Final modification on: 9/7/06
Counter: 43916

Back to SOBs @ WHO

Posted: 10/8/05

Testimony of Michael Repacholi

Recognition that the electromagnetic fields (EMFS) from high-voltage powerlines were a putative cause of human disease entered the public consciousness in the mid-1970s as a result of public hearings held by the New York State Public Service Commission. In the ensuing 30 years the financial, scientific, moral, and legal issues associated with the issue of health risks from powerline EMFs came into sharper focus, as did the possibility of other forms of EMF pollution, and different kinds of EMF-related scientists emerged. Some had an honest desire to understand how EMFs affect the body and to learn the truth about the health risks they caused, and to do so with whatever degree of certainty or reliability was possible, irrespective of whom it might displease. Robert Becker is the prototype of such a scientist. Unfortunately, many scientists fell far below his benchmark.

Some of those who failed were political opportunists who happened to be near or in authority when a wave of concern arose and carried them to temporary prominence. David Carpenter in New York and Christopher Portier at the NIH are two examples. Typically, opportunists are well-trained scientists who are ignorant of EMF biology; they strut on the EMF stage for a while, and then turn their attention to the next expedient issue that comes before their agency.

Another kind consisted of those who produced whatever scientific data pleased the company funding their work. The EMF scientists who worked for the Electric Power Research Institute or Battelle Pacific Northwest are examples, particularly Richard Phillips. Their work consisted of the production of data that could be spun by industry experts testifying in court.

A third species of lamentable EMF scientist consisted of those who specialized in the art of spinning; two examples are Granger Morgan and Leeka Kheifets.

A fourth type of sub-par scientist, exemplified by Meike Mevisen and Jukka Juutilainen, are persons respected for the quality of their science, and who are bold enough to publish articles indicating that powerline EMFs are capable of producing biological effects, but who are careful never to allow attachment of societal relevance to their work. Thus they are useful to the power industry as window dressing on blue-ribbon committees because they lack the desire or aptitude to stare down the powerful interests that secured their appointment in the first instance.

At the bottom of the barrel is the EMF scientist who functions as a brainwasher to deceive the public, innocent young and old alike, into giving themselves cancer and other diseases. There is no purer example of such a man than Michael Repacholi. He is at the end of a historical line of change that must be recognized before science can once again resume its task of finding the best truth possible.

Repacholi acts as if he were invested as regards the natural world with powers like those exercised by priests over souls. Amazingly, people believe the daydream that he has the ability to identify true and certain knowledge regarding EMFs. He has perpetuated this myth, with almost no critical questioning. Not only is there the myth of Repacholi's wisdom according to which he can see through the mist into the truth of things, but also the myth that absolute truth about exactly what EMFs do and how they do it can be discerned if only we looked in the correct fashion. He has succeeded in hiding any sense of the complexity of nature, so the ordinary person does not understand that the best EMF science could ever hope to do was to produce imperfect and uncertain understanding, and to achieve knowledge about EMFs that was only somewhat better than a guess.

Repacholi has staged innumerable dramas _ committees, commissions, meetings, seminars _ where the experts he appointed said only pleasant things about EMFs and offered reassuring risk assessments. My goal here is to expose Repacholi for the scientific fraud that he is.

Repacholi's career began in earnest in 1990 when he was hired by a power company in his native Australia. He gave extensive testimony to the effect that the EMFs from the powerline would be perfectly safe. I have reproduced his testimony in its entirety because it is the finest example I know of someone who thinks he "knows" what "truth" is, and who therefore sees no need to engage in critical discourse.

Repacholi's text is also worth reading to gain an understanding of the technical arguments that infect the legal discourse of the EMF health issue. Like the arguments of Euthydemus or Dionysodorus, Repacholi's testimony is often base and disgusting, consisting of nothing more than plays on words or half-truths. But sometimes his testimony is like the speech of Protagoras or Gorgias, clever and well thought-out. In all cases, however, Repacholi's testimony is sophistic because it is not intended to get at the best truth possible, but simply to win the court case.

IN THE LAND & ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

No. 40308 of 1989

JO ANN LILLIAN WARREN for and on behalf of the OBERON POWERLINE INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE

Applicant

THE ELECTRICITY COMMISSION OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Respondent

AFFIDAVIT

Deponent: Michael Repacholi

Sworn: 11.7.90

On the 11th day of July, 1990, I MICHAEL REPACHOLI of 25 Statenborough Street, Leabrook, South Australia, Chief Scientist for the Royal Adelaide Hospital solemnly and sincerely affirm and declare that: I have been asked to report on the following matters:

(a) an examination of the scientific debate and the preferred scientific conclusions that may properly be drawn as at February 1987, February 1988 and currently with respect to the effects of 50Hz electric and magnetic fields;

(b) the process of standard setting, with particular reference to the process by which the world Health Organisation (WHO) and the International Non-Ionizing Radiation Committee (INIRC) of the International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA) have derived guidelines for exposure to 50/60 Hz electric and magnetic fields and the purpose of such guidelines and reports;

(c) the adequacy, as viewed from my area of expertise, of the environmental impact statement under challenge in these proceedings and the documentary information considered by the determining authority before making its decision to proceed with the Mt Piper-Marulan transmission line; and

(d) reply to the comments of the applicant's experts within my area of expertise.

2. I have set out my comments according to the following structure:

TOPIC				PAGE
1. QUALIFICATIONS
2. THE SCIENTIFIC DEBATE				10
	2.1 What are 50Hz Electric and Magnetic Fields			10
	2.2 Strength of 50Hz Fields Natural and Man Made Sources			14
	2.3 Electromagnetic Fields Ionizing and Non-Ionizing Radiations			16
	2.4 How do 50Hz Fields Interact with the Human Body?			20
	2.5 Biological Effects from Studies Conducted in Laboratories			24
	2.6 Initiation & Promotion of Cancer			26
	2.7 Cell Initiation (heading missing in the original)			27
	2.8 Cancer Cell Promotion and Proliferation			28
	2.9 Oncogenes			31
	2.10 Calcium Ion Transport			32
	2.11 Cancer Promotion Hypothesis			35
	2.12 Immune Function			37
3. PROCESS OF SETTING STANDARDS FOR HUMAN EXPOSURE				38
	3.1 Evaluation of Scientific Literature			39
	3.2 Population			40
	3.3 Health Hazard			41
	3.4 Threshold Exposure			44
	3.5 IRPA/INIRC Standards for 50/60Hz Fields			45
		(a) Rationale for Electric Field Exposure Limits		46
		(b) Experimental Studies		46
		(c) Human Studies		48
		(d) Derivation of Exposure Limits		52
		(e) Rationale for Limits on Magnetic Field Exposures		54
	3.6 Standards - National and International			56
		(a) International		56
		(b) Australia		58
		(c) United Kingdom		58
		(d) Federal Republic of Germany		58
		(e) USSR		59
4. ADEQUACY OF EIS AND BOARD DOCUMENTS				61
	4.1 Terms of Reference			61
	4.2 Response to Terms of Reference			61
		(a) Environmental Impact Statement -Preliminary Comments		61
		(b) Comprehensiveness		64
		(c) Objectivity		64
		(d) Alerting lay persons and specialists to relevant problems or issues.		66
		(e) Identification and analysis of likely environmental interactions		67
		(f) Identification and analysis of likely environmental impacts or consequences		67
		(g) Conclusions of WHO and Graves reports in EIS:
			(i) Conclusion drawn from WHO criteria No.35	68
			(ii) Quotations from the WHO report on page 177 of EIS	69
			(iii) Conclusions of Dr Graves' report	69
		(h) Statements in the EIS		70
		(1) Analysis of possible effects on farming activities?		71
	4.3 Board Papers			72
	4.4 Clause 64 Report			73
5. COMMENTS ON THE APPLICANT'S EXPERT REPORTS
	5.1 Dr Marino's Report			75
	5.2 Dr Liboff's Report			96
	5.3 Dr Delpizzo's Report			107
6. POSITION TO DATE - WITH REFERENCE TO THE MT PIPER TO MARULAN 500 kV TRANSMISSION LINE				116
APPENDICES
1. Curriculum Vitae
2. References

Top

1. QUALIFICATIONS

3. I hold a B.Sc. in Physics from the University of Western Australia 1965; an M.Sc. in Radiation Biology from the University of London, England 1969; and a Ph.D. in Biology from the University of Ottawa, Canada 1980.

4. I have over 25 years experience in the area of protection against radiation hazards. Through my background and experience I have a wide appreciation of radiation hazards and the principles underlying the development of human exposure standards. My curriculum vitae is attached as Appendix 1.

5. I have been involved in the drafting of codes of practice for the control and safe use of various forms of radiation. As part of my position with the Royal Adelaide Hospital I chair the Radiation Safety Committee (since 1983) and am the Radiation Safety Officer for the Hospital (since 1983).

6. I am the non-ionizing radiation specialist for the Radiation Health Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council.

7. I have been a member of the International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA) International Non-ionizing Radiation Committee (INIRC) since 1978 and have been Chairman of this Committee since April, 1988. Since 1980 I have been involved in reviewing the scientific literature related to possible adverse health effects of exposure to 50/60 Hz fields for preparation of International Labour Office and World Health Organisation reports developed in conjunction with the IRPA/INIRC.

8. The International Radiation Protection Association is a non-governmental organisation representing nearly all the national radiation protection societies in the World. It provides a focus for international debate on radiation safety issues.

9. IRPA initiated activities concerned with non-ionizing radiation by forming a Working Group on Non-Ionizing Radiation in 1974. This Working Group later became the International Non-Ionizing Radiation Committee (IRPA/INIRC), at the IRPA Congress held in Paris in 1977. The IRPA/INIRC reviews the scientific literature on non-ionizing radiation and makes assessments of the health risks of human exposure to such radiation.

10. Based on the Environmental Health Criteria Documents (eg WHO 1984, 1987) developed in conjunction with the World Health Organisation (Geneva), the IRPA/INIRC recommends guidelines on exposure limits, drafts codes of safe practice, and works in conjunction with other international organizations to promote safety and standardization in the non-ionizing radiation field. These documents are drafted to give objective, critical, unbiased reviews of the literature by an international group of experts with expertise covering areas including basic research, medicine, physics, engineering, biology, epidemiology and risk analysis. The purpose of the documents is to inform health authorities, regulatory agencies and other institutions on the current status of bioeffects research, gaps in knowledge, possible effects on human health and provide guidance on assessment of risks from occupational and general public exposure to non-ionizing radiation (including 50/60 Hz electric and magnetic fields).

COMMENT 1 Repacholi was hired by the Australian power company because he would say what the company needed saying, irrespective of considerations involving morality or truth. Repacholi could count on the fact that he would not undergo any significant cross-examination by the trial lawyer who represented the homeowners because he was ignorant of the scientific issues and bereft of any desire to learn the science of powerline electromagnetic fields (EMFs). Repacholi wanted to win his case. Scientific truth, and the morality of involuntarily exposing other human beings to a carcinogenic agent were simply not pertinent considerations. This comment, and those provided below constitute the thrust of the cross-examination that ought to have been conducted. Had Repacholi been effectively cross-examined, the court would have seen him for what he was, a greedy opportunist whose testimony was no more than a web of lies, distortions, and half-truths.

11. The present composition, country of origin and major areas of the IRPA/INIRC Committee are as follows:

Dr M H Repacholi	(Chairman) Australia	Biophysicist/Risk Analysis
Dr J Bernhardt	F R Germany	Biophysicist/Regulator
Dr B Bosnjakovic	Netherlands	Biophysicist/Regulator
Dr L Court	France	Biophysicist/Researcher
Dr P Czerski	USA (recently deceased)	Medicine/Researcher
Dr M Grandolfo	Italy	Physics/Regulator
Dr B Knave	Sweden	Medicine/Epidemiologist
Dr A McKinlay	UK	Physics/Regulator
Dr M Shandala	USSR	Medicine/Researcher
Mr D Sliney	USA	Physics/Researcher
Dr J Stolwijk	USA	Epidemiologist/Researcher
Dr M Stuchly	Canada	Engineer/Researcher
Dr L Szabo	Hungary	Medicine/Regulator
Mme A Duchene	France	Chemist/Risk Analysis (Scientific Secretary)
Dr H Jammet	France	Medicine/Risk Analysis (Chairman Emeritus)

12. The IRPA/INIRC not only has the full range of disciplines to conduct in depth reviews of the scientific literature, it has people with opposing views so issues are fully discussed and consensus reached.

13. I have been a member of 9 World Health Organisation task groups reviewing non-ionizing radiation health effects criteria, (including 3 on 50/60 Hz fields), and have chaired three of these task groups (see Appendix 1). In addition I have been the drafting author or co-author of various World Health Organisation and International Labour Office reports on non-ionizing radiation health criteria, I have been a scientific editor of many of the final reports. I was the author of the first draft of the WHO Environmental Health Criteria 69 on Magnetic Fields, published in 1987.

It is important to note that to produce documents for WHO, the IRPA/INIRC prepares the first draft in conjunction with various experts from around the world. For example, the initial draft for the WHO (1984) was prearepd by Dr W R Adey (USA), Dr A Sheppard (USA), Dr N G Shandala (USSR), Dr V Akimenko (USSR), Dr P Czerski (then from Poland) and Mr J Villforth (USA).

The drafts go through editorial review and are then sent out by WHO to their focal points in all major regions of the world, to institutions of health in most countries, to expert institutions as well as individual researchers and experts in the field. An editorial review then incorporates all comments and any additional scientific literature important for a health risk analysis. The penultimate draft is then subjected to an international task group made up of experts worldwide. The task group reviews the text in detail and produces a series of recommendations and conclusions covering the status of research, identifying gaps in knowledge, gives a health risk assessment of exposure to NIR fields, provides guidance on the setting of human exposure limits and safety measures. Finally, the document is language edited prior to publication by WHO.

14. I am currently the President of the Australian Radiation Protection Society (ARPS) - the Australian Society of radiation protection professionals dedicated to ensuring workers and the general public are not exposed to ionizing or non-ionizing radiation levels in excess of acceptable standards. ARPS is the Australian representative society of the IRPA.

15. I have been a peer reviewer for many grant applications for research (eg. National Occupational Health and Safety Commission), for post graduate theses and for a number of scientific journals including Health Physics (the major radiation protection journal in the world), Radiation Protection in Australia (the journal ot the Australian Radiation Protection Society), and Australasian Physical and Engineering Sciences in Medicine (the journal of the Australasian College of Physical and Engineering Sciences in Medicine).

16. I have been employed as Chief Scientist for the Royal Adelaide Hospital since January 1983. The position is at the level of Assistant Medical Director.

17. I have been employed as follows:

­ Health and Welfare Canada, Radiation Protection Bureau in 1971, and as Head of the Non-Ionizing Radiation Section Ottawa, Canada 1975-1983;

­ Medical Physicist with the Saskatchewan Cancer Commission, Regina, Canada 1969-1971;

­ Physicist with the State X-Ray Laboratory, Dept. of Health, Perth, Western Australia 1965-1968; and

­ Summer student employee with the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, Lucas Heights, NSW 1964-1965.

18. I have published more than 110 scientific articles, mainly in the area of non-ionizing radiation effects, health hazard assessment and standards on human exposure limits.

19. I have expertise in radiation protection, having over 25 years experience reviewing scientific literature and performing surveys and research into non-ionizing radiation biological effects. This work is performed primarily to develop limits of exposure to radiation in the occupational and general population. I have worked at the national and international levels to evaluate scientific literature and develop human exposure standards, codes of safe practice and device emission standards.

I am not a researcher. However I have conducted research previously as part of my doctorate thesis and am familiar with many of the experimental methods used to conduct research. My main area of expertise is in standards' development which has meant that I have had to review the scientific literature many times to identify biological effects that relate potentially to adverse health effects in humans. In conducting such reviews, I look at all aspects of research including the in vitro, in vivo, animal experiments and epidemiological studies. It is necessary to look at all aspects of the literature to identify if there are established trends in the literature where all aspects of research lead to the same conclusion. In conducting such reviews, I need to discriminate between various scientific reports to determine whether they are providing information which is new or they are reproducing previously reported results. Publication in peer reviewed scientific literature is normally accepted as a higher standard of presentation than abstracts that are presented at scientific meetings or reports that are not published in the scientific literature. I have gained significant expertise in this area since becoming a member of the International Non-Ionizing Radiation Committee of the IRPA where Committee members are from a whole range of disciplines as described in this affidavit and resulting discussions on various aspects of the literature have assisted me greatly.

20. A full resume of my employment record, work experience, international activities, national activities, professional society membership, consulting/advisory positions held and abstracts, publications and reports published by me contained in Appendix 1. I have placed an asterisk (*t) beside articles in peer reviewed journals and have placed the mark '(+)" next to references appropriate to this case.

2. THE SCIENTIFIC DEBATE

21. Before I address the specific issues, it will be of assistance to briefly outline the physical characteristics of 50/60 Hz fields, the ways some have suggested they interact with tissue, where 50/60 Hz fields are with respect to the whole electromagnetic spectrum and the differences between the fields or radiations in the major subsections of the spectrum.

2.1 What Are 50 Hz Electric and Magnetic Fields

22. Electric power from electricity generating stations is distributed to homes and factories via high voltage (HV) transmission lines which are stepped down in voltage by transformers to lower voltages, and finally down to voltages that are used in the mains (electrical outlets), as shown in Figure 1.

COMMENT 2 These paragraphs are the key to understanding how someone as ignorant as Repacholi could rise to the position of EMF boss at WHO, and thereby produce worldwide misery. The legal structure in Australia, as in essentially all countries in the world whose legal system is based on the English common-law system, allows someone with a Ph.D. to make knowledge claims without ever forcing the witness to explain how he knows what he claims to know. The Australian legal system, much like that in America, more or less presumes that a man with a Ph.D. "knows." To trigger this automatic respect, which allows the witness to testify as if God had told him the truth of the facts that he recounts, the witness needs to establish that he is a "scientist." Methodologically, this is accomplished by listing the number of times and the different ways in which the witness has functioned as a scientist, or at least apparently so. Matters such as what exactly the witness did, on whose behalf, for what remuneration, with what degree of skill, are usually not considered by the court to be pertinent to the witness' task. The witness is allowed to simply list things done, like Homer listing the ships that sailed for Troy. From this list the judge inferred that Repacholi was a scientist, and therefore that whatever he said constituted "knowledge." Repacholi did not invent this structure, but he exploited it magnificently.

Top

Posted: 10/21/05

FIGURE 1 ­ Diagram of a power distribution system in Victoria (SECV, 1989)

23. 50 Hz electric and magnetic fields exist when electric power is used in our homes, offices, factories and near power distribution networks to these locations. 50 Hz fields are created by electric charges which move through conductors of electricity. The frequency of the alternating current of electricity used in Australia is at 50 cycles per second, and so we refer to the electric power as having a frequency of 50 Hz (1 Hz = 1 cycle per second). In Australia, the mains voltage is 240 volts at a frequency of 50 Hz. In North America, the mains voltage is 110 volts at a frequency of 60 Hz.

24. When electric charges are in motion they produce two kinds of fields: electric fields which result from the magnitude of the electric charge: and magnetic fields which result from the movement of the charges. When an electric toaster is plugged into an electrical outlet, a voltage is applied to the heater wires creating an electric field. As an electric current flows through the wires, a magnetic field is also created.

25. Electric fields represent the forces that electric charges exert on other charges at some distance from each other, merely because they are charged. For example positive charges are repelled by other positive charges, but are attracted to negative charges. The force producing this attraction or repulsion is due to the electric field.

26. As charges move (to form an electric current) they create a magnetic field which represents the force that a moving charge exerts on other moving charges. Larger electric currents (more moving charges) produce stronger magnetic fields. For example, the magnetic field produced by a 1000 watt electric heater will be only half as strong as the field produced by a 2000 watt heater. However the electric field from both heaters will be the same.

FIGURE 2 ­ Schematic representation of a 50 Hz field.

27. The electric currents flowing through the power distribution systems are groups of charges moving in the same direction. All electric currents will produce magnetic fields. Hence all applications using electricity will have associated electric and magnetic fields.

28. A schematic representation of a 50 Hz field is shown in Figure 2. Figure 3 shows the wavelength as well as the frequency of the electromagnetic wave. 50 Hz fields have a wavelength of 6000 km. Because of this, the electric and magnetic fields of 50 Hz fields act independently. To characterise these fields, it is necessary to measure both the electric and magnetic field strength.

2.2 Strength of 50 Hz Fields: Natural and Man Made Sources

29. The electric field strength is measured in units of volts per metre (V/rn) or if the electric field is strong, it may be measured in kilovolts per metre (ky/rn) where 1 kV = 1000 V. 1 ky/rn means there is a differnece of 1 kV between 2 points in air 1 metre apart. If measuring under a HV transmission line the 1 m distance is measured in the vertical direction (between the HV conductors and ground). The magnetic field is measured in terms of lines of force per unit area (magnetic flux density) with units of Tesla (T). Since this is a large unit these fields are commonly measured in millitesla (mT) or microtesla (uT) where 1 Tesla = 1000 mT and 1 mT = 1000 uT. Some people still use the old unit of Gauss (G) where 1 T = 10,000 G or 1 G = 0.1 mT and 10 mG = 1 uT.

30. To provide some comparison of electric and magnetic field strengths occurring in our working and living environment typical, values for these from common sources are given in Table 1.

Table 1 - Electric and magnetic fields from devices found in the environment, home and workplace (from: Lee et al 1989, Florig 1987; WHO 1984, 1987)
SOURCE	ELECTRIC FIELD	MAGNETIC FIELD
	Strength (kV/m)	Strength (uT)
Natural fields (at 50 Hz)	approx. 0.0000001	approx. 0.000001
500,000 volt transmission line
- directly underneath	7	7 - 14
- edge of easement (20 m)	3	2.5 - 5
-at 100m from line	0.1	1 - 3
230,000 volt transmission line
- directly underneath	2	3.5 - 7
- edge of easement (15 m)	1.5	1.5 - 3
- at 100 m from line	0.01	0.1 - 0.3
Household appliances at 30 cm
- Vacuum Cleaner	0.02	up to 20
- Hairdryer	0.04	up to 7
- Irons	0.06	up to 0.3
- Toasters	0.04	up to 0.7
- Electric shaver		up to 9
- Television	0.03	up to 2
- Electric blanket (at user distance)	up to 2	up to 5
Homes (various rooms)		up to 7
Workplace (distance in m)
- Induction heaters
- (0.1 - 1)		up to 65000
- Ladle furnace (0.2 - 8)		up to 8000
- Arc furnace (2)		up to 1000
- VDT's (30 cm)		up to 0.28

31. As seen in Table 1, many household appliances have associated magnetic fields which are significant when compared to those fields produced by high voltage transmission lines. Electric fields are easily shielded, so those fields associated with appliances are genearlly low compared to transmission lines. Magnetic fields found in homes, as measured by power companies in Australia, have strengths up to about 7 UT (70 mG). Wide variations occur from house to house and from room to room.

The electric and magnetic fields from high voltage transmission lines fall in strength quite rapidly with distance from the line as shown in Table 1. The fall in electric and magnetic field strength will vary depending on the configuration of the conductors in the transmission line.

The magnetic fields encountered by workers in certain industries are very large by comparison to those encountered near transmission lines or appliances in homes.

2.3 ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS: IONIZING AND NON-IONIZING RADIATIONS

32. The complete spectrum of electromagnetic radiations and fields is shown in figure 3. This spectrum commences at zero frequency (static field) for both electric and magnetic fields. Above zero frequency and up to 300 Hz the fields are called extremely low frequency fields, where common usage is at power frequencies of 50 to 60 Hz.

33. Above 300 Hz the fields are designated as radio frequencies (comprising the VLF, VHF and microwave bands). Radiofrequencies include frequencies in the range 300 Hz to 300 GHz (1 GHz = 1,000,000,000 Hz). Contained within the radiofrequency region are microwaves which have frequencies between 300 MHz to 300 GHz (1 MHz = 1,000,000 Hz).

34. At frequencies above 300 GHz is the infra-red region followed by the visible spectrum (the only part of the electromagnetic spectrum visible to the human eye). Above the visible spectrum is the ultraviolet range.

35. At the upper end of the ultraviolet range, the energy of the radiation just begins to be strong enough to break molecular and chemical bonds that hold the molecules of cells together. This is the division between ionizing and non-ionizing radiations. Non-ionizing radiations do not have enough energy in the radiation to be able to break these chemical and molecular bonds. However, ionizing radiations are able to break these bonds and cause ion pairs (positive and negative charges-molecules or electrons) within the tissue along the path of the radiation. Ionizing radiations include X-rays, gamma rays and cosmic rays as well as charged particles emitted from radioactive materials.

36. The energy of radiation within the electromagnetic spectrum is also shown in Figure 3. The 50 Hz fields have extremely low energy and scientists recognise that these fields are unable to produce any form of ionization within tissues. The minimum amount of energy the radiation needs to cause ionization is 12.4 eV. 50 Hz fields have an energy of about i012 eV (one million millionth of the needed energy to produce ions or ionization in tissue). However, 50 Hz fields can interact by inducing currents in the body and in other ways.
Microwaves on the other hand are absorbed within the tissue causing water molecules to vibrate and generate heat. 50 Hz fields do not generate heat within tissue as to microwaves. However, it has been suggested that if RF fields are modulated (in amplitude) or pulsed at 50 or 60 Hz, these fields can produce an electric field in tissue similar to that produced by a very strong 50/60 Hz field. If RF fields are not modulated, for example they are sinusoidal, their interaction with tissue is not the same strength as 50/60 Hz fields.

2.4 How do 50 Hz Fields Interact with the Human Body

(a) Electric Fields

37. A human body in a 50 Hz electric field will have a surface charge induced over its surface. This electric charge on the surface of the body will change with the frequency of the alternating 50 Hz field and currents will be induced inside the body. These internal currents have corresponding electric fields, thus both currents and electric fields are induced inside the body by an external 50 Hz electric field.

38. At 50 Hz the variation in surface charge density is so slow that the currents and fields generated inside the body are very small. As an approximation the electric fields induced inside bodies of humans and animals are about 1 million times less than the field outside the body. The size of the induced currents and fields in the body will be affected by the shape and location of the body relative to the external field.

39. If a body, while in an electric field, makes contact with a conductor, such as a metal object, then currents will flow from the body into the metal object. While within the electric field, currents can flow through any section of the body. The magnitude of the currents will vary because the body is composed of many different types of tissue which offer varying resistance to current flow.

40. External electric fields can act directly on the surface of the body and be enhanced (as shown in Figure 4) relative to the unperturbed electric field.

FIGURE 4 - Enhancement of electric fields (concentration of lines of force of the 10 ky/m electric field) by the upper parts of the body of the humans, swine and rats. Note the more highly curved the body, the higher the concentration of electric field, hence the greater induced current over a cross-section of the body (measured as a current density in nanoamperes per square centimetre (nA/cm2) - note 1 nA = 1 billionth of an ampere). The short-circuit current (Isc) is the current passing from the body to ground and is measured in microamperes (uA) where 1A = 1000000 uA. (From Kaune and Phillips, 1980, WHO 1989).

41. Electric fields can be perceived by the body when hair oscillates in the field. The frequency of this hair vibration is related to the frequency of the applied electric field.

42. Another well known mechanism of interaction of 50 Hz fields with biological tissues is the direct stimulation of excitable cells such as nerve and muscle cells. This accounts for the ability of humans and animals to perceive electric currents in their bodies and to experience electric shocks. At the cellular level this interaction consists of the induction of voltages across the membranes of cells sufficient to stimulate nerve cells or muscles to contract.

43. Scientists are currently considering the hypothesis that communication between brain cells occurs not only through nerve cell connections but also through each cells modulation of, and sensitivity to, extra cellular electrical environments. Some cellular studies have been performed on brain tissue and have found that they can be sensitive to induced current densities much smaller than the currents that normally occur within the body. Experiments have shown calcium release from brain tissue immersed in a culture medium and exposed to electric fields in air. These experiments may suggest new mechanisms by which these fields could interact with tissue.

(b) Magnetic Fields

44. By contrast to electric fields, the bodies of humans and most other living organisms cause almost no perturbation of the 50 Hz magnetic field to which they are exposed. This is true because almost all human tissue contains no magnetic materials and therefore has magnetic properties almost identical to those of air.

45. 50Hz magnetic fields induce electric fields inside bodies just as the external 50Hz electric fields. However, the distribution of these fields induced by electric and magnetic fields is different because of the way they couple to the body (see Figure 5). At the level of the cell however, there would appear to be no fundamental difference between the induced currents and fields from both external electric and magnetic fields (WHO 1989).

46. Assuming the average tissue conductivity within the body to be about 0.2 S/m (Bernhardt, 1988), one can estimate the magnitude of the currents induced in the body by alternating magnetic fields. 50 Hz magnetic fields of strength up to 500 mT can induce current densities of 1A/m2 on average, which correspond to the minimum value required to stimulate excitable (nerve and muscle) cells. On the other hand, 50 Hz magnetic fields of between 0.5 - 5 mT are necessary to induce currents of 1 - 10 mA/m2, which correspond to the range of current densities found normally in the body.

47. Another effect of 50 Hz magnetic fields is to cause particles of tissue, such as protons (positively charged particles that are influenced by magnetic fields), to experience a force (torque) so that the particles align parallel to the magnetic field. This alignment is resisted by random motion of molecules in tissue due to the fact that the body is warm. So, at normal body temperatures and a magnetic field of the strength which is characteristic under a heavily loaded transmission line, it can be shown that the magnetically induced alignment of particles in living tissue is less than about 1 part in 100 million. The effect of aligning these particles by 50 Hz magnetic fields of any realistic strength, is thus very small. However, some theories suggest that since every single dipole is subject to this effect, it is conceivable that some sort

FIGURE 5 - Currents induced in the body from exposure to electric and magnetic fields - from powerlines for example (from Lee et al, 1989) of co-operative physiological 'processes that are sensitive to the average, response of a great many of these dipoles might be affected by even a small 50 Hz magnetic field.

2.5 Biological Effects From Studies Conducted in Laboratories

48. Laboratory studies can be divided into two major categories:-

(a) In-vitro studies; These are laboratory studies conducted on, for example, cells in culture medium or pieces of tissue.

(b) In-vivo studies; These are laboratory studies carried out on whole organisms such as insects, animals or humans.

49. There are advantages and disadvantages in conducting both these types of studies. In-vitro studies have the advantage that a large sample size (a large number of single cells) can be studied, as well as a high degree of control maintained over the various factors (eg. temperature, pH, magnetic field exposure) that can affect the experimental results. These studies are also able to provide a direct investigation of possible mechanisms of interaction between biological systems and 50/60 Hz fields with much greater accuracy than an in-vivo system since some of the more subtle effects could be masked in a whole animal for example.

50. The most serious difficulty with in-vitro experiments is the extrapolation of results to whole animals and humans. Unless the precise mechanisms of interaction are known and well understood, it is not possible to extrapolate results from much less complicated systems such as cells to human beings. Further, effects found from in-vitro experiments will not necessarily occur in animals or humans. In-vivo experiments must be conducted to determine if the same effects occur as in the in-vitro system.

51. In-vivo experiments allow greater possibility for extrapolation of results obtained in animals to humans. Thus in-vivo experiments are of much greater value for a health risk assessment than in-vitro experiments.

52. In reviewing the biological effects literature only brief mention will be made of experimental results not related to cancer.

COMMENT 3 The material in paragraphs 26-52, which consists of a tutorial dealing with the elementary physics of EMFs, was entirely irrelevant in the lawsuit. In almost all lawsuits involving health hazards from high-frequency or low-frequency EMFs, such didactic information has no legal relevance. Nevertheless it sounds scientific, and was included by the lawyer who presented Repacholi to elevate his stature and make it easier for him to mount a defense of their client's interests. In an ordinary legal case, irrelevant material is stricken following an objection by the adverse party. In EMF cases such an objection is rarely made because the fact that the material is irrelevant is almost never appreciated by the judge or the lawyers who represent the homeowners. The strategy of turning a courtroom into a classroom on the elementary physics of EMFs was invented by the attorneys for the power industry. Repacholi's willingness to include this material in his testimony is an early indication that he doesn't know what evidence is important, doesn't care, or both.

Top

Posted: 10/28/05

2.6 Initiation & Promotion of Cancer

53. Tumour development in humans appears to require an initiating exposure to a carcinogen followed by a phase during which there is frequent or continuous contact with a promoting agent and finally, progression to the appearance of a clinically identifiable cancer.

COMMENT 4 The paragraph is deceptive, like a shell game at a carnival. Repacholi argues that tumor development "appears" to require a particular series of steps. Soon he will begin talking as if what "appears" to be true is actually true. That is, the distinction between his unsupported opinion (the way something "appears" to him) and the way it "appears" to someone else will be completely glossed over, and in the rest of his testimony he will assume that tumor development in humans "requires..." The perspective from which the paragraph was constructed is that the way cancer comes about is known, namely that it involves initiation, and promotion. Subsequently, he will present evidence that EMFs don't initiate and don't promote, allowing him to conclude that they don't cause cancer. What he obscures is that there is no reason to believe that the initiation-promotion model applies to all human cancers, or even to a majority of human cancers. Actually, all that we know is that "initiation/promotion" applies to is an animal model developed by Boutwell more than 40 years ago. Consequently, even if it were the case that EMFs were neither initiators nor promoters, it would not follow logically that they didn't cause cancer. The general structure of Repacholi's arguments are as follows: If EMFs cause disease, they must do x. EMFs don't do x. Therefore EMFs don't cause disease. In each case, the truth is that Repacholi's premise is no more than gross speculation. It describes the way he wants the world to be, not as it is.

Top

Posted: 11/1/05

54. Low levels of promoting stimuli (below threshold), even under conditions of continual exposure, do not promote the appearance of cancer in initiated cells. Exposure to promoters alone does not cause cancer. Benign or malignant tumours can be caused by exposure to an initiator followed by repetitive exposure to a promoter over a period of time (Boutwell, 1974). However, exposure to a promoter followed by exposure to an initiator does not result in a tumour (Roe, 1959). Changes caused to the cell by promoters are reversible if intervals between exposure to a promoter are sufficiently long (Boutwell, 1964).

COMMENT 5 The first sentence is a tautology because it says only that stimuli that don't do anything (below threshold), don't do anything (do not promote). Nevertheless, in a courtroom, it sounds as if it actually means something. The rest of the paragraph applies solely to Boutwell's model, but that limitation is obscured here and in the rest of the testimony. Reasoning from Boutwell's model is a common tactic by power-company experts; Boutwell himself has done it several times to exonerate both power-frequency and high-frequency EMFs. In this case, the power company hired Boutwell and Repacholi and, like a mutual admiration society, they cited one another as authority for their respective opinions.

55. What do the laboratory studies suggest regarding damage to the DNA from 50/60 Hz fields that may be related to an initiating event? One of the conventional tests for determining whether a physical or chemical agent is mutagenic is the AMES test. When this test was conducted on prokaryotic cell lines, there was found to be no evidence of mutagenicity from electric fields (Frazier 1982, Williams 1982).

COMMENT 6 Evidence that a particular EMF was not positive in the Ames test is not probative (evidence tending to make a proposition more likely than not to be true) with regard to the issue in the case, which was whether powerline EMFs were health risks. In a rational adjudicatory proceedings, this kind of nonsensical reasoning would be excluded. One reason that almost never happens is that experts like Repacholi are more clever at constructing such arguments than judges and lawyers for plaintiffs are at recognizing they are being deceived, because industry experts are almost never effectively cross-examined.

Top

Posted: 11/3/05

56. In-vitro exposure of human lymphoid cells to 50 Hz electric fields that induced current densities up to 0.03 mA/cm2 and/or magnetic fields up to 0.2 mT for 69 hours did not cause chromosome breakage, change the frequency of sister chromatid exchanges or alter mitotic rate or cell cycle duration (Cohen, 1986, Cohen et al 1986 a,b).

57. Reese et al (1988) exposed chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells to 60 Hz electric (1 or 38 V/m) or magnetic fields (0.1 or 2 mT) or a combination of both for 1 hour and was unable to detect any single strand breaks in the DNA. Continuous exposure to 60 Hz electric fields that induced current densities up to 3 mA/m2 or a 60 Hz magnetic field of strength 0.22 mT for one or 3 days did not alter the frequency of sister chromatid exchanges or induce micronuclei in human lymphocytes or CHO cells (Livingston et al, 1986). In contrast to this, El Nahas and Oraby (1989) report that when mice were exposed for 24 hours to 50 Hz electric fields at strengths from 100-290 kV/m a dose-dependent increase in micronucleated polychromatic erythrocytes was found up to 4 days post exposure. It should be noted that the electric field strengths used in this set of experiments are very strong indeed. When human peripheral lymphocytes, untreated or treated with chemical mutagens, were exposed to 50 Hz electromagnetic fields, no increase in chromosomal aberrations or sister chromatid exchanges were found (Rosenthal and Obe 1989).

58. Studies on Drosophila (fruit fly) and animals in general have indicated that exposure to 50/60 Hz fields is not mutagenic (Krueger et al, 1975; Bender, 1976; Frazier et al 1982).

59. Two strains of mice were exposed to 60 Hz magnetic fields (1 mT) and electric fields (50 kV/m) for up to 22 weeks. No effects were found when tested for dominant lethal mutations or cytogenetic effects (Benz et al 1987). This study is particularly important because of very large numbers of experimental animals (over 2000 mice) were exposed over 3 generations (including juveniles and animals in in-utero) and it was an in-vivo experiment. The results are supported by other experiments and can be considered significant in concluding that 50 Hz fields do not directly damage the genetic material of cells.

60. Investigators have examined the effect of electric fields on DNA repair processes. Whitson et al (1986) could not demonstrate any effect of electric fields (60 Hz, 100 kV/m) on molecular repair processes after human connective tissue cells were damaged by ultraviolet light.

61. Conclusion: One can clearly conclude that 50/60 Hz fields do not damage DNA or cause an initiating event in cells.

COMMENT 7 Repacholi exonerates EMFs because some EMF reports "...did not cause...," "...did not alter...," the investigators were "...unable to detect...," "...could not demonstrate...," found "...no increases in...," and because "no effects were found...." However, (1) he ignores the large number of published studies that reported exactly the opposite results; (2) he disregards the issue of bias in the negative reports that he cited (that the investigators working for a power industry had a vested interest in not finding anything that would be inconsistent with the public posture of the power industry; (3) he obfuscates the fact that negative studies have almost no scientific value (except in very specialized circumstances not pertinent here). Repacholi's exoneration is breathtaking in its over-broadness, because there are numerous conditions under which low-frequency fields have been reported to damage DNA. Repacholi's argument in paragraph 58 is vacuous and misleading. What does it mean to say that studies "in general" "have indicated" something? Are we to understand that some reports described EMF mutagenicity and others didn't but that the number of the latter is somehow outweighed by the former in quantity or quality? The reality is that there are some conditions in which fields have produced mutagenic effects, and others in which they haven't. There simply is no objective "in general," no "bottom line." Everything in Section 2.6 is irrelevant, because nowhere in the case was it alleged that 50/60-Hz fields damaged DNA or caused initiating events in cells. The allegation in the case was that the fields cause cancer, which is a completely different proposition.

Top

Posted: 11/9/05

2.8 Cancer Cell Promotion and Proliferation

62. If 50/60 Hz fields are not able to damage the genetic material to cause an initiating event in cells, then one looks to studies designed to determine if 50/60 Hz fields can promote cells previously initiated by a physical or chemical agent (other than 50/60 Hz fields). Also, whether exposure to these fields influences proliferation and growth of cancer cells.

63. Exposure to 60 Hz magnetic fields (strength 1.2 mT) were reported to decrease growth of neuroblastoma in mice (Batkin and Tabrah, 1977). However, no differences in growth characteristics were observed (Chandra and Stefano 1978) when either cultured human bronchiogenic carcinoma cells or Burkitts lymphoma cells were exposed for up to three days to 60 Hz magnetic fields. Kronenberg and Tenforde (1979) reported a similarly negative finding for mouse mammary tumour cells.

64. Phillips et al (1986 a, b) studied the binding of transferrin to two human colon tumour cell lines, and the ability of cancer cells to form colonies after exposure to 60 Hz electric and magnetic fields (0.03 mA/cm2, 0.2 mT for 24 hours). Altered expression of transferrin receptors and increases in cell colony growth were reported by Phillips and colleagues, but when their results were subjected to a laboratory visit and peer review (Cohen, 1987), it was concluded that their results were invalid because of choice of model, experimental design and quality of data. Further Cohen (1987) was unable to replicate Phillips results. Winters (1986) reported that 60 Hz fields (up to 300 mA/m2 or 0.1 mT for 24 hours) did not significantly affect responses to mitogens.

65. Female mice at 8 weeks of age were implanted with P388 leukaemia cells and exposed to 1.4uT, 200uT or 500uT,60 Hz magnetic fields for 3 hours after the implant, for 6 hours daily, 5 days per week until all of the exposed and non treated mice died (Thompson et al 1988). This life-time study found no statistically significant differences in survival, spleen weight or body weight resulting from the P388 cell implant of mice and subsequent exposure or non-exposure to magnetic fields. They also found no effect on the incidence or progression of the P388 leukaemia.

66. In a comprehensive set of experiments, Frazier et al (1989) (reported only as an abstract) tested the hypothesis that 60 Hz fields could transform initiated (DNA damaged) cells into cancer cells. Using a well accepted cell line (C3H10T112 fibroblasts) for this type of experiment and positive controls, exposure to 60 Hz magnetic fields (up to 0 . 6mT) for 6 weeks did not alter transformation frequencies of initiated cells.

67. What is particularly interesting about the experiments of Frazier et al (1989) is that they used the same classical in-vitro tumour promoting model as Cain et al (1989) (also reported as an abstract), yet Cain et al reported that exposure of C3H10T1/2 cells to a 0.1 mT, 60 Hz magnetic field for 12-16 hours (but not after 2-8 hours exposure) increased ornithine decarboxylase (ODC) activity by up to about 50%. Frazier et al's results suggest this increased activity may have no effect on transformation of cells into cancer cells. This is also supported by previous studies on cancer promotion involving ODC. ODC is a rate-limiting enzyme in the synthesis of polyamines - molecules essential in supporting growth of cells in all eukaryotic cells and tissues. Increases in ODC activity are associated with healing processes and normal growth. Since cancer promoting agents increase growth rates of initiated cells, one sees increases in ODC during for cancer promotion - however although increases in ODC are essenial cancer promotion, increases in ODC are not by themselves an indicator of a cancer promotion effect (Boutwell 1989).

68. Recently the question has been examined as to whether the hormone melatonin, produced by the pineal gland, can influence the growth of malignant cells. Breast cancer, melanoma, and possibly other cancers may be inhibited by melatonin (Blask 1989). Since exposure to 60 Hz electric and magnetic fields may reduce the normal nocturnal rise in melatonin (Wilson and Anderson, 1989), Stevens (1989a) suggests exposure to power frequency fields may account in part for an increased human breast cancer risk. To my knowledge none of the epidemiological studies have identified an association between exposure to sinsoidal 50/60 Hz fields and breast cancer.

69. Conclusion: There is very little evidence to suggest that 50/60 Hz fields have any effect on the promotion stage of carcinogenesis. In fact, key experiments (Thompson et al 1988, Frazier et al 1989) that have been performed suggest strongly that 50/60 Hz fields do not act as a cancer promoter. Overall the laboratory evidence does not establish that there is a link between 50 Hz field exposure and any form of cancer.

COMMENT 8 Paragraph 62 is an instantiation of the deception mentioned earlier. The initiation/progression model of reality has actually become reality for Repacholi. Thus, he argues: If powerlines cause cancer they must initiate or promote, but they don't initiate, so the only other possibility is that they promote. He has already turned down the wrong road for scientific reasoning, so nothing that follows makes any sense. Additionally, the topic under discussion is legally irrelevant, so this testimony is defective in two dimensions. From a historical perspective, the general pattern for EMF research is that there is an initial report by a scientist, usually unconnected with any EMF industry, that reports a positive effect of the fields on the system under study. Then, the industry enters into secret research contracts with investigators whose results invariably contradict the initial report. In subsequent court cases, someone like Repacholi is hired to perfect the argument that X reported an effect but Y could not replicate the effect, from which the conclusion drawn is that X was wrong. The argument is logically nonsensical, it is built on the assumption that what comes later is always better than what came earlier, and it ignores the fact that the later work is invariably larded with industry bias. This is the structure of almost every argument that comes from Repacholi's mouth. Cohen (1987) found exactly what the Power Authority of New York paid him to find, namely data that put the work of Phillips into issue. With the exception of power-company lawyers and their witnesses, no one else would normally see the Cohen report, which is not a published, peer-reviewed study. One sophistic device that Repacholi has perfected far beyond the level of any other power-company expert that I have encountered in my years of dealing with the issue of EMF health hazards is the technique of the selective reference. In paragraph 64, for example, Repacholi cites Winters (1986) so that it appears his study is adverse to that of Phillips, which is not true. Winters and Phillips have published together. Their work is mutually supportive, not mutually contradictory. Repacholi's citation of Thompson (1988) in paragraph 65 is grossly misleading, because it suggests that the group of investigators made a sincere and independent effort to evaluate the biological effects of powerline EMFs, which is far from the case. The major player in the group was Sol Michaelson who, along with Herman Schwan, were probably the two most myopic investigators in the history of EMF bioeffects research. They both believed to the depths of their souls that powerline EMFs were harmless ­ Schwan on the basis of cockamamie calculations for which he was famous, and Michaelson, a veterinarian, on the basis of enormously crude experiments. We know that microwaves can cook tissue; Sol Michaelson was the person who made that discovery. One can read in the published literature his descriptions of animals as they were cooked alive. He describes the change in core body temperature, the oozing of fluids from the eyes and various orifices, and the other physiological sensations associated with being cooked alive. In Michaelson's perspective, a field that failed to produce a "thermal burden" was safe. Since most investigators are agreed that powerline EMFs do not produce a "thermal burden" it follows on the basis of Michaelson's twisted logic that powerline EMFs are "safe." When someone proceeds from this perspective, it is certain that the experiments he performs will substantiate his point of view, and that's exactly what happened with every experiment Michaelson ever performed. To cite Michaelson as support for the proposition that powerline EMFs are safe is simply absurd. From a scientific perspective, the reports by Thompson and Frazer are rigged industry-controlled research that deserves to be ignored in their entirety. From a legal perspective one might wonder about the credibility of a witness such as Repacholi who (1) introduces an irrelevant topic to a case; (2) analyzes it on the basis of faulty scientific reasoning; (3) supports his view based on only a selected sub-sample of the relevant scientific literature; and (4) employs a sub-sample that consists entirely of industry controlled research. Sadly, Repacholi's credibility was never attacked by the cross-examining attorney.

Top

Posted: 12/8/05

2.9 Oncoqenes

70. There are genes in the DNA of the normal human genome which have sequences homologous to (the same as) transforming genes of tumour virus's (viral oncogenes) and are activated in tumour cells (cellular oncogenes or proto oncogenes). Proto oncogenes have been found in non malignant, normal and uninfected human cells. Somehow the proto oncogenes can be altered and converted into oncogenes during transformation of normal cells into cancer cells (Burck et al, 1988). These cellular oncogenes are called proto oncogenes because they are normal genes with potential oncogenic activity.

71. Different mechanisms may result in increasing expression of the oncogene or in alteration of the oncogene product, giving rise to deregulation of cellular proliferation. The occurrence of cancer may be determined by the derepression (activation) of endogenous oncogenes. Activation of these repressed genes could result from exposure of cells to chemical carcinogens, radiation, the normal aging process or a combination of these (Huebner and Tobaro, 1969).

72. Studies have been conducted that show alternating magnetic fields affect gene expression (Goodman and Henderson 1986). These investigators have shown that short exposures to sinusoidal and non-sinusoidal pulsed electromagnetic fields with frequencies in the range 1.5 - 72 Hz and induced fields of up to 9 mV/m and peak magnetic fields of up to 3.5 mT, increased incorporation of radioactive uridine into RNA, and can alter transcriptional patterns in the X chromosome of Sciara coprophila (fly larvae) - suggesting magnetic fields may stimulate transcription at specific chromosomal regions. Their results (Blank and Goodman 1989) showed that low frequency electromagnetic fields caused the appearance of previously undetected polypeptides (lower molecular weight proteins), some of which were specific to the electromagnetic field signal. These proteins were more highly charged than control proteins.

73. Conclusion: There has been no research to date which has shown an association between 50/60 Hz fields and gene expression in higher order animals such as humans. The research on fly larvae is only preliminary in nature and needs confirmation and extension to animals before it can serve any value in an assessment of health risk of exposure to 50/60 Hz fields.

COMMENT 9 There had been research as of the date of this testimony that reported an association between 50/60-Hz fields and gene expression in higher order animals. Repacholi might not have agreed with it, nevertheless, it existed, contrray to what he told the court under oath. The last sentence in paragraph 73 densely packs (1) a judgment based on a subjective term, (2) an assertion of an inapplicable standard, and (3) an overt, unjustified value judgment. The phrase "...only preliminary..." is a pejorative characterization of Goodman's work; from her point of view it was a finished, peer-reviewed publication that reported laboratory observations. It was no more nor less "preliminary" than any other published scientific report. The real problem with this work, from Repacholi's perspective, is that it pointed in a direction opposite to his client's interests. The phrase "needs confirmation" is biased. As will shortly be clear from other parts of his testimony, it means that any report whose implications are adverse to his client must be replicated exactly before the report can be taken seriously. One difficulty with this viewpoint is that almost no published study is ever replicated exactly. The desire to do so hardly constitutes a basis, for example, to solicit funds for research from NIH, where the emphasis in securing such support is on novelty, not on aping the results of others. Published studies are not replicated because usually no one is interested in paying for duplicative studies. Repacholi is hypocritical because he applies a "replication" standard only to reports that are adverse to his client's interests. If Dr. X reports that EMFs don't produce a particular biological effect then Repacholi applies no replication criterion, presumably because he sees "no effect" as the "right" result. If Dr. X reports a positive result, Repacholi raises the bar for acceptance by requiring "confirmation." Thus he has two standards for scientific acceptability, depending on whether or not he likes the results. Should a decision regarding whether EMFs are health risks be made on the basis of an overall evaluation of the cumulative, credible evidence, or should the rule be that a nexus between each individual report and the overall conclusion must be established in order to rationalize a conclusion of risk? It is obviously impossible to satisfy the latter criteria, and thus an insistence on its applicability amounts to prevention of any rationalization of health risks. It is possible to imagine a society in which health risks are not recognized, except in particularly egregious cases (living next to a dynamite factory, working in an asbestos mine, smoking cigarettes, for example). It could be argued that society is better off, overall, if the bar is set so high. The point is, however, that whether that point of view is accepted or not is a societal decision, and is not properly one within the purview of a single, arrogant scientist such as Repacholi. He has no authority whatever to address that issue in the context of testifying as an expert for the power company.

Top

Posted: 12/13/05

2.10 Calcium Ion Transport

74. Calcium acts as an intracellular messenger and may control many cell functions. A shift in calcium transport across the cell membrane for example, can trigger events such as muscle contraction and hormone secretion. The concentration of biologically active calcium ions must be strictly regulated if normal cell function is to be maintained. Calcium efflux (movement of calcium ions across the cell membrane) usually reflects a change in the status of the cell.

COMMENT 10 Calcium ions can also be released from intracellular stores, and as a consequence, produce diverse cellular changes. Repacholi seems ignorant of the phenomenon because he interprets the literature as if transmembrane ion flow were the only pertinent source of calcium ions.

Movement of calcium ions from freshly isolated chick cerebral tissues exposed to electric fields using a microwave carrier (147 and 450MHz) modulated to ELF (about 16 Hz) frequencies and at multiple power density windows has been reported (Bawin and Adey 1976, Blackman et al 1979, 1982). It should be noted that Bawin and Adey (1976) showed a decrease in calcium efflux while Blackman et al (1979, 1982) showed an increase - a difference which has not been satisfactorily explained.

COMMENT 11 Whether the difference has been "satisfactorily explained" is quite subjective, and the implicit assertion that such an explanation is needed in the context of this case is misleading. Finally, the paragraph implies a false dichotomy; both experiments showed that EMFs affected calcium movement. There is no inconsistency because the experimental conditions differed between the two studies.

76. Field-induced enhancement of calcium ions from human neuroblastoma cells was observed (Dutta et al, 1984, 1989) using a 915 MHz or 147 MHz carrier modulated at 16 Hz. Field induced calcium release was also observed in vivo, in immobilized cats (cortex) exposed to 450 MHz carrier, 16 Hz modulation at 3 mW/cm2 (Adey et al 1982).

77. It is suggested that electromagnetic RF fields modulated at 50/60 Hz provide electric fields in situ similar to those imposed by an external sinusoidal 50/60 Hz field. It is claimed that the advantage of using a modulated field is that the RF carrier couples more efficiently with the body than 50/60 Hz fields, and penetrate tissue to provide a higher electric field in situ at the modulation frequency. The RF carrier fields used in the calcium efflux experiments have intensities of about 1.0 mW/cm2, which produces an electric field of approximately 61 V/m in air. Calcium ion efflux occurs within certain frequency modulations and power density windows. These RF fields are associated with tissue gradients of approximately 1 - 100 V/m in mammalian organisms (Adey 1987). To obtain the same tissue gradient from an external 50/60 Hz electric field, the organism would need to be exposed to a field of strength approximately 1000 - 10,000 kV/m - some 100 - 1000 times stronger than fields encountered under power lines.

COMMENT 12 The argument here was created by Edwin Carstensen, an engineer from the University of Rochester, during his testimony on behalf of the power industry in a forum in New York in 1975; the argument is foolish for 2 reasons. First, the calculation (like essentially all such EMF calculations) was completely arbitrary. By assuming different values for tissue constants and tissue geometry (such assumptions are absolutely necessary to perform the calculations) it is possible to produce results that are equally justifiable as the proffered results, but that differ drastically in the numerical values that they produce. Thus, the calculations have no probative value. Second, drawing parallels between studies done at widely divergent frequencies for the purposes of establishing "the same tissue gradient" makes no sense because it is expected that physical processes will vary as a function of EMF frequency. Carstensen's arguments were rejected in New York. Yet Repacholi introduces them as if they are meaningful, relevant, and uncontradicted.

78. RF fields modulated at 16 Hz appear to cause changes to brain tissue in different in vitro preparations. The response to specific frequencies, modulations and different power densities is unusual and some explanation has been provided by Blackman et al (1989). However, the physiological significance of these effects is not established, and certainly the results do not support any suggestion that these exposures constitute a health hazard (Blackman et al 1988).

COMMENT 13 The statements are purely gratuitous. Such terms as "unusual," "not established," and "do not support" do not characterize the work, but rather the dishonest approach to the literature followed by Repacholi. The real problem here is that the studies are used by people Repacholi regards as enemies to jeopardize his client's interests.

79. What is scientifically unsatisfactory about the results on calcium ion movement is that other laboratories have been unable to provide supporting evidence for the in vitro findings using experimental conditions not exactly the same as the original (Albert et al 1980, 1987). Shelton and Merritt (1981) and Merritt et al (1982), using a different carrier frequency, and experimental conditions, but the same modulation frequency were not able to demonstrate any field - induced enhancement of calcium ions released from rat brain tissue. The term "Cheshire Cat Phenomenon" has been coined to describe the effect because at times the efflux is observed and at other times it is not (Graves, 1986). It is known that the effect is very temperature sensitive and careful control over the experimental conditions must be maintained.

COMMENT 14 The work of Albert, Merritt, and Graves was rigged by the commercial interests that paid for the work; its purpose was to put the work of Adey and Blackman into issue so that ethically compromised witnesses such as Repacholi could denigrate the work as "scientifically unsatisfactory." The term "Cheshire cat" was coined by Graves to explain all EMF bioeffects who, contrary to what Repacholi says, did not limit its import to the calcium studies.

80. Gundersen et al (1987) investigated the effect of 60 Hz electric and magnetic fields (30 kV/m or 0.1 mT circularly polarized) on calcium efflux from embryonic chick spinal cord. No significant change in calcium efflux was observed.

COMMENT 15 The work is quite irrelevant. In the rabbit hole that Repacholi jumped in, evidence that someone looked for a phenomenon and didn't find it is evidence against the existence of the phenomenon, notwithstanding the fact that someone else did find it.

81. Using strict laboratory conditions in which sample temperature, cell mixing, extracellular pH and ion concentration, and partial gas pressures were carefully controlled, Liburdy and Walleczek (1989) observed no significant alterations in intracellular calcium from resting, quiescent lymphocytes exposed for 1 h to sinusoidal 60 Hz fields (induced currents up to 150 mA/m2, electric field peak 0.1 kV/m, and a magnetic field of up to 22.2 mT rms).

COMMENT 16 This is another example of Repacholi's selective reporting. In other studies, the same authors reported effects of EMFs on calcium movement.

82. In one of the few in-vivo studies in this area, Blackwell and Reed (1985) exposed mice to 15, 30 and 50 Hz fields at intensities ranging from 50 - 400 V/m and examined for behavioral alterations which were associated with calcium flow changes. No such changes were observed.

COMMENT 17 The work by Blackwell and Reed was controlled by the power industry, which invariably indicates that the work was rigged. It should be noted that industry-supported work is not simply incompetent (it almost always finds no effects, and anybody can fail to find something). The work is far worse ­ it is actively misleading. It is, in effect, a form of advertising that is created by the industry to deflect attention from the serious health risks produced by the way the industry designs and builds powerlines.

83. Conclusion: Although much work has been conducted on calcium ion movement primarily from in-vitro experiments, there is still great uncertainty whether the effect is an artifact or not, and if it truly occurs, whether it has any significance to health. Further, the fields needed to produce the effect on calcium ions are much greater than would be experienced by people near any power lines. Although only a few in-vivo experiments have been conducted, none have shown any adverse health consequence of calcium ion movement.

COMMENT 18 As with essentially every "conclusion" Repacholi reaches, it is unrelated to the state of the scientific literature, but rather derives from his mission which is to exonerate the power industry.

Top

Posted: 12/15/05

2.11 Cancer Promotion Hypotheses

84. The cancer promotion theory receiving most attention is that proposed by Adey (1986, 1987, 1988). With evidence to suggest that cell membranes are a primary site of interaction of weak frequency or amplitude modulated RF fields (calcium ion efflux), Adey proposes that these fields modulate cell surface chemical events causing an amplification of initial weak triggers associated with binding of hormones, neurotransmitters and antibodies to

their sites. Protein molecules traversing the cell membrane form pathways for the signal and energy transfer to the cell interior. Based on evidence from the calcium efflux experiments, it is suggested that fields many orders of magnitude weaker than the cell membrane potential gradient (105 V'/cm) modulate cell responses to surface molecules.

85. Cancer-promoting phorbol esters act at cell membranes to stimulate ornithine decarboxylase (ODC) - a response enhanced by weak radiofrequency modulated (16 Hz) or 60 Hz fields (Byus et al 1987, 1988). In these experiments exposure of cells in-vitro increased the measurable levels of ODC by up to 5 times that of control levels. However, as noted by Boutwell (1989), a true cancer promoter (such as the phorbol ester - tetradecanoyl phorbol acetate or TPA) increases the ODC levels over 100 times. The 5-fold increase found by Byus et al does not suggest a cancer promotion effect. Further, Byus et al indicate the increased ODC activity lasts for about 1-3 hours. Boutwell (1989) states that with true cancer promotors the time frame for ODC induction lasts much longer. According to Bailey (1989), scientists have cautioned about the use of increased ODC activity as a marker of tumour induction, because many physiological stimuli other than tumour promotors are known to affect the ODC activity of cells.

86. Conclusion: A persisting problem with the calcium promotion theory is that it draws for support on effects produced by RF fields modulated at 16 Hz which have little in common with 50 or 60 Hz sinusoidal fields occurring under power lines. Further, the calcium efflux effect is not consistently observed, suggesting either a very subtle effect or an artifact in the experimental protocol. Finally, the changes in calcium efflux may be within the normal range of variation in animals or humans or may be compensated for in some way so that no change occurs overall. No adverse health consequence of this effect is known.

COMMENT 19 The work of Adey and Byus is interesting for both historical and scientific reasons, but it is largely irrelevant in a powerline hearing. It would be relevant if it were legally required that a claim powerline EMFs constituted health risks must be supported by a showing of the cellular mechanism that mediates the process. There is no such requirement. Repacholi's testimony is intended solely to create collateral issues that present an insurmountable obstacle to the recognition of powerline health risks. Both Bailey and Boutwell are industry hacks; they work for the same employer as does Repacholi.

Top

Posted: 12/20/05

2.12 Immune Function

87. Our immune system guards the human body against external agents such as viruses and other antigens. It is the immune system that responds to viral infections to effectively neutralise the effects of the virus and keep the body in good health. Obviously any decrease in immune response could lower resistance to diseases and create a health problem.

88. To test the effect of 50/60 Hz electric and magnetic fields on immune response, Winters (1986) performed a series of experiments on dog and human white cells. One experiment examined the immune properties of unexposed white blood cells during exposure to 60 Hz fields. Another study was conducted on cells taken from the body after dogs and human volunteers were injected with antigens (a substance that can stimulate immune response). Different combinations of 60 Hz electric and magnetic fields were used in the studies. However, no significant results were found to suggest that 60 Hz fields could affect immune response.

89. It has been suggested that development of cancer could be enhanced if the immune system of the host was suppressed. Precancerous clones could grow undetected. Evidence that 60 Hz electric fields can suppress T-lymphocyte (cells that participate in the body's immune response) cytotoxicity has been reported by Lyle et al (1988). A 25% inhibition of allogeneic cytotoxicity of the target cell MPC-11 by the murine cytotoxic T-lymphocyte line CTLL-1 was observed when assayed immediately following a 60 Hz field exposed, stimulated spleen cells was not 48 hour pre-exposure of the effector lymphocytes to a 1 kV/m (rms), 60 Hz, sinusoidal electric field. A lower inhibition (19%) was seen using a 0.1 kV/m field. It is suggested that the mechanism of cytotoxicity may have been altered since proliferation was not affected. However, this in-vitro result is not supported by in-vivo results (Morris and Phillips 1982, Morris 1985, Morris et al, 1988).

COMMENT 20 Of course the results weren't supported by Morris and Phillips; they worked for the power industry. In the late 1970s and early 1980s Phillips was in charge of a veritable data-fabrication factory at the Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories; the product was false and misleading information regarding the health risks of powerline EMFs. It is impossible to pinpoint his budgets during those years because almost everything about his work was secret except for selected releases of data that suited the interests of the industry. I estimate that he controlled or at least influenced $100-300 million in research funds. Even as the work was being produced it was apparent to unbiased observers that the work was worthless. Today (December, 2005) it is not possible to delineate even a single published report from Phillips' laboratory that provided useful or worthwhile information about the biological effects of EMFs. There is no report, not even one, regarding which I can tell my students, "Here, read this, it says something true and useful about understanding the biology of EMFs." The reason is clear; none of the work was ever intended to do so. Rather, it was intended to obfuscate the issue in the eye of the public. All this was surely known by Repacholi.

90. Mice were exposed to 60 Hz fields at 100 kV/m for 32 to 150 days. No significant changes in the immune system in terms of primary anti-body response or mitogen stimulation of spleen cells was found (Morris and Phillips 1982, Morris 1985). The reported increase in mitotic index of significantly different to sham exposed mice. This study has recently been extended to rats where no major changes in cell mediated immune responses were observed (Morris et al 1988).

91. Conclusion: Apart from the study by Lyle et al, studies testing whether 50/60 Hz fields affect the immune system have been negative. It should be noted the Lyle et al study is an in-vitro one and has not been observed in whole animals. One can only conclude from the evidence that exposure to 50/60 Hz fields has little or no effect on the immune system.

COMMENT 21 Repacholi constantly sets up inappropriate contrasts, irrelevant criteria, and insurmountable hurdles in the path of any realistic attempt to evaluate the health risks due to powerline EMFs. These strategies are folded into virtually every paragraph he writes, and it is easy for an honest but naïve reader to miss the point that the testimony is corrupt by virtue of its very structure, as well as because of the distortion of the facts discussed in the testimony.

3. PROCESS OF SETTING STANDARDS FOR HUMAN EXPOSURE

92. I believe it would be helpful to outline the criteria used for reviewing scientific literature to remain balanced and objective for assessing health risk. These criteria are used by most national and international organisations. Reference is made to the recently published IRPA/INIRC (1990) guidelines and explanations on development of its rationale for the 50/60 Hz electric and magnetic field exposure limits.

93. Development of standards that incorporate limits of human exposure to non-ionizing electromagnetic fields has occurred relatively recently. As such, knowledge has been gained from experiences in setting limits for exposure to ionizing radiations - where limits have been lowered on a few occasions as our base of scientific data increased. Standards setters are well aware of the history of events surrounding smoking and asbestos, once considered safe, later to be found carcinogenic.

COMMENT 22 All of the organizations discussed by Repacholi are dominated or controlled by the EMF-producing industries. Not surprisingly, the organizations see no problems with exposure of the public to EMFs. Almost invariably, the rules propounded by these organizations were designed to avoid obvious or acute effects (cooking of tissue, electrical shocks). No other effects are recognized by these organizations, and hence no other protections are built into the standards that they adopted. In some instances the adopted standards call for levels even below those that produce cooking or electrical shocks; in these cases, it had already been determined that the lower levels were consistent with the normal patterns of business in the industry. That is, if level x is sufficient to avoid electrical shocks but in the normal course of business the public is not exposed to levels higher than y, where y is less than x, then it's prudent to set the standard at y, rather than x. Such a strategy creates the impression of solicitude for the public but costs the industry nothing. These simple considerations are behind the standards set by the organizations discussed by Repacholi. His testimony is therefore fundamentally misleading because he obscures the underlying bias. His testimony is also misleading for another reason. He presents the process of evaluating scientific evidence for the purpose of determining the extent of risk as if it were a scientific process, whereas it is actually a societal process that involves human judgment, and human values. The values incorporated into the standards of the organizations he discusses are strictly those of the industry; the consumer, the victim, and the general public all have no significant voice in the standards-setting process.

Top

Posted: 12/28/05

3.1 Evaluation of Scientific Literature

94. The development of exposure standards requires an in depth evaluation of the established scientific literature since to base standards on preliminary or unconfirmed data or unproven hypotheses means that the limit values could change significantly with further research. Using established scientific literature allows exposure limits to be determined with a higher degree of confidence about their protective value.

COMMENT 23 "Established scientific literature," "preliminary or unconfirmed data," "unproven hypotheses," and "higher degree of confidence" are subjective criteria. In this testimony, and throughout his career, Repacholi employs such language as a code to indicate what reports he will accept or reject based on the interests of his clients. Note the misleading metaphor he implicitly adopts for science ­ that science can prove hypotheses. Knowledge that will never need to be revised ("change significantly with further research") cannot occur in biology.

95. Certain criteria must be met if claims of positive or negative effects are to be accepted into the body of established scientific literature. These include (WHO 1984, 1987, Repacholi 1989):

(a) Experimental techniques, methods and conditions should be as completely objective as possible.

(b) All data analyses should be fully and completely objective, no relevant data deleted from consideration and uniform analytical methods used.

(c) The published description of the methods should be given in sufficient detail that a critical reader would be convinced that all reasonable precautions have been taken to meet requirements (a) and (b).

(d) Results should demonstrate an effect of the relevant variable at a high level of statistical significance using appropriate tests. The effects of interest should ordinarily be shown by a majority of test organisms and the responses found should be consistent.

(e) Results should be quantifiable and susceptible to confirmation by independent researchers. Preferably, the experiments should be repeated and the data confirmed independently; or the claimed effects should be consistent with results of similar experiments, where the biological systems involved were comparable.

(f) Results should be viewed with respect to previously accepted scientific principles before ascribing them new ones.

(g) For a health risk assessment, greatest value in results conforming to a)-f) above should be placed on reports published in peer reviewed scientific journals. Less weight is placed on data from reports in non-peer reviewed journals, books and abstracts.

 

COMMENT 24 Repacholi is perhaps the leading expert in the world who guides governmental agencies in setting health standards to protect against EMF health risks. From his bully pulpit at the World Health Organization he writes and speaks with the Kafkaesque perspective embodied in this paragraph, but yet is essentially immune from criticism, control, or accountability. He is like King Canute, except that the tide of truth has obeyed his command and ceased to roll in.

96. From the body of established literature, a distinction must be made between in-vitro and in-vivo studies. In-vitro studies are conducted to elucidate mechanisms of interaction or to identify biological effects that need to be further investigated to determine if they occur in in-vivo systems. Standards setting organisations can then place in-vitro experiments into context.

COMMENT 25 The purposes for which in vitro (or any other) scientific studies are conducted depend on the aims and goals of the investigators. Repacholi is particularly afraid of in vitro studies because they are relatively inexpensive and easy to perform, and thus they have a serious potential to create problems for his clients. For this reason, he would like the judge to see in vitro studies as preliminary, unreliable, unrelated to evaluating risk, and of generally dubious value. Repacholi's ipse dixit often prevails, with the result that in vitro studies are under-evaluated by the judge, or excluded altogether from consideration.

Top

Posted: 2/15/06

3.2 Population

97. An important part of the rationale for any exposure standard is the definition of the population to be protected. Occupational health standards are aimed at protecting healthy adults exposed as a necessary part of their work, who are aware of the occupational risk and who are likely to be subject to medical surveillance. General population standards must be based on broader considerations, including health status, special sensitivities, possible effects on the course of various diseases, as well as limitations in adaptation to environmental conditions and responses to any kind of stress in old age. As many of these considerations have been insufficiently explored, standards for the general population must involve adequate safety factors, including taking into account the possibility of 24-hr exposure compared with 8-hr occupational exposure (or whatever the duration of the workday).

COMMENT 26 Repacholi seems to believe that the proper way to deal with toxic agents in the environment is for superior individuals (scientists) to make rules regarding what levels of the agent are "safe" for the general public. He ignores the fact that each such rule is value-laden, and that his testimony is based principally on his personal values. Value-laden rules may be credible when they are promulgated by democratically constituted authority, but they have no validity when they arise from the ipse dixit of private individuals. Repacholi never considers replacing or supplementing his autocratic system with a system of honest science in which the best available knowledge is provided to the people, who then make their own decisions regarding how much and what kind of risk they will accept. For Repacholi to argue that adequate safety factors are needed is like the fox insisting that the guard around the henhouse be increased. His testimony in this case, and his actions throughout his career amply illustrate that he has never advocated a meaningful safety factor, or even identified a non-trivial biological endpoint that such a factor could be designed to obviate. Repacholi, in short, is a hypocrite.

Top

Posted: 3/6/06

3.3 Health Hazard

98. Criteria must be developed to identify which field-induced biological effects are to be considered a hazard to human health. A distinction needs to be made between the concepts of interaction, biological effect, perception, and hazard. Although the quantum energy levels of radiated energy at ELF frequencies are negligibly small, the possibility of an effect from ELF fields cannot be dismissed. Virtually all the energy absorbed by a biological system from 50 Hz field is by inductive and capacitative coupling, and in a few cases by conduction. Thus some interaction must occur, even though it may be a negligible physical perturbation in a dynamic system.

COMMENT 27 There is no chronic biological effect caused in the bodies of human beings exposed to powerlines that wouldn't be presumed to be a hazard to human health. With the exception of those who work for power companies, I have never heard anyone argue otherwise. The quantum levels of EMF ELF frequencies are what they are, smaller than some but larger than others; to refer to them generically as "negligibly small" is vacuous. It is self-contradictory for Repacholi to caution against dismissing the possibility of effects due to powerline fields since that is exactly what he is urging on the court in this testimony. The paragraph is characteristic of Repacholi's strategy of mixing physics-type statements ("Energy is absorbed by...") with purely subjective terms ("considered a hazard," "negligibly small," "negligible physical perturbation"). It's as if he expects the reader to psychologically project the certainty of physics-type statements onto his personal judgments regarding EMF health risks.

99. A biological effect is a physiological perturbation that may or may not be measurable. When a person is merely aware of a physiological perturbation, this conveys the idea of a sensation or perception of the field.

COMMENT 28 It is a contradiction to claim than an "effect" is not "measurable," because one would never know that it had occurred unless it were observed and measured. The second sentence is a tautology; to be "aware" is to sense or perceive something.

Top

Posted: 3/7/06

100. The difficulty in defining the term health hazard occurs because value judgements are involved that may not be based on scientific analysis. Some people may consider that any field induced interaction is hazardous. Others suggest that the field is hazardous if it is capable of producing a physiological perturbation in a biological system that is either measurable or at least theoretically possible. Still others note that a stimulus producing sensation without pain or discomfort is often assumed to be harmless, but the opposite may be true (Grissett, 1980).

COMMENT 29 The difficulty in defining "health hazard" arises because value judgments (which are not based on scientific analysis) are intimately involved in whatever language is adopted.

101. Czerski and Szmigielski (1975) have noted that in order to understand the effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields, one must have some knowledge of the mechanisms of energy absorption and any direct interference with biophysical and biochemical phenomena in living systems. They suggest that:

(a) all detectable changes in function or structure above the molecular level be termed biological effects,

(b) the immediate effect at the site of primary interaction may induce further changes (secondary or indirect effects),

(c) some time may elapse between the primary interaction and detection of the biological effect,

(d) measurable biological effects that remain within the range of normal compensation are not necessarily hazardous, and

(e) biological effects that may be detrimental to the efficiency of a living system could be hazardous.

 

COMMENT 30 Repacholi is like a magician who talks to his audience to maintain their attention while he manipulates an object that is in plain view but not actually seen by the audience because their attention has been diverted. The goal of understanding how effects caused by exposure to electromagnetic fields are brought about, however laudable, is irrelevant in a legal proceeding to determine whether such fields constitute health risks. If one is distracted into believing that recognition of the existence of health risks is somehow tied to the need to understand the physical processes that mediate the risk, then recognition of the risk can be deferred endlessly.

Top

Posted: 3/17/06

102. Certainly all of these points must be considered. One could conclude however that interactions which lead to measurable biological effects which remain within the normal range of physiological compensation of the body and do not detract from the physical and mental wellbeing of humans, should not be considered as hazardous. Interactions which lead to biological effects outside the normal range of compensation of the body may be an actual or potential health hazard (Repacholi 1983).

COMMENT 31 This double-talk is similar to that one can see in the statements Repacholi makes today on behalf of the World Health Organization concerning the health risks of electromagnetic fields. His pattern of deceptive speech was perfected almost 15 years ago in this testimony. A normal range of a biological parameter is generally defined to be that found in subjects who display no overt clinical disease. Normal range is a definition, not an implicit assertion regarding an interval within which companies are permitted by the law to involuntarily induce changes in individual subjects under an irrebuttable assumption that the changes are "safe." There is no biologically-based rationale to assert that a change in a parameter in a subject must be safe as long as the endpoint achieved is within the range for the population, which is exactly what Repacholi asserts here. The brutal notion advanced here by Repacholi originated in the work of Solomon Michaelson, a veterinarian at the University of Rochester who experimented with the effects of electromagnetic fields on dogs (see Comment 8). Michaelson's experimental model consisted of inserting a rectal thermometer in dogs and measuring core temperature as the animal was exposed to microwaves. The typical observation was that the body temperature would begin to rise, but would return to normal when the microwave exposure was terminated. If the exposure was maintained long enough, however, a point could be reached where the body temperature continued to rise even when the microwaves were terminated, resulting very quickly in the death of the dog. Michaelson worked to identify the critical temperature beyond which death ensued. His notion was that, for shorter durations of exposure the body could "handle" the microwaves because it could "adapt" to them. The industry philosophy that evolved from these experiments was that reversible changes were evidence of a "normal" response of the body and therefore could not be considered to be a hazard. The next step in the pro-corporate reasoning process was to assert that if something wasn't a hazard the first time it occurred, it couldn't be a hazard the second or succeeding times it occurred. Since chronic exposure can be considered to be a continuous series of individual exposures, like a modern-day Zeno, the conclusion was reached that the exposure must be safe. The point to be recognized is that Repacholi is not wrong because of science-based reasoning, he is wrong because he passed off value-based judgments as if they were science-based. A democratically-based regulatory authority might decide that society would best be served by a rule that equates short-term reversibility of a biological effect with "safety." But Repacholi is no democratically constituted authority, and he therefore has no right to arrogate this decisional authority onto himself. Any decision by a properly constituted authority to adopt the Michaelson model must occur in the context of full disclosure of all relevant information, and an honest attempt to understand the limits and dimensions of the physical effects produced by EMFs. The public cannot rationally agree to a policy if they are lied to about the underlying evidence, or if that evidence is hidden. Whenever Repacholi has had the opportunity to use his position of dominance at the World Health Organization to press for honest, open research on the part of the power companies and cell-telephone companies, he has taken the opposite tack, namely he has lauded the efforts of the corporations and treated the work that they control as if it were real science.

103. The fact that a biological change is observed or suspected to occur in humans, does not by itself indicate that the environment which produces the changes is hazardous. A good example is the naive investigator who sets out to examine the effects of strenuous motor activity. He asked his subject to run for a given period of time. Upon completion of the assigned task, the investigator measured the subject's blood pressure. After finding a significant elevation in this parameter the investigator searched the literature and was horrified by the ominous import of this findings. The investigator then advised that running is a most dangerous activity (Kahn et al, 1974).

COMMENT 32 The analogy is seriously misleading because it obscures and commingles the issues of voluntariness, the pre-existing health conditions of the subject, and the benefit for whom the activity is performed. A more apt model is that of an investigator who secretly places a potentially toxic agent in the food consumed by an old man with the ultimate aim of developing a product that might improve corporate profitability.

104. The second step in standards development is hazard validation. It must be determined whether the reported biological effect produces a truly undesirable state in at least some portion of the exposed individuals. The time course of the effect must be determined, ie under what conditions the effect disappears after rest, or if exposures are additive even after a time out for rest, or whether effects are permanent such as induction of cancer. If it is determined that certain electromagnetic field conditions exist which have a certain probability of being unsafe for some individuals, then the socio-political question must be answered as to what level of safety must be incorporated into the standard.

COMMENT 33 The use of vaporous language and the passive voice cannot disguise Repacholi's notion that the technologically elite are fitted by nature to tell other human beings how they ought to live and what risks they ought to endure.

105. The results of epidemiological studies must be carefully evaluated. Epidemiological demonstration of an association between two variables need not imply causality - both may be due to a common factor. However, establishment of causality is enhanced if (Miller 1986, 1989)

(a) the presumed causal event precedes the effect

(b) one rather than multiple diseases (eg. cancers) are caused by a given exposure (specificity of effect)

(c) a dose-response relationship exists or at least the relation between exposure and effect is quantitated

(d) consistency with other observations on cause and effect

(e) the exclusion of concomitant variables (alternative explanations)

(f) disappearance of the effect when the cause is removed, and

(g) the results are consistent with those from animal experimentation and other human observations.

COMMENT 34 The proposed rules are capricious; they serve only to validate the status quo, which is the situation that EMF exposure is considered to be perfectly safe absent immediate, egregious, clear, and certain evidence to the contrary. (a) is an axiom, not an observation.   (b) is wrong because it is unbiological. Effects are rarely specific, as is well shown by the plethora of diseases associated with cigarette smoking.   (c) is a characterization of a linear disease process, but nothing indicates that EMF-induced effects are linear. The only causal requirement is that the "dose" must actually produce the "effect." There is no rational necessity for higher levels of the "dose" to produce greater (or less) amounts of the "effect."   (d) is not a reasonable requirement (unless it is precisely defined) because "consistency," like the beauty of a rose, is in the eye of its beholder.   (e) is a fatuous requirement because "exclusion" is never possible as regards biological systems. The best one can do is to offer reasons why one alternative should be regarded as a better characterization of the truth than another.   (f) is simply foolish, like expecting that an escaped horse will rematerialize inside the barn if only someone closed the barn door.   (g) What "consistency" is can be agreed upon, but when viewed as an objective concept it is insufferably vague and imprecise.

Top

Posted: 3/24/06

106. Not all of these factors can be evaluated or will be true for even the most fully studied effects of exposure to a physical or chemical agent. However, laboratory evidence of this is normally necessary to support the human studies.

COMMENT 35 Although these factors relate to empirical observations, the meaning ascribable to them is largely subjective. In this testimony and throughout his career, Repacholi invested them with the meaning preferred by his employers while misleading the public into believing that the meaning is objectively based.

3.4 Threshold Exposure

107. For exposure to any physical agent, there exists a range of biological effects that needs to be assessed for determining health effects. At very high doses clearly adverse physiological effects occur, and a threshold can generally be defined for producing these effects. A consensus of scientific opinion frequently exists which enables us to delineate the range of exposures where no adverse effects occur or appears possible. Controversy sometimes occurs however with regard to the grey area in between these two dose ranges. To develop exposure limits in standards only established biological effects can be considered to determine threshold exposure levels on which the limits are based. Safety factors may be incorporated into the limits depending on the degree of uncertainty about the threshold dose.

COMMENT 36 At high levels, EMFs cook tissue and cause electrical shocks. It doesn't take a genius to realize that such effects are adverse, or to document the actual EMF levels at which the effects occur. It would be about as difficult to generate controversy concerning the "adversity" of these effects as it would be to plausibly deny the existence of gravity. As Repacholi well knows, the real health problems exist at sub-thermal EMF levels where arguments can be made that no effects exist (for the reason that the effects are not utterly obvious, as with cooking tissue). It is amazing that the term "safety factor" doesn't stick in Repacholi's throat like a chicken bone, because he has opposed and obfuscated that concept in this testimony, and subsequently, throughout his career.

3.5 IRPA/INIRC Standards for 50/60 HZ Fields

108. As an example of using the criteria outlined above, an explanation of the rationale of the IRPA/INIRC (1990) guidelines on exposure limits to 50/60 Hz electric and magnetic fields is given below.

COMMENT 37 No proper foundation was laid. What is IRPA/INIRC? Who appointed them? What are their values? Even more fundamentally, is the question of health risks from powerline or microwave EMFs a question that should be decided solely by technical experts? The fact is that the question involves issues of science and justice, and therefore cannot properly be decided only by technical experts.

109. The IRPA/INIRC (1990) guidelines use as their basic criterion that currents induced by 50/60 Hz electric and magnetic fields should not exceed about 10 mA/m2.

COMMENT 38 Repacholi neglects to point out that the criterion of 10 mA/m2 is based solely on the phenomenon of electrical shock and tissue heating. In other words, to assert the applicability of that current density to the problem of safety of EMFs is equivalent to an assertion that the only health risks that need to be considered involve tissue heating and electrical shock.

Top

Posted: 3/30/06

110. The 10 mA/m2 criterion was based on the following:

From an extensive review of the scientific literature, WHO (1987) made the following statement:

(a) Between 1 and 10 mA/m2: minor biological effects have been reported;

(b) Between 10 and 100 mA/m2: there are well established effects, including visual and nervous system effects;

(c) Between 100 and 1000 mA/m2: stimulation of excitable tissue is observed, and there are possible health hazards;

(d) Above 1000 mA/m2: extra systoles and fibrillation can occur (acute health hazards).

COMMENT 39 The testimony is misleading. The only reason pro-industry groups favor a current density of 10 mA/m2 is that it is consistent with present business practices. The choice has nothing whatever to do with good-faith scientific evidence.

111. Endogenous current densities in the body are typically up to about 10 mA/m2, although they can be much higher during certain functions. Taking into account more recent data as well, the INIR Committee felt that, to be conservative, current densities induced by external electric or magnetic fields should not significantly exceed this value. Thus, limits for continuous human exposure to electric and magnetic fields were determined using this criterion.

COMMENT 40 This argument has a black historical setting. It was originated by Herman Schwan, who worked in Nazi Germany during World War II and was then brought to the United States in 1949 by the United States Department of Defense because his expertise was deemed essential to the security of this country. He was an expert in the biological effects of EMFs, and that issue had arisen here within the context of the safety-and-use of electronic communications and radar systems. Schwan concocted the following argument. Electric fields produced by radar and electronic communications systems are in the range of 1-20 V/m, rarely higher. However, there are electric fields inside the body that are 10^6 V/m, for example, the electric field that exists across the membrane of any cell. Since the electric fields to which a subject is ordinary exposed is so much smaller than the fields that already exist in the body, the exogenous fields can't possibly be harmful. In this paragraph, Repacholi makes essentially the same argument, using the language of current density rather than electric fields. The argument was nonsensical biology when it was first made by Schwan, and it remains nonsensical biology when paraphrased by Repacholi.

(a) Rationale for Electric Field Exposure Limits

112. The guideline limits for electric fields were essentially based on the conclusions of WHO (1984) and on more recent reports. In summary form these are:

(a) Animal experimentation indicates that exposure to strong 50/60 Hz electric fields can alter cellular, physiological and behavioural events. Although it is difficult to extrapolate these finding to human beings, these studies serv