> No one has even proposed a viable mechanism for how weak
> lectromagnetic fields could cause cancer.

There are some people doing research on just that. They are, presumably, proposing viable mechanisms.

e.g.

http://depts.washington.edu/bioe/people/core/lai/lai.html

who wrote:

Lai, H. Neurological effects of microwave irradiation. In: Advances in Electro-magnetic Fields in Living Systems (Vol. 1), J.C. Lin (ed.), Plenum Press, New York, 1994.



-----------------------------

> The summary of the primary literature Adams
> cites claims that 67 of 106 articles find a
> link between secondhand smoke and health risks
> in humans (cancer, heart disease, etc.),
> which he misinterprets as "a tie".

His misinterpretation is actually a really painful abuse of statistics. A 95% confidence interval is an attempt to achieve a five percent false positive. Instead, he says "Given the statistical nature of these studies, this split in results is precisely what one would expect if no true link existed.". It's precisely what one would expect if you flipped a coin, I guess. Maybe he thinks studies are like weighted coin flips or something.