Somebody, somehow, must judge whether powerline EMFs can affect human health. But the EMF blue-ribbon committees were non-representative and unfair, and that is why their conclusions are unreliable as either scientific fact or a basis for public-health policy. At most, the conclusions of the committees were anodyne nostrums for treating the perceived disease of over-concern about environmental EMFs.
There is probably no such thing as a fair and reliable EMF blue-ribbon committee. If you pick a committee of EMF experts, I can predict what they will conclude, and why. If you pick a committee of experts who had no previous contact with EMF bioeffects, I could probably still predict their decision. But even if I couldn't, their decision would be unreliable - like asking a group of expert plumbers to design an electrical system.
Ultimately, EMF blue-ribbon committees are authoritarian. Those who appointed the committee would like you to accept the committee's consensus as scientific truth on the basis of the fact that the members are experts. But scientific expertise is not a surrogate for scientific truth. Not even great expertise, like being a Nobel Prize winner or the President of the National Academy of Sciences, makes a man's opinion acceptable as scientific fact simply because he says so. Yet, that is precisely the basis of the appeal by EMF blue-ribbon committees for acceptance of their conclusions. I reject such appeal, and I think you should also, regardless of what the conclusions might be.
Marino Home Page | Research Interests