As Coory and Jordan point out, probabilities linked to cancer cluster reports must take into account the cherry-picking nature of the reported clusters in order to avoid a large number of false-positive results. These authors must be congratulated for bringing this difficult issue to debate and for summarizing several of the challenges facing researchers. In fact, the challenges are so large that the authors conclude that statistical assessments are impossible to interpret and, rather than assisting, they impair decisionmaking. Their final recommendation is to remove the statistical assessment of chance from protocols for investigating clusters in favour of emphasizing exposure assessment. A principal feature of cancer cluster reports in most countries has been the quick dismissal of the large majority of cases after initial contact. Even for the minority in which an investigation is conducted, neither a plausible biological cause nor an environmental exposure is commonly identified. Goodman et al. evaluated more than 400 reports from cancer cluster investigations carried out since 1990 in the USA, evaluating more than 500 cancers of concern. A statistical increase in incidence was confirmed in 72 of these, but only three were linked to hypothetical exposures, and only one identified a clear cause. The main statistical concern of Coory and Jordan is what they call ‘silent multiple comparisons’ when calculating P-values and confidence intervals associated with the significance of the cancer clusters. Their criticism is valid, since most of these statistical summaries are calculated as if the reported cancer cluster were not picked from among numerous other potential clusters. These unaccounted potential clusters compose the silent comparisons. The authors discuss the use of Bonferroni-type corrections to calculate an approximation for the true P-value associated with given evidence. Coory and Jordan mention also the harder problem that a reference population can be defined arbitrarily. Considering an example of a cluster at the city of Brisbane, they mention that a putative cluster could be evaluated with respect to the population of Brisbane, or the state of Queensland, or the entire Australian population. They show that the P-value can be quite different depending on this choice, if using Bonferroni corrections. There are two problems with this argument. The first is that the public health officials in charge of replying to the cancer reports typically have a population to whom they are accountable. This is the natural reference population. The second problem is that, to carry out the authors’ recommendations, at some point some reference population must be selected, and the conclusions will depend on this selection. The common definition for a disease cluster is the occurrence of a greater than expected number of cases of a particular disease within a group of people, a geographical area or a period of time. It will be virtually impossible to start any cluster investigation, including probing for exposure assessment as the authors suggest, if we do not have a measure of how extreme the occurrence is. One common measure, suggested by the authors, is the standardized incidence ratio, SIR1⁄4O/E, where O is the observed number of cases reported for the cluster, and E is the expected number of cases that would have occurred inside the cluster by taking into account age-specific rates of the entire reference population. Therefore, the SIR itself needs a reference population. Its calculation would also produce different results if the Brisbane, Queensland or Australian population is taken as the reference population, although its impact on E is likely to be much smaller than in Bonferroni correction calculations. Public health officials should have this reference population predetermined before any cluster reports are made. Concerning the multiple comparison problem, statisticians have been working hard as this problem appears in many other application areas such as, for Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Epidemiological Association