Not real data.

That's the problem. In some cases, the real data would be impossible to get. You get irradiated, sometimes there's no evidence of that after the fact. Most irradiation is low level unless you're near the source.

The article itself says that they're clean. They didn't consume anything, there's no trace of radioactive materials in or on their persons.

They're convinced. Fine. Some people were convinced back in September that Jesus would return.

Even the hexavalent chromium affair in California turned out mostly to be a statistical bust for all the hype. Deformities, cancer, etc., etc., have a low incidence that varies randomly in the population, meaning there are above- and below-average spots. This is layered onto how conditions that are causal and create hotspots by themselves (or, more rarely, 'cold spots') vary. Even if you have the conditions that might cause it, unless you show actual causality on a case-by-case basis you're stuck fighting random distribution in your argument. Esp. if shortly after the hot spot forms there's a regression to the mean. However, humans hate randomness. We seek patterns; just consider pareidolia if you doubt it. We need to assign responsibility and blame somebody--not just because we need to focus our rage but also because we need assurance it's not our fault.