A. Positions of the Witnesses
The Staff presented three witnesses to testify on the potential for biological effects from exposure to electric and magnetic fields. Dr. Robert O. Becker, an orthopedic surgeon who specializes in research involving the effects of electric and magnetic fields on biological systems, and Dr. Andrew A. Marino, a biophysicist in charge of Dr. Becker's research team, presented approximately 60 scientific studies as the basis for their conclusion that the electric and magnetic fields of the proposed transmission line will probably cause biological effects in people chronically exposed to them. They recommend that the exposure of persons living near the right-of-way (ROW) be limited to l/l00th of that level which was found to cause effects in a group of scientific experiments. Specifically, they apply a safety factor of 100 to those studies where electric field exposures in the 7-20 kilovolts per meter (kV/m) range were employed. This results in a tentative safety level of 0.07-0.2 kV/m and requires a ROW width for the 765 kV line of approximately 600-900 feet.
Dr. Becker concludes that the research results presented by Dr. Marino provide strong evidence of the likelihood that the biological effects induced in humans may be harmful. Dr. Becker has been involved in human experimentation at the Veterans Administration Hospital in Syracuse where he pioneered the use of very low level electric fields to heal human bone fractures that resisted standard orthopedic techniques. Dr. Becker concludes that exposing people to the fields from the line without informing them of the potential hazard is similar to human experimenta- tion without the informed consent required under present medical regulations. Both Dr. Becker and Dr. Marino believe that a biological research program should be undertaken to determine the complete spectrum of biological effects that may be produced in humans, flora, and fauna from exposure to these lines.
Mr. Allen Frey, a research scientist specializing in the effects of electromagnetic fields on the nervous system and behavior stated that there were weak indications that 60 hertz (Hz) power line fields could cause neural and behavioral effects. There is insufficient data to establish whether these potential effects are hazardous. He suggested that the Commission allow the 765 kV line but require a ROW width such that the field strength to which the general public would be exposed is no higher than that which exists with present 345 kV lines. Implicit in his suggestion was the assumption that existing lines do not produce adverse effects. Mr. Frey pointed out that it is possible that existing lines cause such effects, but they are unrecognized due to their subtlety and the lack of appropriate research. A research program to determine whether behavioral and neural effects would occur in humans from exposure to power line fields was, in his opinion, necessary.
The applicants presented an ad hoc interdisciplinary team consisting of two biophysicists, a veterinarian, and a botanist.* Dr. Carstensen submitted theoretical calculations as the basis for a prediction of the magnitude of the electric field and current density induced in humans exposed to 765 kV lines. Dr. Schwan and Dr. Carstensen opined that those levels of field and current density were insufficient to cause biological effects because they were well below safe levels. The purportedly safe levels were 0.1 millamperes per centimeter squared (mA/cm2) and 0.1 volts per meter (V/m). The other witnesses, Dr. Michaelson and Dr. Miller, denied the validity of most of the experiments cited by Dr. Marino. They uniformly dismissed this research on the grounds that experimental protocols were faulty, or that the research was performed under conditions that yielded current densities within the test organisms that could not possibly occur under the transmission line.
This group believes that: biological effects were not demonstrated by the experimental research and that scientific theory predicts an absence of effects. Consequently, they saw no detriment to the health and safety of animals or humans from exposure to the proposed lines' electric and magnetic fields.
Dr. Robert Henshaw, an expert in nerve physiology, testified for the Department of Environmental Conservation on the subject of electrical stimulation of nerves. He disputed Dr. Schwan's claim that a subthreshold can not change the sensitivity of a nerve. Based on his experience, Dr. Henshaw estimated that current densities an order of magnitude lower than Dr. Schwan's safe level could cause a nerve to fire.
B. Dr. Becker And Dr. Marino's Rat And Mice Studies
Dr. Marino presented the results of two research projects conducted in Dr. Becker's laboratory involving the exposure of rats and mice to electric fields comparable to those from the proposed transmission lines. The effects observed in the animals as a result of the exposure were similar to the classical response to a biological stressor. Dr. Becker stated that the response of humans to the electric field would be similar to the rats. Obviously this conclusion has serious implications for the exposure of humans to the electric fields from the lines.
Understandably the applicants focused a ma]or portion of their efforts on Dr. Becker and Dr. Marino's animal research. They demanded and were provided with all of Marino's raw data about (300 pages). Five of applicants' witnesses and supporting personnel were permitted to personally inspect the animal care facility at the Veterans Administration Hospital. Dr. Marino responded to two detailed sets of interrogatories about the design and conduct of his experiments. Photographs and electrical circuit diagrams of the exposure apparatus and power source were supplied. The applicants even produced color movies of a "replica" of the exposure facility. RG&E hired a statistician to thoroughly examine certain aspects of Marino's experimental design and data analysis. We are aware of no other experimental research that has been subjected to such scrutiny.
The testimony of applicants' witnesses raises a raft of criticisms designed to discredit these experiments. The vast majority of these objections have no factual support and indeed sometimes no relationship to the research. The mice studies withstood every criticism leveled at them. These studies are well controlled and well designed experiments with no major flaws. The rat studies are preliminary in nature, and as a result have certain flaws. However they do indicate that something may be happening to the rats as a result of the electrical field exposure. A discussion of Dr. Marino's research and an analysis of the applicants' criticisms follow.
C. Dr. Marino's Rat Experiments Indicate That Electric Fields May Cause Stress But They Are Not Conclusive
In Dr. Marino's ten rat studies, 21-24 day old male Sprague-Dawley rats were exposed continuously to a 60 Hz electric field of 15 kV/m for one month. The rats were obtained from commercial breeders. Generally they were 1-2 days in transit, and were acclimatized 1-2 days after arrival before the experiment was commenced. The experiments were conducted in a government accredited, standard (i.e., not pathogen free) research facility. The animals were fed and watered ad libitum.
In the first four studies, the experimental rats were caged individually and the controls were housed three to a cage. After exposure, the rats were weighed, sacrificed by decapitation, and blood serum was recovered. The researchers measured serum corticoids and serum proteins in the pooled sera of all rats within the experimental and control groups.
In experiments 5-10, the rats were caged individually and vibration isolation pads were added to the exposure apparatus. Food and water consumption were measured as were final body weights and weights of the pituitary and adrenal glands. Serum corticords were measured from the pooled blood of groups of two to three rats. SGOT, an enzyme in the serum, was measured in the pooled blood of the experimental and control groups.
The rats exposed to the electric fields exhibited a variety of biological responses including depressed body weight, altered concentrations of serum corticoids and albumen, decreased water and food consumption, and enlarged pituitary and adrenal glands. (Tr 7181ff).
The applicants criticize these aspects of the rat studies: animal cage density, pooling of blood serum, statistical procedures, grounding microcurrents, animal holding times and cage vibrations. Each subject will be discussed now.
1. Experiments 1-4: Animal Cage Density
Applicants' witnesses contend that rat experiments 1-4 are invalid because control animals were housed three to a cage and experimentals were caged individually. (Tr 13144). They also claim that two different cage tops were utilized in experiment 6, thereby invalidating the results. (Tr 13145). Dr. Marino responds that he performed a preliminary study to determine if caging density caused any effects in experimental animals, and no significant differences were found between those animals caged individually and those housed three to a cage. (Tr 12462).
We agree with applicants' witnesses that these differences in experimental design weaken the results of experiments 1-4 and 6. It is a fundamental principal of scientific experimentation that controls and experimentals must be treated alike to ascertain a casual relationship between the parameter under study and the effects observed. While Dr. Marino may have not observed statistically signifi- cant differences in his animal density study, it remains possible that differences existed although they did not prove statistically significant*. Thus, it can not be conclusively determined whether the electric field in experiments 1-4 and 6 cause the results observed.
2. Pooling of Blood Serum
For measurements of serum proteins and corticoids in experiments 1-4 and SGOT in experiments 5-10, Dr. Marino made two pools of blood, one for the controls and one for the experimentals. The procedure was attacked on the grounds that the variability in responses of individual rats cannot be determined, thereby invalidating the claimed difference between experimental and control rats (Tr 13147). Dr. Marino replies that this procedure is appropriate in preliminary investigations, and that there was not sufficient serum to perform individual SGOT measurements. (Tr 12464)
We do not agree totally with either Dr. Marino or Mr. Hess. The pooled measurements do not provide statistically significant results because no standard deviations are possible. Hence, the alleged differences can not be accepted with confidence. However, the measurements can not be ignored, for ; they provide a low level indication of a blood substance that may be affected by the electric field. (Tr 12464)
For serum corticosterone measurements in experiments 5-10, Dr. Marino refined his procedure by combining the blood of two or three rats into groups (subpooling) (Tr 7183). This procedure, an accepted scientific practice, was not contested. Even applicants' witness Michaelson has performed pooled measurements of serum on groups of animals (Tr 13222- 13228) although he steadfastly maintained that he never had. (Tr 11659). Subpooling is proper because it does permit calculations of standard deviations. The statistical analysis, including the standard deviation, gives added confidence that there is a difference between the experimental and control groups relative to the parameter under investigation.
3. Statistical Procedures
It is alleged that Dr. Marino made a number of statistical errors in the rat studies. Applicants contend that it is improper to delete high and low values prior to statistical analysis of the data. This so called trimming of the data supposedly results in a systematic underestimation of the standard deviation, thus, falsely indicating a greater uniformity within the animal groups than actually existed. (Tr 13149). Mr. Hess suggests that if data rejection is to be employed, Dr. Marino must justify its use prior to performing statistical analysis (Tr 13151)* .
There is no substitute for an experienced scientist's judgment in determining whether or not a data point should be rejected. Before rejecting data, however, there must be a valid reason for expecting the occurrence of outlyers (data points far above or below the group means). Dr. Marino has justified the existence of outlyers in his data, e.g., clogging or draining of a water bottle or loss of a portion of tiny glands during removal from the rat. (Tr 12466-67) If one has reason to believe that outlyers exist, and decides to reject high and low data points prior to the analysis, as Marino did, it is a sound procedure. Indeed, in the reports of three scientists (Mantell, Eismann and Rupilius) relied on by Miller, high and low values were rejected to give greater reliability to their data. (Tr 13198, 13206-07).
Mr. Hess performs two statistical analyses of the rat studies. For the first he included high and low values and used the well-known Student's "t" test to determine the statistical significance of the results. Then he excluded the high and low values, and used an obscure procedure known as the windsorized "t" test. His analysis employing both tests shows that 4 of 29 pairs of data are statistically significant. In contrast, Dr. Marino, using the standard Student's "t" test, reported that 10 of 29 pairs of data were significant.
Dr. Marino contends that Hess' statistical analysis is flawed because he used about sixteen numbers which were not even data in the experiments. Hess' analysis is based on his interpretation of 300 pages of raw data compiled by Dr. Marino's research team. These data sheets were prepared utilizing this team's shorthand, symbols, and notational methods which Mr. Hess evidently did not understand, or he would not have used these values.* (Tr 12468) Dr. Marino states that in every case where Hess accused his group of an arithmetic or judgment error, the data entry was corrected prior to final statistical analysis . (Tr 12 4 6 8)
It is impossible to prove who is correct. We are inclined to accept Dr. Marino's explanation since he is far more familiar with his voluminous and complex data sheets. (Tr 12468-69). The unacceptable alternative is to adopt the interpretation of these complex records by an individual who was not privy to the methodology and scientific rationale employed by Dr. Marino's research team.
This controversy is probably meaningless because, as Dr. Marino notes, none of the alleged transcription and arithmetical errors changes the statistical significance of the results. (Tr 12468). Apparently, he is correct: for Hess never claims that the alleged errors reduced the statistical significance of Marino's results.
4. Grounding Microcurrents
Applicants' witnesses stated that microcurrents* influenced the results of-both the rat and mice experiments. Microcurrents are small electrical discharges that occur when two objects with different voltage potentials come in contact. It is claimed the rats and mice experienced microcurrents when they touched the water tubes and feeding de- vice. (Tr 6585, 6600, 6959, 11643). To determine whether microcurrents were at play in both the rat and mice studies, Dr. Miller asked RG&E to construct a replica of Dr. Marino's exposure apparatus.** Color movies were made for both a "field on" and "field off" situation. Miller claimed that he could observe the rats recoil when they drank during the "field on" situation (Tr 659). Staff obtained these movies for review. The films demonstrate unequivocally that there was no difference in the behavior of rats drinking in either the "field off" or the "field on" condition. (Tr 12408). It is shocking that applicants' witnesses would still advance this objection to Marino's studies when the evidence so convincingly indicates the contrary.
Dr. Miller further testified that he received a shock when he touched one of Dr. Marino's cages during a visit to his laboratory. Basic considerations of electrical engineering precluded this since the ground plate was the only part of the apparatus that was exposed. (Tr 12408) Static electricity such as a carpet shock may explain Dr. Miller's reaction, but this obviously would not apply to the rats or mice.
Applicants contrived foolish procedures to discredit the animal studies. Dr. Miller attempted to simulate the experience of the rats when they ate or drank by placing a nine volt battery in his mouth. He reported his sensation was appropriate to evaluate the shocks a rat experienced when eating or drinking (Tr 6962). It is pathetic that a research scientist who ostensibly understands the electrical phenomenon involved in these experiments would fabricate this procedure and offer this foolish remark because this in no way simulates the actual experiment (Tr 12409). Indeed, Miller's movies are strong evidence to the contrary.
Dr. Marino believes that it is virtually impossible that microcurrents influenced the results of his mice studies. He reported that the mice experienced microcurrents of the order of five microamperes* when eating or drinking (vertical exposure). Horizontally exposed mice experienced much less because their entire cage was constructed of plastic, and the mice and the water bottle would have been essentially at the same voltage potential, virtually eliminating the possibility of microshocks. (Tr 7195-96).
Dr. Marino believes that microcurrents did not influence the drinking behavior of the rats. The cumulative water consumed by experimental and control groups when compared statistically after one, three and seven days and approximately mid-way into the exposure period (about 14 days) showed no significant differences. If either perceptible or subliminal microcurrents were significant factors, alterations in the drinking pattern of the experimental rats would have been apparent from the start of the experiment. (Tr 7186-87.
Mr. Hess argues that Dr. Marino's conclusion is not supported by the data. In experiments 8 and 9, Hess alleges that water consumption was significantly different in the first half of the exposure period, and in experiment 9 a significant difference appeared after 3 days of exposure. For experiments 5, 7 and 10 differences in water consumption were not significant for either the first or second half of the exposure period. (Tr 13L57)
Hess is wrong because his data analysis includes high and low values for water consumption. (Tr 124693) Preliminary tests of the drinking apparatus showed that on occasion water bottles clogged or drained when the animal was not drinking. Hess was not aware of this problem (Tr 12466). The only way to control for this situation is to exclude high and low values. Hess has unwittingly assumed a scientifically unacceptable risk that his data base is inaccurate. (Tr 12467).
5. Animal Holding Times And Vibration
Dr. Michaelson argued that the holding times from the arrival of animals at the laboratory until the commencement of exposure were insufficient to permit recovery from the stress of shipment. At least ten days holding time is required according to Dr. Michaelson. (Tr 11638 ) Dr. Marino rejected this arbitrary ten day standard, and countered that the proper acclimatization period varies with the type of study being performed. Michaelson was apparently unaware that one of the aims of Marino's experiments was to evaluate the-role, if any, that the stress of shipment played in the production of observed biological effects. This could only be accomplished by systematically varying both the holding and shipping time. (Tr 7185-86, 12470)
Holding time played no significant role in the observations because biological effects occurred in experiments 9 and 10 wherein rats were acquired locally with a shipping time of only 2 hours and an acclimatization period of 3 days. Unquestionably this period was sufficient considering the relatively short transit (Tr 7185, 12470). More importantly, as long as the experimental and control rats are treated similarly, which they were in this research, holding time is not a variable that could have affected the results.
Dr. Daniel A. Drlscoll from the Department of Environmental. Conservation performed vibration measurement of the experimental apparatus in Dr. Marino's laboratory. He determined that the rats were exposed to less than the ambient vibration in experiments 1-4 (Tr 7194) and that in experiments 5 through 10 where rubber pads were utilized, the field induced vibration was reduced even further. (Tr 7182)
Dr. Michaelson alleged that cage vibration from the power source was not totally eliminated from the rat experiments and that the rats may have been exposed to high frequency sounds audible and irritating to rats but inaudible to man. (Tr 11639). These charges are irresponsible. Michaelson was thoroughly discredited because he could not defend either allegation. He offered no interpretation of the effects of the vibration levels on the animals. Similarly, Dr. Michaelson readily conceded there was no factual support for his charge relative to irritating noises (Tr 11743-45), and that he had not investigated this phenomenon. (Tr 11743).
6. Stress Induced By The Electric Field
Dr. Michaelson asserts that: the results of the rat studies can not be attributed to stress induced by the electric field because there was no significant difference in any single parameter throughout Dr. Marino's experiment, and the results for certain parameters fall within the "normal" range of rats. (Tr 11639-40) Michaelson's remarks indicate that he does not understand the concept of a biological stressor. It is expected that the biological response of different animals to a stressor will vary. The actual physiological changes resulting from exposure to a stressor are determined not only by the nature of the stressor itself, but also by factors peculiar to each individual, such as the level of nutrition, concurrent stressful conditions, presence of pre-existing disease states, hereditary and previous conditioning experiences (Tr 8993). Obviously the experimental groups of rats in the ten experiments are not biologically identical with respect to these parameters; nor is there any way to assure absolute biological uniformity among the experimental subjects in each experiment; hence, it is not surprising that some rats are more sensitive to a stressor than others. Furthermore, the protocols in the ten experiments were varied. This alone could account for the varied stress responses to the field. These varied responses fit within a class of biological parameters which are related to and change with biological stress (TR 17470). For these reasons, it is not unusual that no single biological parameter was significant through all the experiments.
Dr. Michaelson tries to undercut the significance and applicability to humans of the rats' stress response. He suggests that stress is not to be avoided, and that it is always good for you. (Tr 11647-48) As a practicing medical doctor and Medical Investigator, Dr. Robert O. Becker has extensive experience in dealing with biological stress. He destroys this uninformed and naive argument as follows:
There are two conditions under which the stress response may be considered "good for you." It is in fact, vital for the survival of life, having been evolved from the earliest living organisms. When an organism is stressed naturally, i.e., being pursued by a predator, the stress response enables the animal to use its body maximally to escape. The action of the muscles and nerves is enhanced and the animal becomes functionally capable of extra activity. Humans experience a similar response when subjected to bacterial infections and in this case the increase in the activity of the immune system is advantageous. Initially, the physiology - associated with such acute stress was termed the "fight or flight" condition which is an apt description. Therefore, under the conditions of acute stress, the organism's functional ability is heightened. We experience this occasionally in "being able to work best under stress." The problem however, is two-fold. First, there are indications from Dr. Selye's work that stresses are additive and that two stresses, neither, of which would be particularly harmful when acting in concert, will produce a pathological state. Secondly, all of the good effects of the stress response are limited to the alarm reaction phase of the stress response. If the stressful condition continues, the altera- tions in the body chemistry and function that were advantageous in a "fight or flight" situation begin to change and ultimately, in the stage of exhaustion, the changes are reversed and the organism is less able to function in an optimal fashion.
The "stress is good for you" concept is limited to single short duration episodes of mild to moderate stress and cannot be applied to the situation of multiple stresses or long-term chronic stress. (Tr 8994-96).
The rats in Dr. Marino's experiments were exposed continuously for 30 days, and thus underwent chronic stress. By comparison to their life spans, however, this exposure is a relatively short period of time for biological effects to manifest themselves. In contrast, people living adjacent to the right-of-way will undergo an exposure that will probably be more extensive.
Dr. Michaelson opines that the hormone measurements as not biologically meaningful since the corticosterone (Cr) values are within the normal range for rats. (Tr 11640) He does not identify the normal range or cite any authority for his statement.. Michaelson evidently does not understand the stress adaptation syndrome. The biological response of the rats is easily explained within this context.. The rats may have been experiencing the "adaptation" phase of the syndrome where hormone levels return to normal. (Tr 8994, 12471) This is probable because the exposure time was relatively short.
CONCLUSION
There are certain flaws in the rat experiments primarily because they are preliminary. The results should be investigated further. Most of the applicants' criticisms are not supported by sufficient information to permit a determination of their validity. In spite of the vigor of the attack, these allegations, while detracting from the confidence to be placed in the results, do not vitiate them. The bottom line on our analysis of Marino's rat experiments is that they show something may be happening.
D. Dr. Marino's Mice Studies Are Excellent Studies That Demonstrate ELF Fields Can Cause Adverse Biological Effects
Mature male and female Ha/Icr mice were purchased commercially and divided into horizontal, vertical and control groups. Mice in the horizontal group were allowed to mate, gestate, deliver and rear their offspring in a horizontal 60 Hz electric field of 10 kV/m. At maturity, randomly selected individuals from the first generation were similarly allowed to mate, gestate, deliver and rear their offspring while being continuously exposed. Randomly selected individuals from the second generation were then mated to produce the third and final generation. A parallel procedure was followed for the vertical group where three generations were produced in a 60 Hz vertical electric field of 15 kV/m and for the control group where three generations were produced in the ambient electric field. (Tr 7191-92).
In the first generation, male and female mice reared in both the horizontal and vertical electric field were significantly smaller than the controls at 35 days after birth. Even larger depressions in average body weight were observed in the second generation at 35 days. At 10 weeks the differences between the experimental and control weights had narrowed considerably. A large mortality rate was observed in the vertical field mice during the 8-35 day period. A large mortality rate was again seen in the vertical group in the third generation, but only male mice exposed in the vertical field exhibited statistically significant depressed body weights. (Tr 7194)
These aspects of the mice studies are criticized: animal care techniques, litter sizes, overlap in the data, and irreversibility of the effects. As will be seen from our discussion, none of the applicants' objections are valid.
1. Poor Animal Care
Dr. Michaelson claims that the high mortality rate among newborn controls is evidence of poor animal care. (Tr 11641) This conclusion is only conjecture. If there were any substandard procedures, Michaelson would have observed them when he visited the animal care facility, or he would have recognized them in Marino's detailed responses to interrogatories concerning animal care. Michaelson's inability to identify any substandard techniques and his utter failure to specify how the care of control animals was inferior to that of test animals is proof this change is invalid. Also, if there were poor animal care techniques, one would expect the lactation indexes* to be low and the mortality rates to be high across the board. They were not.. (Ex. E-4, p. 4).
2. Litter Size
Dr. Michaelson surmises that differences in weight gains between exposed and controls were related to litter size and nutritional status, not to field exposure. The pups should have been equalized among the dams so their nutritional status was comparable (Tr 11642).
The average liter size throughout the experiments was relatively constant, and was, therefore, no factor in determining the results observed. (Tr 12471) By not rearranging the pups, Dr. Marino made it more difficult to find statistically significant results. Because the control and experimental groups were broader populations, the body of the data was less likely to show effects. Yet even with this more stringent approach, Marino still observed significant results. Dr. Marino may have uncovered even a greater number of statistically significant results if he had used the procedure suggested by Michaelson.
3. Photographic Evidence Of Stunting Of Growth
Dr. Michaelson raised the objection that there was considerable overlap in the weight distributions for the control and experimental animals (Tr 11643) This remark is scientifically meaningless. Statistical tests are used to determine whether the results are significant when there is overlap in the data. Marino employed such tests and found bona fide results. The most convincing proof that the electric field diminished the weight of the mice is Exhibit F-5, a photograph showing unequivocally that the typical exposed mouse is about one-third the size of a control. Statistics are not even necessary to establish an effect this dramatic.
4. Irreversible Effects
Michaelson improperly concludes that the similarity in net weight gain of both experimental and control animals implies that food consumption and rate of growth were normal,. and that the effects are reversible. (Tr 11641) The effects Marino observed were death and stunting of growth. Death is obviously not reversible, and the experiments to determine whether stunting is reversible have not yet been performed (Tr 12471).
Dr. Michaelson conceded that he did not examine the raw data thoroughly (Tr 11642). If he had, he would have discovered net weight gains were not similar*. Relative weight gain is not a meaningful tool for analysis since many of the weak, undernourished mice died, and their relative weight gains were not included in the data analysis.
6. The Knickerbocker And Marino Studies
Dr. Miller argues that Marino's mice study is contradicted by Kouwenhoven's study* which found no effect on mice attributable to an electric field exposure (Tr 11936). Two experiments must be virtually similar in design before their results can be contradictory. Knickerbocker employed much greater field levels than Marino, 160 kV/m versus 15 kV/m (Tr 12038). The fields in the Knickerbocker study were applied intermittently for a total of only six and one-half hours per day. (Tr 12044) Marino's exposures were 24 hours per day. Neither the females nor their progenies were ever exposed to the electric field in Knickerbocker's study; only males were exposed. Dr. Marino exposed both males and females. Also, only one generation of mice was studied by Knickerbocker. In Marino's studies all the animals were exposed 24 hours per day through three generations. Knickerbocker's exposure regimen is markedly different from Marino's, and so the results of the two studies cannot be said to be contradictory. It is nonetheless interesting that Knickerbocker found, as did Marino, that male mice exposed to an electric field did not grow to be as heavy as controls. (Tr 12044).
CONCLUSION
None of the criticisms registered by applicants have proved valid. The mice studies are well-controlled and well-designed experiments in which significant adverse biological effects were observed from electric fields comparable to those of the 765 kV lines.
E. The Marino, Noval and Mathewson Studies Are Not Contradictory. The Noval Study Tends To Confirm Marino's Findings
There was considerable controversy as to whether the rat studies conducted by Noval confirmed Dr. Marino's studies. Noval et al.* studied the effects of ELF electric field of 45 Hz, 0.0005-0.1 kV/m on the growth rate and the biochemical and hormonal systems of rats. The rats were exposed continuously to an electric field for at least one month in four separate experiments. It was found that the exposed rats gained weight 20 to 30 percent slower than the controls. The growth rate depression was observed at all field strengths tested. The authors also found significantly elevated levels of corticosterone (Cr) in the blood of rats. Choline acteyltransferase (ChAc) in the brain had decreased, and trytophan pyrrolase (TrPy) in the liver had increased. The authors are convinced that the results of the TrPy and Cr measurements indicate that the rats were stressed by the electric field. (Tr 12306-07).
Dr. Michaelson contends that inconsistencies in the Marino and Noval findings indicate faulty experimental protocol in one or both studies. The body weights and Cr responses were different, and Marino found effects that did not appear in Noval's rats. (Tr 1145-46).
Exact comparisons between the results from different investigators demands that every detail of the exposure regimen be similar, and they were not here. Marino used 60 Hz electric fields, and Noval used 45 Hz fields. Even Michaelson acknowledged that Noval employed fields which were 150-300,000 times lower than Dr. Marino's. (Tr 11646). This alone could account for the differences observed.
On the other hand, Noval's work, in a general sense, confirms Marino's studies. Both researchers did use male Sprague-Dawley rats exposed to vertical fields in acrylic cages between metal plates with the rats electrically floating. (Tr 12307). Both scientists found altered Cr levels and decreased weight gain in the rats which indicate a stress response. The Noval study is especially significant because the adverse responses were elicited at a field level that would exist approximately 2,722 feet from the centerline of the 765 kV facility. (Ex. C-5)
Michaelson claims that a study conducted by Mathewson refutes the work of Noval. There are few differences between the experimental design and protocols in the Noval and Mathewson studies, but they are significant. Noval kept his animals in heavily armored railroad cars thereby shielding his animals from the earth's ambient electric fields. Shielding from the earth's natural fields, which are both static and oscillating, may place a stress on the animals independent of the applied fields. There is some evidence supporting this hypothesis found in human experiments conducted by Dr. Wever*. Wever demonstrated that a number of biorhythms in man become unsychronized when the earth's natural fields are removed from the human environment (Tr 7173-76). Also Noval utilized rats that were as light as 135 grams and as heavy as 200 grams at the beginning of the experiment. In contrast, Mathewson's rats, with one exception, weighed 200 grams. Noval found that the lighter rats responded more rapidly to fields than did the heavier rats, and that heavier rats showed differences in body weight only after 30 days (Tr 8532) of exposure. All of Mathewson's studies which utilized "heavy" rats were terminated after 28 days (Ex Y-4). It is possible that he may have observed depressed body weights if the experiments had lasted 30 days or more. Interestingly enough, Mathewson's experiment did produce statistically significant effects in the rats. There were variations in body weight and food consumption although the variations at one field level did not occur at the higher level.
F. The Marino And Noval Studies Indicate That The Electric Fields May Cause Stress In Humans Living Adjacent To The Lines
Dr. Becker, the only person in this proceeding with the medical qualifications to extrapolate the results of these experiments to humans, has testified that the condition of the rats and mice at the end of the exposure period was consistent with chronic exposure to an environ- mental stressor. Further, he knows of no differences between man and rats in terms of their physiological response to stress. (Tr 8997). Dr. Hans Selye, a leading authority on the stress response has been able to relate chronic stress with certain disease states including cologen diseases, periarteritis nodasa, renal arteriosclerosis, hypertension and gastric ulcers. (Tr 8994) While it is not possible to predict that any specific effect or the degree of effect that will occur in people exposed to the lines, the Marino and Noval studies are sufficient to support the proposition that the electric fields will probably cause stress in people living in close proximity to the lines.
Back to Public Service Commission TOC