. Wood’s opinions over the authoritative testimony of these historically giant experts in their fields?

Mr. Stafford then quotes 44 year old testimony by several people In the fallacious argument classification this is known as "appeal to authority": the points made are not refuted but 'authorities' are cited.

David Wood’s academic specialization was in semiconductors.

(Mr. Stafford has an undergraduate degree in computer science.) This is termed an ad hominem attack--attacking the messenger, not refuting the argument.