Each of us in our daily lives makes myriad decisions on the basis of incomplete and less-than-conclusive evidence. The legislators, executives, and judges whose decisions shape our society do the same. It would be amazing, I think, if most people expected that the evidence regarding powerline EMFs and human health should be conclusive or near conclusive, while accepting evidence that is far less than conclusive in decision-making generally, as well as in decision-making that specifically utilizes scientific data.
As examples, evaluation of the efficacy of drugs and medical devices, the safety of drinking water, the utility of mammographic screening, the risk from pesticides, the side-effects of drugs, the link between cigarettes and cancer, and the role of cholesterol in heart disease are typically based on 95% studies and an evaluation of the significance of the studies according to a standard that is far less than conclusive. There is no rational reason to treat a putative link between EMFs and health effects differently from the other cases where decisions are made in the public interest using scientific data. Whatever the rules are for using scientific data to make judgments that affect society generally, I think it should be the case that there is only one set of rules, and not different rules when different issues arise or where different parties are interested in the outcome.