I am writing to comment about science and health risks. Over the past few years, a minority of Maine residents and other Americans have made claims about the alleged health risks posed by smart meters, chemicals such as BPA, wind turbines and vaccines.

Apparently, all they have to do is say that “many studies” support their claims, and it becomes fact.

Science is progressing all of the time, but the far majority of studies currently do not support their claims. That is a fact.

It is also not appropriate to cite differing regulations of chemicals by the World Health Organization or European Union as compared to the United States. In general, these organizations follow the precautionary principal, which is about as unscientific as you can get, since it is based on trying to absolutely prove the negative (e.g., no studies even hint that smart meters are a health risk).

Accepting one or two or three studies that suggest a risk exists and ignoring hundreds that do not is not how scientific or public policy should work. And when organizations like the Maine Public Utilities Commission gives in to these extremists, as it did for smart meters, it discredits the scientific community and emboldens opponents to target other unsubstantiated risks.

All of the examples cited above have improved our quality of life whether through creating clean energy, reducing childhood illness or making plastics more durable. If at some time, the risk is determined to be more significant than the benefit, then they can be re-evaluated. But guilty until proven innocent is not smart science.

Keith Taylor

Hallowell

Copy the Story Link