In the U.S., unfortunately, "proof" that something has caused harm means
convincing a jury consisting of people who, on the average, probably
couldn't find Japan on a map and around half of whom don't believe in
evolution.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Owen Duffy wrote:

Epidemiological studies often provide "indisputable proof" to people
looking for support for their "beliefs". For instance, if they don't
want a mobile phone tower in their visual environment, then the results
of such studies are elevated to "indisputable proof" to oppose such
structures.

The illogical thing is that there is more opposition to taller towers,
though they are safer from an EMR perspective (both in terms of the
radiation from the tower, and the power radiated by mobiles to
communicate with the tower). That indicates to me that EMR safety is not
uppermost in their minds, and their concern is a misrepresentation.

Thing is, when you depend on epidemiological studies, while you can
create a lot of FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt), you can't really
prove anything safe.

Owen