1 BEFORE THE
2 STATE OF NEW YORK
3 PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
4 ------------------------------------
5 CASE 26559 - Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation and Niagara Mohawk Power
6 Corporation: Pannell Road to Vorney and Oswego to Sterling Transmission
7 Facilities.
8 ------------------------------------
9
10 Prepared Testimony of
11 Dr. Robert O. Becker
Veterans Administration
12 Hospital
Syracuse, New York
13
14 Q. Would you state your name and business address?
15 A. Dr. Robert Becker, Veterans Administration Hospital,
16 Syracuse, New York.
17 Q. Would you summarize your educational and professional
18 background?
19 A. I am a doctor of medicine, having received my MD degree
20 from New York College of Medicine in 1948. In 1959 I
21 became a Diplomate of the American Board of Orthopaedic
22 Surgery, having completed the necessary advanced training
BECKER
1 at Downstate Medical Center, SUNY. I have been
2 Chief of Orthopedic Surgery at the VA Hospital,
3 Syracuse, since 1956, and have been Professor of
4 Orthopedic Surgery, SUNY, Upstate Medical Center
5 since 1963. I have been engaged in medical research
6 since 1958 with particular interest in electronic
7 biological control systems. I have published more
8 than 70 scientific papers and given more than 75
9 presentations at national and international scientific
10 meetings. In 1964 I was awarded the William S. Middleton
11 Award of the Veterans Administration for research in
12 biological solid state physics and biological control
13 systems. I was presented with the Distinguished Alumnus
14 Award from NYU, College of Medicine in 1966. I became
15 a Medical Investigator with the VA in 1972, a position
16 enabling me to devote full time to research.
17 Q. Are you the director of a research laboratory?
18 A. Yes. I am the director of the Orthopedic-Biophysics
19 Laboratory at the Syracuse VA HospitaP-Upstate Medical
20 Center. The staff varies between 10 and 16 people
21 depending upon such things as the number of students
22 on elective, the number of visiting scientists spending
-2-
BECKER
1 their sabatical year with us, etc. The present
2 staff includes three Ph.D biophysicists, one Ph.D.
3 anatomist, two M.D.'s (orthopedic surgeons) and a
4 variety of technical personnel.
5 Q. What is the purpose of your testimony?
6 A. I will discuss the medical and biological significance
7 of exposure to low frequency electric and magnetic fields.
8 My testimony will encompass both the published reports and
9 the latest results of our own research. I will testify
10 that an electric field at 60 Hz is a biological stressor.
11 I will discuss the question of medical etbics involved
12 in exposing human beings to electric fields. My testimony
13 will conclude that the transmission line should not be
14 built as proposed.
15 Q. Would you briefly describe the nature of your research?
16 A. In brief, our research is aimed at elucidating the
17 details of the control systems that living organisms utilize
18 to direct certain basic life functions such as growth and
19 healing, biological cycles, etc. We have determined that
20 living organisms possess certain electric control systems
21 characterized by the use of very small electrical currents
22 and voltages as control signals. These are derived from
-3-
BECKER
1 certain solid state properties of cells and tissues
2 such as semiconductivity, piezoelectricity, etc. At this
3 time our discoveries are being used to stimulate the
4 healing of non-united fractures and to treat certain types
5 of infectious processes in the human. This work is going
6 on in several medical centers, including Syracuse.
7 Q. Assuming that the electric field distribution due to the
8 proposed transmission line is approximately as Dr. Marino
9 has calculated, does it present a danger, from a health
10 viewpoint, to either maintenance personnel, persons on
11 the right-of-way, or persons llving near the edge of
12 the right-of-way?
13 A. Utilizing the concept that 1/100 of the dose shown
14 to be not harmful may be considered safe (in this case
15 1.5 rms-volts/cm) the field strength within the present
16 right-of-way and for a distance out on either side
17 would exceed this level. Maintenance personnel would
18 then be exposed to levels in excess of 1,5 rms-volts/cm
19 for relatively short periods of time. Since our
20 experiments involve long term (30 days) exposure, we
21 cannot say whether or not such short exposures would
22 produce any biological effect. By the same token, we
-4-
BECKER
1 cannot say whether or not any effects from such short
2 time exposures (if they did occur) would be cumulative
3 and eventually become clinically significant.
4 In regard to persons residing near the right-of-way
5 and within the zone of field strength of 1.5 rms-volts/cm
6 or higher, they would run the risk of having some
7 biological effect induced as a result of this exposure.
8 Since the effects we noted experimentally indicated
9 that the field acted as a stressor, I would have to
10 assume that the effects would be harmful. Again in
11 regard to cumulative effects (dose related in this case,
12 i.e., lower field strengths at greater distances with
13 long term exposures) we cannot make any statements
14 at this time.
15 Q. What is meant by the term "stress" or "stressor"?
16 A. A non-specific biological stressor is any environmental
17 stimulus which causes systemic stress in an organism.
18 Systemic stress denotes a condition in which, due to
19 function or damage, extensive regions of the body
20 deviate from their normal resting state. This theory
21 is generally accepted as a useful framework to explain
22 some diseases and to design experiments.
-5-
BECKER
1 Q. Would you explain the distinction between the terms
2 "acute" and "chronic" as they are used medically?
3 A. Acute refers to a short term exposure, generally less
4 than one day and chronic refers to long term exposure,
5 more than a day.
6 Q. Does the proposed safety level of 1.5 rms-volts/cm mean
7 that maintenance personnel should not service the
8 proposed transmission line?
9 A. No, except for the possibility of cumulative effects.
10 Q. In your research, do you use animals?
11 A. Yes, animals are used for preliminary studies and for
12 some studies in which large numbers of individuals
13 are required.
14 Q. In your research, do you use human beings as subjects?
15 A. Yes, humans are presently used in our studies on
16 stimulating bone growth and retarding infectious
17 processes.
-6-
BECKER
1 Q. Would you briefly describe the precautions taken
2 when humans are involved as subjects?
3 A. In the case of human experimentation, the present
4 regulations require thAt any proposed study be
5 reviewed in detail by a committee of experts including
6 medical and scientific personnel (it is further
7 recommended that representatives of the clergy,
8 psychcological sciences, and laymen be included on
9 the committee). It is the responsibility of the
10 committee to balance risks against gains of any given
11 experiment. In regard to risk, the nature of experimental
12 medicine is such that the possibility that all risks
13 may not be predicted in advance must be entertained.
14 In regards to gain, considerations must be given to gain
15 that may be experienced by the experimental subject
16 (i.e., possible healing of a non-united fracture) and
17 to general human gains in terms of the collection of
18 knowledge that may be of value to others or to general
19 biological understanding. After consideration of these
20 factors, the committee must approve the proposed study.
21 An investigator cannot proceed without such approval.
22 It is most important to note that the key provision
-7-
BECKER
1 of present human experimentation is informed consent.
2 If the committee approves the project, each subject
3 must still be fully apprised of all known possible
4 risks, the possibility of unknown risks and the possible
5 gains (if any) he or she will accrue. Only under these
6 circumstances is human experimentation medically proper.
7 Q. Would it be considered medically unethical to apply
8 small electric currents to humans for research purposes
9 without securing their permission?
10 A. Yes, I twould be considered unethical in my opinion.
11 Q. Would it be considered medically unethical to apply
12 60 hz electric fields to humans without securing their
13 permission?
14 A. Yes, it would be considered unethical in my opinion,
15 if the field strengths exceeded that to which we are
16 exposed in the normal course of everyday living (i.e.,
17 normal household ambient levels). In that case human
18 experimentation committee approval and informed consent
19 would be required.
20 Q. Dr. Marino has discussed piezoelectric effects as a
21 possible mechanism of action of 60 hz electric fields
22 on animals; are there any other biological mechanisms
-8-
BECKER
1 that would enable 60 hz electric fields to have an
2 effect on living organisms?
3 A. As I indicated previously, we have, over the past 15
4 years, obtained evidences for the existence of electronic
5 biological control systems based upon solid state
6 properties of living materials. We know, for example,
7 that injuries result in specific electrical phenomena
8 at the site of injury and that these (very minute in
9 amount) electrical parameters in turn cause the cells
10 at the injured site to multiply and heal the injury.
11 This function is controlled by an overall biological
12 control system which is associated with, but separable
13 from, the central nervous system. Our evidence indicates
14 that this control system is based upon specific cells
15 (the perineural cells) and that it transmits information
16 by means of the actual flow of small direct electrical
17 currents, generated by solid state properties of these
18 cells. It may be likened to an analog computer system
19 while the nervous system itself is similar to a digital
20 computer. This direct current system controls growth
21 and healing, as previously noted and in addition, we
22 believe it may be related to the perception of pain.
-9-
BECKER
1 There is evidence that biological cycles of behavior
2 in all organs are linked to the sane cyclic pattern in
3 the normal environmental electrical and magnetic fields.
4 The properties of this direct current system are such
5 that it would be influenced by such cyclic changes in
6 these environmental fields. It is believed that this system
7 may provide the necessary linkage mechanism between the
8 normal variations in these geophysical parameters and
9 the normal biological cyclic rhythms. Changes beyond
10 the normal variations in all environmental parameters
11 (temperature, pressure and other physical variables,
12 as well as social, psychological, etc.), if persistent
13 for any prolonged period are stressful to living organisms.
14 Such stress is reflected in increased production of
15 hormones such as cortisone, in increases in blood pressure
16 and other metabolic changes. If exposure to stressful
17 situations is prolonged, the organism enters a
18 physiological state characterized by Dr. Hans Selye
19 (Stress, Acta Inc., Montreal, 1950) as the stress
20 adaptation syndrome or the general adaptation syndrome.
21 This is accompanied by many metabolic and functional
22 changes which are deleterious to health.
-10-
BECKER
1 Therefore exposure to electric fields differing
2 in frequency and/or in magnitude from the normal earth's
3 field may produce biological effects by (1) inducing
4 small electrical fields within the tissues that could
5 interfere with normal heaing and growth processes by
6 presenting abnormal signals to the cells (under certain
7 circumstances such induced currents may be beneficial,
8 i.e., in stimulating the healing of non-united fractures)
9 and (2) by interfering with the normal biological cyclic
10 rhythm through interaction with the electric system
11 linking organisms to the geophysical environment. This
12 latter effect would be evidenced as a response to stress
13 and with prolonged exposure as the stress adaptation syndrome.
14 Q. Do the results of your research on electric field exposure
15 at 60 hz as described by Dr. Marino indicate that the rats
16 were subject to biological stress?
17 A. The condition of the rats at the end of 30 days exposure
18 was consistent with chronic exposure to an environmental
19 stressor. Chronic stress has been linked to cardiac
20 (hypertension), renal (nephritis), gastro-intestinal (ulcers)
21 and nervous (psychoses) diseases. There is some evidence
22 that arthritis, particularly rheumatoid type and certain
-11-
BECKER
1 vascular diseases such as periartertis nodosa may be
2 also related. In addition, chronic stress results in
3 exacerbation of any pre-existing pathological processes.
4 There is extensive literature in this field and since
5 there are several phases of response to stress, depending
6 upon the length of exposure, I have limited my response to
7 chronic stress situations.
8 Q. Could people susstain tbe same: effects as the rats, if
9 comparably exposed?
10 A. Yes. I know of no significant difference between rats
11 and men in terms of tbeir reaction to stress.
12 Q. Are you familiar with the Navy research project known
13 as Sanguine?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Would you please describe that projectand your
16 involvement in it, if any?
17 A. Project Sanguine proposes to construct a very large
18 antenna array, buried in the ground which would produce
19 signals peceivable by submarines around the world. The
-12-
BECKER
1 system would function with a carrier frequency of
2 45 or 75 hz. Because of possible environmental and
3 health related effects, the Navy commissioned a
4 biological study program involving about 24 different
5 projects in many institutions. These projects included
6 a search for the possible effects of both electrical
7 and magnetic fields on a variety of systems including
8 soil ecology, bird migration, embryonic development,
9 physiological and psychological variables in man,
10 nerve function, etc. A committee was appointed to
11 review and evaluate the results of these experiments
12 and I was selected to be a member thereof. The first
13 committee meeting was held last December to evaluate
14 the results of the first year of experimentation. The
15 committee has been reappointed for this year and I am
16 again a member.
17 Q. You have described an extensive program aimed at
18 determining the impact of the fields associated with
19 the Sanguine antenna. How does the strength of the
20 Sanguine fields compare with that of the proposed 765 kV
21 transmission line?
22 A. The expected Sanguine electric field directly above the
-13-
BECKER
1 antenna is 0.0007 volts/cm (Fact Sheet for the Sanguine
2 System, FinaL Environmental Impact Statement for Research
3 Development, Test and Eualuation, Dept. of Navy, April,
4 1972). The Sanguine field is therefore much smaller
5 than that associated with the proposed transmission
6 line.
7 Q. Does your research involve magnetic fields?
8 A. Yes. I have used magnetic fields primarily as a tool
9 to probe the workings of the direct current control
10 system.
11 Q. Have you published in this area?
12 A. I have reported effects of external magnetic fields
13 upon the peripheral nerve electrical potentials (Becker,
14 Science, 134, 101 (1961) and upon the electroencephalogram
15 from the brain in animals (Becker, Proc XI Int. Cong.
16 Radiol., 1753 (1966). In conjunction with Dr. Howard
17 Friedman, I have investigated and reported on interactions
18 between changes in the earth's natural magnetic field
19 (magnetic storms) and human behavior (Becker, Nature,
20 200, 626 (1963), and, Becker, Nature, 205, 1050 (1965).
21 We have also reported on the effects of low strength
22 magnetic fields modulated at 0.1 and 0.2 hz on reaction
-14-
BECKER
1 times in human volunteers (Becker, Nature, 213, 949
2 (1967)). I was asked to review the literature on the
3 biological effects of magnetic fields in 1963 for
4 publication (Becker, Med. Elect. Biol. Eng., 1, 293
5 (1963). This was done to provide a base line for the
6 experimental interest in this area that was on the
7 increase at that time. Most recently, I have been
8 consulted by the AEC on possible hazards associated
9 with the ultra-high strength fields necessary for
10 fusion reactors.
11 Q. What is the current state of research in the area of
12 biological effects of magnetic fields?
13 A. There has been increasing interest in this area over
14 the past 10 years. Two books have been published in
15 the United States (Barnathy, M.F., ed., Biological
16 Effects of Magnetic Field, Vol. I. Plenum Press,
17 New York 1964 and Vol. II, Plenum Press, New York 1969
18 and several volumes in the Soviet Union.) Of particular
19 pertinence to the present hearing are several reports
20 of effects produced by very low strength magnetic
21 fields (i.e. from 1 to 10 gauss). The most recent
22 was by Dr. William Keeton (Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.
-15-
BECKER
1 68, 102, 1971) who was able to show that the homing
2 pigeon utilized the earth's magnetic field for
3 navigation with a sensitivity and precision that
4 our best instruments cannot attain. His observations
5 have recently been corroaborated by Wolcott and Green
6 (Science 184, 180, 1974) and extended to several other
7 species of birds (Southern, W.E., Bioscience 22, 476,
8 1972 and Wi1tschko, W. in Animal Orientation and
9 Navigation, p. 569, Government Printing Office, Washington,
10 D.C. 1972). I believe that this is an instance of
11 these particular animals developing the same system
12 that is present in al1 animals into a specific sensing
13 mechanism of survival value. Dr. James Hayes has shown
14 that naturally occurring reversals in the earth's
15 magnetic fields in the geological past were accompanied
16 by the extinction of animal species. During reversal
17 periods, the magnetic north and south poles exchange
18 their position. We know only that this is not associated
19 with a drop in the field strength below half normal nor
20 is it associated with any major increases in field
21 strength. Since no reversals have occurred in the
22 documented past, we cannot speculate on such factors as
-16-
BECKER
1 the appearance of specific frequencies or alterations in the
2 earth's electrostatic field. The point is that
3 such seemingly minor variations in the magnetic
4 field are quite apparently events of major biological
5 magnitude. (Hays and Updyke, Science 158, 1001, 1967).
6 Dr. Frank Brown, who is primarilly interested in the
7 phenomenon of biological cyclic behavior has shown
8 that it can be influenced by applied magnetic fields
9 as low as 1 gauss. Since the biological cycles have
10 periodicities the same as the natural geomagnetic
11 field cycles, the suspicion is that tbe biological
12 cycles are driven by the earth's naturally fluctuating
13 geomagnetic cycles (Brown, F. Nature 209, 533, 1966,
14 Enyclopedia Britannica 292, 1966).
15 The work of Friedman and his colleagues may be
16 relevant to Brown's observations in that he has been
17 able to demonstrate that magnetic fields of 200 gauss
18 strength are definite stressors for the exposed organisms
19 (Friedman, H. and Caey, R. Physiol. & Behavior 9,
20 171, 1972 and Physiol. & Behavior 4, 539, 1969). Most
21 recently Dr. Dietrick Beischer of the Navy's Aerospace
22 Medical Research Laboratory has shown effects upon human
-17-
BECKER
1 volunteers of exposure to very low strength (1 gauss)
2 45 hz magnetic fields. The primary findings were an
3 increase in serum triglycerides observed in two
4 experimental runs (Beischer, D., Navy Aerospace Med.
5 Res. Lab. report # 1180, 1973). The Sanguine Biological
6 Study Committee to which these findings were reported
7 was also advised by the responsible Navy personnel
8 that following Dr. Beischer's report, the personnel
9 at the Wisconsin Test Facility (a test antenna similar
10 to the proposed Sanguine Antenna located at the proposed
11 Wisconsin site) were examimed and all were found to
12 have elevated serum triglycerides. The mechanism
13 producing this effect is currently under study. The
14 significance of the elevated triglycerides is in tbe
15 fact that this material is one of the steps involved
16 in fat metabolism and such elevations beyond the normal
17 range are generally believed to indicate an increased
18 risk of arterioscleratic disease.
19 Q. Are you an expert on the possibility of interference
20 with cardiac pacemakers by emanations from the line
21 as proposed?
22 A. No.
-18-
BECKER
1 Q. Would you recommend construction of the 965 kV line as
2 proposed by the applicant?
3 A. No, for the reasons that the strength of both the
4 electrical field and magnetic fifeld produced by the
5 line will be in the range possibly productive of
6 biological effects. I believe that chrsnic exposure of
7 humans to such fields should be viewed as human
8 experimentation, and subjected to the rules previously
9 mentioned. I believe that the most prudent course to
10 follow would be to determine the complete spectrum of
11 biological effects produced by exposure to 60 hz fields.
12 It should then be possible to establish firm levels of
13 permitted expssure both as to field strength and to
14 exposure times.
15 Q. Do the conclusions you have proffered apply to
16 transmission lines whose voltage is less than 765 kV?
17 A. Yes, proportionally so.
18 Q. Would you state for the record whether the conclusions
19 you have reached apply equally to an underground 345 kV
20 line, a 400 kV d-c overhead line and an underground d-c
21 transmission line?
22 A. Our conclusions do not apply to the d-c case. In the
-19-
BECKER
1 case of the underground 345 kV line, it is my
2 understanding that these lines may be shielded to
3 reduce the ground level electrical and magnetic
4 fields to the ambient level.
5 Does this conclude your testimony?
6 Yes.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
-20-