Extra Low Frequency
Dr. Dahlberg's Wisconsin Pre-Filed Testimony
21 November 2000
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Dr. Dahlberg's Wisconsin Pre-Filed Testimony
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 22:29:59 -0600
From: Darlene Raunio <email@example.com>
Since this has "officially" been sent out to the Wisc. PSC's "Service List" I thought you may be interested in seeing what has been written in opposition to the 250 mile, 345 kV and 115 kV "Arrowhead-Weston Electric Transmission Line Project".
STATE OF WISCONSIN
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
FOR THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WISCONSIN
In the Matter of the Joint Application of Minnesota Power Co. and Wisconsin Public Service Corp. for authority to construct and service High Voltage Electric Transmission Lines and other Pre-filed Testimony of electric facilities known as the Duane A. Dahlberg Arrowhead to Weston Project located in St. Louis County in Minnesota, and Chippewa, Clark, Douglas, Lincoln, Marathon, Oneida, Price, Rusk, Sawyer, Taylor, and Washburn Counties in Wisconsin
PSCW Docket No. 05-CE-113
The above matter comes before Administrative Law Judge Janine P. Geske on January 3, 2001. Pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 1.11, 1.12, 196.025, and 196.491 and Wis. Admin. Code, ch PSC 4 in the above-referenced matter, the following is submitted as direct testimony by World Organization for Landowner Freedom, (“WOLF”):
Q: Please state your name, current place of residence and occupation.
A: Duane A. Dahlberg. I reside at 1317 6th Avenue West, Moorhead, Minnesota. I am a retired professor of physics, meteorology, environmental sciences, and environmental ethics at Concordia College, Tri-College University and Montana State University.
Q: Please describe your educational and professional background.
A: My curriculum vitae thoroughly describes my background and is attached as WOLF-2.
Q: What is your understanding of the issue presented before the Administrative Law Judge today?
A: A 345 kV transmission line is being proposed which begins at the Arrowhead Substation near Duluth and connects to the Weston substation in Wisconsin. In addition a 115 kV transmission line is being proposed which connects the 345 kV line to the Highway 8 substation near Rhinelander. It will increase the movement of electrical energy from Northwest to Southeast, and could increase electrical energy availability for Wisconsin users as well as for users in other states South and East of Wisconsin. For people living in Wisconsin, the proposed line will increase the electrical energy traversing the state on transmission lines, and increase the energy from the new substation near Tripoli and expanded substations near Wausau and Rhinelander. The 345 kV circuit is a grounded-wye with two shield wires mounted above the phase conductors that are grounded at each tower with at least one 25 foot ground rod. A grounded-wye implies a neutral that is grounded, and for this circuit the earth would carry any neutral current because there is no neutral wire connected to transformers. If the current on the three phases are perfectly balanced very little neutral current would be in the earth. Even though not stated, it is assumed that the 115 kV line would also be a grounded-wye. As is the case for most transmission lines, some fraction of the current in the phase wires will flow to the earth over the insulators through the towers and through the air by capacitive inductance. In addition current will be magnetically induced into the shield wires to the earth through the grounding wires and ground rods, and directly into the earth. In the region of all conductors carrying alternating electric current, all conducting materials will experience induction currents. Therefore not only will the shield wires carry induction currents but the earth and all living organisms.
Q: What is your background knowledge of electromagnetic (EM) energy and its impacts on human and animal health?
A: My testimony is based on the research literature, and my work involving animals and people suspected of being affected by various sources of EM energy. My involvement in these issues has spanned a period of about 40 years. I have collected information from numerous case studies at locations where EM energy has been determined to be a likely cause of adverse effects. Statistical analyses have been used to show correlations between electrical and non-electrical parameters. Electrical experiments and measurements of a number of electromagnetic parameters at these locations have provided invaluable information towards a better understanding of the impact of EM energies on humans and animals. I have included a bibliography of research literature and accompanying exhibits that I have based my testimony upon and will cite many of those sources in my testimony. From my many years of studying the research literature, from my research, and my investigating health problems associated with sources of EM energies, I have concluded that EM energies can adversely affect the behavior, health, and production of confined livestock and the health of people. Because electricity takes on many different forms in the environment, the term EM energy is used as a generic term to refer to any and all electrical and magnetic energies.
Q: Electricity has been around for a long time, why does it seem to be causing problems now?
A: Especially during the past 60 years electrical use has increased very rapidly, consequently EM energy from this expanded use has increased throughout the regions of the earth where living organisms are found. Particles carry electrical energy from one point to another, and EM energy can also move through space independent of any transfer agent such as particles. Technological development of electrical energy has contributed many additional forms of EM energy to the environment. These additions have significantly changed the level and type of exposure for living organisms. Television, radio, cellular, and military radar transmitters add radio and microwave EM energies to the environment, and electric power systems throughout the world produce EM energies at frequencies of 50 and 60 Hz which are also added to the environment. All of these frequencies are nearly absent in the natural environment. Every object that is connected to an electric circuit, whether in use or not, has 50 or 60 Hz EM energy surrounding it. Every electrical wire connected to a source of electrical energy also is surrounded with EM energy. Large numbers of these sources surround living things continuously, thus significantly increasing their numbers of these sources surround living things continuously, thus significantly increasing their EM exposure.
Q: Are there other historical changes in the transmission systems that have had significant impact?
A: One of the most far-reaching encroachments of 60 Hz EM energies into the environment is the current in the earth associated with the basic design of the entire electrical distribution system. Historically the distribution system that supplies electricity to the consumer was electrically isolated from the earth and therefore a self-contained system. At some point in the expansion of electrical use, a decision was made to connect the electrical distribution system to the earth and use the earth to carry some of the current. Of the possible reasons for this decision, was one to decrease the loss of electrical energy in the system. Another reason may have been to increase the ability to extend the length of the lines and to increase the energy carried to the lines. The overall effect is a national electric distribution system in which 65% to 75% of the current returns to the substations through the earth rather than through the wires (Hendrickson 1995, Gonen 1986, Morrison 1963).
Q: What, if any, effect has this had on living organisms?
A: The earth becomes one terminal of the electrical distribution system, and electrical currents are, therefore, present to a greater or lesser degree in all materials in the environment. As a result of this environmental change, all living organisms are conductors of electricity and in contact with the earth and other materials carrying electric currents. They are plugged into the electrical circuitry of the distribution system. Living organisms are continually in contact with one terminal of the entire electrical distribution of the North American continent. Human and animals literally stand on one terminal of the electrical system with no way of escaping that state. All living organisms become part of the electrical distribution system, experiencing electric currents in much the same way as the earth.
Q: Has the number of transmission lines increased?
A: Yes, as demand has for electricity has increased, transmission lines have also increased.
Q: What are some of the possible effects of EM on humans and animals?
A: By present scientific definition, the perceptions of effects from EM energies are separated into five categories. First is the well-known effect commonly referred to as electrocution. Electrocution occurs when a large, usually short duration electric current passes through a living organism, often causing immediate death. The second category is the perceived effects from exposure to 50 and 60 Hz electricity, primarily from the 50 and 60 Hz magnetic fields. Of particular significance is the proximity of affected people to transmission and distribution lines. Third is the perceived effects associated with micro- and radio-wave EM energies from radar systems, microwave transmission, radio and television transmission, and cellular systems. The fourth category, called stray voltage, has been associated with effects on both humans and dairy animals, primarily within the confines of the dairy barn. The actual EM energy associated with stray voltage effects may include exposures to currents as well as to electric and/or magnetic fields. The fifth category is associated with the DC transmission lines used in a few areas of the world. Living and working in proximity to these lines has been perceived by many as causing a number of health problems.
Q: Is there any one potential effect that poses more dangers than others?
A: The most familiar EM energy effect is electric shock. Various levels of electric shock are experienced by humans and animals. Some shocks are hardly noticeable, whereas others can cause great distress and are sometimes lethal. The possibility of a lethal shock is associated mainly with making contact with a high voltage wire in the home or business or on the distribution system. People have been encouraged to take greater care when in the presence of electrical lines and equipment. Additional research assessing the electrical injury effects from severe non-lethal shock has revealed both acute and long-term chronic effects. While the acute effects are quite well known, the chronic effects, which are more difficult to assess, have only been studied more recently. The chronic effects are long-term and associated with complex interactions of the shock current with the electrical systems of the body. In general, the central nervous and immune systems experience the greatest effects, some of them associated with stress (Hooshmand, et.al. 1989).
Q: Have there been any other studies of potential effects?
A: In addition to electrocution and shock, studies have been conducted to analyze possible effects from extra low frequency (ELF)-EM energies. Research literature provides reports of EM energy studies from nearly every country of the world (Becker and Marino 1982, Delgado, et.al. 1982, Konig, et.al. 1981, Marha 1971, Norden and Romel 1992). Both Eastern and Western Europe have provided valuable information concerning health effects from exposure to microwaves and ELF EM energies. In the United States, the greatest interest has been in the study of potential effects of 60 Hz magnetic fields (National Research Council 1997). As mentioned previously, the research results sometimes reveal a correlation between exposure to specific EM energies and specific health effects. There are many studies that have shown a correlation between EM energy exposure and a number of types of cancer, including cancer of the brain, both male and female breast cancer, testicular cancer, kidney and bone cancers, and leukemia (Ahlbom, et.al. 1987, Kheifets, et.al. 1997, Liburdy, et.al. 1993 Nair, et.al. 1989, Tenforde, et.al. 1987). Childhood cancer has been studied most often (Linet, et.al. 1997, Wertheimer and Leeper 1979).
Q: What were the results of those studies?
A: Some of the 60 Hz magnetic field research and some epidemiology studies correlate higher incidence of leukemia in children and adults to the proximity of electric distribution and transmission lines. Some studies also show that people in electrical occupations are more likely to develop various types of cancer, for example breast cancer in males. The research is not conclusive, however, Some studies have found positive correlations, while others have not found statistically significant correlations. Some studies have also found effects on the neurological system, such as depression and Alzheimer’s, that correlate to EM energy exposures (Davanipour, et.al. 1997, Goldberg 1995, Gunnarsson, et.al. 1991, Perry, et.al. 1993, Poole, et.al. 1993, Savitz, et.al. 1997). A number of valuable reports have come from Sweden, Norway and Denmark that show correlations between cancer in children and adults and exposure to EM energies (Feychting and Ahlbom 1992, Floberg 1993, Nordenstrom 1983). These countries have also recognized electrical sensitivity as a growing problem for their citizens.
Q: What is the level of public knowledge of EM and its effects?
A: Groups have been established and are being organized in many countries of the world for the purpose of providing support and information to people who have become hypersensitive to electricity, and to lobby government and industry in order that electric sensitivity is recognized as a legitimate illness. Records from many countries reveal that a single source or many sources of EM energy can initiate the sensitivity. Examples of those sources are power transformers, computers, and micro- and radio-wave transmitters. The mechanism for inducing electric sensitivity is yet to be determined, but, at least, one can say that the electric immune response is damaged. Once a person becomes electrically sensitive, it is difficult if not impossible to reverse the condition. Electrically sensitive people become unable to tolerate even low exposures of EM energies, and the number of electrically sensitive people in the world has been growing rapidly.
Q: For how long have its effects been studied?
A: For over fifty years, Eastern Europe and the former USSR have been studying the effects of microwave energies (Marha 1971). This research describes many different effects perceived and observed for people exposed to low levels of microwaves, including many of the effects often associated with stress. These effects have been generalized under the term microwave illness. When viewed as a whole the Eastern European research gives evidence that low level microwave energies can affect the cardiovascular, central nervous, and immune systems. Many of these effects are similar to the long-term chronic effects associated with electrical shock.
Q: You mentioned stray voltage. Specifically, has that phenomenon been studied?
A: Both quantitative and qualitative studies have been conduced in an attempt to understand how stray voltage causes effects in dairy animals. Dairy cows are known to experience a set of behavioral, health and production effects when an electrical problem exists proximate to dairy farms where electricity is short-circuited into the earth, commonly referred to as a ground fault. Farmers, dairy equipment suppliers, power suppliers, agricultural extension specialists, veterinarians, feed suppliers, and electricians all attest to the effects associated with electrical exposure from these ground faults. Medical records and veterinarian reports indicate what appears to be a failing immune system of cows in stray voltage barns. Specific effects are a sudden onset of a number of bacterial diseases, as well as a gradual deterioration of the muscle and skeletal structure of the body. In severe cases cows suddenly fall to the floor of the barn and frequently die immediately. Qualitative research shows a greater incidence of human health problems on dairy farms where the cows are experiencing health effects from electrical sources. The symptoms observed in humans are similar to those for microwave exposure and chronic electrical injury (Dahlberg and Falk 1995, Lefcourt 1991).
Q: Why have some studies not been conclusive?
A: In scientific investigation the model applied in a research project guides its outcome. The traditional models associated with research on EM energy and living organisms assume that effects are caused by shock or heating. When the electric current traveling through an organism is sufficiently large to cause a sudden physical response, the organism is said to be shocked. Of course everyone can relate to the electric shock, and when it is sufficiently severe, it does cause adverse effects. The heating effects of microwaves are familiar in the use of the microwave oven. Heating effects were also experienced by radar construction workers in Northern Canada, who stood in front of the microwave dishes to get warm. An increase in internal temperature is known to produce adverse effects. Applying either of these models, any effects from EM energy exposure would be attributed to secondary causes such as stress from the heating or the shock. Using these models, only intense exposures to EM energy would have the power to cause physical effects. These models are very limiting, allowing for no description of how EM energy from external sources can interact directly with the internal functioning of the living organism.
Q: Why do quantum interactions not sufficiently explain EM effects?
A: From a quantum energy perspective, none of the EM energies can ionize atoms or molecules. Except for microwaves, the available quantum energy is too small to damage molecules. For that reason these EM energies are called non-ionizing. Microwaves can excite molecular energy levels and be absorbed by certain molecules in the body, causing a heating effect. As a consequence, mechanisms other than quantum interactions need to be considered when we examine effects from all types of EM energies. Only intense shock has sufficient energy to destroy cells. The energy of electric currents and electric and magnetic fields associated with health effects in living organisms is small compared with the energy of chemical reactions in the organism. Energy alone, therefore, has limited usefulness in modeling the noted health effects from low level EM energies.
Q: What are other models that adequately address EM effects?
A: Other suggested mechanisms for effects include molecular polarization, which can change the charge characteristics of cells; magnetic interactions, some of which are related to nuclear magnetic resonance; and synergistic relationships to the variations in the earth’s DC magnetic field (Liboff, et.al. 1987, Goodman and Henderson 1991). One proposed general model considers the electromagnetic nature of living organisms, and is dependent upon acknowledgment and understanding of their internal electrical systems (Becker 1990, Dahlberg and Falk 1995, Nordenstrom 1983). This model recognizes that all living organisms require the presence of internal and external EM energies. The internal EM characteristics of living organisms are very complex. All living organisms exist and function both by means of chemical reactions and through the use and transfer of EM energy. Without electric currents, living organism would not function. Just as the chemicals supplied to the body are important in determining health and functioning, so also is the electricity in the body critical for maintaining well-being. We should expect the adverse effects of inappropriate EM energies to be as significant as those which inappropriate chemicals are known to have.
Q: What adverse effects of inappropriate EM energies could be expected?
A: The realization that the body is electrically and magnetically active certainly suggests a strong probability that interactions could exist between the electrical system of the body and externally derived EM energies. It is possible, for example, that fields and currents from external sources interact with, influence and change the fields and currents normally present in the living organism. According to the work of Nordenstrom, every living organism depends upon certain levels of electric currents and electric and magnetic fields for good health (Nordenstrom 1983). Therefore a change in the normal EM nature of the living organism can make it unhealthy. Possible effects caused by the changes in the EM properties of the living organism may also be dependent upon its physical state. Consequently, the possible effects for a single organism could be time dependent and different from the effects for another organism. In addition, thresholds for effects would be dependent on the individual characteristics of the organism.
Q: What has been the problem with research that has used simple models?
A: Specialization, ease of analysis, and simplicity in understanding tend to encourage researchers to test simple models, such as the correlation of a single EM parameter with a single health effect. One example is research that investigates the possible relationship between 60 Hz magnetic fields and childhood leukemia. While it is valuable to pursue models involving a single effect caused by a single category of EM energy, in general the EM energy environment of life is far too complex to be understood through a single parameter. The environment contains both electric currents and a variety of electric and magnetic fields. Since health effects may be caused by a variety of types of interaction between environmental EM energies and the EM functions within the body, models for testing require consideration of the total makeup of the EM environment, as well as recognition of a number of possible health effects.
Q: How can tests be done considering the total makeup of the EM environment?
A: At first sight such models may seem overwhelming. As noted previously, perceptions of affected individuals and some research results suggest similar effects associated with each of the five traditional scientific categories. If a researcher begins with the assumption that all EM energies can cause similar effects, the EM energy aspect of the model becomes more manageable. Eastern European research, some stray voltage research, and research of 60 Hz magnetic fields exposure of electrically sensitive people, fine effects similar to those associated with stress (Dahlberg and Falk 1995, Hooshmand, et.al. 1989, Marha, et.al. 1971, Rea, et.al. 1991). In order to manage the complexity of a study involving numerous effects, the researcher might begin by looking at effects in terms of health “syndromes.”
Q: Why should the entire EM environment be considered?
A: An important reason for considering the entire EM environment is the fact that all humans and animals are continuously in contact with electrical distribution systems of North America and most other parts of the world. Whatever other EM energies humans and animals are exposed to, electric currents and electric and magnetic fields from the grounding of the electrical distribution system are in and around them.
Q: Has a complete and continuous study of the possible effects of electric currents in the earth been done?
A: Unfortunately an assessment of the possible effects of these continuous electric currents in the earth and in the bodies of humans and animals has never been undertaken.
Q: Why is it important to make such an assessment?
A: Because of their magnitude , these electric currents in the ground may directly and indirectly play an important role in the overall effects of environmental EM energies, especially when one recognizes that this exposure is continuous, for all life, with no escape (Dahlberg and Falk 1995, Marks, et.al. 1995, Pohl 1983).
Q: How can you explain the differences between the studies in the United States and that in Europe and elsewhere?
A: Research information from one part of the world is often considered more important than from another part of the world. In the United States, for example, research from Western countries is considered more credible than that from Eastern countries. Methods of research differ in various regions of the world which can also lead to different results. When differences occur, careful evaluations are required in attempting to allocate value or correctness to the results. Differing results may not imply that either method or result is incorrect. Research and the methodology used are affected by the models and the questions that are asked. When these are understood, research results from each area of the world is able to provide valuable information.
Q: Can you provide examples of studies that have gathered information from experts in the scientific community as well as from people who perceive themselves experiencing health problems?
A: One of these reviews was recently done in Germany in which 1500 USSR and post USSR-Russian medical studies involving effects from EMF were analyzed. Much of the information is from examinations of several thousand industrial workers and carried out by company physicians. These workers were subject to electromagnetic energies from radar stations and high-voltage plants spanning periods of 20 years. In the review is a list of symptoms and these symptoms were noted to increase in number with years of employment. They are: Objective Findings: neurasthenia, neurotic symptoms; arterial hypotension, bradycardia or tachycardia; hypoglycemia; vagotonic displacement of the cardiovascular system; EEG changes (deterioration of the alpha rhythm); hyperfunction of the thyroid; potency disturbances; passive tremor of the fingers; disturbances in the hypothalamic-hypophyseal cortico-adrenal system; digestive system disorders; slowing down of the sensorimotor system; hair loss. Subjective symptoms reported by the patients: exhaustion, weariness; lack of concentration; headache, dizziness; profuse outbreaks of perspiration; spontaneous excitability due to hypotonic reaction conditions, especially under heavy work pressure; heart trouble (Balzer and Hecht). These symptoms were common in both radio-wave/microwave and power frequency exposures. One conclusion of this review is that health effects were more prevalent among workers exposed to lower frequencies. Another was in 1992, Congress established the Electric and Magnetic Field Research and Public Information Dissemination (EMFRAPID) program to study the health risks associated with exposure to extra low frequency (ELF) electric and magnetic fields and develop the necessary mitigation technologies. The results of this study were sent to Congress in 1999 and serve as a valuable source of information discussing possible health effects from exposure to 60 Hz electric and magnetic fields. The NIEHS (National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences) was mandated upon completion of the EMFRAPID program to provide a report outlining the possible human health risks associated with exposure to ELF-EMF. The following are quotes from the May 4, 1999 NIEHS letter to the reader of the report and from its conclusions and recommendations. “The strongest evidence for health effects comes from associations observed in human populations with two forms of cancer: childhood leukemia and chronic lymphocytic leukemia in occupationally exposed adults.” “However, a majority of the members of this Working Group (19/28 voting members) concluded that exposure to power-line frequency ELF-EMF is a ‘possible’ human carcinogen.” “The NIEHS agrees that the associations reported for childhood leukemia and adult lymphocytic leukemia cannot be dismissed easily as random or negative findings.” “NIEHS suggests that the power industry continue its current practice of siting power lines to reduce exposures and continue to explore ways to reduce the creation of magnetic fields around transmission and distribution lines without creating new hazards. We also encourage technologies that lower exposures from neighborhood distribution lines provided that they do not increase other risks, such as those from accidental electrocution or fire.” “Several non-cancer health areas including neurodegenerative and cardiovascular diseases have been identified as being of national concern, but for which there are few, high quality studies to evaluate adequately whether ELF-EMF exposure might have effects. Preliminary work suggests that ELF-EMF exposure may be linked to cardiovascular deaths resulting from arrhythmia and acute myocardial infarction. The mechanism for such an effect, if true, is not known, but possibly occurs through exposure-related effects on autonomic nervous system control of cardiac function. Also, several exploratory studies have suggested possible associations between occupational ELF-EMF exposure and neurodegenerative diseases specifically amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and Alzheimer’s disease. The data on these end-points are inadequate for interpreting the possibility of an association. Research in these areas should cover all aspects of scientific investigation including epidemiology, laboratory and mechanistic studies.” “Preliminary studies in transformed breast cancer cells suggest that ELF-EMF exposures can overcome effects of melatonin and tamoxifen in regulating cell growth. This effect of ELF-EMF appears to occur at magnetic field exposures that may be encountered in the environment. Several other laboratories have presented similar, unpublished findings at national meetings. The importance of this finding for human health is unclear, but considering the magnitude of the incidence of breast cancer, this area warrants further investigation.” When the NIEHS classified ELF-EMF (extremely low frequency electric and magnetic fields, aka electricity), as a “possible” human carcinogen that placed ELF-EMF in the IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer Classification) Class/Group 2B Category. There are four categories, Group 1 is carcinogenic; Group 2A is probably carcinogenic; Group 2 B is possibility carcinogenic; Group 3 is unclassifiable as to carcinogenicity; Group 4 is probably not carcinogenic. Other Group 2B agents include carbon-tetrachloride, dioxin, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). All the agents listed in Group 2B, except EMF is restricted for ordinary everyday use. Still another well known group of experts in the scientific community, the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) was also commissioned to study the potential health effects from EM energies. In the first draft of the EPA report, completed in 1990, there was recommendation to classify electromagnetic fields as probable human carcinogens. This classification of EM fields is the same for DDT. That designation was soon dropped as pressure from the electrical industry increased. The EPA study continued until 1994. At that time staff of EPA concluded that power-frequency electromagnetic fields should be considered a risk factor for childhood cancer. This conclusion was in the 1994 draft of the report. The report was suppressed by senior managers of EPA and never released to the public. In 1995 the Senate Appropriations Committee cut funding for EPA because members of the committee believed that EPA should not be involved in EMF activities.
Q: How does one analyze research conclusions?
A: There are a number of methods for statistically analyzing information. In general, the choice is to compare an experimental group to a control group. Using such a technique, the number of subjects becomes an important factor in the quality of the results. In a study conducted by Linet that looked at the exposure of children to magnetic fields. The conclusion in this study was, “Our results provide little evidence that living in homes characterized by high measured time-weighted average magnetic field levels or by highest wire-code category increases the risks of ALL in children” (Linet, Hatch, et.al. 1997). Some scientists were puzzled by the results of the Linet study and asked to get a record of the raw data. The authors and the funding agency would not honor the request. Through the Freedom of Information Act and work of a U.S. Senator, the raw data were finally obtained. The data consisted of the average magnetic field for each of 624 ALL cases. Working with some mathematicians, E. Stanton Maxey, M.D. reanalyzed the data by comparing the average magnetic field in each of the homes of the ALL victims with national median of magnetic fields in homes as prepared by the Electric Power Research Institute in 1993. They concluded that, “The Linet raw data reveals a 23,282,885,474,392 to one probability that elevated 60 Hz time-weighted magnetic fields are in some manner causal to childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia.” After studying the raw data, it is clear that magnetic fields in homes are correlated with an increase in the risk of ALL. When another method of analysis of data gives such a dramatically different result, it certainly emphasizes the value of asking the question that gives the most accurate accounting of the investigation.
Q: What conclusions can you make from your research and analysis?
A: An extensive body of information resulting from both quantitative and qualitative research delineates health effects from exposure to power frequency magnetic and electric fields, radio and microwave frequency radiation, and electric currents including both alternating and direct currents. In addition, there is a significant body of information from both quantitative and qualitative research describing the successful use of various forms of EM energy for treatment of injuries, as surgical aids, and health care treatments. These two sets of information emphasize the significance of living organisms as complex electrical systems. Living organisms produce, use, and emit EM energies, and these energies are necessary ingredients for that which makes organism alive. Historically, chemicals have been accepted as the construction materials of living organisms, but it is important to keep in mind that EM energies serve the equally valuable purpose of providing information and energies for all of life’s actions. Life that is healthy has both the appropriate chemical balance and the appropriate EM energy levels. Upsetting either or both of these causes health problems, and they undoubtedly are both powerfully interconnected to each other.
Q: What conclusions have you drawn regarding EM energies?
A: From my many years of studying the research literature, from my research, and my investigating health problems associated with sources of EM energies, I have concluded that EM energies can adversely affect the behavior, health, and production of confined livestock and the health of people.
Q: What will the impact be to the people and animals in the environment of the Arrowhead substation if this Arrowhead-Weston line is built?
A: The action proposed in this docket will increase the electrical exposure for many people and many other living organisms. Those that are impacted must know the extent to which these increases in exposure are expected to affect their health, their livelihood, and their environment.
Q: How can the public be kept safe from the detrimental health impacts to humans and animals from EM energy?
A: If the same paradigm is used in developing the scientific proof for EM energy effects as other environmental intrusions, decades will be required before that scientific proof is considered adequate. There is sufficient evidence, however, to make this a priority public health issue and to require a new paradigm for evaluating the impact of sources of EM energy on people and the environment.
Q: What paradigm would you suggest to keep people and animals safe?
A: The organization proposing a change in a source or adding a new source of EM energy has the responsibility of providing proof that the change does not negatively impact human health or the environment. The present paradigm for EM energy requires the affected to prove with scientific certainty that the EM energy is the cause of the effects. There is a glaring disparity in the existing paradigm.
Q: When should this be implemented?
A: Identification of a mechanism for EM interactions is living organisms should not be a prerequisite for accepting the reality that EM exposure can affect human and animal health. The smoking issue is a good example. A mechanism has not yet been established for explaining how smoking cigarettes or experiencing second hand smoke increases the risk of cancers, heart disorders, etc. Even so the scientific community, federal and state agencies and departments and the public have accepted the reality of the effects. Why is it so different for electricity? It is because electricity has become the heart of modern society and offers so many benefits? The information showing adverse effects from uncontrolled EM exposure is probably more voluminous than that for adverse effects from smoking.
Q: Why should scientific certainty not be a criterion?
A: Scientific certainty has been a criterion applied in determining whether or not certain environmental factors such as EM energies affect health. Scientific certainty has been defined as being 95% certain that the cause and effect has been properly identified. Agreement among scientists on issues involving impacts of environmental factors on human health is difficult, if not impossible. Of course lessons have been learned about the consequences of waiting for scientific certainty before dealing with health problems. An example is lead, which was allowed to be emitted into the environment well after the recognition of effects especially on children, but also on adults and other life forms. Scientific certainty had been a requirement for action, and since there was no scientific agreement, action was delayed. The same problem has also occurred with asbestos, and many other harmful agents.
Q: What should be the criterion?
A: Scientific uncertainty should be the call to action; a means of protecting health and the environment. To fill this need the concept of the precautionary principle is gaining favor throughout the world. The Precautionary Principle is described in the following manner: “When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause-and-effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.” (from the January 1998 Wingspread Statement of the Precautionary Principle [Teckner, et.al. 1999]).
Q: How should the “precautionary principle” be used in this case?
A: In the consideration of health effects from exposure to EM energy, scientists are not in agreement, and this issue is in the midst of uncertainty. There is also a vast quantity of information identifying human health and environmental effects from EM energy exposure. The people of Wisconsin deserve a fair appraisal of potential effects even if all of the scientists are not certain of these effects. These conditions encourage the application of the precautionary principle, and should require a moratorium on the project.
Q: Would a denial of the Application at issue prevent potential adverse impacts to the health of those living in the vicinity of the Arrowhead-Weston transmission line project?
A: Yes. Information must be provided to the public that specifically describes the changes in the EM environment for people in the vicinity of the Arrowhead-Weston transmission line project.
Q: What, if any, effect will the increased transmission of electrical energy over these lines have on people and animals that live near these lines?
A: Along the existing transmission lines that feed the Arrowhead Substation, there will be an increase in the levels of EM energy in the vicinity of the lines and an increase in electric current in the ground. The additional substation presumes that additional electric current will flow in and out of the substation through the earth. The new transmission line will also increase the exposure of people and animals to additional EM energies from the magnetic field produced by the current in the wires, from electric fields associated with electric potential of the transmission lines, and from currents in the ground. Transmission lines also carry radio frequency EM energy which adds to the EM energy exposure for living organisms.
Q: Does that conclude your testimony?
Back to Top