INTERPRETATION OF THE HEARINGS
"For the believer, no more evidence is necessary; for the unbeliever, none will suffice." -Anon
All witnesses considered the same body of experimental information; thus, when their testimony differed, it reflected differences in their perceptions rather than differences in information. As a consequence, their evaluations matters of interpretations the variety of viewpoints among the witnesses, it is unlikely that they would agree on the probable biological consequences of constructing a power line according to the proposed design parameters. Nevertheless, all are willing to recommend whether or not construction should proceed on the basis of currently available information. Moreover, all call for further research on power line characteristics because little information exists from controlled and well-scrutinized studies. Indeed, the uncertainties associated with using information from studies not designed to bear directly on potential power line hazards appear to influence the differences among the witnesses significantly.
The inseparability of each witness's testimony from his conception of the biological effects of electromagnetic fields is illustrated by the summaries that follow. Five of the witnesses -- Michaelson, Miller, Schwan, Carstensen, and Frey -- recommend construction. Two of the witnesses -- Marino and Becker -- are opposed.
Solomon M. Michaelson, concludes that the proposed lines will not pose an electromagnetic hazard. He bases this conclusion on his review of the literature and his long association with experimental work in the biological effects of non ionizing radiation. He differentiates between effect and hazard, defining the latter as an effect that compromises function or overcomes recovery capability. He emphasizes evidence from studies on humans and mammals. He rejects, as not pertinent, evidence from studies in which the electromagnetic parameters widely depart from those projected for the proposed lines. He accepts a lack of statistically significant effect as the criterion of safety.
"The fact that a living organism responds to many stimuli is a part of the the process of living; such responses are examples of effects...these effects may well be within the capability of the organism to maintain a normal equilibrium...if...an effect...compromises the individual's ability to function properly or overcomes the recovery capability of the individual...then this effect may be considered a hazard." -- Michaelson
Morton W. Miller, predicts no unreasonable risks to health or safety or harm to the environment from the electromagnetic fields resulting from the proposed lines. He bases his predictions on his review of the literature and his field observations of plant life under power lines. He differentiates between effects and hazard, viewing lack of a statistically significant effect as a criterion of no hazard. He admits that his experimental research has essentially been limited to plant studies, but believes that he can also evaluate the evidence from animal studies adequately.
"While continued research is always desirable to advance the state of technology, it is my considered professional opinion that current state of art with respect to the potential of adverse biological effects from the electric and magnetic fields resulting from the operation of these lines."" --Miller
Herman P. Schwan, represents the theoretical approach to hazard evaluation. Concerning himself only with irreversible effects, he concludes that only electromagnetic fields of sufficient magnitude to (1) produce volume heating, (2) change membrane permeability, or (3) result in excitation could be potentially hazardous. Because he calculates that electromagnetic fields from the proposed powerline at ground level will be several orders of magnitude below the threshold values for producing any of these three phenomena, he concludes that no tissue structure, biology, hazard will occur. He accepts experimental findings that do not fit with biophysical theory only if they are unequivocally free of artifacts or alternative causative interpretation and have been confirmed by other findings. It appears that he, like virtually all scientists, does not demand the same rigorous examination of findings that agree with biophysical theory.
". . . basic biophysical principles as applied to molecular consideration, what is known about tissue structure, biology, morphology of tissue, current density distributions, et cetera, permits [sic] us to make the statements which I have made in my testimony. --Schwan
Edwin L. Carstensen, concludes that the electromagnetic fields from the proposed power line will not constitute a significant risk to human health or safety, or to the environment. For him, the theoretical approach provides a sound basis for assessing results based on experimental evidence, and he believes that the theoretical and experimental approaches, taken together, allow for greater confidence in making conclusions. However, in the testimony, he relies heavily on the biophysical approach. He finds that information available about reported biological effects is either inapplicable because the physical characteristics differ from those predicted for the power line or because the effects are inconsistent with current theory and thus suspect in the absence of confirmation. He discusses two important concepts: (1) the differences between duplication and confirmation of results, and (2) the practical impossibility of proving a negative. He also emphasizes permanent change as a requirement before he considers an effect a potential hazard.
"My principal effort has been to estimate from electric and rnagnetic field and d ielectric considerations the internal electric and magnetic fields induced in biological objects exposed to the external electric and magnetic fields generated by the proposed 765-kV transmission lines and to assess their potential for biological effects. "-Carstensen
Allen A. Frey, is equivocal in recommending that construction of the power line should proceed ut does advocate placing right-of-way limits so that electromagnetic field strengths at the boundary would not exceed those for existing power lines. His is an experimentalist viewpoint that rejects the biophysical approach as useless for hazard evaluation. He finds its underlying assumptions oversimplified. At the same time he rejects experimental findings in which the electromagnetic field parameters, including frequency, are not close to those predicted for the proposed line. Addressing only the question of potential neural stimulation and behavioral effects in humans, he bases his belief on his consideration of the literature as a whole and not on specific experimental work.
"We have a situation in which there are weak indications that the 60-Hz power line fields could cause neural and behavioral effects. There is insufficient data to establish whether these possible effects are hazardous or not. Further, there is no way, through calculations and modeling, to determine if there are or are not hazardous effects. To establish whether these transmission lines represent a hazard from the neural or behavioral standpoint, multiple years of experimental investigation are necessary." --Frey
Andrew A. Marino, bases his recommendation against construction of the powerline on his interpretation of his and others' biological findings and rejects the theoretical biophysical approach as too simplistic. However, he takes a general experimental position and does not restrict his consideration to a specific set of electromagnetic parameters. He reasons that because biological effects are produced by electromagnetic fields, biological effects will probably be produced in humans exposed to the power line fields, and that these effects may be hazardous. Thus, he does not differentiate effects from hazards and holds that the proponents of the line must prove that the line's electromagnetic fields would be harmless. He recommends a safety standard of 0.15 kV/m, calculated by accepting that effects occur at 15 kV/m and above and by dividing this level by a safety factor of 100-the FDA factor for food additives rather than the less stringent ones for environmental contaminants.
Robert O. Becker, recommends against power line construction on the basis that literature reports, including his work, represent a solid body of data indicating that living organisms are influenced by extremely-low frequency (ELF; i.e., less than 100-Hz) fields. However, Becker bases his testimony about the medical consequences of exposure to electromagnetic fields almost entirely on Marino's interpretation of the literature, including the results of their joint experiments. Thus, his significance as an independent expert witness is questionable. He appears to believe that if effects could occur, the power line should not be constructed. This orientation does not distinguish between effect and hazard and fails to recognize the probabilistic nature of the effects.
''Doctor, are any of your opinions, assertions or conclusions contained in your testimony as to the physical occurrence of the biological effects which may occur as the result of exposure to the transmission line fields the result or consequences of any independent analysis by you of any of the studies identified as references 1 through 32, inclusive, of Dr. Marino's prefiled testimony?"
"The answer is no." --Becker
"As I pointed out, I think that if the Marino testimony falls, the Becker testimony falls right along with it." --Examiner
Marino Home Page | Research Interests