For the Steering Committee on the Southeast Metro Transmission Line

REPLY of DR. MARTIN BLANK to TESTIMONY of DR. PETER VALBERG

Written Testimony

In presenting his position on the EMF health issue, Dr. Valberg relied almost entirely on the opinions of “blue ribbon” panels, whose statements were issued several years ago.

· At the time the statements were made, there was a reasonable basis for questioning the evidence from epidemiology. However, since then two meta analyses (Greenland et al, Epidem 2000; Ahlbom et al, Brit J Cancer 2000), of 15 and 9 major studies respectively, have shown a statistically significant doubling of the risk of childhood leukemia when exposures exceed 3-4mG. Although a doubling of the risk of leukemia had persisted in many studies near the “significant” level (as in the National Cancer Institute study), the lack of statistical significance had been due to the small number of cases at high exposure in individual studies. By pooling the cases, it has been possible to demonstrate statistical significance. One must now agree that the evidence from epidemiology indicates an association of EMF with childhood leukemia when exposures exceed 3-4mG.

· Dr. Valberg also wrote of the absence of supporting evidence “...from mechanistic analysis of how EMF might cause an effect on living cells.” Evidence of effects of EM fields on cells has now been in the peer-reviewed literature for many years, including information about low thresholds, so this really does not question the effects on transcription or the low fields at which these effects occur. While knowledge of a mechanism is always desirable, it is usually difficult to obtain. We still do not know what causes cancer, despite the enormous effort over many years. However, in the last few years laboratory research has strengthened the mechanistic basis for the epidemiology conclusions. Studies of EM field- induced changes in both transcription and translation of stress proteins show that EM fields activate DNA. Our latest research has indicated specific regions of DNA associated with the response to EM fields, an effect that offers the possibility for control of gene therapy (Columbia University, patent pending). The composition of the specific DNA sequences suggests that EM fields activate DNA by generating repulsive forces on the electrons moving within DNA (Blank and Goodman, Bioelectromagnetics 1997). DNA can conduct electrons, and we have shown that EM fields accelerate electron transfer reaction rates.

This brief description shows that a plausible cellular mechanism has been identified, the cellular stress response, which is an appropriate response to a potentially harmful environmental influence. In addition, a plausible molecular mechanism, interaction of EM fields with moving charges, is physically reasonable, and has been shown to apply in several molecular systems. This mechanism probably applies to interaction with DNA, since a specific DNA sequence has been associated with the EM field response. These mechanisms are plausible, and they link EM fields to the changes in DNA that we know they induce.

Oral Testimony

In his oral comments, Dr. Valberg raised issues similar to those already dealt with in my reply to his written testimony. He did make an additional point about the high level of electrical noise in the body as a factor that would make it difficult for EM fields to affect cells. There is a high level of electrical noise, but electric fields due to the electrical activity of the heart or of the central nervous system do not appear to affect the function of cells located near them. Electrical noise effectively stops at the cell membrane. In sharp contrast, magnetic fields penetrate the cells essentially unattenuated, so an EM field of 10mG outside a cell is 10mG inside the cell. The ability to penetrate a cell, means that the field at the DNA in a cell nucleus is essentially the same as the field outside the body, and not affected by the electric field outside the cell or even the electric field of the membrane around the cell.