Saturday, December 28, 2013

Blog: Honeybees Perishing in Record Numbers

Blog: Honeybees Perishing in Record Numbers

Posted: Friday, December 27, 2013 12:00 pm
About 8 years ago, honeybees started to die by the billions. In fact, over the past 5 years, greater than a quarter trillion honeybees have perished around the globe. Why have we not taken bee deaths more seriously?
Bees pollinate almost 40 percent of our food in the U.S., all our cotton, provide us with 2.65 billion pounds of honey and 44 million pounds of beeswax annually as well as offering powerful drugs to combat pain, arthritis, fibromyalgia and multiple sclerosis; moreover, bees are helping humans as front line detectorfor cancers, heart disease and tuberculosis.
According to the United Nations Food & Agriculture Organization (UN FAO) our global food security is now at risk; 7.2 billion people (projected by the UN FAO to reach 8 billion by 2023) cannot exist without healthy bee populations. So what’s holding the ingenious human race from solving the mysterious causes of the disease dubbed Colony Collapse Disorder, which continues to drive U.S. beekeepers into bankruptcy?
Yes, there are a number of factors causing the honeybees in America to die prematurely – about three times faster than normal rates. Poor bee nutrition thanks to GMO corn syrup being fed to bees instead of honey, Varroa mites, bee husbandry, bacteria, viruses, brutal air pollution, vicious droughts driven by human-induced climate change, climate-driven mismatches (whereby plants are flowering almost a month before bees awaken in the springtime) are all valid reasons and they’ve all collided to create "the perfect storm." 
There is, however, one additional variable that sticks out like Rudolph’s red nose on a snowy Christmas Eve: above all others, toxic chemicals. 
There’s a relatively new group of insecticides that have been developed called neonicotinoids. There are about 1,000 on the market worldwide and they are highly poisonous to our environment. Dutch toxicologist Dr. Henk Tennekes’s latest bookThe Systemic Insecticides: A Disaster in the Making, concisely documents that neonicotinoids are water soluble, mobile in soils and persistent for decades in both soils and water. 
Imidacloprid, which is temporarily banned in Europe but on the market here and elsewhere around the globe, contaminated Dutch surface waters and killed springtails, beetles and earthworms, robbing the soil of its necessary beneficial fauna, which decomposes leaf litter and other organic matter and recycles nutrients. Those insects, in turn, are a crucial food source for many common grassland bird species. Moving up the food chain, Tennekes discovered that populations of avian predators like Eurasian goshawks and northern goshawks have likewise fallen dramatically as a result of this toxic chemical use. The use of these potent neonicotinoids has exhibited a deleterious effect on biodiversity and the web of life throughout Western Europe.
In 1962, Dr. Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring because we haphazardly used DDT everywhere and almost wiped out our national icon – the bald eagle. 
Neonicotinoids are being deployed at a staggering rate – globally we poison the biosphere with 5 billion pounds of insecticides annually, and at least one third of them are neonicotinoids. Bees are indeed modern-day canaries in the coalmines; they are vividly showing scientists that we cannot continue to kill our biosphere without devastating global consequences. 
The Portland-based Xerces Society is asking the EPA to reassess the safety of neonicotinoids and to ban their use in city- and country-owned lands. Fifty thousand bumblebees died this past summer from neonicotinoids used in Oregon. I suggest that all homeowners in Malibu use only neem-based insecticides, which are bee-, butterfly- and moth-friendly.
We can’t wait five more years for the EPA to make a ruling on neonicotinoids to protect the bees, water and soil. Sign this petition to tell Home Depot and Lowes to stop selling bee-killing neonicotinoids. If the bees die, we die. Tell Congress to ban neonicotinoids – now!
Earth Dr. Reese Halter is a broadcaster, biologist, educator and author of The Incomparable Honeybee.

Friday, December 27, 2013



1 Votes

Mobile phones, laptops, tablets  – whether it may be for social, entertainment, or productivity use – are definitely an essential part in this generation. Although these positive advancements also comes with its own drawbacks. The guys at Mezzmerprovided an infographic of what ill effects does these devices can do to us when used incessantly for a long period of time.

Approaching Epidemic: Brain Damage from Mobile Phone Radiation

Approaching Epidemic: Brain Damage from Mobile Phone Radiation

September 03, 2009 | 149,854 views

cell phone, emf, radio waves, brain cancerA collaborative team of international EMF activists has released a report detailing eleven design flaws of the 13-country, Telecom-funded Interphone study.
The exposé discusses research on cell phones and brain tumors, concluding that:
  • There is a risk of brain tumors from cell phone use
  • Telecom funded studies underestimate the risk of brain tumors
  • Children have larger risks than adults for brain tumors
The Interphone study, begun in 1999, was intended to determine the risks of brain tumors, but its full publication has been held up for years. Components of this study published to date reveal what the authors call a ‘systemic-skew’, greatly underestimating brain tumor risk.
The design flaws include categorizing subjects who used portable phones (which emit the same microwave radiation as cell phones,) as ‘unexposed’; exclusion of many types of brain tumors; exclusion of people who had died, or were too ill to be interviewed as a consequence of their brain tumor; and exclusion of children and young adults, who are more vulnerable.
Ronald B. Herberman, MD, Director Emeritus of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute has stated,
“Based on substantial evidence, especially from industry-independent studies that long term exposure to radiofrequency radiation may lead to increased risk for brain tumors, I issued a precautionary advisory last year to faculty and staff of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute.
Since then, my particular concern about exposure of children to radiofrequency has been supported by a report from Dr. Lennart Hardell. Some of my scientific colleagues have expressed skepticism about the reported biological effects, especially DNA0A damage by radiofequency radiation, because of the absence of a demonstrated underlying molecular mechanism.
However, based on the precautionary principle, I believe it is more prudent to take seriously the reports by multiple investigators that radiofrequency can damage DNA and increase the risk for brain tumors, and for industry-independent agencies to provide needed funding for detailed research to ascertain the molecular basis for such effects.”
Lloyd Morgan, lead author and member of the Bioelectromagnetics Society says,
“Exposure to cell phone radiation is the largest human health experiment ever undertaken, without informed consent, and has some 4 billion participants enrolled.
Science has shown increased risk of brain tumors from use of cell phones, as well as increased risk of eye cancer, salivary gland tumors, testicular cancer, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and leukemia.
The public must be informed.”


Dr. Mercola's Comments:
Follow Dr. Mercola on Twitter Follow Dr. Mercola on Facebook

After a break in the media about the dangers of cell phones, the issue will likely regain momentum with the release of this brand new report.
An International Expert Conference on Cell Phones and Health is scheduled to take place on September 13-15 in Washington D.C., and a yet to be formally announced Senate hearing on cell phone safety is also in the works by Senator Arlen Specter, according to Microwave News.
With the ever-increasing, widespread use of wireless communications, it is imperative to understand the risks inherent in the use of the technology, yet the government has been very slow to respond, no doubt in large part due to industry pressure. (In fact, the cell phone industry is expected to boycott the upcoming conference.)
Ever growing scientific research corroborates the suspicion that information-carrying radio waves transmitted by cell phones and other wireless devices can:
A quote from Chris Woollams, one of the endorsers of the new report, sums up the issue well:
“In a world where a drug cannot be launched without proof that it is safe, where the use of herbs and natural compounds available to all since early Egyptian times are now questioned, their safety subjected to the deepest scrutiny, where a new food cannot be launched without prior approval, the idea that we use mobile telephony, including masts, and introduce WiFi and mobile phones without restrictions around our 5 year olds is double-standards gone mad.
I speak, not just as an editor and scientist that has looked in depth at all the research, but as a father that lost his beloved daughter to a brain tumor.”
Researchers Keep Finding Links Between Cell Phone Use, Brain Damage and Cancer
Last year, a well-circulated Swedish study found that people using cell phones doubled their risk of developing brain cancer and acoustic neuroma (a tumor that damages your hearing nerve).
The study also showed that people who started using cell phones before the age of 20 were more than five times as likely to develop brain cancer.
The European Parliament responded by voting 522 to 16 to urge ministers across Europe to impose stricter limits for exposure to radiation from mobile and cordless phones, wi-fi and other radiation-generating devices -- in part because children are particularly vulnerable to the risk.
Dr. Gerd Oberfeld, M.D., the Speaker for
Environmental Medicine for the Austrian Medical Association in Vienna, Austria says:
"The scientific data show, with a high degree of confidence, that mobile phone exposure is associated with an increased brain tumor risk.
The age group below 20 years is facing the greatest risk, which for malignant (deadly) brain tumors is about 400 percent, compared to non-exposed.
When we take the long latency period of up to some decades into account, and the fact that large parts of our society, and especially more and more teenagers and even children are using mobile phones on a daily basis, we may well expect a brain tumor epidemic.
From a public health perspective there is an urgent need not only for a wake-up call for our society, but for measures that are able to combat this public health threat effectively, now.”
The cell phone industry’s standard comment has been that "the peer-reviewed scientific evidence has overwhelmingly indicated that wireless devices do not pose a public health risk."
This report exposes that statement for the lie that it is.
In fact, there’s no shortage of evidence showing that cell phone use (and other wireless devices) can be dangerous to your health, and to your child in particular.
As this new report points out, even some of the industry’s own research found that cell phones caused brain tumors, and subsequent industry-funded studies from 2000 to 2002 also showed an elevated risk of brain cancer.
One such study reportedly found a 20 percent increased risk of brain tumor for every year of cell phone use!
And, if you remove the Telecom industry funded research, then the weight of the evidence overwhelmingly shows that cell phones cause health problems, including, but not limited to:
  • Brain tumors
  • Eye cancer
  • Testicular cancer
  • Salivary gland tumors
  • Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma
  • Leukemia
Fortunately more and more people are beginning to take the warning signs seriously.
In 2005, the British-based National Radiological Protection Board suggested children younger than age 8 should not be given a cell phone as it risks exposing their young bodies to harmful radiation. Last year Toronto's department of public health followed suit, warning that because of possible side effects from radio frequency radiation, children under 8 should only use a cell phone in emergencies, and teenagers should limit calls to less than 10 minutes.

The U.K., Belgium, Germany, France and Russia have also introduced precautionary policies regarding cell phone usage due to potential health risks.
Few people realize this, but brain cancer has surpassed leukemia as the number one cancer killer in children, and many scientists believe this is directly linked to the exponential increase in cell phone use and other wireless devices.
Australia has seen an increase in pediatric brain cancers of 21 percent in just one decade. This is consistent with studies showing a 40 percent brain tumor increase across the board in Europe and the U.K. over the last 20 years.
These statistics are consistent with many of the scientific research findings.
Another example is the 2003 study published in Environmental Health Perspectives (the journal of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences). They found that rats exhibited serious neuronal brain damage following exposure to radiation from a cell phone, at levels comparable to what you would experience during normal use.
The nerve cell damage was observed in several places within the rats’ brains, including the cortex, hippocampus and basal ganglia.
The authors concluded,
"Intense use of mobile phones by youngsters is a serious consideration. A neuronal damage of the kind described here may not have immediate, demonstrable consequences, even if repeated. In the long run, however, it may result in reduced brain reserve capacity that might be unveiled by other later neuronal disease or even the wear and tear of aging."
What Can You Do?
Remember, the damage from cell phone exposure can take many years to surface. There are rarely any initial symptoms, just like smoking and lung cancer. Are you really willing to risk the chance of developing brain cancer because you don’t want to sacrifice the minor inconvenience of using your cell’s speaker phone, or using a safe headset?
This should be of particular concern if you have children, since, just like smoking, WiFi does not discriminate between user and bystander.
I have written more in-depth about how to reduce the risk to your child before, and as a refresher, I strongly urge you to reviewsome of that information now.
For a review of HOW cell phones and other wireless technology can cause the type of damage just discussed, I recommend reading this previous article.
In addition, the eye-opening DVD Public Exposure covers this serious health issue in even greater depth. But for immediate recommendations on how to protect yourself and your family from the dangers of cell phone radiation, please review the guidelines included in my previous article, Now Half the World Has a Cell Phone - - Why That is a Brain Tumor Epidemic Waiting to Happen. 

Ignorance is bliss: 4 in 10 Americans aware of incandescent phase-out

Ignorance is bliss: 4 in 10 Americans aware of incandescent phase-out

According to Osram Sylvania's 6th annual Socket Survey, not too many folks realize that 40W and 60W incandescent bulbs will go bye-bye come Jan 1. And a sizable number of those who do plan on stockpiling old bulbs.

Fri, Dec 20 2013 at 10:00 AM

Incandescent bulb
Photo: erase/Flickr
Consumer lighting giant Osram Sylvania has just released the 2013 edition of its Socket Survey — considered “an industry benchmark” and “the only nationwide measure of public attitudes about energy-efficient lighting and awareness of lighting legislation — and, as usual, the results are fraught with excitement, optimism, fear, conflict, and all-around bewilderment.
In addition to the shocking discovery that Millennials don’t really think about light bulbs that much, the survey found that only four in 10 respondents are aware that on Jan. 1, 40W and 60W incandescent bulbs, the most popular light bulbs in America, will join energy-wasting compatriots, 75W and 100W incandescent bulbs, in A-shape heaven when their domestic manufacture and import completely ceases.
And what about those who are aware that 40W and 60W bulbs will slowly (or not-so-slowly) fade away from store shelves as part of the final phase-out stage of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007? What are a decent chunk of them planning on doing in the beginning of the New Year?
Heading out to IKEA to stock up on cheap CFLs (not for much longer!)? Investing in high-quality and affordable LED models from the likes of PhilipsCree, or Sylvania? Dedicating an entire weekend afternoon to a house-wide light bulb switch-out?
Nah, an estimated 30 percent of these informed consumers will be raiding the aisles of your local big box and hardware stores, sweaty and wild-eyed, grabbing all of the 40W and 60W bulbs that they can get carry. From there, they’ll take their loot home and unload it discreetly in the garage before transporting it to an oversized hunting case in the basement where a sizable cache of incandescent bulbs, even a few remaining 100-watters phased-out in 2012, are kept under lock and key.
A majority (46 percent) who don’t plan on stockpiling incandescents as a result of the final phase-out, “plan” to switch, not surprisingly, to CFLs. Twenty-four percent of those polled expressed an affinity toward more efficient but also more expensive LEDs; 13 percent are going the halogen route.
While less than half of consumers polled realize that the final phase-out will kick-in on the first of the year, 64 percent are “generally aware” that there an incandescent phase-out has been occuring for the past three years, which is something … better vaguely conscious than completely unconscious, I suppose. This is also a big leap from last year when 52 percent of Americans were “generally aware” of the situation. In 2008, that number was 21 percent.
Similar to last year, brightness (92 percent), life span (87 percent), energy consumption (82 percent), and price (82 percent) were among the chief concerns of those switching out incandescents for new bulbs. Respondents also strongly favored light bulbs that are manufactured domestically.
And this is interesting: for the small number (30 percent) of respondents who claimed to own LEDs, only 11 percent of them own stand-alone LED bulbs meant to replace standard incandescents — a majority of these LEDS (55 percent) are in Christmas light form. 
Click here to read Osram Sylvania's 2013 Socket Survey in its entirety.
And in other incandescent phase-out news, Home Depot, the world's largest seller of light bulbs, has created an intriguing map that combines 2010 U.S. Census data and a year of combined LED/CFL sales information to spotlight the 10 largest markets for energy-efficient light bulb consumption (per capita) in the country: Atlanta, Boston, Seattle, and Pittsburgh all top the list as do Washington D.C. and two major metro areas in Florida.

Cell-phones' link to health problems debated

Cell-phones' link to health problems debated

Updated 8:16 am, Wednesday, December 25, 2013

Bret Bocook, center, takes a moment to talk to a woman who preferred not to give her name about the dangers of talking on your cellphone next to your ear in a Starbucks on Main Street in Los Altos. Bocook believes that the malignant brain tumor he was diagnosed with almost five years ago was caused by his years-long cellphone use. Bocook often goes out of his way in public places to warn people about what he believes to be the dangers of cellphone usage and improper storage. Bocook used to be extremely physically active, but after the tumor was removed, many of his motor functions were effected. He now walks with a walking stick and is unable to do any of the athletic things he used to enjoy like rowing. Bocook was in commercial real estate before he decided to become a lawyer 15 years ago. He is now one of three plaintiffs left in an original group of ten people in lawsuit against cellphone companies. Bocook now runs a geo-political social networking and international law firm online company called World' Photo: Leah Millis, The Chronicle
Bret Bocook, center, takes a moment to talk to a woman who preferred not to give her name about the dangers of talking on your cellphone next to your ear in a Starbucks on Main Street in Los Altos. Bocook believes that the malignant brain tumor he was diagnosed with almost five years ago was caused by his years-long cellphone use. Bocook often goes out of his way in public places to warn people about what he believes to be the dangers of cellphone usage and improper storage. Bocook used to be extremely physically active, but after the tumor was removed, many of his motor functions were effected. He now walks with a walking stick and is unable to do any of the athletic things he used to enjoy like rowing. Bocook was in commercial real estate before he decided to become a lawyer 15 years ago. He is now one of three plaintiffs left in an original group of ten people in lawsuit against cellphone companies. Bocook now runs a geo-political social networking and international law firm online company called World' Photo: Leah Millis, The Chronicle
Every weekday morning, Bret Bocook sits in a cozy Starbucks in downtown Los Altos. He sips coffee and reads the paper. But mostly, he watches people as they chat on their cell phones.
Then he walks over to deliver a message.
"I was observing you on your cell phone," Bocook told a woman after she wrapped up a lengthy call on a recent morning. "I used a cell phone and I got a brain tumor."
Startled, the woman politely listened. Bocook tends to command attention, and not just because he has the tall, broad build of a former competitive rower. The 49-year-old Los Altos man limps with a cane, the result of a surgery that removed a malignant brain tumor about four years ago but left him with shaky motor skills.
His right temple is indented where the tumor had once been. It's also, he says, where he held his cell phone when he was a real estate agent, racking up an estimated 1 million minutes over two decades as he talked to clients.
Bocook is now among a growing number of people who believe beyond doubt that cell phones are a life-threatening health hazard. Some medical experts have also begun to raise concerns about the devices.
Scientifically, there is no consensus on whether, or to what extent, cell-phone radiation causes harm to humans. Some recent studies have tied phone use to cancer, decreased sperm count, impaired brain development and other maladies, but other research has found no such evidence.
Bocook needs no further study to convince him of the dangers of cell-phone use. In 2009, he was diagnosed with a cancer known as anaplastic astrocytoma. "As soon as I found out I had a brain tumor in this location," he said, "it was just obvious."
This month, Bocook appeared with a panel of scientists and physicians at theCommonwealth Club in San Francisco, arguing that phone users should gab with caution. Their point seems to be gaining traction.
The Federal Communications Commission announced this year it would review its maximum Specific Absorption Rate for cell phones. SAR is a measure of the rate of radio waves absorbed into the body of someone using a cell phone. A phone certified by the agency and sold in the United States cannot exceed a rate of 1.6 watts per kilogram, which critics say is possibly too high and based on outdated information from 1996, when the standard was set.
But regardless of whether an SAR is low, an individual's exposure can increase when a phone is held close to the body for long periods of time. Apple now warns customers in its iPhone manuals to keep the device at least five-eighths of an inch away from their bodies while using its phones to avoid risking exposure to radiation that exceeds FCC guidelines. And Green Swan, a Novato company, makes an app that yelps a warning when talkers hold the phone too close to their heads.

'Possibly carcinogenic'

And two years ago, the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer classified cell phones as "possibly carcinogenic." The American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute say studies have been inconclusive.
The debate particularly resonates in San Francisco, where, three years ago, the Board of Supervisors passed a first-in-the-nation ordinance that would have required retailers to inform customers about cell-phone radiation. The legislation was blocked in court, however, in response to a lawsuit from the CTIA, the wireless industry's trade association.
"The peer-reviewed scientific evidence has indicated that wireless devices, within the limits established by the FCC, do not pose a public health risk or cause any adverse health effects," John Walls, the CTIA's vice president of public affairs, said in a statement.
But Devra Davis, a visiting scholar at UC Berkeley whose 2011 book "Disconnect" warns about the dangers of cell phones, doesn't think "the absence of definitive human harm should be held up as proof of safety."
"It really would be a grave disservice to future generations if we were to do that. That would be like arguing in the 1940s and '50s, 'We don't have enough data yet on smoking, so let's wait,' and that's what we did," said Davis, who founded the Environmental Health Trust, an advocacy group primarily established to increase awareness of the dangers of cell-phone use.
Davis cites recent research, like a case-control study in Sweden, published in September in the International Journal of Oncology, which found a link between brain cancer and long-term cell-phone use. Nearly 600 adults, all diagnosed with malignant brain tumors between 2007 and 2009, were interviewed about their cell-phone use.
Researchers found that the odds that a cancer patient had used a mobile phone for more than 25 years was nearly three times greater than the odds that a person without cancer had used a phone for the same number of years. That said, the number of cancer patients who'd used a phone for more than 25 years was quite small - about 30 people.

Growing phone use

Davis said the pool of long-term users is all but certain to grow, however, as children start using cell phones at increasingly earlier ages. "Our concern is the spread of this radiation into children with no thought whatsoever about long-term health," she said.
She added, "We're not telling people to stop using cell phones, but they've got to start asking questions."
Joseph Wiemels, an associate professor of cancer epidemiology at UCSF, said the Swedish study raises interesting questions. But one key problem, he said, is that it's increasingly difficult to compare health effects in cell-phone users and a control group - that is, people who haven't been exposed to cell phones at all.
Another problem with these kinds of studies, critics say, is that people tend to have shaky memories about how long or how often they've been using phones.
The best kind of study, Wiemels said, would involve looking at cell-phone records for relationships between how often users talked and whether they developed a disease.
"I think it's still inconclusive," Wiemels said.
The largest case-control study to date is the 2010 Interphone study, which examined cell-phone use among more than 5,000 people in 13 countries who developed brain tumors and a similar group of people without tumors. The study found no link between brain tumor risk and the frequency of calls, longer call time or phone use for more than a decade.

Inconclusive finding

There were small potential increased risks of the brain cancers glioma and meningioma in people who used their phones the most, the researchers said. But this finding was far from conclusive, since the scientists noted that some people reported using their phones more frequently than was plausible.
Other research has explored whether cell phones can lead to health risks besides brain cancer.
One case report this year shared the story of four women who were under 40 and had no family history of breast cancer or other known breast cancer risks. All four had carried their smartphones in their bras for up to 10 hours a day for several years - and developed tumors in areas of their breasts where they had stored their phones.
"Although the numbers ... here are too small to have a scientific conclusion, the findings are intriguing and support the notion that direct cellular phone contact may be associated with the development of breast carcinoma," concluded the researchers, who included Dr. Lisa Bailey, a Bay Area breast surgeon and former president of the American Cancer Society's California Division.

Non-cancer risks

Then there are the non-cancer health risks. Studies have found a link between men who keep cell phones in their pants pockets and lower sperm count, for example.
In a controversial Yale University study in 2012, pregnant mice placed near an active cell phone gave birth to offspring who showed signs of hyperactivity, anxiety and poor memory, while infant mice whose mothers were not exposed to the radiation didn't seem to be affected.
Again, these studies don't definitively show harm to humans. But experts say it doesn't hurt to reduce unnecessary phone use and keep the device away from your body by instead using a non-Bluetooth headset or the speakerphone function.
These days, Bocook is cancer-free and uses his iPhone to catch up with friends and run World's Law, a company that allows people to create legal documents online. But he makes sure to use a headset - and to tell others to do so.
"My responsibility," he said, "is to advise people on what I know."
Stephanie M. Lee is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail: slee@sfchronicle.comTwitter: @stephaniemlee

Electrosensitivity symptoms can be eliminated in 60% of people and significantly reduced in the rest – Dr Brian Clement

Electrosensitivity symptoms can be eliminated in 60% of people and significantly reduced in the rest – Dr Brian Clement

 | 20 mars 2012 13 Commentaires

A naturopath who holds a doctorate in nutrition, Brian Clement says he has successfully treated more than 4,000 electrohypersensitive people at the Hippocrates Institute which he heads. Founded in Boston in 1956 by nutritionist Ann Wigmore and now based in Florida, the Institute is one of the world’s most renowned natural health centers. Tens of thousands of people have seen their health improve after adopting its healthy lifestyle program and discovering the virtues of raw food cures (germinations, sprouts and their juices). Here is the fascinating telephone interview he granted us in January 2012.
By Andre Fauteux, Editor/Publisher
La Maison du 21e siecle magazine (Quebec, Canada)

AF: When and how did you become interested in the health effects of electromagnetic fields (EMFs)?

BC: It all began in the 1980s, when I became interested in electromagnetic therapies which I discovered in Europe. I acquired these machines, some of which cost millions of dollars, after finding that they had helped extremely sick people. The source of their discomfort was related to the electronic age. Since the 1990s, they spent their days in front of a computer, then, with the advent of cell phones, their symptoms worsened dramatically. It was easy to link them with EMFs. Sometimes, their symptoms disappeared when they ceased to be exposed to this electrosmog, but in severe cases, symptoms only decreased. For about 30 years, we have analyzed the living blood of our patients under the microscope, and in recent years, we have made biofrequency tests and conventional blood tests. People who are the most electrohypersensitive are universal power conductors. Unfortunately, doctors often place them in psychiatric institutions. Yet these people were happy at work and in their families, and healthy until they began to feel the rain two days in advance, to feel passing cars on the street and to get a headache when their children turned on the TV.

AF: What’s happening with these people?

BC: The basic premise is simple: the human body is primarily electromagnetic. For two months I worked with Dr. Valerie Hunt, an extraordinary woman who is 95 years old. In 1948, she became the first female professor of medicine at the University of California.In the 1950s, she pioneered biofrequency treatments and therapies. We hope to replace the physical biology paradigm with that of human quantum biology which shows that the most important EMFs are not those found in our cells, but those in the electromagnetic canvas which is the basis of who we are.

The body has one hundred trillion cells that have an electromagnetic frequency. When this frequency is abnormal, the cell may mutate and develop into cancer, or, if you’re lucky, the cell becomes a cyst, or leads to cardiovascular disease or mental illness. Here’s a simpler explanation: when we look at healthy cells under a microscope, we see cells plump and round, turning clockwise, symphonically to the rhythm of the ocean, the earth’s rotation, etc. Everything has an electromagnetic connectivity. In any cell, there are several elements, but one of those that appeal to you and connect you to electromagnetism is magnetite. It can connect to a man screaming 10,000 miles away, to the moon, to the universe and unfortunately to manmade EMFs. The body is like a sponge. All doctors, even the most conservative, are testing you with electromagnetic devices, but as the pharmaceutical industry controls their profession, they treat you mainly with chemicals. What is an MRI, a PET scan, a CT scan or ultrasound? These are ways to measure biofrequencies, electromagnetic frequencies in your cells. It is an art, a sophisticated science that determines what disease afflicts you by the incorrect frequency of your cells. So here at the Institute, we treat you electromagnetically – at the right frequency and at the right dose – and we give you live foods that contain beneficial electromagnetism.

Your body can tolerate some electromagnetic interference, but when it is constant, the cells begin to die or mutate or not to regenerate your bones, your organs and tissues. If you ask me what is the most serious problem that man has created, I would say that the first is electropollution, followed by chemicals and heavy metals.

AF: That’s what Dr Robert O. Becker, twice nominated for the Nobel Prize in Medicine, said in a 2000 interview with Linda Moulton Howe :  
"I have no doubt in my mind that at the present time the greatest polluting element in the earth’s environment is the proliferation of electromagnetic fields."

BC: He was right.
AF: How do you react when the World Health Organization says electrohypersensitivity symptoms have not been proven to be related to EMF exposure?

BC: It must be remembered that the world we live in is controlled by corporate interests. Although we are taught in the West that we are free, we are probably manipulated more than people who live in countries where population control is so blatant.
AF: Actually, Russia and China have adopted among the world’s strictest EMF exposure limits to protect their populations.

BC: That’s because good research on EMF was conducted in those countries.
AF: These are countries where democratic rights are most violated! What does this say about our society?

BC: Here, money has become a god. Ethics and honor are lost in the West. This is why we will fall into ruin. When people were poor, they lived by their values. We had it too easy for too long, then we lost our values. I will never forget what former Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev said to John F. Kennedy when I was young: 
"Don’t worry, we don’t need to bombard you with the atomic bomb, you’ll destroy yourself with your greed!"
Unfortunately, his curse came true. That said, it is important to say that today, anyone who doubts that electromagnetic energy can have adverse effects on human health is at best a fool, at worst, a corrupt man. Put me any healthy person in a room, I will turn on a radio, and you will immediately see a difference in their cells. They go to the free flow of a beautiful Mozart concert, then when you introduce an EMF, depending on the level of intensity, they’ll clump together in a corner as if a monster had entered the room. And with higher frequencies or certain more subtle but harmful frequencies, the more they stick together like children seeking refuge.
AF: Tell us more about your diagnostic tools.

BC: By far the most accurate one is the dark field microscope used to test live blood. In addition, the Ondamed biofrequency testing machine is one of the more sophisticated today. It was invented by an Austrian and not only detects electromagnetic problems, but also biological frequency problems as it tests biofrequencies of cells and organ systems. The good news is that the effectiveness of this technology is doubling every eight to ten months, which costs me dearly in equipment because I change them every three years!
AF: In Quebec, the government acknowledges that because of the popularity of our electric heating (installed in 70% of homes thanks to cheap hydro power), magnetic field exposure levels are among the highest in the world. In addition, we hold Canadian records for incidence rates of cancers linked to magnetic fields (brain, blood, breast and child cancers). Today, otherwise healthy people are becoming electrosensitive with the proliferation of wireless devices, including new smart meters that emit radiofrequencies, but Hydro-Quebec says these reactions are probably psychosomatic.

BC: In the 1970s, doctors said that hypoglycemia didn’t exist and referred those patients to the psychiatrist saying they were depressed. Today it’s a condition commonly recognized in conventional medicine.
AF: According to European surveys, up to 13% of people say they are electrohypersensitive. What do you think?

BC: I think we are all sensitive to EMFs and 3 to 5% of us are electrohypersensitive (EHS). We treat 2,000 people a year and at least 150 of them fall into this category. Obviously, we deal mostly with sick people, but I think it’s certainly more than 4% who are EHS.
AF: Why do some become electrohypersensitive and not others?

BC: It’s because their cells have already abnormal biofrequencies, either by birth or because they were exposed to various substances in their childhood, including heavy metals. If your cells contain metal, they will attract and enhance electrical frequencies like a lightning rod, which makes them more likely to develop EHS symptoms. In short, the more your body contains heavy metals, the more you’ll have health problems with EMFs.
AF: Do EHS people also suffer from electrochemical imbalances?

BC: Absolutely, 100% of them. People with electromagnetic problems also have problems with chemicals and people with chemical problems are more susceptible to EMFs. We find a higher levels of acidity in 100% of these people, as well as more heart disease and brain disorders. In moderate cases, we talk about attention deficit and dyslexia, and in the worst cases, of brain cancer. Today, if you do not understand how serious the problem is, just watch the statistics of cancer in children. When I started my career forty years ago, we didn’t see children with brain cancer, whereas today it is the second leading cause of death after childhood leukemia (fatal accidents are the first cause). So why can you explain we started from scratch two generations ago and that we made it to the current situation?
AF: Some blame the broad use of pesticides.
BC: Yes, but this is the second leading cause with heavy metals. The first cause is electromagnetic pollution. The all come together, obviously.
AF: And there is synergy between these pollutants which multiplies their effects.
BC: Yes. It is a synergy of energy that creates abnormal energies.
AF: Besides reducing one’s EMF exposure, can electrosensitivity be treated? 
BC: I think we can reduce symptoms in 100% of cases but in only about 40% of cases, the most electrosensitive will have negative effects throughout their lives. This is because they have exhausted their nervous system to such an extent that their nerve cells operate at an abnormal frequency. In the other 60% of cases, people manage to stabilize their nerves and neurons, but it can take weeks or years depending on the individual.
AF: If your doctor recommends meditation, I guess it can’t hurt?
BC: Yes, because meditation helps you focus. Anything that grounds you is a good way to get better. We can do simple things, like ideally walking barefoot on soil or if not on your hardwood or tile floor. I am not an expert in this area, but I helped a friend to ground a recording studio in his cottage. It’s simple: we placed an eighth-of-an-inch copper wire around the cottage, and attached it to large metal rods buried around the building. Myself, I do not particularly like jewelry, but I wear a pendant around my neck that acts as an EMF shield. Many of these devices work. I use a Gia computer chip on all our computers and our cell phones. Several years ago, I had the privilege to discuss for three hours with the Russian scientist who developed this molecular resonance effect technology, Dr. Igor Smirnov. Originally, he worked for the Soviet space program and his research had nothing to do with cell phones. He explained: 
"Cosmonauts in their twenties returned from three days in space and couldn’t stand up. Biologically, they had become 60- or 70-year-old men. Our conscience forbade us from sending them into space without finding a way to protect them from gamma rays. So we put a protective web around the space capsules." 
When the Iron Curtain fell, the Soviet Union was bankrupt and Germans bought this space technology for peanuts to manufacture consumer products based on sound science.
AF: A few years ago, Dr. George Carlo decried the fact that some people became very sick after using such chips that had manufacturing defects. They were using their cell phones all day thinking they were protected when they were not. Shouldn’t we only focus on reducing our EMF exposure?

BC: When I use my cell, I never put it on my head, I always use the speakerphone, with a 29$ speaker that can also be installed in a car. And I only use my computer for PowerPoint presentations. I don’t even type any more: I use the Dragon voice recognition software: it’s about 98% accurate and I can even Edit without using the keyboard.
AF: Getting back to heavy metals, are they the leading cause of electrohypersensitivity?
BC: There is no doubt that the combination of heavy metals and EMFs is the number one cause of hypersensitivity to various frequencies.
AF: So how do you detoxify your EHS patients?
BC: They must first avoid meat because it too often contains heavy metals conducting electricity. Most heavy metals are stored in the body fat, organs and cells. The first step is to get rid of excess fat. Second, we recommend the daily use of an infrared sauna, and copious consumption (at least 30 tablets a day, in the worst cases from 120 to 180 tablets per day) of Chlorella, a green freshwater algea. We put people in an infrared sauna at least 30 minutes once a day for the easy cases, and 30 to 60 minutes, two or three times a day for serious cases. It is important to start slowly and gradually increase the duration of the sauna.
AF: Yes, because sweating returns the heavy metals in the bloodstream, right?

BC: Definitely. Infrared waves have a frequency that heats the interior of body cells and opens them as though they are tickled. But we must not forget that the most important thing is to drink pure water.
AF: I filter my well water with a multi-stage system including reverse osmosis. But should you really drink eight glasses of water a day?
BC: For each pound of body weight, people should drink daily ½ ounce of water or green juice – for example, a wheat grass juice to detoxify and balance your protein. So if you weigh 150 pounds, you need 75 ounces (2.2 liters) of water per day.
AF: What are the most important nutritional supplements for the electrosensitive?
BC: Seaweed and edible green clay from France. In addition, systemic enzymes help restore the normal frequency of cells.
AF: And what minerals and vitamins promote detoxification?
BC: B vitamins allow nerves to grow so that neurons can regain their normal state. You have to be very careful because, as I wrote a few years ago in my book Supplements Exposed, 91% of the vitamins on the market contain deadly synthetic chemicals made from petroleum. They should be avoided. Good vitamin supplements (such as New Chapter and Vitamin Code brands) are made with natural and whole ingredients. Minerals are also important. Since most are not digested by the body, you must choose ionic minerals. For example, most calcium tablets on the market contain crushed oyster shells that harden the arteries, or worse, ground chalk that causes cancer. The most important ionic minerals for electrosensitive people are manganese, magnesium, phosphorus and calcium. It’s good to eat seaweed but rinse their salt as a high sodium increases electrical frequencies in the body. In Canada, I recommend dulce seaweed.
AF: What else do you recommend for EHS?
BC: If possible, it is very important to take mineral baths, for example, putting Dead Sea or even common salt in your bath. You lie in very, very hot water for 20 to 30 minutes at night before going to bed. For something a bit more powerful, add a quarter cup of powdered ginger (much cheaper if purchased in an Indian food market.) It heats the body and gently opens the pores of the skin to give you more ionic energy and to ground the electromagnetic energy in your body. Water, of course, is the best conductor.
AF: Should bath water be filtered to prevent pollutants from penetrating your open skin pores?
BC: Yes. You can put a good carbon filter on a hand-held shower head and use it to fill your bath. Municipal water and well water is very polluted worldwide. A factory can pollute groundwater 200 miles away.
AF: It’s unfortunate because many people are concerned about all these pollutants that depress the nervous system. In your opinion, what will it take to wake people up?
BC: I think we need to be aware of the increasing incidence of environmental illness. What I most fear is that today, the sickest people I treat are the youngest. It makes my job more difficult because it is much easier to treat a person 60 or 70 who has lived his life. Right now, I have a girl of 16 dying of a stage 4 cancer [metastatic spread to other organs]. Such a situation has become common because we live in a cesspool. Nobody is responsible and governments no longer defend the interests of citizens but those of businesses.
AF: What other products can protect us from EMFs?
BC: There are several on the international market.
AF: Have you tried the EMF-Bioshield for computer monitors and TVs?
BC: Yes, and it seems to work. The public has confidence in the ethics of manufacturers, but unfortunately there are unethical people who make crap and tell you that their products will protect you. However, there are reliable people who rely on real science. If you can make a product that meets a standard of scientific literature after peer-review, this product will have some credibility. When I started to study these devices over 30 years ago, I was skeptical, I thought it was rubbish to be honest. Then I saw a movie in which electromagnetic waves could be seen, then you could see that these waves no longer affected a subject who was shielded. My colleague, Dr. Valerie Hunt, already knew all this 60 years ago. In short, we must treat people with the right frequencies while eliminating their exposure to abnormal frequencies.
AF: Are American physicians interested in these treatments?
BC: Yes, the process is slow, but there are thousands of them in private practice today.
AF: Here, environmental doctors lie low, fearing the College of Physicians and Surgeons call them charlatans and strip them of their right to practice.
BC: The world is evolving, but for that Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy had to be assassinated, Nelson Mandela was sent to prison, and Jesus was crucified!
I don’t think the average Quebecer and Canadian know how much their medical system is corrupt. From our childhood we were brainwashed into thinking that doctors were good guys who wanted to help us. And I think 99% of people studying medicine do it for the right reasons. If it was only to make money, they would not invest in 12 years of higher education. Except that they are taught to become pharmacists, pushing drugs. They are rarely taught to disease prevention and lifestyle habits, the things that matter.
AF: As a journalist, it’s sometimes hard not to depress people!BC: Just tell your readers Dr Clement says we can eliminate the symptoms of electrosensitivity in 60% of people and significantly reduce them in the other 40%. And that the most important thing is to avoid exposing yourself to EMFs as much as possible and to ground your home properly, which can be done  cheaply. Finally, there are effective safety devices that will enable the emergence of solid organizations and businesses in this area over the next ten, twenty years.