Dr. Dwight Mercer answers questions about health concerns related to power lines during a public hearing Tuesday in Pattison. Pictured next to him are Matthew Cox, Stephen Hirst, and John Kellum of CenterPoint Energy.




By Joe Southern

PATTISON – Opponents of proposed power lines that would cross Waller County questioned representatives of CenterPoint Energy, the Texas Public Utilities Commission and other agencies Tuesday night in a special workshop of the Waller County Commissioners Court.

Landowners fearing having their property taken and/or reduced in value due to the high-voltage towers peppered the panel with questions following their presentation about the need for the transmission lines. Though the tone of the meeting was cordial, the message was clear.

“What is the best way we landowners can stop the project?” asked a member from the audience.

The question drew some laughs, but it was what nearly everyone in the audience wanted to know.

“Make your voices heard at the PUC (hearing),” said John Kellum of CenterPoint Energy. “If you intervene, you get a seat at the table.”

It was explained earlier by Muhammad Ally of the PUC that people can oppose a project in two ways. First, they can be heard as a protester, but none of their information will be used in the process to make a ruling. A protester will be heard, but no questions asked of them.

Second, they can become an intervener. That allows them to submit evidence in opposition to the project. It also means they can be questioned while on the stand.

Ally began the workshop by explaining the year-long process it takes for a utility company to go from application to approval.

CenterPoint Energy wants to build large 345kV transmission lines from its substation in Fayetteville to its Zenith station near Houston to service its customers in the Houston area, including some in Waller County. The Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) ruled last August that there is a need for the project and estimated the savings to CenterPoint Energy and its customers at $45 million a year.

Kellum said CenterPoint Energy expects to file its application with the PUC in August or September. It is currently holding public meetings in Austin, Waller and Harris counties to gather information and to analyze primary and alternative routes. After the company applies for its Certificate of Convenience and Need (CCN), notices are mailed out to all affected landowners within 500 feet of each of the route alternatives. County and municipal governments will also be notified.

Ally said that after the application is made, it is studied independently by PUC staff and administrators. At this point people can request to comment as a protester or to present evidence as an intervener. There is a period of time to allow for further review and staff recommendation before the case goes before a PUC judge.

The judge can approve it, approve it with modifications or deny it. His decision is final. If approved, CenterPoint Energy would then proceed with acquiring the land or right-of-way and then construct its lines. Kellum said the company, if approved, anticipates land acquisition to begin in September of 2012 and for the project to be complete in December 2014.

Jim Spurgeon of CenterPoint Energy explained the acquisition process, noting that an independent appraiser will determine the property value. He said landowners can choose to keep their property and sell the right-of-way or they can sell the land outright.

There were several questions raised about health concerns related to the electromagnetic field (EMF) generated around power lines. Dr. H. Dwight Mercer said the PUC conducted a study in 1992 of 35 epidemiological studies which determined there is no direct correlation with EMF exposure and leukemia or other health hazards.

He said most people have greater exposure to EMF from appliances in their own homes than they do from brief exposure to power lines. He also said that in 2002 that the National Institute of Environmental Health conducted a “mega-study” of 160 national and international studies of EMF done since the 1970s. It determined that there can be damage done if there is prolonged exposure near the lines, but no significant damage from brief EMF contact on the perimeter of the field.

The CenterPoint Energy representatives pointed out that the company does not generate electricity, so the option of building a power generation plant closer to Houston was not an option. They said the proposed routes are along existing right-of-ways, highways, property lines and such in order to minimize the impact on landowners.

At the conclusion of the hearing, Waller County Judge Glenn Beckendorff commented about the quality of life in the county and the impact the company will have on it.

“What we ask in Waller County is that you be a good neighbor because we’ve all worked hard for this,” he said.

For more information about CenterPoint Energy’s proposal, visit www.centerpointenergy.com/fzproject. Citizens for a Better Waller County, the grassroots organization opposing the project, has its own information available at www.wallercountytexas.com.

In collaboration with the International EMF Alliance (IEMFA), scientists from Europe, North America, Australia and Israel have sent an Open Letter to Dr. Christopher Wild, Director of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), calling for a postponement of the forthcoming meeting May 24-31, 2011 in Lyon, France, “Non-Ionizing Radiation, Part II: Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Field [includes mobile telephones],” at which determination of the carcinogenicity of cell phones and wireless technologies will be made.

The “Open Letter to the International Agency for Research on Cancer” http://iemfa.org/images/pdf/OpenLetter_IARC.pdf signed by international scientists and public officials asserts:

1. No decision should be made by IARC on the carcinogenicity of radiofrequency radiation (RF/MW) until the Interphone Study’s remaining results are disclosed. To date, only the pooled 13-country data for glioma and meningioma elements have been published. Though the Interphone Study data was collected by 2004, the overall analysis of the risk of acoustic neuroma, parotid gland tumors and tumors in the regions of the brain most highly exposed to cellphone radiation has yet to be published. Also, single-country Interphone studies have not yet been fully published for Australian, Canada, Finland, Italy and New Zealand. However, other individual country studies published show very significant risks for acoustic neuroma, parotid gland tumor and glioma.

International scientists say scientific conclusions will only be possible when all of the country results, and all of the overall pooled results, are fully published.

1. Telecom Industry Observers at the IARC Meeting Places a “Chilling Effect” on Grant Dependent Researchers, and Should Be Excluded. The presence of observers such as Joe Elder, representing the Mobile Manufactures Forum (previously a long-term Motorola Employee); Jack Rowley, representing the GSM Association (a previously long-term Telstra employee); and Mays Swicord representing the Cellular Telecommunication Industry Association (previously a long-term Motorola employee), create an environment of scientific intimidation and suppression through the presence of these influential corporate interests.

A paper on the unsuitability of Professor Anders Ahlbom of the Karolinksa Institute in Sweden to Chair the IARC expert group on epidemiology which will judge on the carcinogenicity of RF/MW has been separately been issued by France’s Priartem and can be found at www.Priartem.fr This report claims Professor Ahlbom has extreme conflicts of interest and intellectual bias favoring the telecommunications industry, and calls for Ahlbom’s to be replaced.

1. IARC’s Required Conflict-of-Interest Statements Should Be Made Public. Scientists say IARC, which calls itself ‘transparent’, must release the conflict-of-interest statements, as do scientific journals, but IARC Officer, Dr. Robert Baan, who will head the upcoming IARC meeting, has refused to release the IARC expert’s conflict of interest statements, claiming they are confidential. It is inappropriate, and lacking in transparency, for a publically funded organization, in this case funded with approximately 38 million Euros, to hide its conflicts-of-interests statements from public view.

A recently published paper by International EMF Alliance Co-founder, Don Maisch, PhD, of Australia, greatly elaborates on the conflicts of interest at WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). See “Radiofrequency/Microwave Radiation and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)—The Problem of Conflict of Interest & Commercial Influence in WHO Agencies and the Need for Public Interest Representation”, found at http://www.iemfa.org/index.php/publications/news

L. Lloyd Morgan, B.S., brain tumor analyst and lead author of the landmark paper “Cellphones and Brain Tumors: 15 Reasons for Concern—Science, Spin and the Truth Behind Interphone” http://electromagnetichealth.org/electromagnetic-health-blog/cellphones-cause-brain-tumors-says-new-report-by-international-emf-collaborative , says, “Leading international scientists fear the telecom-influenced IARC, in the upcoming meeting in Lyon, can not be impartial because grant giving industry executives are Observers and much of IARC’s own 2004 data still remains inxplicably unpublished. If a decision is railroaded through in this scenario, indicating that RF/MW does not cause cancer, this would be a great disservice to public health globally and a sad day for science, as there is overhwhelming evidence to the contrary. There is evidence of risk of many cancers from long-term use of cell phones, including gliomas (braincancer), acoustic neuromas (tumors of the acoustic nerve), meningiomas (tumors of the brain lining), salivary gland tumors, eye cancers, testicular cancers and leukemia.”

Alasdair Philips, of Powerwatch UK says, “Letters from many scientists have been sent to Dr. Christopher Wild, Director of IARC, protesting the meeting that will judge on the carcinogenicity of RF/MW, criticizing IARC for holding such a meeting 1) without full disclosure of the remaining 50% of the Interphone study results, six years after publication; 2) without disclosure of the expert group on epidemiology’s conflicts-of-interest statements, and 3) with the heavy presence of powerful telecom industry Observers at the meeting. Thus far, Dr. Wild has not responded to the many complaints received from global scientists demanding greater disclosure, accountability and transparency on this important matter. Without these essential ingredients, science looses all integrity.”

Conflicts of interest at IARC are not new. In 2005, the Editor of the Lancet Oncology, David Collingridge, submitted a paper on lack of transparency, “What does IARC have to loose?” http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045%2803%2901086-6/fulltext. A transparency issue also exists in the current IARC decision-making process, where the database of scientific studies being considered, and studies submitted by global scientists for consideration, have not been made public, rendering the greater scientific community unable to evaluate the science being considered.

After partial results of the 13-country Interphone study were finally published in May 2010, Dr. Elizabeth Cardis, lead author of the Interphone study, and Siegal Sadetzki, who led the Israeli part of the study, separately subsequently published commentary on brain tumor risks from cell phones in The Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, urging caution http://electromagnetichealth.org/category/electromagnetic-health-blog . They said, “While more studies are needed, indications of an increased risk (of gliomas - a particularly dangerous form of brain tumour) in high and long-term users from Interphone and other studies are of concern...Even a small risk at the individual level could eventually result in a considerable number of tumours and become an important public-health issue.”

Alex Swinkels, Co-founder of IEMFA, says, “It is clear from recent protests over the upcoming IARC meeting on RF/MW, and the earlier effort by Dr. Cardis and Sadetzki to clarify the risks in the Interphone study not previously emphasized by the Interphone Working Group’s official statement, that scientists are increasingly not tolerating deceptions in science and commercial interests influencing regulatory bodies.”

IEMFA suggests it would behoove public health and government officials, as well as media, to listen carefully to non-commercially connected LIFE scientists and analysts expressing concern about biological effects of radiofrequency and microwave radiation, and to support the global movement underway toward greater transparency and integrity in science with consequences for public health.”

Though it only recently launched Kinect, Microsoft is already working toward the next evolution in gaming control: electromagnetism.

Look around you. It doesn't really matter whether you're at home or at work, as either place will almost definitely be covered in electrical outlets, light fixtures, computers, clocks and all kinds of other gadgets. Outside the window there are probably electrical lines running up and down the street.

Thanks to all of these modern conveniences, almost every building in existence is covered in electromagnetic fields.

Seeking to exploit this, Microsoft's team of researchers has developed a device that detects a person's position in relation to these fields. By attaching the proper sensors to household electronics, the software giant hopes to make turning on a blender as simple as pointing to the machine from across the room.

Home automation is neat, but the really enticing application of this technology is in the researchers' proposed videogame integration. In theory at least, the system should be able to offer gamers a Kinect-like experience, in which interaction with the console is handled entirely with gestures, only without any need to stand in front of a camera. Instead of restricting your gameplay experience to a peripheral's field of vision, you'd suddenly have your entire home to interact with.

New Scientist also cites the possibilities this tech offers for integration into every day, real-world activities - even those that take place outdoors:

The system could even be used outside, since electromagentic radiation from power lines generates voltages that the sensor can track. If the sensor could communicate with an online library of gesture signatures, users could extract information from the environment. For example, the system could be used to send a text message with bus arrival times to any user that touched a certain part of a bus stop.

Of course, like Kinect (and Sony's Move system, and the Nintendo Wii, and any other non-standard control mechanism since the beginning of time), this new technology really doesn't signify anything until someone writes useful software for it. Tech demos are fun, but until I'm controlling a spaceship in Mass Effect 5 by pressing non-existent buttons virtually overlaid on my sleeping cat, cautious optimism is the most I can muster.

Source: New Scientist