EMF Electromagnetic Field Health Ramifications
My Questions to PATH's "expert witness" and the responses of the PATH attorneys
As an Intervenor in the PATH case, I was given the "privilege" of interacting with the PATH attorneys in the process of questioning PATH's "expert" witness testimony. (THAT was fun).
After you read how the PATH attorneys "skillfully" (lol) avoided answering the questions, go to the bottom of this page and click on the link to see how others have criticized Linda Erdreich - PATH's "expert" witness on being industry friendly.
After you read how the PATH attorneys "skillfully" (lol) avoided answering the questions, go to the bottom of this page and click on the link to see how others have criticized Linda Erdreich - PATH's "expert" witness on being industry friendly.
MY QUESTION:
Exponent, the company that employs Ms. Erdreich (Page 2, Line 9), is recognized as a pro-industry research and consulting company that serves the interest of its business clients. For example, Exponent has been criticized by the National Resources Defense Counsel for its biased interpretation of the research literature concerning the harmful effects of asbestos exposure (NRDC Comments on the “Short List Candidates for the Asbestos Panel of the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB)” May 2007, full document available upon request.) The current SAB does not include representatives from Exponent: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabpeople.nsf/WebCommitteesSubcommittees/Asbestos%20Committee. (Accessed 09-07-09). The NRDC comments included the statement, “A consulting firm like Exponent is paid to influence policy, and putting their experts on the SAB would be like putting defense experts on a jury, when their opinion has already been purchased.”
Exponent has also been criticized for biased positions regarding EMF exposure directly (Maisch 2006). According to this article, Exponent’s projects are often “initiated by lawyers or insurance companies, whose clients anticipate, or are engaged in, litigation over an alleged failure of their products, equipment or services.” (page 16).
Given the identification of Exponent with biased, pro-industry positions on EMF and other issues, we ask that Ms. Erdreich describe her qualifications to provide unbiased advice on the health effects of EMF exposure.
PATH's ANSWER:
"This request is vexatious and for purposes of harrassment.
Exponent, the company that employs Ms. Erdreich (Page 2, Line 9), is recognized as a pro-industry research and consulting company that serves the interest of its business clients. For example, Exponent has been criticized by the National Resources Defense Counsel for its biased interpretation of the research literature concerning the harmful effects of asbestos exposure (NRDC Comments on the “Short List Candidates for the Asbestos Panel of the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB)” May 2007, full document available upon request.) The current SAB does not include representatives from Exponent: http://yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabpeople.nsf/WebCommitteesSubcommittees/Asbestos%20Committee. (Accessed 09-07-09). The NRDC comments included the statement, “A consulting firm like Exponent is paid to influence policy, and putting their experts on the SAB would be like putting defense experts on a jury, when their opinion has already been purchased.”
Exponent has also been criticized for biased positions regarding EMF exposure directly (Maisch 2006). According to this article, Exponent’s projects are often “initiated by lawyers or insurance companies, whose clients anticipate, or are engaged in, litigation over an alleged failure of their products, equipment or services.” (page 16).
Given the identification of Exponent with biased, pro-industry positions on EMF and other issues, we ask that Ms. Erdreich describe her qualifications to provide unbiased advice on the health effects of EMF exposure.
PATH's ANSWER:
"This request is vexatious and for purposes of harrassment.
MY QUESTION:
In the testimony of Mark Israel (Israel testimony Page 1, Line 13), he was asked if he was testifying on behalf of any scientific or medical organization with which he was affiliated. Ms. Erdreich was not asked this question. In light of her employment with Exponent – we ask this of Ms. Erdreich. Is Ms. Erdreich testifying on behalf of any scientific, medical, or corporate organization (including PATH, Allegheny Power, American Electric, or any of their subsidiaries or affiliate companies) that may benefit from her testimony regarding EMF?
PATH's ANSWER
"This request is vexatious and propounded for the purpose of harrasement"
MY COMMENT: Is she or isn't she? Why would one of your witnesses have this question but not the other?
MY QUESTION:
On page 2, line 12 of the direct testimony of Linda Erdreich, Ms. Erdreich testifies “I manage research projects and assess scientific research, such as this assessment of the epidemiology research on power frequency EMF.” We ask that Ms. Erdreich provide a list of all projects related to EMF, including a summary of results, in which she has assisted or managed. This is relevant to the PATH project in that if the bulk of Ms. Erdreich’s experience has been with mobile phones or household appliances which are used only intermittently, then the findings may not be applicable to the EMF ramifications on health of a high voltage transmission line which will produce a constant and very high EMF
PATH's ANSWER:
This question is vexatious and harrasing. Dr, Erdreich has been involved in numerous projects over the past 18 or so years that involved assessments of the epidemiology research on power frequency EMF. She does not maintain a list of these projects or a "summary of results" from them.
MY COMMENT: I would think if you had so much experience you would have a summary of results. Clearly the bulk of her research has been on phones and appliances and not high voltage transmission towers.
MY QUESTION:
On pages 3 and 4 (all lines( of the direct testimony of Linda Erdreich, Ms. Erdreich describes her professional experience. In addition to the projects/summary of results requested in question 2, we request that Ms. Erdreich please state how many years of experience that she has in regards to research on the EMF ramifications on health specifically from High Voltage Transmission Lines.
PATH's ANSWER
The EMF from high voltage transmission lines such as PATH are power frequency (60 Hz) EMF. Dr. Erdreich has 18 years of experience with the research on power frequency EMF and health.
MY COMMENT: They did not answer the question. Yes, she has experience with EMF. How much experience does she have specifically with high voltage transmission lines?
MY QUESTION:
On page 3, line 21 of the direct testimony of Linda Erdreich, Ms. Erdreich states that she is a member of the Bioelectromagnetics Society. Bioelectromagnetics Journal is published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., for the Bioelectromagnetics Society. It is the official journal of the Bioelectromagnetics Society and the European Bioelectromagnetics Association. Bioelectromagnetics Journal published a study authored by Kavet, R., & Zaffanella, LE (2002) in which magnetic fields and two sources of contact current in homes were measured. The study concluded “V(W-E) was correlated to the residential magnetic field (both log transformed) (r = 0.54; P < 0.001), with the highest voltages occurring in homes near high voltage transmission lines, most likely due to magnetic induction on the grounding system. This correlation, combined with both frequent exposure opportunity for bathing children and substantial dose to bone marrow resulting from contact, lead us to suggest that contact current due to V(W-E) could explain the association between high residential magnetic fields and childhood leukemia.” This study has been omitted from Ms. Erdreich’s testimony. We ask that Ms. Erdreich state her professional opinion of this study and results.
PATH's ANSWER:
"Neither the applicants nor their witnesses are required to undertake additional work upon Intervenors' discovery requests or to rebut what the Barbour County Intervenor Group perceives to be the differing opinion of others."
MY COMMENT:
So basically, she only read and interpreted studies that were conducive to her testimony. Not too objective for a "scientist" if you ask me.
MY QUESTION:
Additionally, Bioelectromagnetics Journal published a study authored by Kavet, R., Zaffanella, LE., Daigle, JP., & Ebi, KL (2000). This study presents data suggesting that contact current due to V(OC) is an exposure that may explain the reported associations of residential magnetic fields with childhood leukemia. The analysis was motivated by recent research suggesting that the physical location of power lines in the backyard, in contrast to the street, may be relevant to a relationship of power lines with childhood leukemia. The study concluded “The correlation of V(OC) with magnetic fields in the model, combined with the dose estimates, lead us to conclude that V(OC) is a potentially important exposure with respect to childhood leukemia risks associated with residential magnetic fields.” We ask that Ms. Erdreich also state her professional opinion of this study and results as it was omitted from her review as well.
PATH's ANSWER:
"Neither the applicants nor their witnesses are required to undertake additional work upon Intervenors' discovery requests or to rebut what the Barbour County Intervenor Group perceives to be the differing opinion of others."
MY COMMENT: So basically, she only read and interpreted studies that were conducive to her testimony. Not too objective for a "scientist" if you ask me.
MY QUESTION:
Although Ms. Erdreich mentions in passing that EMF studies have included a wide range of potential health consequences, her testimony is largely limited to childhood leukemia studies. She provides only one general comment about the evidence for other health conditions (page 11, lines 3-7) and provides no evidence or detailed analysis to support her conclusion. We ask that Ms. Erdreich comment in greater detail on the evidence regarding EMF exposures and other conditions that she mentions including adult cancer, cardiovascular function, neurological disorders, and reproduction and development.
PATH's ANSWER:
"Neither the applicants nor their witnesses are required to undertake additional work upon Intervenors' discovery requests or to rebut what the Barbour County Intervenor Group perceives to be the differing opinion of others."
MY COMMENT: So basically she has no evidence or detailed analysis. If everything is not considered, how can it be determined that this powerline will NOT affect the health of people who live close to it? Then again, the power companies don't really care about that.
MY QUESTION:
Evidence regarding increased risk for depression and EMF is absent from the review of Ms. Erdreich. Several studies have documented such risk (e.g., Verkasalo et al. 1997). We ask that Ms. Erdreich comment on why she chose to exclude this area of research.
PATH's ANSWER:
As noted in Dr. Erdreich's Direct Testimony, her discussion of the epidemiology research related to EMF is focused on those areas which in her experience have drawn the most attention over the past decade.
MY COMMENT: So no attention is going to paid to mental health ramifications. Let's hear it for the guinea pigs of WV.
MY QUESTION:
On page 6, line 9 of the direct testimony of Linda Erdreich, Ms. Erdreich testifies that she focused most of her discussion on Childhood Leukemia. While Childhood Leukemia has been the result of much attention in the last 10 years, this does negate nor minimize the importance of other very real health concerns such as: severe depression, malignant melanoma, neurodegenerative disease, suicidal tendencies and certain types of leukemia, and other cancers. The below citations are but a few studies that illustrate that high voltage transmission lines and EMF fields can negatively affect the health of individuals.
- Verkasalo, P., Kaprio, J., Varjonen, J., Romanov, K., Heikkila, K., and Koshkenvuo, M. (1997). Magnetic fields of transmission lines and depression. American Journal of Epidemiology, 146 (12), 1037-1045.
- Kliukiene, J., Tynes, J., and Andersen, A. (2004). Residential and occupational exposures to 50-Hz magnetic fields and breast cancer in women: a population-based study. American Journal of Epidemiology, 159(9), 852-861.
- Draper G, Vincent T, Kroll ME, Swanson J. (2005). Childhood cancer in relation to distance from high voltage power lines in England and Wales: a case-control study. BMJ, Jun 4;330(7503):1290, 1-5.
- Tynes. T., Klaeboe, L., Haldorsen, T. (2003). Residential and occupational exposure to 50 Hz magnetic fields and malignant melanoma: a population based study. Occupational Environmental Medicine,60, 343-347.
- Huss, A., Spoerri, A., Egger, M., and Roosli, M. (2008). Residence near power lines and mortality from neurodegenerative diseases: longitudinal study of the swiss population. American Journal of Epidemiology, 169(2), 167-175.
- Toivonen, L., Valjus, J., Hongisto, M., and Metso, Riita. (1991). The influence of elevated 50 Hz electric and magnetic fields on implanted cardiac pacemakers: the role of the lead configuration and programming of the sensitivity. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol, Dec;14(12):2114-22.
- Munaweera, L. (2007) High voltage transmission lines and their electromagnetic fields. ETC Spotlight. (1-8).
PATH's ANSWER
"Neither the applicants nor their witnesses are required to undertake additional work upon Intervenors' discovery requests or to rebut what the Barbour County Intervenor Group perceives to be the differing opinion of others." The epidemiologic research does not provide a reliable scientific basis to conclude that exposure to power frequency EMF increases the risk of depression and suicide.
MY COMMENT: I beg to differ. EMF can exacerbate stress and headaches and sleep disorders which can directly be linked to depression and depression is directly linked to suicide. But, why would the power companies consider this.
MY QUESTION:
Ms. Erdreich states on page 7, line 9 of her testimony, “Over the past 30 years, the research has not provided a scientific basis to conclude that EMF causes or contributes to the development of childhood leukemia.” This statement is difficult to understand given the abundance of epidemiological evidence that such a scientific basis is provided. Take, for example, Bianchi et al. (2000) who found a four-fold increase in leukemia among EMF exposed subjects, or the statement by von Winterfeldt et al. (2004) that, “several epidemiological studies have found an association between exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and health effects, including childhood leukemia and adult brain cancer.” Neither of these studies is included in her list of references. Also missing from her review is the Lowenthal et al (2007) study showing higher risk for adult cancer and EMF exposure, and the Kliukiene et al. (2007) study showing elevated risk for breast cancer in association with EMF exposure. Please comment on the criteria by which some studies were included and others not.
PATH's ANSWER:
"Neither the applicants nor their witnesses are required to undertake additional work upon Intervenors' discovery requests or to rebut what the Barbour County Intervenor Group perceives to be the differing opinion of others." AND Dr. Erdreich's Direct Testimony summarizes her review of the dozens of epidemiology studies that have been conducted over the past 30 years and provides specific citations to those studies that Dr. Erdreich considered relevant and representative of the overall body of research.
MY COMMENT: She only cited research that would back up what she was paid to testify on behalf of.
Ms. Erdreich states on page 7, line 9 of her testimony, “Over the past 30 years, the research has not provided a scientific basis to conclude that EMF causes or contributes to the development of childhood leukemia.” This statement is difficult to understand given the abundance of epidemiological evidence that such a scientific basis is provided. Take, for example, Bianchi et al. (2000) who found a four-fold increase in leukemia among EMF exposed subjects, or the statement by von Winterfeldt et al. (2004) that, “several epidemiological studies have found an association between exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and health effects, including childhood leukemia and adult brain cancer.” Neither of these studies is included in her list of references. Also missing from her review is the Lowenthal et al (2007) study showing higher risk for adult cancer and EMF exposure, and the Kliukiene et al. (2007) study showing elevated risk for breast cancer in association with EMF exposure. Please comment on the criteria by which some studies were included and others not.
PATH's ANSWER:
"Neither the applicants nor their witnesses are required to undertake additional work upon Intervenors' discovery requests or to rebut what the Barbour County Intervenor Group perceives to be the differing opinion of others." AND Dr. Erdreich's Direct Testimony summarizes her review of the dozens of epidemiology studies that have been conducted over the past 30 years and provides specific citations to those studies that Dr. Erdreich considered relevant and representative of the overall body of research.
MY COMMENT: She only cited research that would back up what she was paid to testify on behalf of.
MY QUESTION:
Although none of the studies may be perfect, multiple studies find elevated childhood leukemia in association with exposure to EMFs. Does the supposed advantage of adding this power line to the existing grid override the threat, even if that threat is uncertain, that this power line will kill children?
PATH's ANSWER:
"Neither the applicants nor their witnesses are required to undertake additional work upon Intervenors' discovery requests or to rebut what the Barbour County Intervenor Group perceives to be the differing opinion of others."
MY COMMENT: Is everyone seeing a trend here with the way that the PATH attorneys choose not to answer questions?
MY QUESTION:
Ms. Erdreich dismisses the Draper et al. (2005) (Page 9, Lines 7-16) study on the basis that, “the associations extend to homes so far away from transmission lines (over 600 yards), that the associations cannot be attributed to EMF, because the exposures from the transmission lines would be negligible at those distances.” Yet, an examination of the Draper et al. paper indicates that the relative risk of childhood leukemia (1.69, 95% CI = 1.13 to 2.53) is found when comparing children who live within 200 meters of the line compared to children to live >= 600 meters, and that the effect is significant but smaller (1.23, 95% CI – 1.02 to 1.49) for children who live between 200 and 599 meters from the line compared to children who live at >= 600 meters. That is, there is a clear distance-related impact, and that impact is stronger for children who live closer to the line. In direct contradiction to your testimony, the Draper et al. paper makes no attempt to state that EMF impacts extend to children living at > 600 yards. Draper et al. conclude, “The most obvious explanation of the association with distance from a line is that it is indeed a consequence of exposure to magnetic fields.” The testimony of Ms. Erdreich appears to be a surprising misinterpretation of the Draper study. We ask that Ms. Erdreich comment on these findings and indicate whether she wishes to alter her statement about this study.
PATH's ANSWER:
"Neither the applicants nor their witnesses are required to undertake additional work upon Intervenors' discovery requests or to rebut what the Barbour County Intervenor Group perceives to be the differing opinion of others."
MY COMMENT: Come on PATH fuckheads. Peoples lives are at risk here!
Ms. Erdreich dismisses the Draper et al. (2005) (Page 9, Lines 7-16) study on the basis that, “the associations extend to homes so far away from transmission lines (over 600 yards), that the associations cannot be attributed to EMF, because the exposures from the transmission lines would be negligible at those distances.” Yet, an examination of the Draper et al. paper indicates that the relative risk of childhood leukemia (1.69, 95% CI = 1.13 to 2.53) is found when comparing children who live within 200 meters of the line compared to children to live >= 600 meters, and that the effect is significant but smaller (1.23, 95% CI – 1.02 to 1.49) for children who live between 200 and 599 meters from the line compared to children who live at >= 600 meters. That is, there is a clear distance-related impact, and that impact is stronger for children who live closer to the line. In direct contradiction to your testimony, the Draper et al. paper makes no attempt to state that EMF impacts extend to children living at > 600 yards. Draper et al. conclude, “The most obvious explanation of the association with distance from a line is that it is indeed a consequence of exposure to magnetic fields.” The testimony of Ms. Erdreich appears to be a surprising misinterpretation of the Draper study. We ask that Ms. Erdreich comment on these findings and indicate whether she wishes to alter her statement about this study.
PATH's ANSWER:
"Neither the applicants nor their witnesses are required to undertake additional work upon Intervenors' discovery requests or to rebut what the Barbour County Intervenor Group perceives to be the differing opinion of others."
MY COMMENT: Come on PATH fuckheads. Peoples lives are at risk here!
MY QUESTION:
Both the NIEHS and the WHO conclude that there is scientific evidence, albeit weak, that EMF exposure causes childhood leukemia. Ms. Erdreich chose to dismiss this evidence (Page 11, lines 12-20 and Page 12, lines 1-10) on the basis of the lack of laboratory evidence for the mechanistic link between exposure and disease. For many years, the tobacco industry claimed that smoking did not cause cancer because we lacked a compelling laboratory-based mechanistic understanding of the cause and effect, despite the overwhelming epidemiological evidence. Does the lack of a current laboratory understanding preclude the possibility that EMF exposure causes cancer in ways that we do not yet understand?
PATH's ANSWER:
As a scientist, it would not be appropriate for Dr. Erdreich to speculate about whether there are "possibilities" based on undetermined and unidentified "ways" that "we do not yet understand."
MY COMMENT: So, then let's err on the side of safety and go ahead and run the line very close to homes. Between this and the herbicides they will use to keep down undergrowth, we are looking at another Agent Orange.
Both the NIEHS and the WHO conclude that there is scientific evidence, albeit weak, that EMF exposure causes childhood leukemia. Ms. Erdreich chose to dismiss this evidence (Page 11, lines 12-20 and Page 12, lines 1-10) on the basis of the lack of laboratory evidence for the mechanistic link between exposure and disease. For many years, the tobacco industry claimed that smoking did not cause cancer because we lacked a compelling laboratory-based mechanistic understanding of the cause and effect, despite the overwhelming epidemiological evidence. Does the lack of a current laboratory understanding preclude the possibility that EMF exposure causes cancer in ways that we do not yet understand?
PATH's ANSWER:
As a scientist, it would not be appropriate for Dr. Erdreich to speculate about whether there are "possibilities" based on undetermined and unidentified "ways" that "we do not yet understand."
MY COMMENT: So, then let's err on the side of safety and go ahead and run the line very close to homes. Between this and the herbicides they will use to keep down undergrowth, we are looking at another Agent Orange.
MY QUESTION:
Regarding the NIEHS report specifically, this report does not agree with conclusion of Ms. Erdreich. The report (Olden 1999) states that, “The NIEHS concludes that ELF-EMF exposure cannot be recognized as entirely safe because of weak scientific evidence that exposure may pose a leukemia hazard” (page 2). This report was published in 1999 before additional research evidence emerged that EMFs cause human health problems, including the Draper report, and yet NIEHS concludes even at this early date that power lines may not be safe. We ask that Ms. Erdreich comment on how she reached a conclusion of the NIEHS research that is contrary to the NIEHS report itself.
PATH's ANSWER:
"Neither the applicants nor their witnesses are required to undertake additional work upon Intervenors' discovery requests or to rebut what the Barbour County Intervenor Group perceives to be the differing opinion of others."
MY COMMENT: For real? Are you kidding me? You don't see the need to answer this question?
MY QUESTION:
Does the EMF of cellular hand held mobile devices differ from the EMF of a high voltage transmission line? If so, please state the difference.
PATH's ANSWER:
"Yes, power frequency (60 Hz) EMF have different physical properties than the radio-frequency fields used by cell phones, such as a much lower frequency and a much longer wave length.
MY COMMENT: Most of Erdreich's research is from lower frequency/ longer wave length. I guess this is why you didn't answer the question about how much relevant and direct experience Erdreich has on this issue.
MY QUESTION:
Does Ms. Erdreich also feel that additional research needs to be done in the area of high voltage transmission lines with respect to a more causal connection? Why or Why not?
PATH's ANSWER:
Applicants note that this request is vague and unintelligible (I don't think so, but whatever) in terms of its reference to a "need" for additional research "with respect to a more causal connection." Subject to that limitation, applicants respond that Dr. Erdreich has concluded that the large body of existing research on power frequency EMF does not provide a reliable basis to conclude there is a "causal connection" between EMF and any adverse health effects, and therefore a "more causal connection" would require a different body of research.
MY COMMENT: So does she or doesn't she feel that more research needs to be done? You didn't answer the question. I guess this is like the old "do cigarettes cause cancer" debate. Everyone knows it does. It took a long time for people to start to believe it. Hmmmm...industry coverups. Tisk Tisk.
MY QUESTION:
In Ms. Erdreich’s published literature “Mobile hones, mobile phones base stations and cancer: a review” (4th reference listed on first page of Publications attached to Ms. Erdreich’s testimony) she concluded that “causal association between cancer and exposure to RF energy is weak and unconvincing – however because existing research is limited and the possibility of epigenetic effects has not been thoroughly evaluated – so therefore additional research in those areas will be required for a more thorough assessment of the possibility of a causal connection between cancer and the RF energy from mobile telecommunications. If, as Ms. Erdreich stated, that more research is needed prior to making a conclusion regarding cancer and mobile phones, we ask that Ms. Erdreich explain how she came to the conclusion that PATH and the constant EMF that would accompany PATH would not be harmful to people living in close proximity to PATH, given that Ms. Erdreich has not participated in, nor performed any study pertaining to a High Voltage Transmission Line nor when that very same assumption cannot be made regarding mobile phones?
PATH's ANSWER:
"Neither the applicants nor their witnesses are required to undertake additional work upon Intervenors' discovery requests or to rebut what the Barbour County Intervenor Group perceives to be the differing opinion of others."
MY COMMENT: ahem.
In Ms. Erdreich’s published literature “Mobile hones, mobile phones base stations and cancer: a review” (4th reference listed on first page of Publications attached to Ms. Erdreich’s testimony) she concluded that “causal association between cancer and exposure to RF energy is weak and unconvincing – however because existing research is limited and the possibility of epigenetic effects has not been thoroughly evaluated – so therefore additional research in those areas will be required for a more thorough assessment of the possibility of a causal connection between cancer and the RF energy from mobile telecommunications. If, as Ms. Erdreich stated, that more research is needed prior to making a conclusion regarding cancer and mobile phones, we ask that Ms. Erdreich explain how she came to the conclusion that PATH and the constant EMF that would accompany PATH would not be harmful to people living in close proximity to PATH, given that Ms. Erdreich has not participated in, nor performed any study pertaining to a High Voltage Transmission Line nor when that very same assumption cannot be made regarding mobile phones?
PATH's ANSWER:
"Neither the applicants nor their witnesses are required to undertake additional work upon Intervenors' discovery requests or to rebut what the Barbour County Intervenor Group perceives to be the differing opinion of others."
MY COMMENT: ahem.
MY QUESTION:
An international group of scientists, researchers and public health policy professionals representing such institutions as Columbia University, the Karolinska Instiute in Stockholm and others has issued a report stating the new safety limits for EMF exposure must be developed given the “strong” scientific evidence for the serious health consequences that result from exposure. See http://bioinitiative.org/press_release/index.htm. (Accessed 09-07-09.) How does Ms. Erdreich reconcile the discrepancy between her conclusions and the conclusions of this international group of scholars?
PATH's ANSWER:
"Neither the applicants nor their witnesses are required to undertake additional work upon Intervenors' discovery requests or to rebut what the Barbour County Intervenor Group perceives to be the differing opinion of others."
MY COMMENT: Do I really need to say anything else? EMF kills children and adults. PATH will make money, so what does it matter.
CLICK HERE to see just one example of how others have criticized this "expert" for being biased and industry friendly