Researchers critiqued Harvard studies claiming nuclear power plants cause cancer deaths by replicating the methodology and applying it to random landmarks—Costcos, baseball stadiums, and colleges all "caused" far more cancer deaths than nuclear plants, proving the statistical approach captures noise rather than actual causation.

• The Harvard studies used "proximity scores" based on distance from nuclear plants (up to 200 km) without measuring actual radiation exposure; nuclear plant workers receive virtually no measurable annual radiation dose, making it physically implausible that distant residents would be harmed.
• When the authors applied the same methodology to other landmarks, Costco alone was associated with 2.2 million cancer deaths (20% of all cancer deaths 2000-2018), private colleges with 1.59 million, and various sports venues with hundreds of thousands each—demonstrating the method produces false positives for anything.
• The studies are ecological associations that don't prove causation, yet the authors built a public health narrative around nuclear plants specifically without testing whether their methodology would generate similar results for unrelated landmarks, a basic quality control step they skipped.