ML19343B841

Testimony on Behalf of Util Re Rentfro/Marrack Contention Concerning Health Effects of High Voltage Transmission Lines

ML19343B841
Person / Time
Site:	Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png
Issue date:	12/18/1980
From:	Michaelson S ROCHESTER, UNIV. OF, MEDICAL CENTER, ROCHESTER, NY
To:
Shared Package
ML19343B832	List: ML19343B831 ML19343B833 ML19343B834 ML19343B835 ML19343B836 ML19343B837 ML19343B838 ML19343B839 ML19343B840 ML19343B841 ML19343B842 ML19343B843 ML19343B844 ML19343B845 ML19343B846 ML19343B847 ML19343B848 ML19343B849
References
NUDOCS 8012300696
Download: ML19343B841 (39)

Text

___

6'

/

O

, *be ,

DIRECT TESTIMONY OF SOLOMON MICHAELSON ON BEHALF OF HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY RE RENTFRO/MARRACK CONTENTION HEALTH EFFECTS OF HIGH VOLTAGE TRANSMISSION LINES

. DIRECT TESTIMONY OF SOLOMON MICHAELSON RE HEALTH EFFECTS OF HIGH VOLTAGE TRANSMISSION LINES y Q. Would you please introduce yourself and state ,fo'r 2 the record your professional credentials?

3 A. My name is Solomon Michaelson, and my business 4

4 address is 400 Elmwood Avenue, Rochester, New York 14642.

5 I am employed by the University of Rochester, School of 6 Medicine and Dentistry as Professor of Radiation Biology and 7 Biophysics and Associate Professor of Medicine and of 3 Laborabory Animal Medicine.

i 9 My relevant educational and professional background is 10 as follows: B.S., College of the City of New York, 1942; f 11 D.V.M.,'Middlesex University, 1946.

12 I am a member of the following professional organiza-i 13 tions: American Physiological Society; Sigma Xi (President 14 Rochester Chapter, 1972-1973); Radiation Research Society; ,

15 Diplomate, American College of Veterinary Toxicologists; 16 International Federation for Medical Electronics and Bio-l 17 logical Engineering; Health Physics Society; Research 13 Committee of the World Federation of Neurology; Senior 19 Member, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.

20 My major research interest is in the physiologic aspects 21 of electromagnetic radiation.

22 I hold and/or have held the following research and/or' 23 teaching appointments:

l 1972 to present: Professor, Radiation Biology and l 24 l

l I

f l

W B p 1 - -

Biophysics, University of Roche, ster, School of Medicine and Dentistry 3

1962 to 1972: Associate Professor, Radiation 4

Biology and Biophysics, Unive.:sity 5

, of Rochester, School of t'adicine and l 6 Dentistry I

1967 to present: Associate Professor, Department of 3

Medicine, (Cardiology) Univereity 9 of Rochester, School of Medicine 10 and Dentistry 11 1968 to presen$: Associate Professor, Laboratory 12 Animal Medicine, University of 13 Rochester, School of Medicine and 14 Dentistry 15 1953 to present: Chief, Radiation Physiology, Atomic 16 Energy Project, University of 17 Rochester 13 1958 to 1962: Assistant Professor, Radiation l 19 Biology, University of Rochester 20 1956 to 1958: Instructor, Radiation Biology, l 21 University of Rochester l

22 1948 to 1953: Pharmacologist / Toxicologist, Eaton l

23 Laboratories, Norwich, N. Y.

l 24 1947 to 1948: Assistant Professor, Immunology, 1

l

e ,

1 University of Arkansas, School 'o 2 Medicine, Little Rock, Arkansas -

3 1946 to 1947: Veterinary Consultant, United Nations 4 Relief and Rehabilitation Adminis-5 tration 6 I currently hold the following extramural appointments:

7 consultant and advisor on Working Group of the World Health 8 Organization Regional Office for Europe for Health Effects 9 on Personnel of Ionizing Radiations and Other Physical 10 Factors; consultant, Environmental Protection Agency Science 11 Advisory Board; consultant, National Research Council -

i 12 National Academy of Sciences and member of Ad Hoc Committee 13 on The Navy Non-Ionizing Radi$ tion Research Program and 14 member of Ad Hoc Committee on Electric Stimulation of the 15 Brain; Committee on Biosphere Effects of ELF Radiation;

! 16 consultant on National Research Council, Committee on Human 17 Resources - Post-Research Associateship Program; member, Veterans Administration Medical Research Service Veterinary 13 Medical Merit Review Panel; member, Editorial Board of the 19 20 journal Radiation and Environmental Biophysics; member, Editorial Board, Bioelectromagnetics; associate editor for 21 Medical and Biological Sciences, The Journal of Microwave l 22 Power; member of American National Standards Institute 23 .

Committee C95.1 -Radiofrequency Radiation Hazards, and 24 l . .

S

• (.

1 C105 - Medical Electronics; member, Advisory Committee for 2 Biological Effects of Electric Fields - Electric Power 3 Research Institute; member, Bonneville Power Administration 4 Panel on Epidemiological Study of High Voltage Workers, j 5 In the past I have held the following extramural appoint-l 6 ments: Member, NIH Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Study 7 Section; consultant in Nuclear Medicine, Walter Reed Army 8 Institute of Research, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, 9 Washington, D. C.; Veterinary Medical Specialist (Laboratory 10 Animal Medicine), Veterans Administration, Washington, D.

11 C.; consultant, Illinois Institute of Technology Research 12 Institute, Electronics Research Division, Chicago, Illinois; 13 expert witness, Diathermy Compliance - Food and Drug Ad-l 14 ministration; member of Technical Guidance Committee, Insti-15 tute of Laboratory Animal Resources, National Academy of 16 Sciences - National Research Council; visiting lecturer, 17 American Physiological Society; member, Advisory Panel for 18 the National Science Foundation Division of Undergraduate 19 Education in Science; consultant, Armed Forces Radiobio-20 logical Research Institute; visiting professor, Academic 21 Year Institute, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York; chair-22 man of site visit team to review research program at New 23 Orleans Veterans Administration Hospital; visiting lecturer, 24 American Institute of Biological Sciences; appointed by AGARD 4_

4 '

1 LAdvisory Group for Aerospace Research and Development) ,' NIATO 2 as a lecturer on Microwaves /Radiofrequency, June-July, 1973, 3 and Lecture Series Director for Non-Ionizing Radiation Course, 4 September, 1975; appointed by the Joint US/ USSR Editorial l

5 Board to prepare charter on "Radiofrequency and Microwave 6 Energies, Magnetic and Electric Fields" for the publication 7 The Fundamentals of Space Biology and Medicine; recipient of 8 NASA Group Achievement Award.

9 I am also the author or co-author of over 100 publica-10 tions in the field of physiology and electromagnetic radia-11 tion.

12 Q. What is the subject of your testimony today?

13 A. My testimony will address the potential for bio-14- logical effects, including effects upon man, from the pro-15 posed Allens Creek transmission lines' electric and magnetic i

l 16 fields, and the potential electric shock hazards from such 17 345 kV AC transmission lines. Specifically, I will address 1

i 18 the concerns raised in the Rentfro/Marrack contention which 19 alleges that:

20 The Applicant has not adequately analyzed the

potential health hazards associated with living in

! 21 proximity to high-voltage transmission lines. Hearings l on this subject are currently being conducted before d

22 the Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission ,n the

case of Winfred Higgins who has experienced c' isider-l 23 able discomfort and mild electric shocks while living beneath a high-voltage line.

24 l -s-

. c.

1 Q. In formulating your opinion on the effects of $he 2 Allens Creek 345 kV transmission lines, have you made any 3 necessary assumptions?

4 A. For the purpose of the testimony I have assumed 5 that, based on information provided to me by Houston Light-l 6 ing & Power Company, a maximum electric field of approximately 7 8 kV/m (kilovolts per meter), a maximum ground level magnetic 8 field of approximately 1 Gauss and a maximum induced short 9 circuit current of SmA (milliamps) will be generated by the 10 Allens Creek lines, 11 Q. Would you summarize the conclusions you have 12 reached regarding the health and safety effects of the 13 Allens Creek transmission lines?

14 A. It is my opinion there will be no significant 15 biological effects, including effects on man, resulting from 16 exposure to the electric and magnetic fields associated with 17 the operation of the proposed Allens Creek 345 kv trans-la mission lines. I have reviewed the magnitudes of the in-19 duced short circuit currents which would be anticipated 20 under worst case conditions to pass through an individual 21 touching conducting objects at the point of maximum electric and magnetic fields under the proposed lines. Based upon 22 23 that review and upon the premise that the Applicant would 24 ground any fixed objects in the right-of-way which could

. c.

1 theoretically produce an induced short circuit current tb an 2 individual in excess of 5 mA, I believe that the possibility 3 of receiving induced short circuit currents, through the 4 body, of magnitudes equal to or less than 5 mA, will not l 5 pose a significant hazard to health or safety.

t 6 Q. What kinds of analysis have you performed to 7 support your testimony?

3 A. My analyses of the potential biological effects 9 resulting from exposure to the electric and magnetic fields 10 of the proposed lines were roughly divided into two parts 11 which I label, for convenience, " direct" and " indirect" 12 effects. I label as direct effects those effects produced

13 by the interaction of the electric and magnetic fields 14 cirectly upon a biological organism.

I 15 I refer to induced short circuit currents through a 16 person making contact with a conducting object in these 17 fields as indirect effects; for example, a person or animal I

I 13 making contact with a large metallic insulated ungrounded l

l 19 object such as a truck standing on very dry earth.

20 As a basis for my analyses, I have reviewed available

< 21 pertinent world scientific literature on the biological 1

1 22 effects of electric and magnetic fields.

23 Q. Dr. Michaelson, do you make a distinction between a biological "effect" and an effect which is a " hazard"?

24 l

1 A. That is one distinction that is very important'a'nd a

should be explained at the outset. The fact that a living 3 organism responds to many stimuli is a part of the process 4 of living; such responses are examples of biological " effects".

5 Since biological organisms have considerable tolerance to t

6 change, these " effects" may be well within the capability of 7 the organism to maintain a normal equilibrium or condition 8 of homeostasis. Homeostasis can be defined as the ability 9 of the body to maintain stability in the f ace of perturbing 10 influences. If, on the other hand, an effect is of such an 11 intense nature that it compromises the individual's ability 12 to function properly or overcomes the recovery capability of 13 the individual, then the "effect" may be considered a " hazard".

i 14 For example, a drug such as aspirin when taken in small 15 amounts, i.e., 10 grains every four hours, has a biologic 16 effect, it alleviates a headache or relieves the pain of j

17 arthritis. If, however, the dose of aspirin were increased is by a factor of 100 then the drug could be toxic, or, in 19 other words a ha:ard. There are two levels in my discussion 20 of the potential for biological " effects" from the electric 21 and magnetic fields of the proposed lines: (1) we must 22 first determine whether any "effect" can be demonstrated; 23 and (2) we must then determine whether such an observed 24 "effect" is " hazardous".

l .

i 1 Q. Whyisthisdistinctionimportantinanalyzing'$he 2 health effects of HVT lines?

3 A. My reason for discussing this distinction at the 4 outset is to note that while some biological " effects" have 5 been claimed as a result of exposure to electric and magnetic l

(

6 fields of the magnitudes under discussion, none of these, 7 even if substantiated, can be considered to be hazardous.

8 We should not be trapped into accepting the proposition that 9 an "effect" is hazardous simply because we do not understand 10 the mechanism by which it is caused.

11 Q. What is the current state of knowledge in the 12 scientific community of the effects of electric fields on 13 biological systems?

14 A. The electrical properties of tissues and their l

15 constituent parts--including electrolytes, proteins, nucleic 16 acids, and biologic membranes--have been extensively studied, 17 and considerable insight has been gained into the possible is effects of electric fields on these tissue components. The 19 basic physical principles which underlie both theoretical 20 calculations and the interpretation of experiments, have I

21 been exhaustively tested and there is no doubt as to their i 22 validity. It is possible to believe that effects may occur 1 23 in biologic systems that are unexpected on the basis of present analysis. Such beliefs gain credence from the 24 l

1 evident complexity of these systems, andnoamountofnehdtive 2 evidence can disprove them. Although they are among the 3 facts that must be dealt with in the public domain, a scien-4 tific discussion can deal only with what is known or with i

5 what can be surmised from what is known.

e Q. Are there important principles of biological l

7 experiments on animals which are important in assessing 3 claimed adverse health effects on humans?

9 A. Yes. There are general principles which allow the 10 results of experiments on one organism (an animal) to be 11 extrapolated to predict biological responses in organisms 12 different from those tested (a human). It is often Un-13 portant to use data obtained through experiments using other 14 biological organisms, such as small animals, to predict the 13 human responses to a specified factor, i.e., electric fields.

l l

16 Q. Is it possible to make valid extrapolations of 17 test results from one biological organism to another?

18 A. Yes, but in making such extrapolations we must be l

19 particularly mindful of the limitations and pitfalls which 20 .may not be readily evident in the use of animal experimenta-l 21 tion data. Many factors must be considered in the design of 22 experiments using organisms other than man as test subjects.

23 With respect to the use of other animals to extrapolate the affects of stimuli on humans, these may include physical 24 '

I I

i i

i

3

- factors related to the exposure and biological factors sic'h 2 as the species, strain, sex, age of the animal, the methods 3 of caring for the test animals, the animals' feeding patterns, 4 the roles of seasonal and circadian rhythms, ambient tempera-5 ture and humidity.

6 The reliability of laboratory studies using experi-7 mental models may depend on the following considerations:

8 (1) the selection of the animal model with consideration of 9 its cognitive limits, (2) scaling factors associated with 10 the nature of the field in the laboratory investigation of 11 the biological processes.using animal models, and (3) the 12 method by which the extrapolation of data gathered using the i 13 animal models relates to human studies.

l 14 The cognitive value of the animal model increases l

15 sharply in relation to the physiologic and biochemical 16 similarities of the experimental animal to man. Regrettably, 17 criteria for assessing similarity are not always available 13 or apparent. Concomitantly, with physiologic and biochemical i

19 sunilarities, the investigator must recognize (1) the biolo-( 20 gical parameters of systems reacting on exposure to the 21 selected stimulus, (2) the quantitative indices of response ,

22 in relation to the energy-intensity-time effect relations, and (3) the characteristics of the physiology and biochemistry l 23 1

l involved.

34 l

t l

[

3 Q. Can you identify any other significant criterid 2 that should be kept in mind when utilizing experimental 3 results to draw conclusions regarding electrical field 4 health effects on man?

5 A. The use of electric field strength as a basic 6 parameter becomes especially misleading if studies are 7 compared where the objects have been immersed in different 8 media. For example, at 60 H: the induced current densities 9 in the body (which is the effective biologic perturber) is 10 several orders of magnitude lower than the electric field in 11 air.

12 In the analyses that I have performed in connection 13 with this prepared testimony, I have taken into account 14 these various factors in evaluating the significance of the 15 studies reviewed as well as the likelihood that the results 16 obtained therefrom may be accurately extrapolated to humans.

17 I have also relied upon my experience as a physiologist, l

l 13 veterinarian, medical research scientist and educator in this l

19 field.

1 20 Q. What are the known effects of electric fields such as those to which individuals near a high voltage transmis-21 l

l _9 _,

sion line will be subjected?

l A. When biological material is immersed in a given 23 l

, electric field, a significantly smaller internal electric 24

1 field is induced within the biological organism as a res it 2 of the presence of the external electric field. To induce -

3 internal current densities high enough to produce known 4 biological effects such as neural stimulation or heating, l 5 electfical fields orders of magnitude higher than the fields l

6 of the Allens Creek transmission lines would be required.

7 Q. Have any studies been performed which demonstrate 3 this lack of significant biological effect?

9 A. A large number of studies have been performed on man 10 and experimental animals to determine the extent of the 11 biological effects of external electric fields. I will cite 12 three such recent reports to illustrate this point.

l l 13 In an extensive study, performed under well-controlled l 14 conditions which excluded variables such as transient shock, 13 noise, vibration, etc., Phillips et al. (1978, 1979), ex-16 posed rats and mice to 100 kV/m for up to 4 months. There 17 were no significant effects on hematology and serum chemistry, 13 immunologic competence, endocrine and metabolic status, 19 growth, reproduction, cardiovascular and central nervous 20 system function and pathology.

These same investigators (Phillips et al. 1979) exposed 21 swine continuously to 30 kV/m from 4 to 22 months through 22 tw generati ns. Measurements of reproduction and develop-23 24 ment, body growth, cyto;enetics, immunology, hematology and l

t l

1 serum chemistry, as well as behavior did not reveal any '

2 significant detrimental effects.

3 In addition, a study of farm animals located near 765 4 kV transmission lines (Amstut: et al., 1980) indicated no 5 effect on health, behavior or performance.

6 Analysis of the results of these studies indicates 7 there are no demonstrable biological effects which may be 3 hazardous to health, safety, or the general biological 9 environment as a result of exposure to electric and magnetic 10 fields from high voltage transmission lines such as the 11 proposed Allens Creek transmission lines.

12 Q. Have studies been performed which purport to show 13 that there are significant biological effects from exposure 14 to electric fields?

15 A. There are a number of studies which have been 16 cited as indicating a potential for hazardous effects from 17 electromagnetic fields. Some of these appear to be the 13 basis for assertions made by the intervenors in their peti-tions to intervene and during discovery. In addition, the l

19 l

l 20 " Energy Issues and Fact Sheet" relied upon by intervenor 21 Rentfro (Rentfro Exh. 5) makes reference to a few of these 22 studies. I will discuss the most relevant of these below and describe why they are not of significant merit with 23 24 respect to assessing the potential for biological effects

1 caused by the electromagnetic fields resulting from the '

2 operation of the proposed Allens Creek transmission lines.

3 The studies of low frequency electric field effects on 4 monkeys (Gavalas et al., 1970) have often been cited as 5 indicating the potential for significant biological effects 6 from high voltage transmission lines' electromagnetic fields.

7 It should first be noted that these investigators did not 8 attribute any biological ha ard to the results of these 9 experiments. Secondly, they suggest that the effects noted 10 may be related to the normal biological frequency or bio-11 rhythm, as represented by the EEG, and they found that 60 H:

12 electric fields do not appear to produce the effects noted 13 at other frequencies. It is quite possible that electrode 1

14 leads picking up currents due to capacitive coupling, which 15 were injected directly into the brain via the electrodes, l

caused the results observed by the investigators. In one 16 17 experiment where implanted electrodes were not used, the results were inconclusive. It should also be pointed out l 13 1

19 that other investigators, i.e., de Lorge (1972, 1973), have not been able to observe effects of low-fields in monkeys.

20 21 Accordingly, I do not believe this study should be given weight in evaluating the potential for biological effects 22 frem the operation of high voltage transmission lines.

23 An in rdinate significance has been attributed to 24

l J

l l

l 4.

1 several Soviet studies purporting to indicate biological' 2 effects from electric fields. There are a number of tech-3 nical inadequacies with the studies, not the least of which 4 is inadequate detail in the reports of the experiments upon 5 which to judge their validity. For example, Asanova and 6 Rakov (1966) report that in a population of workers exposed 7 to electric fields, there were a number of physical dis-8 orders. Whether this number was higher, lower or the same 9 as expected in a similar population not exposed to these 10 fields was not clearly indicated. Therefore, there is no 11 objective basis for concluding that the observed disorders 12 were related to the electric field. In a report by Sazanova 13 (1957) a number of physiological differences were seen 14 between " operating personnel" with low electric field ex-15 posure and " maintenance personnel" with high electric field 16 exposure. The " maintenance personnel" spent at least 5 17 hours1.967593e-4 days <br />0.00472 hours <br />2.810847e-5 weeks <br />6.4685e-6 months <br /> daily outdoors in a switchyard with an average elec-18 tric field of 12 to 16 kV/m and a maximum electric field of 19 20 to 26 kV/m. The " operating personnel" worked primarily i

20 indoors and spent no more than 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> per day exposed to the electric field in the switchyard. The author states 21 22 that both groups carried out light work, but that the op-23 erating employees' work was mainly indoor work while the 24 maintenance personnel worked outdoors. It is difficult to 1 argue, therefore, that both groups are equivalent in all' 2 aspects except exposure to the electric fields. It is 3 possible to postulate a large number and variety of factors 4 other than exposure to the electric field (for example 5 climatic conditions and relative ambient noise levels) that 6 could have caused the observed differences. The observed 7 changes are also consistent with varying degrees of physical 8 fatigue during the day associated with the individuals' 9 activities. It should be noted that the investigators did 10 not indicate pathologic changes in either group.

11 Eastern European, and especially Soviet, reports sug-12 gest that there are biologic effects when animals are ex-13 posed to stationary and low-frequency electric fields.

14 Field strengths reputedly causing effects vary from approx-15 imately 5 kV/m to 500 kV/m, with most reported field strengths 16 between 20 kV/m and 200 kV/m. In many cases field strengths 17 are not specified. The work of Soviet investigators in this 18 area is subject to criticism because of limited statistical 19 analysis of data, inadequate controls and lack of quantifi-i 20 cation of the results. Soviet publications typically lack 21 descriptions of methods and controls in the detail that is standard for the West, often fail to provide results that 22 23 can be scientifically evaluated by the reader, and employ an 24 idiosyncratic vocabulary that mixes empirical observations

i i

5 m j ,

- with hypothetical processes. Any review of the Soviet 2 literature must be read with caution.

3 I believe it is important to make an additional comment 4 concerning the weight to be given to Soviet scientific 5 studies. Soviet reports describe such symptoms as list-6 lessness, excitability, headache, drowsiness, and fatigue in 7 persons occupationally exposed to high electric fields.

8 These symptoms are also caused by many other occupational 9 factors, so it is not possible to define a cause-effect 10 relationship. Many other factors in the industrial setting i

11 or home environment as well as social interactions can cause i

12 similar symptoms.

l 13 It is interesting to note that a recent survey con-j 14 ducted by Babson College professor Joseph Weintraub has 15 concluded that there is a statistically significant rela-16 tionship between job satisfaction and psychologically in-17 duced ailments. These ailments include headaches and fatigue, 19 ailments similar to those identified in these Soviat studies.

Q. Mr. Rentfro has relied on an " Energy Issues and 19 20 Fact Sheet" which states in part that "according to a recent 21 Russian study on microwaves, more than 180 minutes per day exposure to more than 10 kV per meter is dangerous."

1 Is 22 23 this statement correct?

A. This statement is completely erroneous. Initially, 24

1 the document confuses microwaves and electric fields.

2 Moreover, it pertains to a regulation related to workers in 3 electrical substations which does not say that exposures i

4 above 10kV/m are dangerous. In fact, up to 25 kV/m is 5 permitted for durations up to 5 minutes.

l 6 In regard to the Soviet standard for exposure to elec-7 tric fields, I am not aware of any statements or documents 8 to the effect that 10 kV per meter is a lower limit for 9 danger. In fact, the design criteria for Soviet high voltage 10 transmission lines is much higher. On the basis of a recent 11 US/ USSR information exchange, the USSR 500 kV design clearance 12 is 8 meters (22.85 ft.) resulting in an electrostatic gradient 13 of 12 kV per meter, and the 750 kV design clearance is 10 14 meters (28.5 ft.) resulting in an electrostatic gradient of 15 la kV per meter. In comparison the proposed Allens Creek 16 transmission lines will have an electrostatic potential l

l 17 gradient of approximately 8 kV/m under " worst case" situa-13 tions.

19 Soviet experience with their 500 kV transmission system, 20 amounting to some 150,000 kilometer years of operation 21 as of February 1975, indicated no problems of biological

[ 22 significance resulting from the lines' electrostatic fields.

I

'3 Q. Studies performed by Dr. Andrew Marino have often been cited as demonstrating significant potential health

! 24 l

I l

I

• L, 1 effects from high voltage transmission lines. Do you ag'ree 2 with the conclusions drawn from these studies?

3 A. No. Dr. Marino has not sbcwn any evidence of harm 4 as a result of exposure to electric fields. His studies 3 suffor from: (1) poor quality control (i.e., his animals 6 have experienced transient shocks) ; (2) his results are 7 internally inconsistent--in some studies he will show a i

8 weight' increase and in others a weight decrease; (3) in-9 proper interpretation of experimental results (i.e., streas, 10 although corticoid levels are decreased rather than in-11 creased); (4) inappropriate statistical analysis.

12 Q. What are the results of studies performed to 13 determine the biological effects of low frequency magnetic 14 fields such as thc;e produced by the operation of the pro-15 posec Allens Creek transmission lines?

16 A. One study concerning the biolcgical effects of-17 low-frequency magnetic fields, was performed by Beischer, et 18 al. (1973). The study was performed on a small number of 19 human volunteers, and it has received considerable publicity 20 relative to an increase in serum triglycerides. Because of 21 the importance read into this report, it is necessary that 22 the experimental design and implications of the results be 23 carefully reviewed and put in proper perspective.

24 The experimental design of the Beischer, et al. study, 20-F v m'v-

. c.

1 primarily the small number and method of selection of sub-3ects, makes it impossible to show a cause and eficct rela-2 3 tionship between the magnetic field and the differences in 4 serum criglycerides. For example, of the 13 volunteers in

i 5 this study, 3 were Navy corpsmen, while the other 10 were 6 cor.missioned officers f.ropped from the flight program or 7 officer candidates who dropped out voluntarily or who were 8 physically unqualified for flying. Interestingly enough, 9 the corpsmen served in the control group and not one of them 10 entered tne ettposed group. Another pertinent observation in li that two of the e posed subjects had an argument during the 12 study resulting "in a high state of arousal wnich was still 13 present the following morning and this appears to be a 14 probable explanation for the increased state of alertness."

15 This is significant because plasma unesterified fatty acids, 16 including triglycerides, are known to increase in response f 17 to psycholcgical stresses. It is important to note the authors' discussion: "it should be emphasized that the 18 19 observations were made on a small number of people and 20 the results should not be regarded as final or conclusive."

21 The exposure of human subjects to ELF fields described 22 in the Beischer, et al. report was preceded by a number of 23 experiments with monkeys (de Lorge, 1972, 1973) in which no 24 biological effects of the selected alternating electrical

1 and magnetic fields were observed, although the magnetic' 2 field strength was 10 times higher than in the Beischer 3 study, and the animal exposure periods extended up to 6 4 weeks.

l 5 In order to more thoroughly evaluate the biological and S ecological effects of exposure to ELF, the Navy initiated an 7 in-depth laboratory analysis. Thirty experimental rhesus 8 monkeys were matched with thirty controls and exposed for 9 one year to a 20 V/m electric field and 2 Gauss magnetic 10 field. During this period all animals were subjected to 11 comprehensive clinical-pathological and behavioral examina-12 tions. There was no evidence of any detrimental effect of 13 the exposure. Although not considered abnormal, the most 14 significant finding was that exposed males gained weight at 15 a slightly faster rate than the control males and at the end ir l of one year were approximately 11% heavier than the con-17 trols. The difference in weight was not accompanied by an 18 increase in bone length measurements. In the exposed females I

l 19 seru.a triglycerides and respiratory quotient were slightly l

20 lower than in the female controls. There is no indication 21 that these .'indings have any adverse clinical significance i

( 22 and both groups of animals appeared quite healthy (Grissett, i

22 1976; Grissett and Kupper, 1976; Grissett et al. ,1977) .

In an ther recent study, B. Mantell (1975), working 24 l

l

1 with Dr. Rudolph Hauf, exposed human subjects to a 50 H:'

2 magnetic field of 3 gauss for 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br />. No differences were

~

3 observed between exposed individuals and sham-exposed cat.-

4 trols in any of the tested parameters, including reaction l 5 time,. pulse, blood pressure, EKG, EEG and hematologic in-6 dices. Other recent studies on humans by Roberge (1976),

7 Issel et al. and Kupfer (1977), Knave et al. (1979), and 8 Hylten s'avallius et al. (1976) also demonstrated no signifi-9 cant effects.

10 It is therefore apparent that the magnetic field of 1 11 gauss from the Allens Creek 345 kV transmission lines does 12 not constitute a health hazard.

13 Q. Do electric high voltage transmission lines pose a 14 significant hazard to persons using cardiac pacemakers?

15 A. The chance that the proposed Allens Creek trans-16 mission lines would cause any serious problems for persons 17 with pacemakers is extremely minute.

18 There are two principal types of pacemakers: (1) 19 asynchronous, which operate at a fixed or externally adjust-20 able rate independent of the patient's heart activity; and 21 (2) synchronous, which are either stimulated or inhibited by 22 the patient's heart signals. In the absence of a detected 23 signal from the heart, the synchronous pacers operate in a 24 fixed-rate (asynchronous) mode. The synchronous pacemakers, 1 since they are dependent on sensing circuits to monitor '

2 heart activity, may inherently be sensitive to electro-3 magnetic interference (EMI) from a number of sources -

4 including radio and television transmitters, radar installa-1 5 tions and a number of electrical appliances. As a safety i

6 feature, these pacemakers are designed so that when they 7 experience electromagnetic interference they revert to a 8 fixed rate or asynchronous mode of operation, thus pre-9 venting asystole (cessation of heart contractions).

10 A study was conducted in 1975 by the Illinois Institute 11 of Technology Research Institute (IITPI) to evaluate the 12 effects of 765 kV transmission lines on both asynchronous l

13 and synchronous pacemaks:.s. From the results of this study 14 it can be stated:

I 15 1. There will be no effect on asynchronous pacemakers 16 from the proposed lines' electric and magnetic fields; 17 2. There will be no effect on synchronous pacemakers is with bipolar leads from the proposed lines' electric and 19 magnetic fields; 20 3. Most synchronous pacemakers with unipolar leads 21 will not be affected by the proposed line's' electric and 22 magnetic fields;

! 23 4. The most sensitive pacemakers with unipolar leads 34 may revert to a fixed-rate (asynchronous) mode of operation 1 in the presence of the proposed lines' electric and magn t c 2 fields.

3 Having examined the available information, it is clear 4 that, even under the worst conceivable conditions the worst l 5 that could happen is that the electromagnetic fields under 6 the proposed transmission lines may cause some synchronous 7 pacers to revert to the asynchronous mode. This effect has 8 no clinical significance. Thus, in those few patients where 9 interference could conceivably occur, reversion to fixed 10 rate will not pose a significant risk of harm.

11 To put the pacemaker situation in perspective, in spite 12 of the fact that there are numerous " everyday" sources of 13 potential electromagnetic interference, and that earlier 14 pacemaker designs were more susceptible than present ones to 15 electromagnetic interference, I am not aware of a single 16 documented case in the history of implanted cardiac pace-I 17 makers where electromagnetic interference from transmission 18 lines has resulted in death or other serious consaquences to 1

19 the patient.

20 Q. In your opinion will the Allens Creek transmission l _ 21 Lines pose any hazard to farm workers, livestock or agricul-i 22 tural products in the vicinity of the lines?

l 23 A. The general agricultural impact of higa voltage 24 transmission lines has been investigated by the Agricultural

e t, 1 Resources Commission of New York State (Busby et al, 197'4).

2 While this survey is not a detailed scientific study, it -

3 does provide a representative sample, sufficient to gauge 4 the compatibility of agricultural production and rural 5 living as affected by 345 kV transmission lines. The con-6 clusions were that the safety and comfort of farm workers 7 operating near high voltage lines are not significantly 8 affected, although certain mitigating techniques, such as 9 grounding rubber-tired equipment appear to be desirable.

10 Livestock seem to graze under the power lines and towers 11 without concern. There is no evidence of reduced growth or 12 reduction in milk production. The cultivated fields, dis-13 turbed and compacted during construction, regained former 14 yield levels in about 4 years.

l 15 Indiana and Michigan Electric Company (Ware, 1974) con-16 ducted a survey of the effect of 765 kilovolt transmission 17 lines on animal grazing habits. One hundred sixty-six ease-18 ments under approximately 400 miles of 765 kilovolt lines 19 were identified as likely areas for pasturing of farm l

20 animals. An attempt was made to contact all 166, and 10,6 responses were obtained. The survey results indicated that 21 22 there were no detrimental effects to livestock as a result 23 of perating those lines.

Amstut: et al. (1980) of Purdue University recently 24 t

3 ~

ww-y

.1 e *.*d a S *#" -y C.

1. S**

.# -.- "..".iCa.' S .' ^w C a *.e d. .".e a." ~63 k. V *.* .5 . ".. S - .

a 2 m _4SS_4.. w . 1_4 . eS.

. . . k. _4S . gC.,ye g ... A y nw .e y 1 4 ..e. S . .w S ... a C.'< .e , . -S

.h.a. a. 'a a S .".O e V .4 # e.".*

. w e C .# aw# ". e.* S e b e a.' ". C ."

• e.* y #. C .* C a r.". e s .A e C .* a " e .".*. 4 .". "..'".e S e 2.".ima _' S . ~"...'S C w^ .". .# .# ."." S . V, "".'.*..**w.*.

. wy

• b. a'

.w n A me.. _4.e

.. .. a.1 e .2. _2ec.S .

.n

.. .ca at.a.1S

.. 4 .4 1 1 n w C n.. ,. as a

.w.a. a. .1 _1eS C m.ax' 3 ,* s* 4' t,'

o a S.

1.

nw .e .w.a. ..e a.4-.

wr ..w.. C. . 14 eS. .

., n. .?.". VC"* C " 4 .". .' *. "4 **d

a. .' .' 4 .".#..# . ". .' d. ".a .1S .'.'".4."."y a.".w d WC.*.k-w .

we ,-

3 .n3 ..ea.- .14..eS eXpe. .4 e..w e a. .t e c. a.1 Sw.w KSo.

4 .4 . .

w _en .u.

9 .

n. n

. e .1 a w nn , ,.4 . .e _t a, .t A , S . w. , .u. as .u.a . .a.

. a ,.eA

. u.q. . ..  ;

10 ...w..,. age ..a . S**1.4S S.4.w... _1 _4 . e S , . .2

. 4 A . .. ,e _4 ... . E ., .,.a .1 w C .A ,f .._._

.1

a. . .a- . h.a._4 w .k. 2. e ~ h.e S c. C . 3_ em.3 e.e.Cy a S ., h.e eX. e.-=.a.1 . . 34 e .1 A

. (.4 .

17 .weS ._ . , Se 60 _.A ). .w.eSe

. .4 .. .e .. a.1 _4 4 e .1 AwS a a., w ,wes.e ,

..w .e,.

13

_ _aC

.w a Ca _' .' **

.w b. 5 Ve * ."." "a .4..w^ ' ^ q .#.*

. a. .# _# e C*. . ** e d

w". ". _' 'f -.# _* e C *.

1*

., a_ _l e e. . .4 e. # .4 e .1 A.

. e##en..

. w.k. 4 ..b. a ." *.*.' a .' .' V, .' S .~<T.C W.". .' a" a S e .".S a *. .# .^. *.

m.e

~~

• T-

. w w. . a _4 .* . w ^V ame .".*. *a*". . # ".". C.. " ". "

• S-.** Ve*V, "._# .  ;".h .# _' a, ..' # a ~ a. ."."y ..b.5 1-o 2.A ..

4-a e.1a.eA . . . .C a ,en,.1

. ym.a _4.e . :w.ne e u e .n.ee . o n.n_. ; e5 wn . . u.e

,, ,

....a a- ..sna u

. v n .s o u. e ..a .4 .,S . ..u.e_e 2.e -

m

.w 'K e'a .. u.a..w

.w . a.,1

.. .- n. . Se.

.l 's w"me..

~ ""

es "w S uSed= wb v, ..a' a. .# .# e C *. .

9 m.h.e e .1 ec. ,4w .. _ C..w 44.14 a.g .4 a.a -.-4 .

• k.a. 3 y ace %e...go..

m .a .. ... 'a.g

_g .

I ae.ee y _4.eA, e n . A..

ww. .. . . e.am .e e u, . G' ...%.e 3 n m

. . e. A,. . a o O . C ;. n n .na. ,...--a..e...

4 0 . ,

f 8

44 m* 4 a. g ..  !

.a.4 .* .1 .E .lw e y 4 ab a .-

wwg.g.a 4

~..'.4.3 . g .1 6A . .~ .# *.. k.e w-;

a  ;

,S ,. . ..

I l f

~.

gg 3w u..^a',. . *".e e .' ew - *.. .' .

.. _# .' uX '..' .". e s "a .'..' ' .* =. - ..-~ .4 . a *. a. ~.

w. **e l

l l

33 C bu ;* e C *. a"... # "w--. " *

• e.".". 4 .4 _' _'

.# .' *w W * " . . " ^ ' . ' ~;. " . ..'".a. w ^

u" '; e *w .

.^~.~~L'."..#.

. 3 w

. .c ...u.a. mu ww -e ae.~.

4-

. . - .V.

-n,.

. A. a. A. 4 ~. .a. ,4 1 1 u-en w4ww- a. n.u.a w .C; w .- .G

.V 9

• g4 a .. . w w .

t 7 "4 -

t 1

1 potential which depends upon its position in the electri'c 2 field.

3 If an individual touches an ungrounded object, there 4 may be effects, depending upon the magnitude of the current.

5 On the initial contact with the object there will be a surge 6 current which is transient; if contact persists, there will 7 be a steady state current.

8 I will discuss the steady state current. The effects 9 of 60 H: electric current on humans may be subdivided into 10 three categories: a. perception, b.' secondary effects, and 11 c. primary effects.

12 a. Perception. Currents below approximately 0.5 mA i 13 flowing through the body would normally not produce any i

14 sensation and are not known to produce any biological l

15 effects. The threshold for sensation of electric current 16 varies according to the individual and the type of contact

[

17 made with the current-carrying conductor; for a grip contact i

is the sensation threshold is approximately 1 mA. (2 mA for 19 99% of the population - 0.5 mA for 1% of the population).

20 b. Secondary effects. Eiectric current values which lie between the threshold of perception and those which 21 l

t cause uncontrollable muscular contraction (generally re-22 ferred to as "let-go" threshold) are termed secondary shock 23 currents. Let go thresholds are as follows:

l 34 l

l l

L

1 Men -- 15.5 mA (range 9.7-21.6 mA. No 2 difference between wet and dry hands.

3 Women -- 10.5 mA 4 Children -- 7.0 mA - 9.0 mA - in 5 to 10 year old 3 boys 6 c. Primary effects. Currents with magnitudes above 7 the release threshold are considered primary shock currents 8 and are potentially lethal. Currents in the upper ranges of 9 adult let-go current (18-22 mA) flowing across the chest at 10 60 H: have produced cessation of breathing in adults, (Keesey 11 & Letcher, 1970); but resuscitation is effective. Threshold 12 levels, capable of inducing ventricular fibrillation are:

13 30 mA - 2 year old child 14 60-120 mA - adult l

15 The sensation produced by an electric shock depends, to 16 a large extent, on the current density at the points of 17 contact with the circuit. If the current density at the i

18 point of contact is low, there is no sensation of a shock.

f 19 The total current, current density, its duration, and its l

20 pathway through the body determine the effects, if any.

l 21 Based upon the work of Dal=iel and others and the

22 recommendations of the Underwriters Laboratories and the 1

23 Canadian Standards Association, it is my opinion that 5 mA is a safe current limit for the general populace.

, 24 i

l

.(

l Currents greater than the sensation threshold but b61ow 2 the let-go threshold might be painful or uncomfortable but 3 would not have any serious biological after-effects.

4 Recently, a survey of 37 independent utilities in

5 Canada and the United States who operate 500 kV and higher 6 transmission lines was completed. (MacLaren, 1979). I have 7 analyzed the responses obtained from the participating 8 utilities, and these indicate that there were no cases of 9 secondary accidents resulting from shocks. Generally, the 10 maximum ground level electric fields, under extreme condi-11 tions of loading and ambient temperature, could have been as 12 high as 11 kV per meter on certain of the 500 kV lines and 13 as high as 12.5 kV per meter for 750 kV lines. Edge of 14 right-of-way electric fields, under normal operating condi-15 tions, range from 1 to 3.5 kV per meter for the 500 kV lines 16 and from 2 to 4 kV per meter for the 750 kV lines. The 17 maximum induced short circuit current for the largest antic-18 ipated vehicle at any location did not exceed 5 milliamps.

19 In my opinion it would be advisable to limit the theor-t 20 etically possible short circuit current which could flow 21 through a person touching a conducting object in the field 22 to 5 mA. It is my understanding that currents in excess of 23 this value are not anticipated from vehicles or any other 24 bjects which could be reasonably expected to be located l

l 1 i

l l

l l

- - l

. i.

1 under the transmission line. In addition, it is my unde'r-2 standing that the Applicant's standard construction practice 3 is to ground any object within the right-of-way which would 4 theoretically produce such a current if touched by a person.

5 With this fact in mind, I am. confident that the proposed 6 transmission lines for ACNGS can be operated without any 7 adverse biological effects resulting from the direct or 8 indirect exposure to the lines' electric and magnetic fields.

9 Q. Would you briefly address the complaint filed by 10 Mr. Winfred Higgins in September, 1977, before the Pennsylvania 11 Utilities Commission, which complaint is cited by the inter-12 venor here as a basis for his contention?

13 A. Mr. Higgins alleged that he experienced shocks 14 both inside and outside his home from a nearby 500 kV trans-15 mission line. These allegations are inconsistent with the l

16 large amount of operating experience that has been obtained l

t 17 after many years of operation of HVT lines and are not, to 18 my mind, worthy of serious consideration by this Licensing i

! 19 Board. The Pennsylvania P.U.C. apparently did not consider 20 the line to be a hazard. Its ruling did not impose any

I l 21 requirements on the operating utility other than to provide l 22 grounding straps for Mr. Higgins' mowing equipment. This 23 requirement is consistent with my views as expressed above.

Q. Earlier, you briefly discussed the difference 24 l

i

. t.

1 between electric fields such as those created by high voltage 2 lines, and microwaves. Do high voltage lines emit micro-3 waves?

4 A. The intervenors have provided a citation which 5 asserts that microwaves emitted by high voltage transmission 6 lines pose a health and safety risk to the public. Micro-7 wave energy fields are of a much higher frequency than the 8 extremely low frequency (ELF) electric and magnetic fields 9 to which the majority of my testimony has been addressed.

10 Extrapolations from one range of frequencies to another 11 cannot properly be made.

12 The amount of microwave or radio-frequency energy 13 e.itted by high voltage transmission lines is of no health 14 and safety consequence. The amount of microwave energy 15 emitted is extremely low in the immediate vicinity of the 16 line and within a few feet of the line, the amount emitted 17 is less than that given off by the human body.

18 Q. Do high voltage transmission lines emit large 19 amounts of ozone?

20 A. The intervenors appear to centend that ozone l

21 emitted by HVT lines poses a health and safety risk. The 22 ozone emission issue was examined in great detail during l

23 extensive hearings before the New York Public Service Com-

~

1 24 mission in 1976 and 1977 (Cases 26529 and 26559). In those s

1 proceedings there was general agreement among the experts 2 testifying on behalf of the utility companies, the Public 3 Service Commission staff and the Attorney General that the 4 ozone generated by EVT lines would be far too small to have 5 any significant biological effect. The Administrative Law 6 Judges agreed with this conclusion and their determination 7 on this issue was adopted by the Commission.

8 Extensive studies and tests on existing lines through-9 out the United States have shown the amount of ozone pro-10 duced by transmission facilities is so small, when compared 11 to ambient levels, that it is difficult to measure. Any 12 ozone that is produced as a result of corona from the lines 13 is rapidly dissipated and has no public health significance 14 whatsoever.

15 I would also like to note that the intervenors have 16 erroneously referred to an article by H. E. Stokinger (Arch.

17 Environ. Health Vol. 10, May 1965). This article is a l

la review of ozone toxicology and has nothing to do with high 19 voltage transmission lines.

20 Q. Dr. Michaelson, would you comment briefly on the New York Public Service Commission hearings at which the 21 22 health effects of high voltage transmission lines were 23 discussed?

24, A. Lengthy hearings were held before the Now. York l

1 Public Service Commission in 1977 and 1978 regarding the' l 2 health effects of 765 kV transmission lines. These hearings 3 constituted the lengthiest and most detailed adjudication of 4 this issue to date. At the conclusion of these hearings the 5 P.S.C. found that the transmission lines in issue should be 6 authorized to operate. I participated in that proceeding as 7 a witness and nothing in the record of that proceeding 8 alters my conclusion that there are no demonstrable bio-9 logical effects which may be hazardous to health or safety 10 from the operation of 345 kV transmission lines. . In fact, 11 the reliable scientific studies performed since then have 12 supported the position that no harmful effects should occur.

13 as a result of association with these high voltage trans-1 l 14 mission lines.

l 15 Q. Have you analyzed the report by the Minnesota 16 Department of Health which has been referenced by the inter-17 venor here?

19 A. The intervenor has cited a study of the health and 19 safety effects of high-voltage transmission lines performed 20 by the Minnesota Department of Health. Contrary to the intervenor's assertion, the Minnesota Report does not con-21 l

clude that EvT lines pose a hazard. This study, in fact, l 22 23 soundly defuses the concern about such hazards and concludes i

24 that no health ha:ard has been demonstrated.

l l

l l

t

4.

1 Q. Dr. Michaelson, do you have any concluding remarks?

2 A. Yes. A careful review of the scientific litera-3 ture provides a basis upon which to make an accurate judgment 4 concerning the health, safety, and general biological en-5 vironmental effects of high voltage transmission lines.

6 Analysis of the results of field and laboratory studies in 7 man as well as laboratory studies of animals and plants S indicates that there are no demonstrable biological effects 9 which may be hazardous to health or safety or to the general 10 biological environment as a result of tne presence of 11 electric and magnetic fields from high voltage transmission 12 lines.

13 Furthermore, the presence of thousands of miles of high l . 14 voltage transmission lines in the U.S. for a quarter of a l

15 century w_th no harmful affects on the people who live in 16 the vicinity or work on and under them, nor the animals and 17 plants that live under them, is a strong factor attesting to 18 the biologic safety of the transmission line electromagnetic 19 environment.

20 Q. Does this conclude your testimony?

21 A. Yes.

22 23 24

References '

Amstutz, H. E. and D. B. Miller (1980) . A Study of Farm Animals Near 765 kV Transmission Lines. Report on a study conducted for the Indiana and Michigan Electric Co. and American Electric Power Service Corp.

l Asanova, T. P. and A. I, Rakov (1966). The state of health l of persons working in the electric field of outdoor 400 kV and 500 kV switchyards. Gigiena Truda, Professional' nye Zabolevanila (Moskva) 10, 50. Translation by Dr.

Guy Knickerbocker.

Beischer, D. E., J. D. Grissett, and R. E. Mitchell (1973).

Exposure of man to magnetic fields of extremely low frequency. NAMRL-ll80, Naval Aero-space Medical Re-search Laboratory, Pensacola, Florida, July 30.

Bourgsdort, Gardon, P. C., and R. S. Gordon (1959) . Rapid increase of plasma unesterified fatty acids in man during fear. J. Physchosomat, Res. 4: 5-9.

Busby, K., Driscoll, D., and Washborn, W. E. A field survey of farmer experience with 765 transmission lines.

l Abstract issued by Agricultural Resources Commission State Campus, Albany, NY, Nov. 18-20, 1974.

Dalziel, C. F. 1972. Electric shock hazard. IEEE Spectrum, pp. 41-50.

Dalziel, C. F. 1973. Electric Shock. Biomedical Engineering, Vol. 3, Academic Press.

de Lorge, J. (1972). Operant behavior of Rhesus monkeys in the presence of extremely low frequency - low intensity magnetic and electric fields: Experiment 1._ NAMRL-1155, Naval Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory, Pensacola, Florida, November 1.

de Lorge, J. (1973). Operant behavior of Rhesus monkeys in the presence of extremely low frequency - low intensity magnetic and electric fields: Experiment 2. NAMRL-1179, Naval Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory, Pensacola, Florida, March 15.

de Lorge, J. (1973). Operant behavior of Rhesus monkeys in the presence of extremely low frequency - low intensity magnetic and electric fields: Experiment 3. NAMRL-1196, Naval Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory, Pensacola, Florida, November 5.

l l

1 -

- r s

• 4, '

Eisemann, B. (1975). Untersuchungen uber Langzeiteinwirkung kleiner Wechselstrome 50 Hz auf den Menschen. Doctoral Dissertation, Albert-Ludwigs University, Freiburg, Germany.

Gavalas, R. J., D. O. Walter, J. Hamer, and W. R. Adey (1970). Effect of low-level, low-frequency electric fields on EEG and behavior in Macaca namestrina.

Brain Res. 18: 481-501.

Grissett, J. D. (1971). Exposure of squirrel monkeys for long periods of extremely low-frequency magnetic fields:

Central-nervous-system effects as measured by reaction time. NAMRL-1146, Naval Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory, Pensacola. Florida, October 21.

Grissett, J.D. and Kupper, J. L. (1976). Chronic exposure of primates to electric and magnetic fields associated with ELF communication systems. Naval Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory, Interim Research Report, June 1976.

Grissett, J. D., Kupper, J. L., Kesiler, M. J., Brown, R. J.,

Prettyman, G. D., Cook, L. L. and Griner, T. A. (1977).

Exposure of primates for one year to electric and magnetic fields associated with ELF communications systems. Naval Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory, Report NAMRL-1240,

p. 315.

Hauf, G. (1974). Untersuchungen uber die Wirkung energieveschnischer Felder auf den Menschen. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Munich, Munich, Germany.

Hauf, R., and J. Wiesinger (1973). Biological effects of technical electric and electromagnetic VLF fields.

Int. J. Bicmeteor. 17: 213-215.

Hylten-Cavalluis, N., Maruvada, P. S., Trinh, N. G., Cote, N.

and Kelley-Megnier, L. (1976). Effets du champ electro-statique dans le voisinage de lignes de transport d'energie i et dans les postes RT. CIGRE 1976l paper 36-04.

Issel, I., Kempe, H., Seeber, A. and Wolf, J. (1977).

j Tauglichkeits und Eignungsuntersuchungen an Elektromonteuren-l Erlauterung an einer neuen Untersuchungsanweisung. Dt.

! gesundh.-Wesen 32: 1526-1531.

l Johansson, R., A. G. Lundquist, S. Lundquist, and V. Scuda (1973). Is there a connection between the electricity in the atmosphere and the function of man? Part III. 50 Hz field variations. FOA Report, September. ,

. l.

Keesey, J. C. and Letcher, F. S. (1970). Human thresholds of electric shock at power transmission frequencies.

Arch. Environ. Health, 21: 547-552.

Knave, B., Gamberale, F., Bergstrom, S., Birke, E., Iregren, A.

Kolomodin-Hedman, B. and Wennberg, A. (1979). Long term exposure to electric fields: A cross-sectional epidamiologic investigation on occupationally-exposed workers in high voltage substations. Scand. J. Work Environ and Health 5: 115-125.

Knickbocker, Keesey, Fletcher, G. G., W. B. Kouwenhoven, and H. C. Barnes (1967). Exposure of mice to a strong AC electric field - An experimental study. IEEE Trans.

, PAS 86: 498-505.

Kouweinhoven, W. B., O. R. Langworthy, M. L. Singewald and G. G. Knickerbocker (1967) . Medical evaluation of man working in AC electric fields. IEEE Trans. PAS 86: --

506-5111.

Kupfer, J. (1977). Results of occupational medical and

psychological examinations on electrical fitters. Proc.

Internat. Symp. Biological Effects of Electromagnetic

! Waves, October / November, 1977, Airlie, Virginia.

MacTareu, J. S. A Report to the Candadian Electric Association i Research and Development Department on the State of the

Art of the Eavironmental Effects of Transmission Lines, l March 1979.

Mantell, B. (1975). Utersuchungen uber die Wirkung eines magnetischen Wechselfeldes 50 Hz auf den Menschen.

Doctoral Dissertation, Albert-Ludwigs University, Freiburg, Germany.

Michaelson, S. M. " Human Response to Power Frequency Exposures,"

Biological Effects of Extremely Low Frequency Electro-magnetic Field.- R. D. Phillips (editor), pages 1-20 in the proceedings of the lath Annual Handford Life. Sciences Symposium.

Michaelson, S. M. " Analysis of Studies Related to Biological Effects and Health Implications of Exposure to Power Frequencies," Vol. 4 Environmental Professional (to be published in July, 1980).

3

n. ,

Phillips, R. D., Chandon, J. H., Free, M. J., Hampton, J'. C.,

Hilton, D. E., Hjeresen, D. L., Jaffe, R. A., Kaune, W. T., McClanahan, B. J., Morris, J. E., Ragan, H. A.,

Schneider, R. P. and Zwicker, G. M. (1978). Biological Effects of High Strength Electric Fields on Small Laboratory Animals. Annual Report, HCP/TI830-03, U. S.

Department of Energy, Division of Electrical Energy Systems, Washington, D. C. NTIS, Springfield, Va.

Roberg, P. F. (1976). Study of the state of health of electrical maintenance workers on hydro Quebec's 735 kV power trans-mission system. Health Department, Hydro-Quebec, Montreal, 29 pp.

Sazanova, T. E. (1967). A physiological assessment of work conditions in 400 kV and 500 kV open switchyards. Scientific Publications of the Institute of Labor Protection of the All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions, issue 46, Profizdat. Translated by Dr. Guy Knickerbokcer.

Singewald, M. L., O. R. Langworthy and W. B. Kouwenhoven (1973).

Medical follow-up study of high voltage linemen working in AC electric fields. IEEE Trans. PAS 92: 1307-1309.

V. V. Bourgsdorf, N. P. Emeljanov, J. I. Lyskov, V. S. Liashenko, S. S. Rokotian and B. I. Smirnov. (1976). Design of the EEV 1150 kV AC Transmission Line. International Conference on Large High Voltage Electric Systems. 1976 Session, Aug. 25-Sept. 2.

Ware, B. J. Effects of 765 kV transmission lines on grazing habits. AEP Service Corp., December 11, 1974.

l

_4_

__.