MAJOR CONSIDERATIONS IN THE EXPERTS' TESTIMONY
Human Response. The major information on the effect on humans of exposure to ELF fields is contained in the reports of six groups of authors: Kouwenhoven et al. who reported no significant changes in power line workers subjected to extensive medical examinations; Krumpe and Tochman who conducted clinical evaluations of personnel working at a Project Sanguine test facility and reported no effects attributable to electromagnetic fields; Beischer et al. who studied human subjects exposed to 1 G1 at 45 Hz using a battery of physiological and psychological tests and reported only a postexposure rise in serum triglycerides; Wever who reported that synchronization of circadian rhythm in humans depends on the presence of electromagnetic fields; and Hamer and Konig who reported that psychomotor reaction times in humans are inversely proportional to the frequency of electromagnetic fields of 1 to 12 Hz.
The witnesses who support construction,either specifically or by implication, accept these authors' negative findings; however, they do not regard positive findings as pertinent because the experimental characteristics differ from those for the proposed power line (Wever, Hamer and Konig) or because of inadequate matching of experimental and control subjects (Beischer et al.). Marino takes the opposite view. He criticizes negative conclusions either because the studies were inappropriate (e.g., linemen were not exposed 24 hours a day) or because even statistically nonsignificant effects should be of concern. He argues that studies reporting biological effects should be considered as indicating potential hazards from the power line even when the studies were done at other wave lengths or when potential artifacts that could affect the results have been identified.
USSR and East European Reports. In addition to differences in Western and East European definitions of "hazard," the typical biases of Western scientists in interpreting information are likely to be accentuated by differences in experimental designs and in accepted standards of writing and publishing. By Western standards,the design of East European experiments is frequently inadequate,particularly with respect to selection of appropriate non exposed controls. More over, the interpretations of Eastern European authors often appear biased toward centra nervous system mediation, even when the reason for selecting this mechanism is obscure. Many East European reports, particularly epidemiological ones, are merely reviews of other reviews, and it is often difficult to discern whether new information is being presented or not. Exposure parameters are often lacking altogether or reported in nonspecific terms (e.g., "low frequency"). Finally, the East European preoccupation with the central nervous system is consistent with an acceptance of nonthermal" effects. The heavy Soviet emphasis on nonthermal mediation of effects leads many Western scientists to interpret Soviet reports with skepticism-especially when Soviet experimental designs are frequently inadequate by Western standards.
"From this I would conclude that if there is any effect at all of ELF at 10 HZ, there are no implications with a 60 Hz [sic] or at least with regard to 50 Hz, necessarily." --Schwan
Michaelson rejects the pertinence of East European reports because of the uncontrolled and/or unspecified variables resulting from their procedures. He notes that field strengths in experiments reporting biological effects range from 5 to 500 kV/m2 (average, 20 to 200 kV/m). Frey also judges some work to be of poor quality by Western standards; however, he describe several East European reports that indicate changes in auditory, visual, and olfactory sensitivity at microwave power densities of a few mW/cm2.
Marino attaches great significance to the USSR standards and believe that there have been received skeptically in the United States. Because he believes that USSR standards are set on the basis of biological effects and because he is not aware of a compelling basis for the USSR standards in the Soviet literature, he infers that unpublished information may have been used by the Soviets. Because the ground level fields estimated for the proposed power line (below 10 kV/m) are less than the USSR standards (10 to 25 kV/m) discussed in the hearings, the reason for Marino's concern with the USSR standards as they relate to the power line is not clear.
"I therefore conclude that there is merit in the argument that there exists data and information within the Soviet Union which indicates [sic/] that the presently proposed transmission lines might be a biological hazard." --Marino
The proponents, especially Michaelson, believe that USSR standards represent objectives rather than enforced limits as in the West. He notes that fields as high as 27 kVm occur in USSR substations and offers two quotations from USSR scientists to support this view of USSR standards:
"If a certain production is required then the [USSRI plant does not have to abide by that particular standard as long as it can get the work out. It is important to note that these (standards) are ideals, they are not operational standards as we have in the United States. In the United States, our standards are operational and they are enforceable and they are enforced." --Michaelson
"Why, in a Socialist country whose constitution explicitly says that public interest may not be ignored with impunity are industry executives permitted to break the laws protecting nature?" --N. Popov
"What is it in our society with its consistent progress in all spheres of life that interferes with the rapid advance in such an extremely important field as the rational exploitation of nature? Soviet emphasis on the legal formalities has generated a form of self-deception. This appears to be an instance where some authorities have been lulled into believing that respect for Soviet authority is such that the mere passage of highly desirable laws is all that is necessary to induce compliance. The danger in such situations is that exaggerating the superiority of one system frequently leads to overreaching and overcommitments by setting unattainable goals..." --I. Gerasmivs
Animal Studies. Schwan and Carstensen concentrate almost exclusively on the biophysical approach; thus, neither makes much reference to specific experiments in mammals. When queried about specific experiments, they assume that artifacts may have been responsible for the results. Frey restricts his comments to neural/behavioral studies. Thus, only Michaelson, Miller,and Marino consider the findings of experiments with mammals principally in terms of their relevance to predicting human hazard. Although they refer to the same body of experimental information, their interpretations vary. Because Marino's recommendations stem entirely from his interpretation of experimental findings, he cites specific reports more than either Michaelson or Miller.
Marino cites experiments by McElhaney et al. that report that tumors were produced within 28 days in the legs of rats exposed to 7 kV/m fields at 3 and 30 Hz. Marino states that Russian experiments at 50 Hz 20 kV/m indicate an effect on cell division in liver and corneal epithelium. He states that Basset et al. found that at 1 Hz 0.2 kV/m and at 65 Hz 2 kV/m the rate of bone fracture healing in dogs increased. He notes that Bianchi et al. studied hematology and EKG phasing in mice exposed to 50 Hz 100 kV/m and found alterations, and that Lott and McCain reported increased hypothalmic activity but no increase in general brain activity in rats exposed to 40 kV/m 640 Hz. He reports that reduced lever pressing, avoidance of the electric field, and changes in locomotor activity in rats exposed to 50 Hz 50-70 kV/m were noted by Spittka et al. Marino also states that similar phenomena were observed by Altman in mice at much lower field strengths and cites a Soviet study in which mice were exposed to 500 kV/m at 50 Hz and died within several hours. The lethal effect was not related to artifacts such as ionization, corona, or spark discharge. He describes the work of Gavalas-Medici and her co-workers as indicating changes in inter response times in trained monkeys exposed to 7-75 Hz 0.35-35 kV/m. He reports that hematologic and serologic changes occurred in guinea pigs (Altman and Soltau), and that body water content and hematologic changes were noted in mice (Long). Variations in these changes were related to electromagnetic fields, including experimental fields and natural fields, as compared to Faraday cage conditions (no electric fields ).
He notes that Moos reported increased activity in mice exposed to 60 Hz at 1 kV/m and that Knickerbocker found weight loss in the male progeny of animals exposed to 60 Hz 160 kV/m. Marino reported that in his experiments on rats exposed as juveniles to 60 Hz 15 kV/m body weight was depressed, serum corticoids depressed, and serum corticoids elevated, with changes in the pituitary and adrenal weights. He does note that, except for water consumption changes, the results were inconsistent from one experiment to another. In a second set of studies involving mice exposed to horizontal or vertical fields of 60 Hz 10 kV/m for three generations he found increased infant mortality and depressed body weight, with greater effects in the animals exposed to the vertical field. Again, he notes that microampere short-circuit currents could have occurred during drinking or eating in the case of the vertical field exposed animals.
"Science proceeds equally by making measurements and observing the facts and then cataloging and describing them and ultimately deducing from the observations the laws that govern them." --Marino
Michaelson accepts as evidence of no appreciable biological effect the study by Knickerbocker et al. of mice exposed to 60 Hz at 160 kV/m for 1500 hours over 10.5 months, in which the only statistically significant finding was slightly reduced weight for male offspring. He notes that Gavalas-Medici et al., do not believe that Gavalas-Medici et al., do not believe that studies of low frequency (<60 Hz) exposure on electroencephalograms in monkeys indicate biological hazards from transmission lines, even though certain effects were noted, and points out that no effects were observed at 60 Hz. He describes monkey experiments (Grisset, de Lorge) in which no effects of alternating electric and magnetic fields on various characteristics, including blood chemistry, were observed, even though the magnetic field was 10 times that used by Beischer in human studies. He refers to a National Academy of Sciences site visit report about work by Noval, which Marino cited in support of his own findings, that states that Noval's procedures were so crude as to obviate any of his conclusions. Michaelson then points out that for corticosterone levels Noval reports an increase,whereas Marino reports a decrease.
"I must say in true candor that Dr. Marino's references for the most part are either irrelevant, unsubstantiated, or have no basis for even scientific evaluation." --Michaelson
Miller interprets Coate's study of lactation indices in rats as showing no effects at 45-75 Hz,10-20 kV/m and 1-2 G. The findings of Knickerbocker et al. that there were no effects on weight of mice, number of litters, first-generation progeny, sex ratio, pathology growth curves of female offspring, with a suggestion of slightly reduced growth during the second generation, at 160 kV/m, indicate to Miller that power lines do not pose potential problems. Miller cites de Lorge et al. who reported no statistically significant behavioral changes in rhesus monkeys exposed to 75 Hz, 10 G, and 10 kV/m, and Grisset who found no effects in experiments in squirrel monkeys at 45 Hz, 3 or 10 G, and at 7 Hz, 3 G. Following redirect examination concerned with whether any experiments concerned with duplication or confirmation of any of the Marino experiments have been reported. Miller relates that he attempted to evaluate the Marino-type rat cages by making replicas and observing movies of rat behavior at various voltage fields. He found aversive behavior on the part of rats, and felt shocks when he placed his hand on the drinking spouts. He also notes that he received shocks when he placed his hand in Marino's cages. The implication is that electrical shocks might affect the results in certain of Marino's experiments.
Biostatistician Henry K. Hess appears only in the rebuttal phase to assess Marino's use of statistics, a matter previously raised in less detail by other witnesses. Of Marino's 10 rat experiments, Hess finds that errors in statistical design-multiple caging of controls in larger cages, single housing of experimentals in small cages, different cage tops, pooling of blood samples within groups-obviate statistical comparison of the effect of the electric field in 5 of the experiments. Errors in statistical procedures-trimming by deletion of extreme values, use of a statistical test that was inapplicable because the experiment failed to meet the criteria for valid use of the test-resulted in a reduction of comparisons among the remaining 5 experiments that Marino claimed to be statistically significant from 10 of 29 to only 4 of 29. Finally, he finds that Marino failed to account properly for pretreatment differences between control and experimental groups.
"It is my opinion that Dr. Marino's statistical analyses of the data gathered from these experiments cannot be used to support Dr. Marino's conclusion that biological changes were produced in the rats as a result of exposure to an electric field." --Hess
However, no comparable rigorous analysis of the data from other reports, especially those claiming no effect of exposure to electromagnetic fields, was presented. Thus, Marino's complaint has validity that his information is being unfairly, or at least unequally, criticized.
"As I survey the record of this hearing, I find that possibly no other specific set of experiments in history have [sic] received the attention which the applicants have lavished on our work." --Marino
Project Sanguine-Nonmammalian Studies. Project Sanguine (also called Project Seafarer), was a proposal to construct an extremely large underground antenna in the continental United States to serve as a communications device for the Navy. The proposal stimulated a series of investigations of the biological effects of ELF on a variety of species including the potential consequences to man and the environment. Most of the information available about ELF effects comes from the Project Sanguine studies.
Project Sanguine's information is interpreted differently according to the witnesses' views, especially with respect to the relationship between effect and hazard.
Marino cites the following authors and the effects that they reported as evidence that the non mammalian species studied under Project Sanguine showed effects: Coodman, Marron, and Greenebaum reported that mitotic delay and retarded protoplasmic streaming occurred in exposed slime mold (Physarum) and that there was a frequency dependence for the latent period for retardation. Southern reported disruption of orientation in exposed gull chicks, and Graue reported alterations in the flight direction of homing pigeons. Durfee et al. found no effect on hatchability or growth rate of chicks but found inhibition or acceleration of growth in chick embryo cells exposed in vitro to electric fields. McCleave et al. reported that salmon and eels could perceive electric fields but that this perception did not imply an adverse effect. Because Marino equates effect Wit}l potential hazard, he regards these findings as pertinent to his recommendation that the lines should not be constructed.
"Subsequently, most of the [Sanguine] scientific experiments performed under contract have found biological effects due to either the electric field, or to both electric and magnetic fields in concert." --Marino
Miller, because of his participation in Project Sanguine (growth, chromosome aberrations and cell kinetics of a plant root system), focuses on Sanguine information. For comparison, he assumes that a human standing on the ground under the power line would be exposed to an electromagnetic field of 10 kV/m and I G, and that the induced current in the torso would be 0.0001 Am2. He describes the proposed Sanguine alternating fields as 45-75 Hz, 0.0001 kV/m, 0.2 G, but points out that many of the Sanguine experiments were done at higher electromagnetic field intensities (e.g., 0.02 kV/m or greater than 2 G). He believes that the Sanguine studies are appropriate to the power line values, even though Sanguine electric fields are much lower. Finally, he believes that, given the broad scope of experimental designs and organisms tested, biological effects would have been detected had they been produced. He notes that no consistent effects were demonstrated and believes that the few effects produced (e.g., fish and bird perception) of electromagnetic fields are not hazardous.
"There are approximately 49 completed research projects, of which only 12 report effects from exposure to an electromagnetic environment. Of these 12 reports claiming effects, I believe only S contain valid conclusions. Thus, there is n-) basis for claiming that the majority of the S/S [Sanguine/Seafarer] projects have indicated effects." --Miller
Miller accepts Goodman's finding that the mitotic (cell division) cycle of a slime mold (Physarum) was delayed. However, he believes the delay does not suggest a potential hazard because the current density in Goodman's experiment was 350 times that which would occur in a man standing on the ground under the line and because no effect was observed at a current density 75 times that calculated for a man on the ground. He agrees that finding no effects at electric field intensities 501000 times less than the power line, as in some Sanguine experiments, does not preclude effects from higher intensity electric fields; however, he believes that Sanguine is relevant because of the high current densities. From his discussion with bird refuge personnel and his observations of geese and blackbirds feeding under and perched on power lines and towers, he concludes that birds do not avoid them. Miller summarizes his view of the Sanguine studies: Of the 49 experiments, only 5 provide acceptable data indicating effects (Goodman-Physarum, Friend-amoeba, Straub-marine animals, Coate-fish, and Riesen-organelles), all at current densities at least 100 times greater than those estimated for the human torso at ground level under the power line and at least 10,000 times greater than those estimated for the soil or water under the power line.
Michaelson concurs with Miller's interpretation of the Sanguine experiments. He accepts the work of Graue and of Southern as apparently indicating effects on bird orientation patterns but does not view the findings as conclusive or the level of effect as determined by the experimenters as indicating a hazard; he quotes Graue as saying the data are suggestively.
Schwan regards the eel and salmon perception of ELF fields (Rommel and McCleave) as, at the most, indicating an effect but not a hazard because he does not believe eel or salmon behavior will be significantly affected, and cites a later study by McCleave in which no effects were noted. He finds the reports of bird orientation effects (Southern, Graue) lacking in controls (e.g., gray day vs. sunny day differences) and marred by statistical shortcomings. He cites the authors of the slime mold work (Goodman) as suggesting uncontrolled factors in the experiments when division delay was noted and indicates that the pertinence of the information to the human situation is remote.
After a survey of a variety of ELF studies Frey concludes that both those that indicate effects and those that indicate no effects have to be discounted mostly because of no or poor controls.
Biophysical Theory. Considerable time was devoted to biophysical theory in the testimony. Carstensen's testimony sets forth the theoretical method of hazard evaluation and the interaction of the theoretical with the biological approach. He assesses the potential biological effects of the proposed lines by estimating the internal (inside the body) electric and magnetic fields likely to be associated with the projected 10-kV/m and l-G fields. He defines this as the biophysical approach, and notes that it is quantitative, permits broad general conclusions, and provides a sound basis on which to assess results derived from the biological approach. As the physical characteristics of interest in this approach he identifies dielectric and bioelectric properties of biological materials, perturbation of electromagnetic fields by exposed objects, and internal-external field relationships; and heating, intracellular effects, and membrane effects as the processes that mediate biological effects. He concludes that in terms of current theory the projected electric and magnetic fields are too low to elicit biological effects by any of the three processes. He concedes, however, that clearly established biological effects can take place without scientists' understanding why they occur.
"...the biophysical approach has great strength in providing principles of understanding and planning. Its weakness lies in the debatable simplicity of its models, no matter how good the princepal properties of the constituent part." --Michaelson
In response to the following question formulation, "Is it theoretically impossible for an ELF electric field of 10 kV/m to cause ...[bone tumors, altered mitotic rate (i.e., cell division), altered human reaction times, etc.] ," Carstensen answers that these types of questions are inappropriate to the biophysical approach because scientists do not try to prove that things are impossible. Scientists try to find positive postulates to support or explain effects. He identifies the problem of resolving apparent contradictions between predictions from biophysical theory and observed biological effects, and explains the interaction of theory and experimental results. He notes that when positive experimental results conflict with theory, they are usually subjected to rigorous evaluation, but negative results that appear consistent with theory are usually tacitly accepted. He also points out that confirm results in other experiments, rather than duplicating experiments, is the usual way that experimental results become accepted for integration into theory. He indicates that models mathematically express the theoretical relationship between dosimetry and theoretical considerations. He contends that, based on theoretical grounds, biological effects noted in microwave studies have no value in estimating 60-Hz hazards. He also evaluates experimental data that other witnesses interpret as indicating that potential hazards to man will be associated with the power line. He concludes that those data either (I) involve field strengths that are an order of magnitude greater than that predicted at ground level for the power line, (2) are of questionable merit, or (3) report effects that appear innocuous.
Miller accepts the theoretical approach as useful when different experimenters use different exposure parameters (e.g., calculating internal current densities as a common parameter for comparison). For Michaelson, a biophysical principle when linked with experimental evidence provides a basis for elucidating a mechanism.
Although Marino rejects the theoretical approach completely for the biological approach, Frey grants theory a limited role. He notes that if information about effects is lacking, we should not try to bridge the gap with theoretical models and calculations. Frey indicates that, in fact, we do not understand nervous system functions well. Therefore, conclusions based on assumptions about information coding, transfer, storage, and the like are unacceptable to him. Frey points out the difficulties of using modeling to draw valid conclusions that support or deny the possibility or impossibility of an effect. He indicates that, depending on the assumptions on which the model is based, it is possible to come to any desired conclusion.
1 G = Gauss, which is the measure of magnetic field strength.
2 kV/m = kilovolts per meter, which is the measure of electric field strength.
Marino Home Page | Research Interests