(My wife grew up in southern New Mexico)

That there were cancers caused by the Trinity test?

Or that there weren't?

Every person that grew up there lives under the cloud that they COULD get cancer from the testing, or that the disease they HAVE might be more collateral damage from our arms race.

Data doesn't self-collect. Somebody would have to compile it and then check to make sure it's accurate and complete.

Then there are confounds.

"I lived downwind from a test site. That's responsible for my cancer."

"Um, you smoked for 50 year, your house has high levels of naturally occurring radon, and you've survived on smoked, cured meat or on grilled beef, washed down with alchohol." All of which are risk factor for cancer.

That kind of thing can make teasing out the contribution of the test site from all the other factors.

At least this one study gets around one problem: The fact that "random" means "sometimes exceptional clusters occur." It's one thing if you're looking at cancer data and see a hot spot, "Oooh there must be a reason for that" versus looking at one location to check it for cancer for a completely different reason. In the first case, a "hot spot," that's part of the definition of "random." In the second case, you've already made a non-random selection and its highly unlikely you'd have selected that by chance, or it would accidently co-occur with something that constituted a factor predisposing towards specific types of cancer.