This looks like the claim I came across. That EM charges particles (creating ions) and that these ions attract pollutants. I mentioned it earlier but I couldn't find anything to back it up. It was only ever an hypothesis anyway but IEE rebuke it...http://www.em-surveys.co.uk/Overhead%20Lines.html
That article certainly pwned that theory.
It contains a strange (if sorta OT) line though:
"Biology today cannot provide an accepted biological mechanism for the causation or promotion of cancer."
I doubt that was true even 3 years ago.
Edited to add
An oncologist I know just said about the line above re. cancer biology;
"This is a ridiculous statement, clearly made by someone who has no connection or knowledge of cancer research. There is no excuse for such ignorance given the wealth of public sites and information about cancer research on the web. For the first time in history we have technologies that can completely profile the entire genetic information content of the cancer cell and compare this to untransformed cells (eg. genome sequencing, and array platforms enabling information about single nucleotide polymorphisms, comparative genomic hybridization, complete transcriptome etc etc). And this is not just in a petri dish, but actual tumours. we are beginning to understand why cancers respond to fail to respond to conventional and novel therapies, and this too is beginning to have an impact on medical practice. There is an overwhelming volume of data being generated daily in the literature reflecting this. The goal is now to exploit this knowledge to improve therapy, which I'm happy to say is happening."
So there! Right, now my contact has pwned the writer of the article I commended with explaining the irrelevance of the charged dust theory (which sounds like something from the Golden Compass film).