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

[andrew_mcewan@nrl.moh.govt.nz]

Bjorn

The answer is, "not easily".  I think the usual path of looking at the
epidemiological evidence (generally weak and unconvincing), animal studies
(invariably negative with a few studies that seem to show something with
metabolite x1 but needs replication), and plausibility of biological mechanisms
needs to be followed.  In the case of ELF fields the levels encountered
environmentally induce current densities in the body well below those that occur
naturally, and no plausible mechanism by which health effects might occur has
been found.  This type of evidence can be strong scientifically, but in
principle there will always be other combinations of fields and biological
systems and endpoints which have not as yet been explored to totally rule out
effects.

With regard to your Ps, I understood electrosensitivity was largely a
Scandinavian phenomenon.  However, I have heard of a few people in New Zealand
who claim to suffer effects "from electricity" near neon lights and who "cannot
live" in houses with electricity connected.  To my knowledge no exposure studies
have been carried out on these individuals.

Andrew McEwan

_________________________
Andrew C McEwan PhD
National Radiation Laboratory
PO Box 25-099
Christchurch, New Zealand

Ph 64 3 366 5059
Fax 64 3 366 1156
Andrew_McEwan@nrl.moh.govt.nz


************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html