POINT 12: THE TESTIMONY OF APPLICANTS’ WITNESS SOL MICHAELSON REGARDING THE HEALTH HAZARDS OF HIGH VOLTAGE TRANSMISSION LINES IS WITHOUT MERIT.
SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY
Sol Michaelson has testified that there will be no significant biological effects due to exposure to the fields of the proposed transmission line (Michaelson 3718-1) based upon his analysis of the reports in his testimony. (Response to interrogatories March 6, 1976.)
The literature cited by Michaelson however does not support his conclusion. (Marino 12420-12427)
Michaelson’s testimony contains several additional misstatements of fact which will be addressed specifically.
REPORTS IN MICHAELSON’S TESTIMONY
1. Hauf. Michaelson discusses the work of Hauf’s group (Michaelson 3726-2 to 3726-14, 3734-23 to 3735-5) involving short-term exposure to ELF fields. Hauf’s work is relevant to the issue of whether the 765 kV line will cause biological effects in people exposed thereto. His specific work cited can be accorded little weight with respect to this issue because it involves total exposures of not more than three hours. Moreover, in later work Hauf has reported biological effect due to ELF exposure under identical conditions of exposure.
2. Johansson Michaelson discusses Johansson’s work (Michaelson 3726-13 to 3727-2) involving short-term exposure to ELF fields. Johansson’s work is relevant to the issue just described, but again is of minor significance because it involves a total exposure of only 75 minutes.
Inasmuch as the reports described above are a complete listing of those cited only by Michaelson, it must be concluded that Michaelson has not furnished any significant support for his conclusions.
ADDITIONAL MISSTATEMENTS
A. Michaelson’s philosophical view of the concept of hazard does not properly apply to the proposed transmission lines.
Michaelson urges that there is a distinction between an effect and a hazard. (Michaelson 3720-16 to 3720-23)
His view is grossly improper however, in the context of this proceeding. A biological hazard in the context of the proposed transmission lines is a biological effect induced in the bodies of exposed subjects, or likely to be so induced based upon an evaluation of laboratory experimentation, which has not been shown clearly and convincingly to be harmless. (Carstensen 6428-16 to 6428-22) Michaelson who has had no training in the law, and who has conducted no human research would reverse the evidentiary burden. (Michaelson 3721-4, 10407-2). His view however, is alien to our legal system because its implementation would constitute involuntary human experimentation. It is totally unfair to impose the burden on the exposed subjects to prove hazard.
It should be noted that there has been a complete failure on the part of applicants to show that any biological effect likely to be induced in the bodies of subjects exposed to the fields of the proposed transmission lines is harmless. Further, the only medically competent witness who has participated in this proceeding has testified that all such likely effects are potentially hazardous. (Becker 9012)
B. Michaelson’s testimony is in error to the extent that it implies that a condition for the validity of scientific experiments is that the observed results be established variation of the experimentally dependent parameter.
Applicants’ witnesses at times, take a bizarre view of the experimental literature dealing with ELF field induced effects. They argue that since it is possible the observed results could be due to something other than the applied ELF field, the research is, ipso facto, dubious. Michaelson takes this view with respect to the Soviet studies. (Michaelson 3729-3 to 3730-5) The criterion implicitly adopted by applicants’ witnesses would establish as equally dubious every scientific study ever performed and every such study yet to be performed. For example, referring to a study by Sazonova. (Michaelson 3729-17)
Michaelson says “It is possible to postulate a large number and variety of factors. other than exposure to the electric field as the cause of the observed differences.” (Michaelson 3730-8). It is possible however, to say the same of every experiment performed or that will, be performed. Such a statement neither reflects adversely on the performing scientist nor advances the state of analysis in this hearing. The point is that Michaelson has no factual information on the basis of which he can contradict the authors of the Soviet studies.
C. To the extent that Michaelson’s testimony implies that American engineers have attempted to obtain information from Soviet engineers, and have been refused such information, his testimony is in error. (Michaelson 3731-9 to 3732-3)
The record shows that it is the American engineers who have been reluctant to seek such information from their Soviet counterparts. The Soviets appear to have furnished all requested information, but the Americans appear to have been quite circumspect in the nature and scope of their requests (supra).
D. Michaelson’s evaluation of the research of Dr. Dietrich Beisher is erroneous.
While he was Director of the Naval Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory, Beischer conducted an experiment involving human volunteers and found that ELF magnetic fields comparable in strength to that of the proposed transmission lines caused elevated serum triglycerides. (Marino 7227-8 to 7230-14) Beischer is one of the world’s preeminent authorities in the field of biomagnetics. The facilities which were available to him during the course of his research at the Naval Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory are among the finest in the world. Beischer’s research was performed completely within the administrative control and supervision of the U. S. Navy, which published his results, notwithstanding that they were adversed to the Navy’s intent to construct the Sanguine antenna. Beisher’s results were independently confirmed by a second group, also within the Navy, under an entirely different research protocol. Beischer’s work was reviewed by a committee of seven experts, appointed by the U. S. Navy, and was unanimously found to be competent and to warrant further immediate study. Notwithstanding the facts stated above, Beisher's work has been impugned by Michaelson (Michaelson 3733-1 to 3734-22) and Miller (Miller 6171-22 to 6191-3). Neither Michaelson, who was a paid advisor on ELF to the Navy at the time of Beisher’s work, nor Miller have any facts or contradictory data to support an attack on Beisher. They appear to be motivated by the certain realization that if Beisher’s work stood unchallenged then their position that no further research is required prior to construction of the proposed transmission line would be vanquished.
E. Michaelson’s testimony during redirect examination regarding the existence of biological effects due to ELF exposure contradicts his direct testimony that no such effects can occur.
During redirect examination, Michaelson contradicted his direct testimony by citing the Soviet studies by Chebotareva (Michaelson 10474-6), Portnov (Michaelson 10474-6), Portnov (Michaelson. 10474-15), Novikov (Michaelson 10474-231) Khvoles (Michaelson 10475-18), and Rakhmanov (Michaelson 10476-17) to support a contention that the literature shows that stationary and low frequency electric fields (Michaelson 10476-11) can cause a wide range of physiologic effects, including changes in blood indices, heart beat, respiration, and widespread morphologic changes (Michaelson 9842-11 to 9845-9, 9865-9 to 9878-20, 10473-14 to 19477-13).
Counsel for Rochester Gas and Electric failed to furnish copies of the complete studies when requested by Staff.
F. Michaelson’s contention that the Soviet Union is not enforcing its standards with respect to ELF fields (10477-20) is utterly without foundation.
When asked by his own counsel. to supply documentation for this position, Michaelson cited articles by Glass (Michaelson 10478-2), Magnusson (Michaelson 10478-23), Rjazavov (Michaelson 10479-10), Dinman (Michaelson 10479-20), Goldman (Michaelson 10486-6) and Sandnutski (Michaelson 10481-16). With respect to the first five references, neither the reports themselves nor Michaelson’s analysis of them (Michaelson 10477-14 to 10492-23) provide any support for his contention. The articles are completely unrelated to the contention in support of which they are cited. With regard to the last cited article, Michaelson says he read it (Michaelson 10481-15 to 10482-1), and he quotes language which he says is contained therein.
Actually, the quoted language (Michaelson. 10481-17 to 10482-1) appeared in the article by Glass, not that by Sandnutski. Michaelson does not have the original Sandnutski reference.
PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND
Michaelson is a veterinarian, and he has published 26 articles in the field of veterinary medicine.
Early in his professional career, Michaelson acquired an interest in the biological effects of ionizing radiation. He subsequently published 35 papers dealing with the clinical symptoms manifest by laboratory animals, principally dogs, when they have been subjected to very large doses of X-rays. In almost all of his experiments, the procedure followed was identical. The animals were irradiated for several minutes, following which the dead animals were removed for autopsy and the remaining animals were observed closely to determine how long they could survive and, when death occurred, the precise cause thereof. In one of his first studies involving X-rays (p-3), Michaelson irradiated 100 dogs and found that only about 20 survived for 1 month following the exposure. In another experiment (p-4), he obtained comparable results. In experiments involving 95 dogs (p-16), Michaelson reported that 250 r of X-rays killed 50 percent of the dogs tested when the X-rays were directed against the dog’s entire body, whereas 1775 r was required to kill the same percentage when only the head was irradiated. Comparable results were obtained when a different source of X-rays were employed. (p-17). Michaelson developed a technique for irradiating the dog’s heart with 20,000 r so as to produce cardiac necrosis (p-24). He described the neurological and clinical changes observed in dogs exposed to 5,000–50,000 r X-rays to the head (p-27) . During exposure there was an increase in respiratory rate with continuous salivation. Immediately after exposure there was evidence of disturbance in equilibrium and vomiting occurred. The dogs survived for 12–16 days. Comparable results were obtained in a related experiment. (p-36). Michaelson has reported that dogs irradiated with 1,800 r were not able to perform exercises as efficiently as dogs that were not irradiated (p-40). In studies involving 52 dogs, Michaelson concluded that X-rays can damage the thyroid gland and thereby induce hypothyroidism (p-45). About ten years after the beginning of his professional career, Michaelson became interested in the biological effects of microwave radiation. Since then he has published 51 papers which deal with the effects of microwaves. In 13 of the papers, Michaelson reported the results of laboratory experiments in which he participated. In the remaining 38 publications, which are all essentially identical, Michaelson expressed opinions concerning microwave effects and microwave safety. His 13 laboratory studies of microwave effects closely parallel his ionizing radiation studies. That is, in almost all instances the animals under study were given short duration, high intensity doses of microwaves. The frequency and intensity of the microwaves used by Michaelson were both comparable to those employed in normal household microwave ovens, and the effects on the test animals were comparably obvious. When Michaelson exposed dogs to .2–1200 mW/cm2 for 2–3 hours, he observed that the dogs began to pant as soon as the irradiation was begun (p-19). As the exposure was continued the rate of panting increased, and the dog’s body temperature rose. Salivation occurred and the dogs became restless. Weakness developed, and the animals became prostrate; thirst increased. In another study (p-37), Michaelson reported that 100 mW/cm2 at 2800 Mhz caused extreme agitation, excessive salivation, labored panting, frequent rasping, impairment of locomotion, acute distress, and exhaustion. In the dogs exposed at 1285 Mhz however, the effects were less severe. Michaelson has shown that animals exposed to microwaves experience thermal stress, and that deep burns sometimes develop (p-43). Utilizing 165 mW/cm2 at 2800 Mhz, Michaelson found that about 85 minutes is required to kill dogs, whereas rabbits survive for 10 minutes and rats survive for 20 minutes (p-61). Comparable results were obtained in later studies (p-73, p-84). Michaelson has done no original research in the ELF area.
There is nothing in Michaelson’s professional experience as a veterinarian or researcher which indicates that he possesses knowledge or expertise in the area of the biological effects of the electric and magnetic fields associated with ELF radiation. Additionally, there is no indication from Michaelson’s publications or his academic background as he has described it in his various testimonies which gives evidence that he possesses the mathematical or biophysical tools necessary to appropriately analyze the research of others in the ELF area for the benefit of the Commission. In proceedings involving the health hazards of various electrical devices and systems, Michaelson has testified on behalf of the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, Rockland Utilities Company, Raytheon Company and the San Diego Gas and Electric Company. In none of these testimonies is there an indication that Michaelson possesses the requisite educational background in physics or electrical engineering to attempt to integrate and synthesize the work of other researchers.
The research which Michaelson performed utilizing X-rays and microwaves deal with phenomena not observed in dealing with ELF experimental data. His work invariably involved the production of immediate and obvious effects following very acute exposure. In such research, both the existence of an effect and its cause, are absolutely certain. There is no dispute concerning the seriousness and life-threatening nature of the effect. The study of such biological phenomena may make it difficult to appreciate the original research of others in which the biological effects do not occur immediately upon application of the radiation, and in which the effect may be consistent with the survival of the test animal for the duration of the experiment. (Marino, Ca., 3846-0059 to 3846-0062)
PRIOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS
Michaelson has evolved two chronologically distinct but substantively identical careers as an advocate for the corporate viewpoint concerning the health hazards on nonionizing radiation at both ends of the electromagnetic spectrum. Sometime around 1968 he became a spokesman for the corporate interests in the microwave frequency portion of the spectrum. Thereafter, all his public testimony and articles espoused the corporate view that only thermally induced effects were possible in biological systems. This public posture was a reversal of his pre-1966 public posture to the effect that non-thermal (low-level effects) were possible. Michaelson’s post-1968 position in regard to microwaves is distinguished by three characteristics; (1) he consistently espouses the corporate view but never provides analysis, arguments, or data to support his views; (2) he has performed no research at the exposure levels at which he says no effects exist; and (3) he has categorized all investigators in the field into two classes, those who agree with his view, and those who perform poor research or are otherwise incompetent.
Sometime around 1974 Michaelson became a spokesman for the corporate interests in the power frequency portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. Thereafter, all his public testimony and articles espoused the corporate view that no biological effects are possible as a consequence of exposure to the electric or magnetic fields of high voltage transmission lines. This public posture was a reversal of his pre-1974 public posture that such biological effects were likely. Michaelson's post-1974 position in regard to the power frequency of 60 Hz is distinguished by the same three characteristics enumerated above.
Difference Between Michaelson’s pre-and post-1968 Posture on Microwaves
In 1967 Michaelson wrote:
Sufficient factual data are not available to establish a comprehensive safe level for microwave exposure because of factors related to microwave frequency which influence the biological response to this energy… Certain findings such as a possible effect on bone marrow and the thyroid must be carefully evaluated because of their subtle nature and questionable relationship to thermal effects… Further knowledge of microwave hazards especially those of a subacute nature are required to establish safety regulations… The present “safe” level of 10 mw/cm2 for whole body exposure, which is based on the average power density for all frequencies, has remained unchanged since its adoption…
In 1973 however, on behalf of the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers he testified before the Committee of Commerce of the United States Senate that:
It is important to realize that the standard of 10 mw/cm2 is a factor of ten below threshold of damage, assuming a long duration of exposure. This is an exceedingly safe level of exposure. It should be pointed out that the scientific and medical communities, after intensive investigations, have not been able to produce any substantiated evidence of injury below the level of 100 mw/cm2… As for the question of sensitivity of the nervous system, based on biophysical principles, there just is not enough energy from microwaves to result in any conceivable effect.
Following this testimony, a colloquy occurred between Michaelson and Senator Tunney of California.
SENATOR TUNNEY: Dr. Michaelson, on page 88 of a study authorized by you entitled “Biological Effects of Microwave Exposure,” you state in regard to the studies undertaken by Soviets, and I quote:The occasional reports of headache pains, sleeplessness, and other highly subjective symptoms among workers in the vicinity of microwave generating equipment have not been thoroughly investigated. These findings should not be ignored, as similar vague, mild and undefined symptoms which have been experienced in the course of microwave symptoms in the laboratory. Such symptoms do indicate a basic microwave effect.
Now, I would say that reading that statement and listening to your testimony would make it appear to me that you have changed your opinion since you wrote these words. Have you changed your opinion?
DR. MICHAELSON: Yes; remember, that was written in 1966 and it came out—you are talking about that blue-covered report?
SENATOR TUNNEY: Yes; it was written—
DR. MICHAELSON: It came out in 1967.
SENATOR TUNNEY: Well, it is “Biological Effects of Microwave Exposure” by Dr. Sol M. Michaelson, Roderick A. E. Thompson, Joe W. Howland, University of Rochester, Department of Radiation, Biology and Biophysics.
DR. MICHAELSON: Yes, that’s all right. I know which one it is. I have written extensively since then and I have been very fortunate in having had the opportunity to read and survey the literature extensively and intensively in the last several years. I have also been very fortunate to be affiliated with many organizations in which these problems are being discussed, and I have been able to critically analyze many, many of the problems and I feel more confident now than what I appear to have been in 1967. I tend to be conservative in thinking biologically and scientifically. We were asked to review the literature at that time and we did the best job that we could. However, we do have six more years of experience now and we feel much more secure.
A few moments before the colloquy with Senator Tunney, Michaelson stated:
There is no reason to believe that current standards are inadequate for protection of the public… Now new data from the literature and now new valid arguments have been presented to change the situation from what it was last year, four years ago, or 15 years ago.
Differences Between Michaelson’s pre- and post-1973 Posture on ELF
Additional material concerning a planned Navy study of the effects of ELF fields on human volunteers, which was submitted by Dr. Michaelson to the Commerce Committee stated:
It may be argued that man has been exposed for nearly three generations to electrical utility effects without apparent ill effects. However, at no time have subtle effects of ELF radiation been investigated carefully. It appears entirely possible that these fields are involved in the etiology of certain human illnesses which have increased spectacularly during the last century. Assanove in the USSR found cardiovascular effects and the asthenic syndrome in 50 persons (exposed) off and on for two to four years to the fields of electric power stations (50 Hz, a few gauss and 2 to 40 kV/m).
Besides serving the needs of an environmental statement by the navy, the study may shed light on previously unrecognized effects of utility power.
Human participants will be exposed exclusively to conditions under which millions of people live all over the world. However, the laboratory environment allows to control (sic) the environmental conditions and to make tests which were expected to reveal subtle changes in the clinical, physiological and psychological make-up of exposed persons. Thus, the services of a. few may benefit the public in general and the specific purposes of the Navy.
At no time before have the biological effects of magnetic and electrical fields in the utility power frequency range been investigated in the thoroughness planned in this project. If certain effects should be found, and our preliminary investigation indicates the possibility, many people will benefit from the suggestion of precautionary measures.
In 1975 however, on behalf of the Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation and the Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Michaelson said that exposure to the electric and magnetic fields of high voltage transmission lines would not produce biological effects in the exposed subjects. (Michaelson 3718)
In testimony in California on behalf of San Diego Gas and Electric, referring to the Sundesert 500 kV transmission lines, Michaelson said (Michaelson, Ca., 5268):
As far as these power lines are concerned, I still think we have had a lot of experience. We have had 50 years of power lines, from very low voltage power lines to high voltage power lines.
This is worldwide, goes for populated areas, goes over farmland; and we really haven’t seen anything. If there were any overt responses, I am sure it would have been recognized by now.
He also testified that (Michaelson, Ca., 5212):
…we also have to understand that people have lived in the vicinity of power lines for many, many years; if anything were to develop, it would be noticed by now.
Michaelson’s position as regards the Assanova study has similarly undergone a transformation; he now believes that the study is virtually worthless. (Michaelson 3729)
The Navy study to which Michaelson referred when he testified before the Committee on Commerce led ultimately to two reports. One report, that of Beischer discussed herein above, showed that ELF fields caused elevated levels of serum triglycerides in human subjects.
The other report (Gibson and Moroney supra) showed that ELF fields caused alterations in the ability of human subjects to perform standard psychological tests.
Michaelson did not mention the latter report in his testimony, but said that the former report was deficient in both its design and conduct. (Michaelson 3733) At the time the Navy study was designed and conducted, Michaelson was hired as a consultant by the Navy to assist in its design and conduct.
POINT 13: POINT 13: THE TESTIMONY OF APPLICANTS’ WITNESS MORTON MILLER REGARDING THE HEALTH HAZARDS OF HIGH VOLTAGE TRANSMISSION LINES IS WITHOUT MERIT.
SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY
Miller has testified that the proposed lines’ electric and magnetic fields do not pose an unreasonable risk to public health or safety or of harm to the environment. (Miller 5820-23) His conclusion is based on his analysis of the available scientific literature (Miller 5820-19, 5821-14) and his professional experience. (Miller 5820-20, 5821-18, 5821-21)
Neither however, basis furnishes substantial support for his conclusion. (Marino 12393-12409)
MILLER’S ANALYSIS IS OF THE BIOLOGICAL LITERATURE DOES NOT FURNISH SUBSTANTIAL SUPPORT FOR HIS CONCLUSION THAT THE FIELDS OF THE PROPOSED TRANSMISSION LINK ARE NOT HAZARDOUS
Miller has focused the major part of his analysis on the biological research conducted in connection with Project Sanguine. (Miller 5819-18, Exhibit ZZZ) The Project Sanguine antenna is designed to operate at a frequency comparable to that of the proposed transmission line. The magnetic field associated with the proposed antenna is comparable to that of the proposed transmission lines. The electric field of the Sanguine antenna however, will be about one million times weaker than the electric field of the proposed transmission lines. A variety of research projects have been funded by the U.S. Navy to generate information to permit evaluation of the environmental impact of the proposed Sanguine antenna. The research projects have been designed and performed employing a frequency, magnetic field, and electric field that are comparable to those associated with the proposed antenna. That is, the Navy program is designed to determine if the fields that its hardware will inject into the environment are hazardous. Consequently, every Sanguine research project involves the study of the biological effects of electric fields of a strength vastly smaller than that associated with the proposed transmission line. There is a marked asymmetry in the weight or significance that the various Sanguine related experiments have with respect to evaluating the safety of the proposed transmission lines. This asymmetry is reflective of the vast difference in the strength of the electric fields between the antenna and the proposed transmission lines. If a Sanguine related experiment shows a biological effect, then it has extraordinary significance and ominous implications as regards the safety of the proposed transmission lines. On the other hand, if a Sanguine related experiment shows no biological effect, then since the electric field strength employed in the experiment is so diminutive as compared to that associated with the proposed transmission lines, the weight assignable able to such negative reports must be correspondingly minuscule. Thus, Miller’s testimony, which essentially is a discussion of those reports from the Sanguine Project which showed no biological effect, is not evidence on the issue whether ELF fields can cause biological effects, and has vanishingly small weight with regard to the issue whether the 765 kV lines will cause such effects. During cross-examination (Miller 5959-5982), Miller agreed with this analysis (Miller 5965-10 to 5965-16, 5966-10 to 5966-12, 5969-9 to 5969-14, 5970-13 to 5970-22,5973-2 to 5978-20, particularly 5978-16 to 5978-20) (170). Thus, Miller’s testimony on cross-examination flatly contradicted his direct testimony.
Miller’s Exhibit ZZZ
In his Exhibit ZZZ, Miller cites the research of Coate (pp. 1–26), Greenberg (pp. 26–28), Goodman (pp. 31–34), Grissett and deLorge (pp. 39–41), Mantell and Marr (p. 41), McCleave (pp. 42–44), Reisen (pp. 44–45), Graue and Southern (pp. 45–50), and Krumpe (pp. 51–52). The reports of Goodman, McCleave, Reisen, Graue, and Southern, all describe biological effects due to ELF field exposure. The reports therefore, tend to establish an affirmative answer to the issue whether ELF fields can cause the biological effects enumerated above. That is, that ELF fields can affect biological systems. Much of Miller’s Exhibit ZZZ is devoted to an attempt to explain away these reports, apparently with regard to the issue whether the 765 kV lines will cause biological effects in people exposed thereto.
The remaining literature cited by Miller in Exhibit ZZZ is some evidence that certain conditions of exposure to the fields of the proposed transmission lines will. not produce biological effects. Since the work described in this literature was performed under conditions of exposure vastly different from those associated with the 765 kV lines, and the weight assignable to it in this hearing is correspondingly reduced.
1. Coate (pp. 1–26)
Miller devotes about half of Exhibit ZZZ to an analysis of nine studies by Coate. They were pilot studies. (Miller 5983-11) This means that they were initial or preliminary inquiries in the areas studied. (Miller 5983-23) None of Coate’s studies have ever been peer reviewed. (Miller 6226-3) A lot of the studies were faulty in design. (Miller 6006-18) The studies were not done at a professional level. (Miller. 5994-17) Applicants’ witness Schwan does not accept as valid two of the Coate studies and has not read the remaining studies (supra). The Coate studies were performed at the Hazelton Laboratories between 1968 and 1970. (Miller 5982-11) A government task force has found serious improprieties in the manner in which research is conducted at the Hazelton Laboratories. The Navy has not funded any Sanguine research at Hazelton after 1970. The Navy has concluded that some of the studies involved erroneous experimental procedures. Some of the Coate studies showed biological effects. (Miller 5995-6006) Thus, the evidence is overwhelming that neither Miller nor the Commission may rely on Coate’s reports.
2. Goodman (pp. 31–34)
Miller describes Goodman’s work regarding the exposure of slime mold to Sanguine strength electric and magnetic fields, and appears to conclude that Goodman has found an ELF biological effect. Miller applies Goodman’s work to people, and concludes that it shows that the proposed transmission lines are safe. This conclusion is based on Miller’s concept of current density. Miller however, admittedly lacks the professional expertise to employ this biophysical concept (Miller 5876-22, 5886-16 to 5886-22, 6085-20, 6088-10 to 6088-20, 6112-14 to 61l2-l7, 6158-19 to 6158-20. 6236-10 to 6236-18, 6248-1, 6236-13 to 6236-18, 6265-17). The results of his analysis are consequently unreliable.
Miller’s view of Goodman’s research is subject to further criticism on the grounds of inconsistency. With regard to Goodman’s work, Miller has testified: “I think that this is an outstanding study” (Miller 5921-17); also that it is a beautiful example of a well constructed, well analyzed beautiful experiment (Miller 5921-22); and that Goodman’s work was “an outstanding experiment.” (Miller 5971-11) After undergoing some rather difficult cross-examination (Miller 6082-6114) however, Miller began to perceive Goodman’s work as antagonistic to his position. (Miller 6114-1, 6115-2) Thereafter, Miller’s attitude towards Goodman’s research was quite different. (Miller 6146-16 to 61561-22) Miller referred to Goodman’s work as having “a lack of appropriate controls.” (Miller 6149-4) Miller suggested that Goodman’s results “may have been an artifact.” (Miller 6149-6) Also, referring to Goodman’s work Miller stated “I am criticizing the experiment saying it was not a properly controlled type of experiment.” (Miller 6156-2, see 6156A-6)
3. McCleave (pp. 42–44)
Miller describes McCleave’s experiments on fish and concludes that they support the premise that the fish studied can detect ELF fields. During cross-examination (Miller 6228- 6235), Miller attempted to explain away McCleave on the basis of an assertion that “fish have special organs for detecting electric fields.” (Miller 6233-13) His knowledge of such organs is based on what Schwan has told him. (Miller 6234-4) Miller does not know if the existence of such organs is a theory or a fact. (Miller 1231-23) Similarly, he doesn’t know if all fish have such an organ (Miller 6233-22) or if the fish in McCleave’s study have such an organ. (Miller 6234-1) Miller has no expertise and cites no authority to support his assertion that McCleave’s work on fish can be explained away on the basis that the fish have a specialized sensing organ. In point of fact, the fish studied by McCleave do not have such an organ.
4. Riesen (pp. 44–45)
Miller concedes that Riesen has observed “a biological effect due to exposure to ELF fields.” (Miller Ex. ZZZ, p. 44; 6236-3) He attempts to explain away Reisen’s work on the basis of a comparison of various current densities. His approach to Riesen depends on current density calculations in cells and in human beings which are unverified and unverifiable. Consequently, Miller’s opinion does not reduce the significance of Riesen’s work.
5. Graue and Southern (pp. 43–50)
Miller testified that Graue and Southern showed that the Sanguine test facility can affect the orientation of birds. Miller attempted to explain away their observations by urging that the effects will not be fatal to avian migratory instincts. Miller has however, no expertise and cites no authority to support his assertion that the work of Graue and Southern can be explained away as harmless with respect to avian physiology and migratory behavior. During cross-examination, Miller testified (6246-6289, 6303-6323) that the ability of birds to perceive ELF fields indicates that such fields can interact with cellular processes.(6247-7). His testimony flatly contradicts the testimony of Carstensen (Carstensen 6451-13, 64S2-3, 6453-7, 6454-13, 6460-23, 6491-1, statements by counsel 6463-20, 6462-17).
The only report cited by Miller in his direct testimony, which is not discussed in Exhibit ZZZ, is that of Hodges. Miller reported that Hodges and co-workers conducted a study for the Indiana and Michigan Electric Company on the growth rate and yield of farm crops grown under a 765 kV transmission line. (Miller 3833-8 to 5833-19) Miller testified that these scientists observed that the lines “did not have any observed effect (on growth rate or yield).” (Miller 5833-14, 6369-16 to 6369-20)
Miller’s testimony is pregnant with the implications that the Hodges study showed that fields of 765 kV transmission lines do not affect farm crops with respect to growth rate or yield. Such an implication is false, and Miller is fully aware of it.
Hodges studied the growth rate and yield of farm crops at three locations near a 765 kV transmission line; directly under the center conductor, 50 feet from the center conductor, and 100 feet from the center conductor. The electric field strength at each respective location was 2.7 kV/m, 4.1/ kV/m and 1.4 kV/m. (Miller 6388-6397) No other locations were studied. That is, there were no control locations at which farm crop growth rate and yield were measured so as to permit comparison with the observation made at the exposed locations. The proper conclusion of the Hodges study is therefore, that growth rate and yield of farm crops are similarly affected by electric fields in the range 1.4–4.1 kV/m.
Miller testified during cross-examination that he was quite concerned over the absence of control data. (Miller 6392-10) He wrote Hodges a letter asking why there was no control data, and telling him that such data was needed. (Miller 6392-12 to 6392-17). The point is however, that there is no control data, and Miller was fully aware of its absence. Consequently, his testimony with regard to the Hodges study is seriously misleading.
MILLER’S PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE DOES NOT FURNISH SUBSTANTIAL SUPPORT FOR THE CONCLUSION THAT THE FIELDS OF THE PROPOSED TRANSMISSION LINES ARE NOT HAZARDOUS
Miller’s professional experience is composed of his generalized educational background and his studies of bean plant roots. Also, after he was hired by the applicants he visited an operating 765 kV transmission line and a bird refuge, and he produced and directed color movies of rats receiving electrical shocks.
1. Generalized experience. Miller is a botanist. He holds a BS, an MS, and a Ph.D. in botany. He holds no other academic degrees. Every one of his published articles deals with plants. His entire professional background has been amply developed on the record. The record shows that he has no training or experience as a medical doctor. Miller therefore has no medical expertise on the basis of which he is qualified to offer medical opinions. The record shows that Miller has had no training or experience, as a biophysicist. On the contrary, the record is replete with instances in which Miller has disavowed knowledge of biophysics. (Miller 5876-22, 5886-16 to 5886-22, 6085-20, 6068-20, 6112-14 to 6112-17, 6158-19 to 6158-20, 6236-10 to 6236-18, 6248-1, 6265-17) Notwithstanding his clear confessions of non-expertise as a biophysicist, his testimony contains numerous instances in which he testified as if he possessed such knowledge. Similarly, the record shows that Miller has had no training as an ichthyologist, ornithologist, hematologist, or epidemiologist. Nevertheless, he has testified about mechanisms and theories within each of these areas. There is an obvious distinction between being qualified to read a scientific report and present the results and implications thereof to the Commission, and, being qualified to testify to the mechanisms and theories which possibly account for the results contained therein. In the latter instance, the record shows that Miller is unqualified as a witness, except as regards botanical considerations.
2. Bean plant roots. Based on a three year research project, Miller has shown that bean plant roots are unaffected by up to six days exposure to very weak Sanguine level fields. Obviously, no conclusions with regard to human safety are possible.
3. 765 kV line site visit. Miller visited an operating 765 kV site and subject to a large number of qualifications found that the vegetation was apparently unaffected by the transmission line. Obviously, no conclusions with regard to human safety are possible.
4. Bird migration. Miller has obtained data concerning bird migration, and has visited a bird refuge. (Miller 5828-24 to 5829-16, Exhibit ZZZ, pp. 50–51; 6278-6279, 6303-6318) He has concluded that two 345 kV transmission lines that are located ten miles north of the refuge do not appear to be affecting the birds’ use of the refuge. (Miller 5829-2, Exhibit ZZZ, p. 51) The implication of Miller’s testimony is that notwithstanding the controlled studies of Graue and Southern, his limited field observations show that transmission lines do not affect bird migration.
Miller’s conclusion is based in part on his observation that “an extremely large flock of blackbirds (was) grazing (underneath the transmission line)” (Miller 6279-13), and on his observation of geese grazing directly under the transmission lines,” (Miller 6279-10) and on his failure to notice “any drastic disorientation.” (Miller 6314-21) Miller’s uncontrolled, limited observations are clearly inadequate to sustain the import of his testimony. (Miller 6316-4, 6315-3)
Miller’s conclusion is also based on some statistical data from page 50 of Exhibit ZZZ. There is no construction of this data which supports his conclusion that transmission lines cannot affect bird migration. (Miller 6331-6347)
5. Rat Movies. During cross-examination Miller was asked whether the applicants had duplicated any of the experiments which Marino had cited in his direct testimony. (Miller 6953-1 to 6958-4) Miller replied that he asked RG&E to construct test enclosures similar to those used by Marino (Miller 6958-16), and that he made movies of the behavior of rats in the enclosures. (Miller 6961-I) Miller testified that he observed that the rats received shocks when they attempted to eat or drink. (Miller 6959-6 to 6959-11) He further testified that pursuant to an invitation to visit and inspect Marino’s research facility, he received a shock when he touched one of the cages. (Miller 6960-4) Miller also said that he received a shock when he touched one of his own cages which he claimed warn a replica of Marino’s apparatus. (Miller 6961-2) Miller testified that Marino was unaware of the problems which his observations uncovered because cage labels obscured Marino’s view. (Miller 6962-3). Finally, Miller suggested that when he put a nine volt battery in his mouth, the sensation which he received was appropriate to evaluate the sensation which the rats experienced when they ate or drank. (Miller 6962-15)
Upon the demand of Staff, RG&E furnished a copy of the movies described by Miller. The movies showed only normal rat drinking behavior by both the control rat and the rat exposed to an electric field of 150 volts/cm. By observing each rat’s behavior it is not possible to determine which of the two rats is the experimental and which is the control. Thus, the movies produced by the applicants show that the rats are not experiencing electrical shocks when drinking. Miller’s movies do not substantiate his allegation that the animals in Marino’s experiments received shocks. Miller’s assertions are untrue.
During his visit to Marino’s laboratory Miller could not possibly have received a shock from the equipment because the only exposed metal parts were electrically grounded. Basic considerations of electrical engineering show that Miller’s treatment of his replica of Marino’s apparatus (Miller 6961-2) precludes the possibility of obtaining reliable information. It is amateurish to evaluate the electrical environment of the experimental rat as Miller did because the body potential of the rat and Miller differ vastly.
Miller’s testimony regarding the position of our cage labels and food troughs is not accurate. During his visit to Marino’s laboratory these matters were explained to him, but he has nevertheless chosen to ignore the explanation.
It is foolish for Miller to relate the sensation he experienced when he placed nine volt batteries in his mouth to that supposedly experienced by the experimental rats because it in no way simulates the actual experiment.
A few moments after he delivered his criticisms of Marino’s research, Miller asked to go off the record (Miller 6965-11), whereupon with reference to performing experiments he stated “I follow the golden rule-he who has the gold makes the rules.” It seems obvious that Miller followed a similar rule when he testified before the Commission.
POINT 14: THE TESTIMONY OF APPLICANTS’ WITNESS EDWIN CARSTENSEN REGARDING THE HEALTH HAZARDS OF HIGH VOLTAGE TRANSMISSION LINES IS WITHOUT MERIT.
SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY
Carstensen has concluded that the fields of the proposed transmission lines will not produce biological effects in the exposed subjects. His conclusion is based on a series of biophysical calculations contained in the exhibits attached to his testimony. The calculations contained in the exhibits, however, are only arbitrary, unverified, and unverifiable hypotheses, and have virtually no predictive value with respect to the safety of the proposed transmission lines. Additionally, Carstensen has given substantially prejudiced testimony with respect to the ELF biological literature.
BIOPHYSICAL CALCULATIONS OF NO VALUE
In his testimony Carstensen described some theories of physics, and then applied them to uniform oblate and prolate spheroids. In setting forth his various theories however, Carstensen dealt from a stacked deck. From among the infinity of scientific laws, rules, mathematical models, numerical data, assumptions, and hypotheses, he arbitrarily chose a specific subset of information which predicted that the proposed transmission lines would induce very small electric fields inside spheroids. No significant consequences however, flow therefrom because Carstensen’s informational subset is not unique, original, or prototypal, and because people are vastly more complex than uniform prolate spheroids. There exists an indeterminately large number of informational subsets, every one of which is equally correct, which lead to an indeterminately large number of values of internal electric field strength. It is possible to utilize equally valid informational subsets and thereby demonstrate in inexorable fashion that the electric field that would be induced by the proposed transmission line in various mathematical models exhibits a variation of one billion per cent (Exhibit G-5, “Refutation of the Testimony of Applicants’ Witnesses Carstensen and Schwan that Based on Mathematical Calculations the Proposed Lines are Safe”). Carstensen has therefore literally assumed that which he purported to prove, namely, that the electric field induced inside his model by the proposed transmission line would be small. Carstensen has conceded that there has been no verification by measurement of any value of the electric field strength that he predicted would be induced inside animals or people exposed to the fields of high voltage transmission lines. (Carstensen 7069)
A further and distinct error in Carstensen’s analysis is his assumption, sub silento, that if he could calculate the electric field strength induced inside subjects exposed to the fields of the proposed Sundesert lines, then he could determine whether that particular intensity would be hazardous to health. For virtually all systems within the body, knowledge of the mechanism of action and control is lacking. Carstensen of course shares such ignorance. For example, the mechanism by which the body controls the healing of bone fractures is unknown. It therefore cannot be predicted whether the presence of any specific intensity of electric field inside such healing tissue would be safe. A similar comment applies to all healing tissue. The mechanisms regulating the production of insulin by the pancreas and the production of adrenaline by the adrenal glands are unknown. It therefore could not be predicted whether the presence of a specific intensity of electric field inside the pancreas or adrenals would affect their function, particularly when the field was applied for long periods of time. Similar comments apply to all the glands and organs of the body. The etiology of many human diseases is unknown. It could not therefore, be predicted whether the occurrence of such diseases would be altered by the presence of a specific intensity of electric field within the subject’s body. The mechanisms underlying the processes of learning and memory are presently not understood. It could not therefore, be predicted whether these processes would be affected by the presence within the body of a specific intensity of electric field. Since the mechanisms underlying the great multitude of biological processes are unknown, Carstensen has no rational basis upon which to evaluate the impact of any specific intensity of internal electric field on physiological function.
PREJUDICE AGAINST BIOLOGICAL LITERATURE
Carstensen has evinced an ambivalence towards the ELF literature, to which he is a stranger. Sometimes he testified that ELF fields could not possibly cause a biological effect because his biophysical calculations precluded the possibility. (Carstensen 6451, 6452, 6453, 6454, 6460, 6491, 6463, 6462) This view led him to conclude that the approximately 65 research groups around the world who have reported such biological effects were all wrong. (Carstensen 6450-6465) Indeed, Carstensen reached his conclusion prior to having read the great majority of the ELF literature. (Carstensen 6476) At other times Carstensen adopted a varient of this testimony. He fastened onto the maximum ground-level electric field that would be created by his client’s high voltage transmission line, and asserted that the experimental ELF studies performed at electric field strengths below that level were all examples of poor research, and those performed at electric field strengths above that level did not apply to the high voltage transmission line for that reason. Thus, when Carstensen testified on behalf of Quebec Hydro-Electric Corporation and when he testified in the present proceedings he fastened onto 10 kV/m. This choice resulted, in Carstensen’s view, in a breakdown of the ELF reports into about 65 percent wrong and 35 percent irrelevant. (Carstensen 7005, 7017)
When he testified on behalf of San Diego Gas and Electric, Carstensen fastened on 8 kV/m, and was led therefore to essentially the same numerical breakdown. Carstensen exhibited still a third face during which he testified that there were valid reports of a biological effects occurring at field strengths below his client’s ground-level maximum, but that all such effects were innocuous and not medically significant. (Marino 12410-12419)
Carstensen has baselessly condemned many experienced and competent scientists as people who commit glaring and obvious errors during the conduct of their research. It is clear that the fault lies with Carstensen who harbors a heavy bias against those who report biological effects which his calculations forbid. Common wisdom dictates that it is Carstensen’s claims that his calculations are relevant to high voltage transmission lines, and not the experimental literature, which ought to be rejected.
Carstensen’s comments regarding confirmation of experimental results represent a view through the wrong end of the telescope. If there is a necessity to duplicate any research, the responsibility rests with the applicant and not with the individual scientist who first observed the biological effect. If the applicants claim that some research report may be invalid, they incur the responsibility to duplicate the work to attempt to sustain their position. A scientific report cannot be vitiated by a mere assertion of invalidity unsupported by contradictory data. Furthermore, it is only the applicants, the utility industry, and the governmental agencies with an interest therein who posses the resources to support duplication of ELF research. Many investigators who have published reports describing biological effects no longer have research support. Carstensen is well aware that there are only three groups in the United States today with significant research funds available in the ELF areas namely, the Energy Development Research Agency, the Electric Power Research Institute, and the Office of Naval Research, and that all three generally do not fund projects in the laboratories of investigators who have previously reported a biological effect due to ELF exposure.
Back to Powerline Hazards: The Beginning