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

["Weiner, Ruth" <rfweine@sandia.gov>]

Bjorn, it's really a multi-part question.  "Danger," and especially the
perception of danger, are generally relative rather than absolute.  E.g.,
mountain climbing is more dangerous than hiking on a forest trail, but the
latter has some inherent danger as well (albeit not much); downhill skiing
is more dangerous than cross-country skiing, etc.  There are no "zero risk"
activities -- even sleeping carries the risk of sleep apnea.  Personal daily
risk decisions are always made on the basis of relative risk, and not always
for the lower-risk option (e.g., cooking involves all sorts of burn risks,
yet we cook or heat food that could perfectly well be eaten raw and cold).

That raises the, to my mind spurious, question of voluntary v. involuntary
risk (mountain climbing is dangerous but I choose to do it voluntarily).  A
interesting response is the old chestnut about driving (or riding in) a car
-- an indisputably risky activity.  If one must drive from one's home to
one's job, is that car ride voluntary or involuntary?

Finally, ask the person requesting the explanation to describe a zero risk
activity or situation.  I'll bet you no one can!

Clearly only my own opinion.

Ruth F. Weiner, Ph. D.
Sandia National Laboratories 
MS 0718, POB 5800
Albuquerque, NM 87185-0718
505-844-4791; fax 505-844-0244
rfweine@sandia.gov

-----Original Message-----
From: Bjorn Cedervall [mailto:bcradsafers@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 1999 2:21 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: How to explain that "no risk" can't be proven (EMF)


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

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