How to explain that "no risk" can't be proven (EMF)

["Bjorn Cedervall" <bcradsafers@hotmail.com>]

Today there was a two page EMF/cell phone article in one of the major 
morning papers ("Metro") in Stockholm. There was a number of loose 
statements without clear references and one sentence stating that 
calculations showed that the number of annual cancer cases in Sweden due to 
magnetic fields from power lines could not exceed about one hundred (we have 
40000 annual cancer cases in Sweden). One detail of the article was that one 
scientist was called "radiation expert" - a man who, according to my 
knowledge, has published nothing in journals like Radiat. Res., IJRB or 
Health Physics.

(that scientist was BTW involved in that TV reporting earlier this year - I 
think I mentioned something about it here - a program where it was claimed 
that the magnetic field of electric heaters for car seats were "like sitting 
on a nuclear power plants" - the car was a microwave oven on wheels etc, a 
TV camera was pointing down between the legs of a car driver - and it was 
good talking about the 140 nanoteslas which according to the bla, bla, bla 
should be below 25 nanotesla, reference was also made to the increasing 
prostate cancer was also involved in the Hollywood technique)

Back to the article today: I called the writer and asked for the reference 
with the "one hundred cancers" calculation (most of the references I didn't 
need to ask for - they were most probably some of those that can't be 
repeated by independent groups - we have discussed several of them here at 
Radsafers).

He didn't remember the "one hundred cancer cases" reference and then soon 
began to talk about the importance to reflect "both sides" until someone has 
definitely proven that something (here magnetic fields) is not dangerous. I 
responded by saying that it is not possible to prove that a factor is not 
causing this or that. He got very angry at me (I tried to explain with one 
sentence) and said that I was far out etc and I politely decided not to 
continue the discussion. Obviously this was too much for that guy.

/////: Now, my question to you fellow Radsafers: How do you explain to 
people that "undangerous" cannot be proven? Do you have any particularly 
useful examples that helps "common sense" (common?!).

Bjorn Cedervall, bcradsafers@hotmail.com
PS. Heard today of a lady in northern Sweden (wild countryside) who couldn't 
get the morning paper if someone had parked a car close to her mailbox. She 
got sick by the "electricity" from the car. But if the car was parked at a 
distance she felt much better. This is not the first case - I have met more 
of this previously. She had contacts with a CLL patient up north I 
understood - the latter claims that the CLL comes from power lines and now 
wants money compensation (total leukocytes is presently about 7000 per mm3 
(sorry about the SI like units)). She has at least about a dozen of, partly 
and seemingly unrelated, other medical problems also - poor woman - I really 
mean it. A man up there was also pointing out "Curry crosses" and "earth 
lines" (I don't know if Curry crosses etc only occur in Sweden) to them. In 
all this writing, I only represent myself.

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html