POINT 4: THE COMMISSION MUST ORDER THAT 0.1 VOLTS/CM SHALL BE THE MAXIMUM LEVEL OF THE ELECTRIC FIELD OF THE PROPOSED TRANSMISSION LINES TO WHICH HUMAN BEINGS MAY BE CHRONICALLY EXPOSED.
EXPERIMENTS PERFORMED AT OR BELOW 0.1 VOLTS/CM, OR WITHIN A SAFETY FACTOR OF 100
It would be cruel, inhumane and barbaric to permit or allow the citizens of New York to be exposed to levels of electric field intensity emanating from the proposed transmission lines above which, at which, or near which, biological effects have been observed in test animals. The proposition is self-evident. Due and deliberate consideration of the scientific literature in evidence shows that many experienced competent investigators have reported alterations in the biological function of test animals and humans following the application of an electric field of 0.1 volts/cm, or lower, or an electric field within a safety factor 100 (i.e., 10 volts/cm) To wit: Frient, at the Naval Research Institute, reported that 10 minutes exposure altered the physiology of amoebas. Moos, at the University of Illinois, reported that 10–150 days exposure altered the behavior of mice. Marsh, at the University of Iowa, reported that five days exposure altered the growth of flatworms. Altman, at the University of Saarbrucken, reported that 12 days exposure altered the physiology of guinea pigs. Reisen, at IIT Research Institute, reported that 40 minutes exposure altered the physiology of cells. Mathewson, at the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute, found that 28 days exposure altered the physiology of rats. Lott, at North Texas State University, reported that 90 minutes exposure altered the physiology of rats. Bawin, at UCLA, reported that 20 minutes exposure altered the physiology of brain tissue. Gardner, at the University of Wisconsin, reported that 64 days exposure altered the behavior of humans. Hamer, at UCLA, reported that five minutes exposure altered the behavior of humans. Gavalas, at UCLA, reported that five minutes exposure altered the behavior of monkeys. Persinger, at Laurentian University, reported that 40 minutes exposure altered the behavior of humans. Wever, at Max Plank Institute, reported that eight weeks exposure altered physiobiology of humans. Durfee, at the University of Rhode Island, reported that three days exposure altered the growth of cells. Konig, at the Technical University in Munich, reported that five minutes exposure altered the behavior of humans. Goodman, at the University of Wisconsin, reported that 600 days of exposure altered the growth of slime mold. Noval, at Temple University, reported that 30 days exposure altered the growth of rats. Southern, at Northern Illinois University, reported that two minutes exposure altered the behavior of birds. Graue, at Bowling Green State University, reported that two minutes exposure altered the behavior of birds. Larkin, at Rockefeller University, reported that two minutes exposure altered the behavior of birds. Williams, at Swarthmore College, reported that two minutes exposure altered the behavior of birds. McCleave, at the University of Maine, reported that two minutes exposure altered the behavior of fish. Moreover, applicants witnesses have testified that there exists an equivalence between electric fields and magnetic fields. (Exhibit NNN) Accepting this assertion, arguendo, it follows that all magnetic field exposure experiments performed at exposure levels up to one gauss are equivalent to electric field levels which fall within the aforementioned range. To wit: Bassett, at Columbia University, reported that 28 days exposure caused altered growth in dogs, and that three to six months exposure caused altered growth in humans. Persinger, at Laurentian University, reported that 10–26 days exposure altered the physiology of rats. Ehrman, at Tubingen, reported that three weeks exposure altered the physiology of humans. Beischer, at the Naval Aerospace Research Laboratory reported that exposure for one day altered the physiology of humans. Milburn, at UCLA, reported that two minutes exposure altered the behavior of humans. Gibson, at the Naval Aerospace Research Institute, reported that exposure for one day altered the behavior of humans. It follows that the Commission has a manifestly clear duty to prevent the chronic exposure of human beings to an electric field strength duty greater than 0.1 volts/cm. Whether the duty is carried out by an order to underground the proposed transmission lines, or an order to widen the right-of-way, by some other means, the touchstone of all contemplated designs must be that chronic human exposure in excess of 0.1 volts/cm shall be forbidden.
PROPOSED TRANSMISSION LINES CONSTITUTE INVOLUNTARY HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION
The civilized world abhors involuntary human experimentation (Nurermburg Code; Declaration of Helsinki, 1964, World Medical Association).
It would be illegal, unconscionable, and involuntary human experimentation to permit human beings in New York to be chronically exposed to an electromagnetic environment, created by the proposed transmission lines, at intensities which exceed the average daily exposure suffered in the absence of such lines. Therefore, chronic exposure to fields of the proposed transmission lines in excess of 0.1 volts/cm is impermissible.
There are a very large number of scientific reports showing that ELF fields cause biological effects. The experiments were performed at field intensities that would be produced by the proposed transmission lines as far away as 2000 feet from the center conductor, and beyond. (Exhibit C-5) In seeking to minimize the economic impact of any order necessary for the protection of the health and welfare of the people of New York, the Commission may deem it sufficient that the maximum permitted exposure level shall not be lower than the average ambient exposure presently experienced by the people of New York as a consequence of exposure to electrical devices other than high voltage transmission lines. The record indicates that a suitably weighted value for the average chronic exposure to power frequency fields presently experienced in New York is 0.1 volts/cm*. Thus, 0.1 volts/cm is an appropriate value as an exposure limit because it does not result in an increase in the average ambient exposure. Any value which did result in an increase in the ambient exposure would constitute human experimentation because there exists scientific evidence establishing that such fields are biologically active.
In New York, “human research” is defined as (N.Y. Pub. Health Law, Section 2441):
any…research,…which utilizes human subjects and which involves physical or psychological intervention by the researcher upon the body of the subject and which is not required for the purposes of obtaining information for the diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of disease or the assessment of medical condition for the direct benefit of the subject.
The physical intervention caused by the proposed transmission lines would consist of the minute currents, fields, and voltages that would be created within the bodies of the exposed subjects at levels where physiological and growth altering effects have occurred in laboratory animals. The psychological intervention would consist of the minute currents, fields, and voltages that would be created within the bodies of the exposed subjects at levels where behavioral alterations have occurred in laboratory tests.
It is further provided (Section 2442):
No human research may be conducted in this state in the absence of voluntary informed consent subscribed to in writing by the human subject…
and (Section 2443);
No one except a researcher shall conduct human research in this state.
The law restricts those who may be “researchers,” and provides for the creation of human research review committees.
Unless the Commission and the applicants are prepared to fully comply with the letter and the spirit of the applicable portions of the Public Heath Law, the Commission cannot authorize an exposure level in excess of 0.1 volts/cm.
Federal regulation of human research has come from the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (45 C.F.R., Part 46) pursuant to its authority to regulate research which it funds, and from the Food and Drug Administration (21 C.F.R. 312.1) pursuant to its authority to regulate research which provides evidence of drug safety. The pivotal consideration in determining whether a human being is protected under Federal law is whether there is a “subject at risk” which means (45 C.F.R., Section 46.103(B)):
any individual who may be exposed to the possibility of injury, including physical, psychological, or social injury, as a consequence of participation as a subject in any research, development, or related activity which departs from the application of those established and accepted methods necessary to meet his needs, or which increases the ordinary risks of daily life, including the recognized risks inherent in a chosen occupation or field of service.
There is a large and growing list of reports of ELF field induced biological effects. Included therein are many reports describing biological effects at and below the intensity levels that would be produced along and beyond the right-of-way of the proposed transmission lines. It is plainly, abundantly, and forcefully clear that the exposure of human beings along the right-of-way, and beyond the right-of-way would place said human beings “at risk,” because they would be exposed to the same intensity levels of the same physical agents shown in the laboratory to have the capacity to alter biological function. The most odious and reprehensible aspect of such exposure would be its involuntariness, inasmuch as such human beings would be generally unaware even of such risk; a fortori, they would not have consented thereto. Thus, chronic exposure at intensity levels above that of the ambient would constitute involuntary human exposure within the meaning of Federal law if such exposure were being financed with Federal money.
There is no responsible scientific investigator in the United States who would expose human beings to ELF fields at any intensity level above that of ambient, for purposes of basic research, without securing informed consent. It is inconceivable that the Commission would authorize the applicants to perform such exposure for the purposes of profit.
TORTIOUS CONDUCT BY APPLICANTS
The tort of battery is committed when there is intentional contact with another's body and that contact is neither consented to nor privileged. (Restatement, Second, Torts § 18) It is not necessary that one be physically injured, or have suffered financial loss. The injury is to dignity associated with the unpermitted and intentional invasion of a person’s inviolability. There is liability regardless of whether the contact results directly or indirectly from the other’s conduct. (Restatement, Second, Torts § 18, Comment (a):
All that is necessary is that the actor intend to cause the other, directly or indirectly, to come in contact with a foreign substance in a manner which the other will reasonably regard as offensive.
(Restatement, Second, Torts § 18, Comment c) Knowledge of the contact is not required for liability (Comment d).
Inasmuch as exposure to the electrical environment of the proposed transmission lines would cause and create within the bodies of the human beings exposed thereto, currents, voltages, and electric fields which when caused and created within the bodies of test animals, have produced alterations in the physiology thereof such exposure would constitute multiple batteries by the applicants against the exposed human beings. Moreover, the applicants have no right to interfere in the lives of human beings and expose them to risks, thereby interfering with the right of people to use and enjoy their own property. Thus, acceptance of the right-of-way proposed by the applicants (and its associated chronic exposure limit) would colorably authorize the tort of nuisance.
It follows that if the Commission were to adopt the irresponsibly small right-of-way proposed by the applicants, such unjust action would effectively authorize a myriad of law suits by involuntarily exposed people. On the other hand, there would be no basis for legal action, either at law or in equity, if the chronic exposure level was not allowed to exceed the ambient. That is, if the permissible chronic human exposure level was set at 0.1 volts/cm.
UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAKING AND SOME CONSEQUENCES
The proposed transmission lines would carry only a portion of their deliverable electrical power within the right-of-way proposed by the applicants. (Marino 12333) A substantial portion of said power, on the order of 50 percent, would be channeled along the direction of the lines but would exist at lateral distances beyond the right-of-way. (Marino 12333, Exhibit D-5) Thus the applicants are petitioning the Commission to order and approve a constructive easement over much more land than applicants would condemn, and in which they would have absolutely no legal interest. Such an order by the Commission would result in an unconstitutional taking of private lands for addition, the applicants would have no legal interest in, or legal right to enter, those lands adjacent to but beyond the proposed right-of-way whereat a substantial portion of the deliverable electrical power would be confined in transit. It is possible to build and market electrical transducting devices which convert the deliverable electrical power from an energy flow, which is the species under which it exists in transit, to the more familiar form of household current. Such devices might operate with impunity on private lands adjacent to the proposed right-of-way, thereby altering significantly the total amount of deliverable power.
POINT 5: THE COMMISSION MUST ORDER THAT 1.0 VOLTS/CM SHALL BE THE MAXIMUM LEVEL OF THE ELECTRIC FIELD OF EXISTING HIGH VOLTAGE TRANSMISSION LINES TO WHICH HUMAN BEINGS MAY BE CHRONICALLY EXPOSED.
The Commission must go further than establishing a chronic exposure limit for the proposed transmission lines. It must also provide protection against existing high voltage transmission lines because the scientific literature which shows that the proposed transmission lines would be a human health hazard, also shows that existing high voltage transmission lines are a human health hazard. (1) Neither the record in this hearing nor the scientific literature allow a precise determination of the most appropriate numerical value for the permissible chronic human exposure to existing high voltage transmission lines. (2) The laboratory research of witnesses Marino and Becker, and other colleagues, which is in evidence in this hearing in enormous detail, shows that exposure of rats to 150 volts/cm for 30 days produces a biological stress response, but that vastly more serious and debilitating results occurred in mice during long term multigeneration exposure to 150 volts/cm and 100 volts/cm. (3) Whereas the multigeneration study of mice resulted in extremely adverse consequences to the test animals, and whereas that research has undergone the most thorough, searching and rigorous cross-examination in the history of the application of scientific results to decision- making by regulatory agencies and been shown thereby to be free of all significant scientific and procedural flaws, that therefore the safety factor of 100 ought to be applied to the electric field level of 100 volts/cm, which was experimentally determined to be hazardous to mice, thereby resulting in an absolute upper limit on the permissible chronic human exposure to existing transmission lines of one volt/cm.
(1) The pages of the record of this hearing are pregnant with implications for existing high voltage transmission lines. It is generally accepted that the cost of retrofitting existing lines to new levels of safety based on new scientific evidence would be great. The Commission, which has the difficult task of balancing such cost against the increased level of protection afforded thereby, does not have before it in the record sufficient data to make a responsible judgment of a precise numerical value. There is lacking demographic data of the distribution of households in relationship to the lines of various voltages, and there is lacking specific research suitable for evaluating the degree of hazard and suitable for defining techniques and procedures for protection against ELF fields. In our society, however, which recognizes the dignity of human life, there is a limit beyond which regulatory authorities may not go in placing the health of the public at risk notwithstanding any financial considerations. The record clearly indicates that such upper limit is one volt/cm.
(2) Mice were exposed for three generations to a 60 Hz electric field in the vertical direction. In the first generation the growth of both the females and males was stunted by 29 percent and 15 percent respectively. In the second generation the growth of both the females and the males was stunted by 42 percent and 44 percent respectively. In addition, the mortality rate was ten times higher among the exposed animals as compared to the control animals. In the third generation the growth of the males was stunted by 20 percent. In other experiments, mice were exposed to a 60 Hz electric field in the horizontal direction. In the first generation the growth of both the females and the males was stunted by 8 percent and 11 percent respectively. In the second generation the growth of both the females and the males was stunted by 19 percent and 17 percent respectively. (Exhibit G-4)
(3) No other specific set of experiments in history have received the attention which the applicants have devoted to the research of Marino and Becker. (Marino 12428–29) They supplied interim reports of the progress of their work from the beginning of their participation in the hearing in 1974. They answered two very detailed sets of written interrogatories concerning virtually every aspect of their research. They conducted five of applicants’ experts on a tour of their research facilities, during which they answered many questions concerning the details of the exposure apparatus employed in their experiments. They provided the applicants with copies of all the raw data concerning all of their experiments, amounting to more than three hundred pages. There has never been such complete and total disclosure of raw research data. Pursuant to a demand from the applicants, Marino searched his correspondence file looking for letters sent to him by other scientists which contained comments on his research. Applicants also brought their own vast resources to bear in obtaining information concerning the background and private correspondence of Marino and Becker which had any relationship, however tenuous, to their research. The applicants actually commissioned experiments to independently test the validity of the results of Marino and Becker, and they hired a statistician to search through the raw data looking for arithmetic errors. Finally, Marino was cross-examined for 13 days, and Becker was cross-examined for four days. Most of the 17 days of cross-examination was devoted to the aforesaid research of Marino and Becker. In spite of the great interest shown by the applicants in the research of Marino and Becker, they have uncovered no flaws therein, nor have they generally alleged such flaws. Applicants’; witness Schwan testified during the direct and rebuttal phases of this hearing. Applicants’ witness Carstensen testified during the direct, rebuttal and surrebuttal phases of this hearing. Applicants’; witness Miller testified during the direct and rebuttal phases of this hearing. Applicants’; witness Ness testified during the rebuttal phase of this hearing. None of the aforesaid witnesses even alleged the existence of flaws in the multigeneration study of mice conducted by Marino and Becker which would vitiate the results reported. Such allegations have come only from applicants witness Michaelson, and have been shown to be totally baseless. (Marino 12469–12472)
It follows from the above that the multigeneration experiments of Marino and Becker performed at 100 volts/cm are appropriate experiments to employ for the purpose of setting an upper limit for the permissible chronic human exposure to the electric field of existing high voltage transmission lines. In conjunction with the safety factor of 100, it is thereby found that an absolute upper limit irrespective of financial considerations should be one volt/cm.
POINT 6: RADIATION FROM THE PROPOSED TRANSMISSION LINES MAY INCREASE THE INCIDENCE OF HUMAN CANCER AND ALTER GLOBAL CLIMATE. FURTHER HEARINGS ARE REQUIRED AND UNDERGROUNDING OF THE LINES MAY BE NECESSARY.
Marino pointed out that radiation from the proposed transmission lines might result in an increase in human cancer and an alteration in global weather patterns. (Marino 12350–12356) Applicants moved to strike the testimony on the basis that it was “not proper rebuttal” and was “not material”. The Examiners granted the motion on the basis that a full evaluation of the issues would take too long. Staff appealed, the Commission overruled the Examiners and authorized a surrebuttal phase of the instant hearings wherein the applicants might be afforded an opportunity to respond to the evidence. Direct testimony was then prefiled during the aforesaid surrebutal phase on behalf of the applicants by Malcom Savedoff. Thereafter the Examiners, on their own motion and without the benefit of argument by counsel, ordered that Savedoff should be cross-examined for no more than one day, and that the examination should be held in Albany. This ruling effectively prevented all cross-examination of Savedoff (letter from Marino to Simpson, copy to Secretary Madison, July 5, 1977) Thus the record before the Commission on the subject of the radiation from the proposed transmission lines, contains the testimony of Marino (Marino 12250–12356), who was cross-examined, and the testimony of Savedoff who was not cross-examined.
THE PHYSICAL PHENOMENON
Robert Helliwell of the Radioscience Laboratory, Stanford University, investigated the propagation of Very Low Frequency (VLF) (300 Hz–30 kHz) electromagnetic waves between Roberval, Quebec, and Siple Station in the Antartic. The two stations are conjugate, each being located at the end of a magnetic field duct. (Exhibit E-5) VLF energy which enters the duct is channeled along it and passes into the magnetosphere where it interacts with electrons to produce a variety of new frequencies and time variations which are detectable at the conjugate point.
Lightning discharges produce VLF electromagnetic waves which enter the ducts. It is also possible to deliberately inject such waves into a magnetic duct much as via the 21.2 km antenna located at Siple. Helliwell found that electromagnetic radiation from the Canadian power system is inadvertently being injected into and channeled along the particular magnetic duct which he employs in his measurements.
The VLF electromagnetic waves which enter the duct pass into the magnetosphere where they interact with trapped electrons. Helliwell has found that the magnetospheric amplification process occurs for an input power as small as ten watts, and can result in a gain of more than three orders of magnitude. Some electrons which have surrendered energy to the wave drop out of the magnetosphere and rain down on the ionosphere. This in turn causes collision processes which produce a spectrum of bremsstrahlung X-rays. There is a normal background of precipitated electrons due to galactic sources and natural electromagnetic noises, and there are intermittently higher counts when a nearby lightning discharge occurs. Thus, the electron precipitation caused by power lines is additive to that which occurs naturally.
No research has been performed to determine either the magnitude or the biological significance of the electron precipitation caused by high voltage transmission lines.
Among the many unanswered questions are: (1) the amount of power that will be radiated by the proposed transmission lines at the fundamental frequency and at the first 100 harmonics, (2) the magnitude of the natural versus artificially induced electron precipitation, (3) the spatial distribution of the precipitated electrons, and (4) the nature of the interaction process which occurs when the electrons precipitate onto the ionosphere, and the biological consequences thereof. Satellite observations have shown that VLF electrical activity has the highest probability of occurrence in regions threaded by geomagnetic field lines that intersect industrialized areas. This result confirms recent land-based observations of the influence of transmission line radiation on magnetospheric dynamics. Thus, there are strong indications that radiation from transmission lines plays a significant and hitherto unsuspected role in the dynamics of the magnetosphere.
THE POSSIBLE BIOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES
The precipitated electrons will be scattered by particles in the upper ionosphere, and in that process will emit X-rays of about 2 kev. Such photons have a radiation length of less than 1/2 km, and are, therefore, absorbed far above the earth’s surface. The absorption gives rise to secondary processes which involve the production of ultraviolet light which can pass through the atmosphere and strike the earth. One effect of the electron rain would therefore, be an increase in the total amount of ultraviolet light which strikes the earth. Qualitatively an increase in the ultraviolet light that strikes the earth is quite capable of causing biological effects. The number of instances of human skin cancer depends in part on the amount of ultraviolet light at ground level. Interest in this relationship has been stimulated by the possible link between freon and depletion of the ozone layer of the atmosphere, a process which also has the effect of increasing the UV which strikes the earth via a completely different mechanism. Thus, the radiation from the proposed transmission lines could increase the amount of ultraviolet light that strikes the earth in sufficient amounts so as to increase the incidence of human skin cancer.
There is another possible effect associated with the proposed transmission line, which is related to the earth’s climate. Solar emissions of ultraviolet light and charged particles varies with sunspot activity. A number of workers have shown a relationship between these variations and changes in the earth’s climate. Thus, the physical factors which appear to be related to climatic change also occur as a consequence of the radiation from high voltage transmission lines, thereby raising the possibility that such lines may cause changes in global weather patterns.
TESTIMONY OF APPLICANTS’ WITNESS SAVEDOFF
Savedoff testified that emissions of ultraviolet light due to power line radiation from the proposed transmission lines, above 1 kHz, could be as high as .02 percent of the ultraviolet light that comes from the sun (Savedoff 13857), and, that this increase did not seem to him to be great enough to cause cancer (Savedoff) or affect global climate. (Savedoff 13866) Savedoff’s testimony however is of no significant value in assessing the hazards posed by the radiation from the proposed transmission lines.
Inexplicably, Savedoff confined his attention to power line radiation in the band of 1–20 kHz. (Savedoff 13853) Inasmuch as the fundamental frequency and the first four harmonic frequencies, whereat most of the power line radiation would be expected to be concentrated, are all below 1 kHz:, it follows that Savedoff has not even addressed a significant portion of the biological problem raised during the rebuttal phase. Moreover, since Savedoff was not cross-examined, the Commission can only speculate on why he believes that an increase of .02 percent in the ultraviolet light striking the earth “is not significant”. (Savedoff 13865) An increase of .02 percent in the ultraviolet light would cause between 10 and 100 cases of skin cancer a year in the white population of the United States (Biological Impacts of Increased Intensities of Solar Ultraviolet Radiation, a Report of Ad Hoc Panel on the Biological Impacts of Increased Intensities of Solar Ultraviolet Radiation to the National Academy of Sciences, 1973). It is therefore inconceivable that Savedoff could provide a rational basis for his view. Finally, Savedoff said that if a change in global climate were to result from emission of ultraviolet light due to power line radiation, one would expect to see a change in climate due to nuclear explosions in the magnetosphere (Savedoff 13864), but, since such explosions have not been proven. to affect the climate, that therefore the emission of ultraviolet light due to power line radiation will not affect the earth’s weather. (Savedoff 13865) Savedoff’s premise however, is mere velleity. To establish that emissions of ultraviolet light due to power line radiation do or do not affect global climate, it is no more useful to associate nuclear explosions with global climate than it would be to associate eating peanut better sandwiches with global climate. In addition, there have been no significant or definitive studies of possible links between nuclear explosions in the magnetosphere and subsequent changes in global climate. It is impermissible to equate the absence of a study with the absence of a link.
The extent of the global hazard posed by radiation from the proposed transmission lines is presently unclear and potentially enormous. Such hazards might be found, upon further inquiry, to be sufficiently great so as to necessitate under-grounding of the proposed transmission line. It would therefore be a mockery of the administrative hearing process to fail to explore the issue in a subsequent hearing.
In the subsequent hearing, evidence should be adduced from independent* scientists concerning:
(1) the amount of power line radiation which will be created, and
(2) the effect of such radiation on the magnetosphere, and
(3) the biological significance of such effects with regard to causation of cancer and alteration of global climate.
The applicants have framed the issues with regard to induced current created by exposure to high voltage transmission lines in such a manner that the Commission was led to conclude (Opinion No. 76-12):
To the extent he is insulated, a charge may also be induced on a person in the electric field of the line. This induced charge can flow as a current, should the person touch a grounded conductor such as a metal fence post. Because of the low level of current that could result in this situation—barely above the threshold of perception for even the most sensitive people—the parties do not urge that this phenomenon is a hazard.
Notwithstanding that the parties did not urge that the phenomenon is a hazard, it is in fact a health hazard of dimensions far outstripping the two aspects of induced current which the applicants did elect to raise.
Consider the class of people who would routinely engage in domestic, commercial, agricultural, business, or recreational activity within 3000 feet of the proposed transmission lines. Exclude from the aforesaid class all those who would be in such close proximity to the lines that a spark discharge or a perceptible steady-state current would flow when any conductor in the vicinity was touched. Thus, the class of people to be considered, which numbers into the tens of thousands, are people who routinely experience sub-threshold electric currents due to the proposed transmission lines during the course of their normal activities. whenever they touch a conductor. Depending on the distance between the subject and the line, the aforesaid currents would be of the order of millionths of an ampere (microamperes), thousandths of a millionth of an ampere (nanoamperes), or millionths of a millionth of an ampere (picoamperes). There are approximately 135 reports in the open peer-reviewed scientific literature which describe the growth altering affects of currents in the microampere, nano-ampere, and picoampere range. (see for example; Electrically Stipulated Bone Growth in Animals and Man: A review of the Literature, J.A. Spadaro, Clin. Orthop., 122, 325, 1977, and the 119 references cited therein. Also Electrical Osteogenesis: An Analysis, A.A. Marino and R.O. Becker, Clin. Orthop., 123 280, 1977, and, Clinical Experiences with Low Intensity Direct Current Stimulation of Bone Growth, R.O. Becker, J.A. Spadaro and A.A. Marino, Clin, Orthop., 124, 75, 1977). All such information has been denied to the Commission. In comparison to the information withheld from the Commission, the information made available is meaningless and insignificant. The applicants have lulled the Commission into the expectation that all problems of induced current could be dealt with merely by grounding fence posts and by taking other similar relatively trivial steps. In fact however, the problem of induced currents is much more vast and has not been addressed in these hearings.
POINT 8: THE COMMISSION MUST ORDER THE APPLICANTS TO GIVE NOTICE TO THE PEOPLE OF NEW YORK OF THE EXISTENCE OF A VALID SCIENTIFIC DISPUTE CONCERNING THE HEALTH HAZARDS OF EXPOSURE TO THE FIELDS OF HIGH VOLTAGE TRANSMISSION LINES.
The proposed transmission line is a regulatory-public health problem with the following aspects. A private corporation (applicants) is manufacturing a product (electrical power). As a consequence of the production of its product, the corporation emits or causes to be emitted a substance or entity (electric and magnetic field) into the environment. Construing the entire record most favorably to the applicants, it can be said:
that there exists a valid scientific dispute between competent scientific and medical authorities concerning whether chronic exposure to the electric and magnetic fields of the proposed high voltage transmission lines and existing high voltage transmission lines produce biological effects in the bodies of exposed people, and also, a dispute whether specific biological, effects so produced are a health hazard.
The aforesaid exposed people are generally unaware that an electric field and a magnetic field are in fact specific physical entities associated with high voltage transmission lines, that such fields are inherently capable of producing action at a distance, and that chronic exposure thereto places their health at risk in the opinion of at least some independent scientists.
The law imposes a strict duty of disclosure whenever an individual with a great deal to lose is exposed to a risk by someone with considerably greater knowledge (Prosser, Torts, 99) Thus, sellers are required to make full disclosure of all hazards involved in their products (Witt v. Chrysler Corp. 167 N.W. 2d 100; Marcus v. Specific Pharmaceuticals 82 N.Y.S. 2d 194). Policemen must warn suspects of their constitutional rights and offer legal assistance (Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436). The applicants similarly have a heavy duty to inform the people, of New York of the aforesaid valid scientific dispute so that the people themselves may investigate and decide whereat the truth lies. The Commission must therefore order that a Notice of Dispute describing the aforesaid valid scientific dispute be sent to every person living or working adjacent to the proposed right-of-way, and that the general public be appropriately informed thereof. The Notice of Dispute should contain:
(1) an explanation of the origin of the electric and magnetic fields and their relationship to high voltage transmission lines; and
(2) a description of some of the biological effects that have been observed in laboratory animals, the intensity levels at which they occurred, and the opinion of those scientists which constitute the aforesaid valid scientific dispute; and
(3) a description of the benefits to society of permitted continued existence of electric and magnetic fields of high voltage transmission lines in the living space of human beings; and
(4) a description of the techniques or procedures that are effective in reducing the extent of exposure; and
(5) an offer to answer any inquiries.
If the Commission fails to order the applicants to issue the Notice of Dispute, then it condemns the public to learn of the issues raised in the present hearing through vastly more inferior and unreliable sources, and thereby casts the entire fact-finding procedure of the Public Service Commission into disrepute.
POINT 9: THE COMMISSION MUST CREATE AN ADMINISTRATIVE RESEARCH COUNCIL TO OVERSEE THE FUNDING OF BASIC AND APPLIED RESEARCH DEALING WITH THE SAFETY OF HIGH VOLTAGE TRANSMISSION LINES.
NEED FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE RESEARCH COUNCIL
The Commission has the ultimate responsibility to ascertain that high voltage transmission lines are operated in a manner not hazardous to human health. It might be asked therefore, from where does the Commission expect that the facts and information necessary to carry out its mandate will be obtained? The only organization in the United States with the capacity to provide such information is the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). EPRI however, is so completely industry-oriented that all material emanating therefrom relating to health hazards of high voltage transmission lines is tainted, biased, and consequently worthless. The Commission must therefore create an Administrative Research Council (ARC) to oversee the performance on basic and applied research concerning the effects of electromagnetic energy on people and the environment in connection with the manufacture and transport of electrical power. The ARC should be authorized to fund research by competent independent* investigators to furnish the information necessary to properly and efficiently regulate high voltage transmission lines and simultaneously protect the health of the people of New York. The ARC should contain a Review Section composed of independent* individuals possessing the expertise necessary to offer advice to the Commission based on the results of the research performed by ARC investigators and that performed by others.
UNRELIABILITY OF THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE
The initial research project sponsored by EPRI (RP-98) found biological effects due to ELF electric fields. After five years and a total cost of $533,000.00 the project was abruptly canceled at the recommendation of EPRI’s Scientific Advisory Committee precisely at the point where the investigators began to report serious biological effects due to ELF exposure. Applicants’ witness Michaelson is a member of that Committee and concurred in the decision to terminate. EPRI has two major projects underway (RP-799 and RP-129). In both cases the experimental protocols have been designed in such a way that no possible result of the experiments will be adverse to the utility industry. (Marino 12434) It is not possible for the experiments to furnish results showing that exposure to the fields of high voltage transmission lines is hazardous. (Marino 12434) Both experiments are being performed at four to eight times the exposure level at which applicants’ witness Carstensen (Carstensen 3395), Michaelson (Michaelson 3717), Schwan (Schwan 3163), and Miller (Miller 5820), have testified is relevant to evaluating the safety of high voltage transmission lines. Moreover it will be several years before the EPRI projects are completed. Thus, their research program provides a false sense of movement towards resolution of the issue of safety of high voltage transmission lines. EPRI has several other projects underway, but notwithstanding that they have provided information thereon to the witnesses for the applicants, and notwithstanding that EPRI has repeatedly held itself out as a public service organization, and notwithstadning that the ratepayers of New York provide financial support for EPRI, EPRI has refused repeated requests from the staff of the Commission for copies of such information on the basis that the information is privileged.
It follows that the research funded by EPRI will not be useful to the Commission in assessing the safety of 765 kV transmission lines. EPRI’s Scientific Advisory Committee is heavily weighted in favor of the interests of the electric utility industry. Its currently funded research does not reflect concern for the actual problems created by high voltage transmission lines. Moreover, the propriety of EPRI’s action of terminating RP 98 at precisely the point at which the investigators began to report adverse affects in animals, reflects questionable policies, and undermines any confidence in the objectivity of their program.
Finally, EPRI cannot be relied upon because it makes available only a carefully selected portion of its information concerning ELF field induced biological effects. The situation strongly parallels that described in a recent headline: "Chocolate the World’s Most Perfect Food—Report of Independent Study Group in Hershey, Pennsylvania."
POINT 10: ALL ARGUMENTS PURPORTING TO SHOW THAT THERE WILL BE NO HARMFUL BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS IN SUBJECTS EXPOSED TO THE ELECTRIC AND MAGNETIC FIELDS OF THE PROPOSED TRANSMISSION LINES ARE WITHOUT MERIT.
Four distinct arguments have been advanced by the applicants to show that the proposed transmission lines are safe.
A. Experimental Scientific Evidence
It is argued that there exists laboratory evidence upon which one may confidently base a judgment that high voltage transmission lines such as the proposed transmission lines will not cause biological effects in subjects exposed to the electric and magnetic fields thereof.
B. Biophysical Calculations
It is argued that it is possible to do mathematical calculations which are properly applicable to subjects exposed to high voltage transmission lines such as the proposed transmission lines which establish that, according to the laws of physics and engineering, such transmission lines will not cause biological effects in the exposed subjects.
C. Utility Operating Experience
It is argued that high voltage transmission lines such as the proposed transmission lines are safe because there are no recorded instances of death or injury or disease of any kind attributable to exposure to their electric or magnetic fields.
D. Difference Between “effect” and “hazard”
It is argued that not every biological effect that may be caused by the electric or magnetic field of high voltage transmission lines in subjects exposed thereto is necessarily hazardous, and therefore, if a determination of the existence of a biological effect is made, there must be a further determination that the effect is a. hazard before the utility company may be required to cease the production thereof. (Marino 12321–12324)
A. Experimental Scientific Evidence
There are two distinct issues which arise with regard to the biological effects of the electric and magnetic fields of high voltage transmission lines.
Can such fields cause biological effects; and will such fields cause such effects? When we turn to the relevant scientific literature in an attempt to examine these issues, we find two general categories of studies. There are experimental studies in which the investigator observed a cause and effect relationship between the applied field and the parameter being measured (“found an effect”), which shall be referred to as ELF-plus reports. Similarly, there are studies in which the investigator failed to observe such a relationship (ELF-minus). Thus, there arises the question of which group of studies logically constitute acceptable scientific evidence for each issue.
ELF-minus reports have evidentiary value on the issue whether high voltage transmission lines, such as the proposed transmission lines, can cause biological effects in exposed subjects in only two cases, (1) wherein ELF-plus reports do not exist, and (2) wherein both ELF-minus and ELF-plus exist and contradict one another. Neither case applies in the present hearing. (supra and Exhibit C-5) In all cases other than those enumerated above, the ELF-minus reports merely establish the existence of certain conditions for which a specific effect is not observed. The establishment or enlargement of this limited class does not make it more likely that the class of all conditions will be unproductive of a biological effect, because the ELF-plus already exists. Thus, the ELF-minus serve no evidentiary purpose with respect to the issue of the possibility of biological effects.
The ELF-minus reports have evidentiary significance with regard to the issue of whether the proposed transmission line will cause physiological, growth, or behavioral effects in the exposed subjects. The weight accorded to each report will depend on how closely it relates to the actual conditions that would prevail if the proposed transmission line were to be constructed. Thus, the ELF-minus experiments performed in connection with Project Sanguine (Sanguine-ELF-minus), will clearly have significance and some weight on the issue whether the Sanguine antenna will cause biological effects. The Sanguine experiments, however, were performed at Sanguine field strengths, which are about one million times less intense than the field strength, of the proposed transmission line. Therefore, the Sanguine-ELF-minus reports, although of significance in this proceeding on the issue stated, can be accorded little, weight. Indeed, all ELF-minus reports thus far cited in the present proceeding can be afforded little weight with respect to the issue whether the electric and magnetic fields of high voltage transmission lines will cause biological effects in subjects exposed thereto because, in each instance, the studies were performed under laboratory conditions of exposure that were vastly less intense than those that prevail near typical high voltage transmission lines with respect to applied field strength and duration of exposure.
The ELF-plus reports are the only proper scientific evidence on. the first issue stated above. They establish beyond reasonable doubt that ELF fields can cause biological effects. They are obviously evidence on the issue whether high voltage transmission lines such as the proposed lines will produce such effects in the exposed subjects, and are open to the same test for weight as described above.
It must therefore be concluded that the ELF experimental literature affords the proponents of high voltage transmission lines, such as the proposed transmission lines, no substantial support that exposure of the general population to the electric and magnetic fields of such lines will not cause biological effects.
B. Biophysical Calculations
By biophysical calculations are meant mathematical computations involving biological systems on the basis of which it is argued that some effect can, or will, or cannot, or must, occur as a consequence of ELF field exposure. Arguments based on theoretical calculations of necessity depend on numerous unverified and unverifiable assumptions concerning the nature of the physical system wider investigation. Theoretical calculations of the possibility of ELF electric or magnetic field biological effects are properly employed to guide scientists in the choice of experiments. They are, however, not evidence because they are incapable of conveying information bearing on the likelihood of any biological effect due to ELF field exposure. Before any theoretical calculation, one knows that any given biological effect is either impossible, possible, probable, or definite. The calculation leaves the situation unchanged. This chronic infirmity of theoretical calculations is recognized in other forums. A review of the major environmental health issues raised in the United States has not revealed a single example wherein a state or federal regulatory agency or court has given decisional impact to theoretical calculations showing the absence of the possibility of a biological effect when competent investigators have reported such effects. (Marino 12322) Theoretical calculations are therefore, not evidence on either issue discussed above.
C. Utility Operating Experience
While it is true that no documented instances of harm to members of the public have resulted from exposure to the electric or magnetic field of existing high voltage transmission lines, such as the proposed lines, it is likewise true that no significant epidemiological studies have been performed upon which a claim that no such harm has occurred might be based. At best therefore, the claim rests upon brief and uncontrolled observations to the general effect that existing lines do not appear to be causing harm in the exposed subjects. The absence of gross, immediate, acute, and obvious effects on health when one passes near a high voltage transmission line is indeed a kind of low-level indication, that such lines are not obviously hazardous. Even though most people probably do not know what electric or magnetic fields are, if very gross sorts of things happened to people or animals in the vicinity of a transmission line, then surely a connection between them and the line would be made. When one entertains the idea of mere subtle effects occurring, the brief and uncontrolled observations are utterly inadequate for the purposes of assessing hazard. By way of example, if the absence of proper epidemiological studies together with brief and uncontrolled observations were sufficient to indicate the absence of subtle hazard, then the absence of parallel together with parallel observations in the controversy surrounding the depletion of atmospheric ozone or surrounding the contamination of the watershed by chlorinated hydrocarbons could be viewed as evidence that these phenomena are not hazardous to human health. Since such an argument is unreasonable, it must be concluded that the operating experience of the utility companies affords no substantial evidence that high voltage transmission lines such as the proposed lines are safe. The only rational legal basis for standards setting for high voltage transmission lines is an evaluation of the probability of risk, and not a demand for a proof of effect.
D. Difference Between “effect” and “hazard”
Let us assume that the proposed lines caused a biological effect in some part of the general population exposed thereto. The assumed biological effect may be any physiological, growth, or behavioral effect.
In such a situation, there is a strong presumption that the biological effect is potentially hazardous. There are no instances in which a state or federal, court, or administrative agency indulged in the contrary presumption. (Marino 12329) There is no precedent for an argument by the private corporation that they should not be regulated because the effect that they caused in the exposed subjects had not been proved hazardous.
The presumption of hazard arises directly from the proscription against involuntary human experimentation. To urge that a biological effect induced in a subject exposed to the fields of high voltage transmission lines should not be prevented until it. has been shown to be hazardous is tantamount to urging the performance of human experimentation to evaluate the degree of biological insult caused by the transmission lines. Moreover, such human experimentation would be involuntary since, in the setting described above, informed consent is not obtained. Since involuntary human experimentation is a completely unacceptable alternative, it follows that any biological effect caused by high voltage transmission in exposed subjects is strongly presumed to be hazardous.
It must therefore be concluded that there is no basis for a distinction between an “effect” and a “hazard” in the context of high voltage transmission lines such as the proposed lines, and that such a distinction is medically unethical (Becker 9004) and legally unprecedented.