POINT 11: THE TESTIMONY OF APPLICANTS WITNESS HERMAN SCHWAN REGARDING THE HEALTH HAZARDS OF HIGH VOLTAGE TRANSMISSION LINES IS WITHOUT MERIT.
SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY
Herman Schwan has testified that exposure to the fields of the proposed transmission line will not be harmful or unsafe. (Schwan 3162-9ff) His conclusion is based on the argument that for nominal electric and magnetic fields of the proposed transmission line of 10 kV/m and 1 gauss respectively, the electric field and the current density that would be induced in an exposed subject are much smaller than the corresponding safe values. (Schwan 33162-11ff) Specifically, the fields of the proposed transmission line will induce a current density in an exposed subject of 0.0000001 A/cm2 (J-induced), whereas 0.0001 A/cm2 (J-safe) may be safely experienced. Also, the fields of the proposed transmission line will induce an electric field in an exposed subject of 0.00005 volts/cm (E-induced), whereas 0.1 volts/cm (E-safe) may be safely experienced. (Schwan 3162-14ff) J-safe and E-safe are conservative and conclusive. (Schwan 3166-18) They are approximate values for completely safe exposure. It probably takes substantially greater values to produce harmful effects. (Schwan 3166-21ff)
Thus, Schwan believes he knows the specific levels of induced current density and induced electric field that may be safely experienced. He believes also that he knows the specific levels of these parameters that will actually occur in the subjects that will be exposed to the fields of the proposed transmission line. He concludes that since the former will exceed the latter, the proposed transmission lines are safe. Most of the analysis in his testimony is devoted to explaining the basis of his assertion J-safe= 0.0001 A/cm2 (Schwan 3167-3 to 3168-1), and that the safe electric field is 0.1 volts/cm (Schwan 3168-18 to 3173-12).
Schwan devotes some effort to an analysis of the Soviet position on high voltage transmission lines, and concludes that the Soviet experience supports the applicants’ position (Schwan 3173-13 to 3176-16).
The testimony of Herman Schwan has no merit because (Marino 12357-12392):
- Schwan has not identified a safe internal current density, and
- Schwan has not identified a safe internal electric field, and
- Schwan’s analysis of the Soviet experience with high voltage transmission lines is superficial and incorrect, and
- During his cross-examination, Schwan contradicted his own direct testimony, and the testimony of applicants’ other witness by substantially accepting as valid many ELF reports which recite an electric field induced biological effect, and
- Schwan followed an improper dual standard in determining which scientific reports he accepts.
SCHWAN HAS NOT IDENTIFIED A SAFE INTERNAL CURRENT DENSITY
Schwan has argued that since an internal current density of 0.0001 A/cm2 will not cause tissue heating or tissue excitation, it is safe. (Schwan 3167-3 to 3168-7) Conceding, arguendo, his premise*, the conclusion that 0.0001 A/cm2 is safe is not a logical consequence thereof.
On the one hand, Schwan believes he knows how nerves work, that is, he understands the mechanism underlying information transfer in neural tissue.
With such knowledge, he is able to conclude that the presence in neural tissue of a current density of 0.0001 A/cm2 will not alter or impair neural function and is therefore, safe with respect to neural function. (Schwan 3168-3 to 3168-8) On the other hand, there are a great many other systems within the body for which knowledge of the mechanisms of action and control is lacking. Schwan of course shares in the aforesaid ignorance. For example, the mechanism by which the body controls the healing bone fractures is unknown. It therefore, cannot be predicted whether the presence of a current density of 0.0001 A/cm2 inside such healing tissue will be safe. A similar comment applies to all healing tissue. The mechanisms regulating the production of insulin by the pancreas and the production of adrenaline by the adrenal glands are unknown. It therefore, cannot be predicted whether the presence of 0.0001 A/cm2 inside the pancreas or adrenals will affect their function. A similar comment applies to the function of every gland and organ in the body. The etiology of many human diseases is unknown. It therefore, cannot presently be predicted whether the likelihood of developing such diseases is altered by the presence within the body of a current density of 0.0001 A/cm2. We do not understand the mechanisms underlying the processes of learning or memory; we therefore, cannot predict whether these processes will be altered by the presence within the body of a current density of 0.0001 A/cm2.
Since the mechanisms underlying the great multitude of biological processes are unknown, Schwan cannot appraise his asserted safe current density with respect to such processes as was possible, in the single case in which he claimed knowledge of the mechanism. Thus, even if one concedes that 0.0001 A/cm2 is a safe current density with respect to neural function, there are a great number of bodily functions and processes which remain unconsidered, and for which a safe current cannot be identified.
In his direct testimony, Schwan advances. a number of positions, all of which are unfettered by specific references to the work of other. In particular, his position that tissue heating and tissue stimulation are the only biologically significant mechansims is unsupported by citations, references or analysis. Schwan was therefore specifically asked to provide citations to all reports or studies which provide the basis for the opinion that there are no other “biological mechanisms of significance in evaluating exposure to electric currents.” (Interrogatories served on Niagara Mohawk January 28, 1976.) His reply merely restated his position, and contained no specific documentation. Throughout his cross-examination, he also failed to document or justify his position. (Schwan 6754-6834) It must therefore, be concluded that no support exists, and that his position is a naked assertion, unsupported by authority, evidence or analysis. As a consequence of Schwan’s failure to document or even render plausible his position, it is not logically possible to claim that 0.0001 A/cm2 is a safe current density because its safety has only been considered with respect to one mechanism.
Thus far it has been conceded, arguendo, that 0.0001 A/cm2 is a safe current density with respect to neural tissue.
The fact is however, the safety of 0.0001 A/cm2 with respect to neural function is only a contested scientific theory.In testifying that 0.0001 A/cm2 is safe with respect to nerves (Schwan 3168-3 to 3168-8), Schwan offers to the Commission, as evidence, one scientific theory, while withholding the major competing scientific theory.
Nerves transmit information between various parts of the body. One school of neurophysiologists hold that information transfer occurs only when excitation occurs with the resultant propagation along the nerve of a wave of depolarization known as the action potential. Schwan adopts this view. Another school of neurophysiologists holds that information can be transferred even if there is no tissue excitation and hence no action potential.
Even it were true that 0.0001 A/cm2 would not cause tissue excitation, it does not follow that this current density is safe with regard to neural function because the question whether it is safe with regard to alternate mechanisms of information transfer has not been resolved. Irrespective of the merits of the position of either group of neurophysiologists, a bona fide scientific dispute exists regarding the mechanism of information transfer in neural tissue. One could conclude that a current density of 0.0001 A/cm2 is safe with respect to neural function only if it was concluded that one school of neurophysiologists was correct, and the other incorrect. It is improper for Schwan, who is not a neurophysiologist to intimate to the Commission that there is only one view regarding the mechanism of information transfer in neural tissue with respect to which a specific current density must be evaluated for safety. It is misleading for Schwan, in the complete absence of supportive evidence, to adopt and offer the view that one particular school is correct, when the issue has not even been resolved among professional neurophysiologists.
SCHWAN HAS NOT IDENTIFIED A SAFE INTERNAL ELECTRIC FIELD
Schwan argues that 0.1 volts/cm is a safe internal electric field because it will not produce dielectric saturation (Schwan 3169-14 to 3169-21), or harmful effects on biopolymers (Schwan 3169-21 to 3170-7), or fields which are significant compared to those naturally present (Schwan 3170-2 to 3170-12), or produce fields which penetrate cells (Schwan 3170-13 to 3170-21), or exert electrical forces on cells (Schwan 3171-1 to 3171-17).
In urging the existence of a safe internal electric field, Schwan deceives the Commission to the extent that he implies that it is a basis distinct from the current density of 0.0001 A/cm2 upon which to assess safety. In reality, safe levels of internal current density and internal electric fields are redundant not distinct concepts. The current density and electric field at a point within a material are related by a constant factor associated with the material called its resistivity (or conductivity). Schwan believes that he knows that the resistivity of body tissue is about 1000 ohm-cm. Since resistivity multiplied by current density equals electric field, it follows that if 0.0001 A/cm2 were a safe current density for body tissue, then 0.1 volts/cm would be a safe electric field for tissue. Since however, it has been shown that there is no basis for the assertion of a safe internal current density it follows inexorably that Schwan cannot identify a safe internal electric field.
Since Schwan’s testimony is tautological in substance but not form, it may be worthwhile to deal with his position in the language of electric field.
(a) 0.1 volts/cm and safety; dielectric saturation. (Schwan 3169-14 to 3169-21)
Schwan argues that dielectric saturation is a prerequisite for harmful field effects, and since it cannot occur at 0.1 volts/cm, such an electric field is safe. He provides however, no citations or references to explain or support or illuminate his rather enigmatic premise. He was therefore, asked specifically to do so via interrogatories.
In his reply he discussed elementary dielectric theory, and defined the term dielectric saturation. He failed however, to supply citations or references to support his premise. His premise that dielectric saturation is a prerequisite for harmful effects must therefore, be considered to be a mere naked assertion unsupported by any authority or evidence and therefore, impossible of sustaining the conclusion that 0.1 volts/cm is a safe internal electric field.
(b) 0.1 volts/cm and safety; biopolymers. (Schwan 3169-21 to 3170-7)
Schwan. argues that harmful effects on biopolymers have never been observed at 0.1 volts/cm, and if they could occur, “life as we know it probably could not have developed.” He provided no citations or references to support or explain this view, and he was therefore specifically asked to do so via interrogatories. His reply listed four references. The citations however, have nothing whatsoever, to do with safe internal electric fields, or harmful effects of electric fields on biopolymers. They do not deal with the effects of electric fields on animals. They are texts concerned with the physics of the interaction between electricity, and macromolecules and membranes. They do not speak to the biological concepts of harm, safety, life, or evolution. Since therefore, the authority that Schwan cites does not support his position with respect to biopolymers, that position cannot be considered evidence that 0.1 volts/cm is a safe internal electric field.
(c) 0.1 volts/cm and safety; natural internal fields. (Schwan 3170-7 to 3170-12)
Schwan argues that inside tissue there are naturally electric fields of 1000 volts/cm, and more, and the proposed transmission line will cause fields within the tissue of exposed subjects that are “infinitely small,” implying by such a comparison that 0.1. volts/cm is safe, or should be so considered.
High electric fields are present inside every corporeal body. They arise because all matter contains positively and negatively charged particles. There is however, very little region of high electric field within any material. The fields induced in the tissue of subjects exposed to the fields of the proposed transmission line vastly exceed in magnitude, and greatly differ in frequency from that which is naturally present at virtually every location within the body of the exposed subject. Except in the realm of subatomic phenomena, one generally ignores the presence of high electric fields inside matter.
An electric field of 1000 volts/cm has no significance over dimensions which would make it of interest in this hearing. The sophistry of Schwan’s argument is evident if one considers the consequences thereof. Schwan has stated that the resistivity of biological tissue is 1000 ohm-cm. Employing the electric field of 1000 volts/cm, there would exist a normal current density within the body of 1 A/cm2, which is ten thousand times greater than Schwan’s safe current density. (Schwan 3166-4)
(d) 0.1 volts/cm and safety; shielding. (Schwan 3170-13 to 3170-21)
Schwan appears to say that 0.1 volts/cm is safe because cells are shielded by their membranes. His position however, is unreferenced and unexplained. Consequently, it is screened from analysis.
(e) 0.1 volts/cm and safety; electrical forces. (Schwan 3171-1 to 3131-17)
Schwan argues that electrical forces on cells are insignificant at 0.3. volts/cm. When asked to supply all citations upon which he based his position, he cited one report in his reply. The report however, furnished no support for his position. It only offers a theory employing dipole forces on cells exhibiting no net charge, to explain the observations of others that electric fields of 100 volts/cm are necessary to cause orientational effects in cells. Cells however, contain areas of fixed charge, and some cells exhibit a net electric charge. Consequently, monopole forces acting on an entire cell or on a part thereof may be vastly more important than the dipole forces which Schwan has studied. Assuming that Schwan’s theory is correct, it explains what exists, and is not evidence or support to prove the nonexistence of effects which proceed via some mechanism other than that used in the theory.
It should be noted explicitly that even if it were true that 0.1 volts/cm was a safe internal electric field with respect to considerations of dielectric saturation, biopolymers, internal fields, shielding, and electrical forces, the assertion that such a field is therefore, safe for people to experience within their bodies is a generalization of truly impressive proportions. There is in fact, not one shard of evidence to indicate that the list of mechanisms which Schwan chooses to discuss with respect to safety, is sufficient for such purposes.
In his direct testimony (Schwan 3171-18 to 3173-8), Schwan refers to claimed weak field effects observed at the system level. Unfortunately, the studies which he had in mind are not. identified in his testimony. When specifically asked to do so, he stated only that they were to be found in the testimony of applicants’ witnesses Miller and Michaelson. With regard to the results contained in the unidentified literature, Schwan concludes that no biophysical principles have been suggested in support thereof, and that further research is required. (Schwan 3173-9 to 3173-11) To Schwan, a biophysical principle is a principle of physics applied to biology. (Schwan 6566) The conclusion of his analysis on transcript pages 3171–3173 would therefore, appear to be that principles of physics cannot explain some of the results discussed by Miller and Michaelson. It must be pointed out that this establishes the inadequacy of physics, and does not impeach the observations of biologists. There are very few, if any, biological functions explainable by the laws of physics.
SCHWAN’S ANALYSES OF THE SOVIET EXPERIENCE WITH HIGH VOLTAGE TRANSMISSION LINES IS INCORRECT
Schwan argues that the Soviet position with respect to the biological effects from the electric and magnetic fields of high voltage transmission lines verifies the applicants’ position that adverse health effects will not result from the 765 kV transmission lines’ electric field of 10 kV/m at 60 Hz. (Schwan 3173-3176) As a basis for this view, he cites the report by Lyskov and a discussion of the report which was coordinated by Tikhodeyev and Balderston for the USSR and the US delegation, respectively. Schwan’s analysis consists essentially of three direct quotes from Lyskov, and one from Tikhodeyev.
Contrary to Schwan’s testimony, the Soviet position with respect to the biological effects of electric fields from high voltage transmission lines is irreconcilable with that of the applicants’ in this hearing. Schwan correctly testifies that the Soviet position with respect to the biological effects of the magnetic field of high voltage transmission lines, and the Soviet position with respect to the consequences on nonsystematic exposure to the electric and magnetic fields of high voltage transmission lines are consistent with that of the applicant. In doing so however, he contradicts the testimony of the applicants’ witness Michaelson.
Electric field. Quoting from Lyskov, Schwan lists Soviet electric field intensity standards (design criteria) for high voltage transmission lines (Schwan 3174-14 to 3174-21), and he quotes language indicating that the Soviet high voltage transmission line operating experience has been favorable. (Schwan 3174-1 to 3175-4) Schwan’s testimony implies that since the Soviet design criteria permit ground level electric field strengths higher than that of the proposed transmission line, and since the Soviet operating experience has been favorable, the Soviet position supports the applicants’ position that the proposed transmission line will be safe. (Schwan 3176-13 to 3176-16) Schwan chooses to ignore however, the applicable Soviet rules and regulations which are part of the Soviet regulatory response to high voltage transmission lines. The Soviets have work rules governing the extent of exposure to high voltage transmission line electric fields. They are developing comparable rules for other groups. Soviet high voltage transmission lines are built 984-1640 feet from planned population sites. They are not built within 328 feet of inhabited dwellings.
For a transmission Line similar to that proposed here, the Soviet Zone of Influence would be 362 feet. Within the Zone of Influence, unauthorized people are not permitted, and agriculture is limited and must be carried out in shielded machinery. Beaches, shops, etc., must be located a sufficient distance from the edge of the Zone of Influence.
Buildings are not permitted within the Zone of Influence. It is within the set of applicable rules and regulations, including those described, that the favorable operating experience described by Lyskov and Tikhodeyev has been achieved. The Soviet rules and regulations are a result of a broad Soviet research effort into the area ELF field biological effects. (Marino 7206-13 to 7219-8) To the extent that Schwan’s testimony states or implies that the Soviet position on the biological effects of the electric field of high voltage transmission lines supports the position of the applicants, his testimony is in error.
Magnetic field. The Soviet view of the biological effects of the magnetic field of high voltage transmission lines appears to be that there are none. The Soviet view of the hazard of the non-systematic exposure of the public to the electric and magnetic fields of high voltage transmission lines is that there is none. (Marino 7210-18) In a sense therefore, the Soviet positions are consistent with those of the applicants. Schwan’s testimony is structured to exploit this consistency. His first two quotes are of the language indicating the Soviet view on magnetic fields (Schwan 3174-1 to 3174-8), and the language indicating the Soviet view on non-systematic exposure. (Schwan 3174-14 to 3174-17) The point is that only in these two areas, and only in the limited sense described can it be argued that the Soviet view supports the position of the applicants.
Contradiction of Michaelson. The area of magnetic field induced effects in biological systems is the focus of a considerable research effort in the Soviet Union.
One consequence of the Soviet research effort is the apparently official Soviet view that the magnetic field of high voltage transmission lines does not constitute a health hazard. Schwan quotes the Soviet view approvingly. (Schwan 3174-1 to 3174-8) It follows therefore, that he believes that the Soviet scientific literature dealing with the biological effects of ELF magnetic fields is of sufficient quality and reliability upon which to base an opinion.
Such a direct reliance on Soviet studies is inconsistent with the testimony of applicants’ witness Michaelson who has testified that the Soviet scientific literature is unreliable and largely unavailable.
SCHWAN’S CROSS-EXAMINATION TESTIMONY DIRECTLY CONTRADICTED BOTH HIS DIRECT TESTIMONY AND THE TESTIMONY OF APPLICANTS’ OTHER WITNESSES
In his direct testimony, Schwan adopted the view that he could identify for the Commission safe values of the internal current density and electric field. He chose to describe his safety levels in terms of internal values of field and current. (Schwan 3162-11 to 3162-21). It must be understood how one arrives at internal values of these quantities. Given a biological system exposed to a specific external electric field (which is measurable) one employs a number of assumptions and thereby derives mathematically a value for the internal electric field and current density which is a consequence of the applied external electric field under the assumptions employed. (Carstensen Exhibits NNN and D-4) For example, according to Schwan, a man exposed to the ground level fields of the proposed transmission line will experience an internal current density of 0.0000001 A/cm2, and an internal electric field of 0.00005 v/cm. (Schwan 3162-1 to 3162-21) It is the custom among investigators in the ELF area when reporting experimental results to specify the biological system studied, the external electric field applied, and the result obtained thereby, and to refrain from asserting values for internal fields and currents because invariably such values are based on unverified and unverifiable assumptions employed in the calculation. In his only publication in the ELF area involving biological experimentation, in which he studied amoebas, Schwan also followed this custom.
If one inverts Schwan’s mathematical calculations, the strength of the applied external electric field which corresponds to Schwan’s safe internal electric field can be found. The external electric field so determined is 20,000 kV/m. That is, according to Schwan, an individual would have to be exposed to an electric field greater than 20,000 kV/m before the internal electric field would be unsafe. Since such an electric field strength in air is impossible because air breaks down at about 2,000 kV/m, Schwan’s testimony is equivalent to an assertion that ELF electric field biological effects are physically impossible. Schwan has consistently advocated such a view. In 1972, he stated “It is virtually impossible to evoke dangerous current densities in the human body by external low frequency fields.” In 1973, Schwan described the results of a calculation in which he purported to show that a man, assumed to be shaped like a sphere, could be subjected to the entire power output of a typical electric generating plant, and still the induced currents would not be dangerous.
Schwan’s viewpoint is quite extremist. There is no one who has spoken mere forcefully in support of the utilities’ views that there can be no ELF electric field induced biological effects. On the other hand, about 65 groups of scientific investigators in the free world, and an indeterminate number within the Soviet Union have reported the kind of biological effects which Schwan says are impossible. When confronted by specific reports showing ELF-field induced biological effects, Schwan substantially accepted as scientifically valid every report discussed. In those cases where reservations were expressed, they resulted from Schwan’s misunderstanding of the individual report, and not from a defect within the report. Throughout his cross-examination, the only experimental reports which Schwan found to be invalid were reports cited by applicants’ witness Miller to support his conclusions. Schwan went on to identify himself as possessing two standards for reading the experimental literature, depending on whether or not the results reported therein comported with his viewpoint. Schwan further testified that he has not read many of the reports relied upon, by the other witnesses for the applicants.
1. Bassett (Marino 7151-7 to 7152-12)
Bassett reported that ELF fields increase the rate of fracture healing in dogs. When asked if he accepted Bassett’s results, Schwan replied that he “could not detect any faults from my reading of the article.” (Schwan 6716) Carstensen on the other hand finds many faults with Bassett’s report. (Carstensen 7005-10 to 7009-11)
2. Watson (Marino 7157-1 to 7158-10)
Watson found that ELF electric fields modify the growth rate of bones. When asked if he accepted Watson’s results, Schwan that he had “no qualms with the general conclusions.” (Schwan 6714)
3. Solov′ev (Marino 7163-21 to 7164-7)
Solov’ev described certain lethal effects on mice and insects of high intensity ELF electric fields. When asked if he accepted Solov′ev’s results, Schwan replied “by and large yes,” and “at such very high field strengths many effects can take place which are very detrimental.” (Schwan 6712)
4. Goodman (Marino 7166-4 to 7168-12)
Goodman reported delays in the rate of cell division brought about by ELF fields. When asked if he accepted Goodman’s results, Schwan replied “almost but not quite.” (Schwan 6704) On the other hand, applicants’ witness Miller believes that Goodman’s work is “outstanding,’ and that its a “beautiful example of a well constructed well analyzed experiment.” (Miller 5921)
Schwan’s single objection to Goodman’s work is that there is a possibility of an electrode poisoning effect. Such a possibility has been considered by the authors and others, and judged to be highly unlikely in view of the elaborate precautions taken during the experiment.
5. Southern (Marino 7168-13 to 7169-9)
Southern reported that ELF fields disrupted the orientational ability of birds. When asked if he accepted Southern’s results, Schwan replied “yes and no.” (Schwan 6694) Schwan’s reservations are that the report is lacking in statistics (Schwan 6694-21) and contains certain inconsistencies. (Schwan 6696)
A careful reading of Southern’s report shows that all the data pertinent to the experiment is in the report, as are all the results of statistical tests thereon. Southern employs the word “inconsistency” in describing some specific results, but the inconsistency does not, as Schwan implies, vitiate Southern’s conclusion that ELF fields can disorientate birds. It should be noted that the editors and peer reviewers of Science, one of the most prestigious American science journals, apparently feel that Southern has not impeached his own research inasmuch as it chose to publish Southern’s work.
Schwan’s analysis of Southern’s work is inconsistent with that of applicants’ witness Miller who believes that it “lends support to the hypothesis that birds instinctive migratory directional behaviour can be influenced somewhat by the Sanguine field.” (Miller Exhibit ZZZ, p.49) [The Sanguine magnetic field is comparable to the magnetic field of proposed transmission lines; however, the Sanguine electric field is about one million times weaker than the electric field of the 765 kV lines.]
6. Gavalas-Medici (Marino 7171-15 to 7172-8)
Gavalas-Medici reported behavioral effects in monkeys due to exposure to ELF electric fields. When asked if he accepted Gavalas-Medici’s results, Schwan replied “not necessarily.” (Schwan 6677-8) The basis of his reservation is that electrodes were used, and that they are “potentially suspect.” (Schwan 6678-13)
Schwan however, gave no factual basis for the implication that the use of electrodes somehow impugns or weakens Gavalas-Medici’s conclusion.
7. McCleave (Marino 7170-3 to 7174-15)
McCleave reported that fish could perceive extremely weak ELF electric fields. When asked if he accepted McCleave’s results, Schwan replied “not necessarily.” (Schwan 6666-17) Schwan’s reservations are that “electrodes were used” (Schwan 6666-17), and that McCleave “could not confirm” (Schwan 6668-8) his results in later research. The electrodes used by McCleave to monitor activity were made of glass and plastic. The electrically conducting portion was outside the fish tank. The cardiac recording electrodes were twisted pairs of teflon coated wire which were implanted fore and aft of the heart, thereby maximizing the signal to the electrodes when the fish was parallel to the applied field. McCleave’s results showed a maximum response when the fish was perpendicular to the field. Therefore, the electrode artifact hypothesized by Schwan (Schwan 6670-1 to 6670-8) could not have produced the observed results.
Schwan’s implication that one series of McCleave’s experiments detracts from another series (Schwan 6668) is not accurate. The experiments, referred to by Schwan. were not ELF experiments.
The view of McCleave&squo;s work by applicants’ witness Miller differs from that of Schwan. Miller believes that McCleave’s work supports the premise that fish can detect ELF fields. (Miller, Exhibit ZZZ, p. 44)
8. Wever (Marino 7173-16 to 7176-21)
Wever reported that ELF electric fields can alter human biorhythms. Schwan testified that Wever’s work “appears to be well done” (Schwan 6619-10), but that “there lingers some doubt in my mind.” (Schwan 6619-14) Schwan lists three objections:
- “Wever did not make any allowances for naps.” (Schwan 6619-19)
In most of the experiments reported by Wever, the subjects were not allowed to take naps, so no problem with respect to naps arose. In those experiments with naps, published analyses show that they have no effect on the observed results. - “Dr. Wever has conducted more than 100 experiments. Only a fraction of these experiments, something like 20 or 40 have been published. Why not all?” (Schwan 6620-9)
Schwan’s statement is erroneous and unfair to Wever. Wever has in fact published the results of all his experiments which deal with ELF fields in anyway. Schwan was educated in Germany, and was an Associate (1937–1945) and Assistant Director (1945–1947) at one of the Max Planck Institutes where Wever performed his research. (Schwan 3154) It seems eminently reasonable therefore to assume that Schwan reads German, and consequently that he could have read the German report which contains complete information about all of Wever’s experiments. - Since the experimental subjects were exposed both the applied electric field and the electric field from light bulbs in the bunkers where they lived, the observed changes in the human biorhythms could have been due to the electric field from the light bulbs, and not the applied electric field. (Schwan 6621)
The applied electric field in Wever’s experiment was 0.025 volts/cm (26). The electric field from a light bulb, at a typical distance away from it, is about 0.0020 volts/cm. Thus, if Schwan’s objection to Wever’s work had any merit whatsoever, it would indicate that electric fields ten times less intense than Wever’s applied field were capable of causing biological effects. In point of fact however, the electric fields from the lights in both the control and experimental bunkers were identical, and consequently the observed differences in the biorhythms in the subjects studied cannot be concluded in anyway to be due to the fields from the light bulbs.
9. Marino (Marino 7191-13 to 7197-7)
Marino reported that ELF electric fields altered the growth rate in three successive generations of mice. When asked if he accepted the results, Schwan replied “not necessarily.” (Schwan 6582-14) Schwan’s reservation is based on the belief that “discharges while drinking might influence his data.” (Schwan 6584-11)
Such a possibility has been discussed. (Marino 7195-21 to 7196-8) Whereat it was shown that any possible effect of the discharges affects only the severity of the observed effects, and has no bearing on their existence. Schwan has failed to take cognizance of the distinction.
10. Marino (Marino 7181-4 to 7191-12) Marino reported that ELF electric fields caused stress in rats. When Schwan was asked if he accepted the results, he replied “not necessarily” (Schwan 6600-5), and again expressed a reservation regarding discharges. The possibility that such discharges were a significant factor in the observed results was considered and rejected. (Marino 7187-3 to 7187-11) Schwan has similarly failed to take cognizance of the analysis.
SCHWAN’S TESTIMONY WAS PREPARED PURSUANT TO AN IMPROPER DUAL STANDARD FOR DETERMINING WHICH SCIENTIFIC REPORTS ARE VALID
Schwan’s criteria for accepting experimental results are (1) the circumstances surrounding the report must not be faulty, (2) the work must not be subject to criticism based on defects or statistics, and (3) it must be confirmed by others. (Schwan 6571-13 to 6571-20) Unfortunately, these criteria apply only to reports which show a biological effect as a consequence of the exposure of the system to an ELF electric field. If a scientist reports a result which comports with his viewpoint, Schwan’s criteria are different. When the conclusions of the experiment were that there was no effect, “I was not further interested in digging into the material.” (Schwan 6732-2) Schwan stated repeatedly that he reads more carefully those studies which show an effect, as compared to those studies which show no effect. (Schwan 6732-21, 6734-11) Schwan testified that he read the Hazelton Studies (relied upon heavily by applicants’ witness Miller (Miller, Exhibit ZZZ, pp. 1–26) much less carefully than he read the literature which reported a positive effect due to ELF field exposure, because the studies were negative, and because he is under time pressure. (Schwan 6735-4) Schwan stated that if the summary of the report didn’t express conclusions which were antagonistic to his viewpoint, then he didn&Rsquo;t read the report. (Schwan 6738-12) Referring to almost the entire set of documents upon which applicants’ witness Miller relied to support his conclusion, Schwan testified that he read some of the reports, but many he did not read because they were negative reports. (Schwan 6744-2, 6744-17, 6746-23 to 6748-5)
Notwithstanding that he doesn’t read the negative literature, Schwan accepts it as valid. (Schwan 3173-1 to 3173-5, 3170-19)
The validity of scientific experiments is not properly a function of the degree to which such results support a particular view. Whether a report describes a positive result (“When I varied X, Y changed”) or a negative result (“When I varied X, Y did not change”), the applicable scientific standards by which one judges whether the results accurately describe nature are identical. It is no mean failure in scientific objectivity to do otherwise.
DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY REPORT
Schwan’s position in this proceeding originated in connection with microwaves. Since about 1950, Schwan has argued that microwaves can affect a biological system only by causing heating, or by stimulating excitable tissue. In this proceeding, Schwan has reasserted his view at the lower frequency of 60 Hz, joined his assertion with a statement that neither phenomenon will occur at 60 Hz, and concluded that 765 kV transmission lines are therefore safe.
On November 22, 1976, the Associated Press released a story concerning a newly declassified US Defense Intelligence Agency report. The report described research by Soviet scientists on the biological effects of exposure to low-level (i.e., non-thermal, non-stimulatory) microwave radiation. According to the report, the Soviet research suggests “the potential for the development of a number of anti-personnel applications.” Based on analysis of experiments conducted in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, the report says “Soviet scientists are fully aware of the biological effects of low-level microwave radiation which might have offensive weapon application.” The report concluded that Soviet research in this area “has great potential for development into a system for disorienting or disrupting the behavior patterns of military or diplomatic personnel; it could be used equally as well as an interrogation tool.”
The Defense Intelligence Agency report is to Schwan what Columbus was to the flat earth theorists; the report describes phenomona which Schwan has spent a professional lifetime denying were possible. Since Schwan’s premises are not valid in the frequency range for which they were created, it follows that they may not be validly extended to the ELF region, as he has done in his testimony.
The Soviet studies described in the Defense Intelligence Agency report are empirical in nature. Therefore the possibility, perhaps the probability, exists that similar or related effects can occur in people exposed to the fields of 765 kV transmission lines via the same presently unknown mechanisms of interaction.
Back to Powerline Hazards: The Beginning