Environmental Toxicologist who originally worked on acid rain, metal pollution, water quality, air quality and related matters to shift later in her career to focus primarily in electromagnetic radiation, radio frequency radiation, electromagnetic fields, dirty electricity, and work on those who are electrically hypersensitive.
Dr Magda Havas is Professor Emerita at Trent School of the Environment, Trent University, where she teaches and does research on the biological effects of environmental contaminants. Dr. Havas received her Ph.D. from the University of Toronto, completed post-Doctoral research at Cornell University, and taught at the University of Toronto before going to Trent University in Peterborough, Canada.
We spoke in detail about her work, research, openness in science, her experience in science and policy, advising the medical community and more.
Leafbox:
Dr. Havas, well thank you for meeting me this afternoon. I really appreciate it. I actually learned about your work from another interview I did, and the person suffers from EMF and other health issues related to electrosmog, and I was not really that familiar with that topic. And I had kind of a biased kind of negative skepticism towards the topic a little bit, I think from the mainstream. But then she introduced me to your work. I read some of your, I looked briefly at your book from 2009, and I looked at your newer book, the Healing Therapies one, as well as I watched some of your videos. So, it really opened my eyes to some of the issues. And what was really interesting about your work unrelated to other people is that you focus a lot on the positive potential aspects of electromagnetic resonance and whatnot. So, I thought that was interesting because I helped kind of overcome my bias towards the topic. So maybe before we start, would you tell us a little bit about your biography and how, I know you're retired now, but maybe just a quick overview of your academic experience and whatnot.
Dr Havas:
Okay. Well, I'm an environmental toxicologist and I deal with environmental pollutants. And for the first 25 years of my academic career, I studied acid, rain, metal pollution, water quality, air quality, that sort of thing. And in about 19, or sorry, 1995, I became interested in electromagnetic radiation. And I was teaching a course at that time called Pollution Ecology. And I was always looking for new material to present to the students. And back then, one of the things that I came across several times was that children who live near power lines have a greater risk of developing leukemia. And I thought that was kind of intriguing. And so, I began to look at the literature, found it very confusing and all over the place, contradictory in many ways. And I realized it wasn't yet time for me to look at it because that wasn't my area of expertise.
I was more into chemical toxins rather than electromagnetic toxins. And so I let it go for a while. And then something really interesting happened, my husband went to visit his brother in Wales, and they were walking the dog late at night, and my brother-in-law, who was a little bit eccentric, pulled out a fluorescent light bulb from under his jacket when they were near a nuclear power plant and held it up under the wires and the light bulb lit up. And so my husband came back and told me about this. And so I went out and tried the same thing and at a nearby transmission line, and it lit up. And I remember asking a colleague, a physics professor at my university if this could contribute to childhood leukemia. And he said, oh, definitely not. And I asked him why. And he said, well, there's not enough energy in the power line to cause leukemia.
And that wasn't a good enough answer for me. And so I ended up doing a deep dive into the literature and it took me about three years to figure out whether I thought it was harmful or not. And by the end of the three years, I was fairly convinced that not only were power lines harmful, but by then a lot of people were beginning to use cell phones and other forms of radiation. And I've not left the field since. I've been continuing to do research, and I work with people who are electrohypersensitive to help them.
Leafbox:
Dr. Havas, how do you differentiate between the electro radiation that's naturally occurring, biofields I think you call them, and then the electro radiation that's human made or a form of pollution?
Dr Havas:
Right. Thank you, Robert, for that question. Well, first of all, we live in an electromagnetic environment. Naturally the earth has a magnetic field that varies stronger near the globe, near the poles of the globe and weaker at the equator. And we've evolved with that magnetic field that's actually essential for our health. There are other fields that we're exposed to as well. We have solar radiation, for example. Light is part of the electromagnetic spectrum as is heat. And then we have a small amount of microwave radiation coming from out of space, but it's really very, very minor. So we're not used to the microwave aspect, which is what cell phones use. And then there's something called Schumann resonance, which is almost, you can consider it the heartbeat of the earth. And the strongest frequency for that is eight Hertz, eight cycles per second. And interestingly enough, that corresponds to our brainwave activity, the alpha brainwave activity.
And studies have shown that if you're removed from the earth's natural magnetic field, that your circadian rhythm becomes totally disrupted and you don't feel nearly as well. And I think, I'm not 100% certain about this, but I've been told that when we had space flights in the NASA astronauts went into outer space, they were removed from the Schumann resonance and they were becoming dizzy and nauseous and weak, and when they reintroduce that resonant frequency, they just returned to normal healthy astronauts. So the Earth's magnetic field is something that we've evolved with all life on Earth has, and it's something that's essential for our wellbeing. What's novel is the artificial anthropogenic sources from electricity, from wireless telecommunication and that sort of thing.
Leafbox:
So how do those two fields interact and what are some of the positive or negative effects of those interactions?
Dr Havas:
Well, if you're exposed to constant manmade electromagnetic fields that are unnatural, eventually your body recognizes that it picks it up and it produces a stress response in people that manifest itself in different ways. Some people have developed headaches, others people develop aches and pains, chronic fatigue, they can't sleep. And so your body begins to try to deal with that stressor, which takes up a lot of energy with respect to the natural magnetic feels. As I said, our bodies adapted to that. Now, there are certain manmade fields that if you're not chronically exposed, if you're exposed therapeutically, they can be quite beneficial. And many of these artificial are also artificial healing fields. They resemble the frequencies that the earth generates. So they're actually trying to mimic the earth's magnetic field because many of us are to a certain degree removed from that natural magnetic field. We don't walk barefoot anymore. We have rubber soled shoes. We drive around in cars that are rubber tires, and so we're not in direct contact with the earth. And by having grounding and various other technologies, it actually reintroduces the natural frequencies. And once again, our body benefits from that, but it should only be done for short periods rather than constant. So it's the constant exposure to an artificial frequency that is not natural that's causing the problem.
Leafbox:
Dr. Havas, how do you respond to skeptics or skepticism of this topic?
Dr Havas:
I actually don't. I feel everyone has the right to believe whatever they want to believe. And I was quite skeptical at the beginning of this as well. I didn't know what the sciences was showing. And so it wasn't until I really began to look at it very carefully and logically and ask some questions that I overcame that skepticism. But I think skepticism is healthy. However, I also think it's important to have an open mind, and this is really critical for scientists. Two things that are critical for scientists is having an open mind prior to skepticism. So if you're skeptical, you might not even consider a topic, and that just tells me you've got a closed mind. And it's something that I don't recommend for my students or anyone else. The other thing is curiosity. And if you're curious, you'll start looking into something. And very often, if you don't know, that's one of the best places to be in science because that stimulates your curiosity and you want to find out.
So when someone tells me, I don't believe in this, I say, that's fine. You don't have to. So I'm not trying to convince anyone about this. They can come up with their own conclusions, but most of the people who are experts in this field will agree with me that this is a very serious problem. And so it's those people that I tend to interact with more because I end up learning from them and teaching them the things I know and they end up teaching me the things they know. So it's just a way of advancing science.
Leafbox:
How do you encourage in your students that kind of openness, skepticism, what you call, I mean, do you find a shift in the universities now or, I mean the last three years of covid have been such a kind of politicization science. I'm just curious how you've seen it over maybe your 30-year career.
Dr Havas:
Well, I've actually retired, so I retired prior to Covid. And so I didn't have the experience of teaching at a university remotely and have going through that whole thing that happened at universities. So I can't speak to that now. However, when I was teaching, and that was prior to Covid, my students were just curious. I mean, a lot of university students are, that's why they're in university. They want to learn, or at least some of them do. And so there was no issue about overcoming the skepticism. Most of them were open and willing to learn.
Leafbox:
Dr. Havas, the work you're doing is quite interdisciplinary. I mean, you first talked to physicists, and I'm sure you talked to MDs and I don't know if you're talking to anthropologists, who are you building bridges to do kind of this research and I mean obviously toxicology and chemistry, and I'm just curious how you build this. What's your dream team or of scientists to study this topic?
Dr Havas:
Well, my dream team would be more than just scientists. My dream team would be people from all walks of life. That includes, I do a lot of work with medical doctors. Many of them haven't been taught about this in medical school. And so once again, they're very skeptical as they should be when something new is recognized before it's validated. And through the many of them, it's not validated only because they don't looked at the research. And our medical profession is under a huge amount of stress right now. So they don't have extra time to do a deep dive into the research the way I did. But I do work with a lot of medical doctors. I give educational courses that they get for medical credit. I interact with them by helping them recognize what the symptoms of electro hypersensitivity are and how to diagnose their patients, how to help their patients heal, not in the sense of the therapies that they recommend because I'm not a medical doctor, but in how to clean up the environment so that people are no longer exposed. And very often once the stressor, the radiation is reduced, a lot of patients can recover from this provided that it hasn't done any irreparable damage to their body.
But my dream team would consist of medical doctors, lawyers, the media, parents who are very important in determining what their children are exposed to, school boards, government, we've tried to interact with government and they're about as skeptical as anyone, or at least they won't admit there's a problem because they don't really know how to deal with it. So my dream team would actually consist of people from all walks of life doing what they do best in their environment and basically sharing the information and benefiting from it.
Leafbox:
What is, maybe you could walk me through some of the range of negative effects of this type of pollution. I mean, what's a subtle case to an extreme case? I'm just curious to if there's a case study of those type of not victims patients or individuals.
Dr Havas:
Right. Well, the negative effects fall into three categories. First of all, we know this radiation contributes to cancer. Initially we thought it promoted cancer once cancer develops in your body, but we now have evidence that it can initiate cancer. It can actually damage DNA in secondary pathway, not a primary pathway. So cancer is one of the key things. And the types of cancers are leukemias, brain tumors, breast cancer, other tumors associated with the face, salivary gland tumors, something called acoustic neuroma, which is a nerve in the ear. So when people hold a cell phone up to their head, they're actually microwaving their brain. And if they do this for long enough, then those cancers can develop. So cancer is one of the endpoints that scientists are studying.
The other endpoint is reproductive problems. We know for example, that sperm is particularly sensitive to this radiation. The testicles are very sensitive. Testicular cancer has shown up in police officers that use radar guns. For example, when they used to use radar guns, they would put the gun in their lap while they were waiting for the next car to come by. And radar is the same as microwave. So it's very similar frequencies to your cell phone. And they were developing testicular cancer.
Breast cancer for women who keep their cell phone in their bra is another very serious issue. And quite a few young women do that, and it's something that we would definitely advise against.
The third one is what is referred to collectively as hypersensitivity. And this is a form of illness that includes mostly neurological damage but also hormonal damage. It affects your central and autonomic nervous system, so it can affect your heart rate, it can affect your brainwave activity. And the symptoms for electro hypersensitivity, which is what I understand you'd like to focus on, primarily, the symptoms include sleep disturbances. And when you can't sleep, your body doesn't heal very well. And so that cascades into a lot of other health concerns. Chronic fatigue is a common symptom. Headaches, including migraines for some people, aches and pains in your muscles and joints that aren't consistent. They move around and they're worse in some environments than in others. So it's not as though you've got arthritis and you've got constant knee pain. This is pain that comes and goes. Dizziness, difficulty with memory, for example, both concentration problems, short-term memory, processing information, mood disorders, very common in including anxiety and depression, skin disturbances, people break out in a rash sometimes when they're exposed to this. And in some cases, the rash is so severe that they actually start bleeding through the skin. In young children, night bedwetting is quite common. So when they're sleeping in an electromagnetic environment that they will wet the bed as young children, and when you move them into a clean environment, they just don't do that. So there are a lot of symptoms. Nose bleeds is another one that's common mostly among children. So these are somewhat unusual symptoms and some of them are quite general symptoms, so it's difficult to distinguish them from other health effects that you may have.
Leafbox:
Do you find geographic or developmental stages? I mean, if you go to a rural place compared to the downtown Tokyo, obviously, have you been able to study those differences in environment and how they affect the human body? Obviously, there's conflicting factors, diet, geography, age, but I'm just curious if you have any summaries of that type of work, if there is any.
Dr Havas:
Well, we have a group called the Global EMF Network, and we formed it just at the beginning of the Covid Pandemic. A lot of people were spending time at home obviously, and a lot of them were curious about what was going on. And more and more people are wanting to contribute to this research. And so we established the global EMF network and we have a website and we asked for volunteers to do monitoring in different communities, and we have over 400 volunteers from around the globe, including in Hawaii and in Japan and many other places. And we showed them how to do the monitoring in on city streets, for example. They're all using the same technology and they report back and we then map that information. So we have the GlobalEMF.net website, and you can go there and see what the levels are.
You can actually zoom in on the map and find out if anyone's done it in your hometown. But basically, what we're finding is that the higher the density in a city, the more likely exposures are going to be high. And the reason for that is there are more cell towers around. There are more people using their cell phones. And so the ambient level just continues to go up and up. As this happens, we now have the rollout of 5G, fifth generation telecommunication technology. And some of our members have been going out on the same street, the same intersections measuring before and after 5G came in, or two parallel streets, one with 5G and one without. And we're finding that once 5G comes into your neighborhood, the levels just go up exponentially. And a lot of these people, obviously who live and are exposed to that on a 24-hour basis are becoming sick. And we've had people who have reduced their exposure in their own homes and then suddenly small cell 5G antenna comes across the street from them very close to their homes. So they're radiated and theirs their previous symptoms return. And so once again, we have to figure out how to help those individuals
Leafbox:
Talking about 5G. My first question is, I used to live in San Francisco and I was in a neighborhood board and at and t was trying to install 5G towers in the neighborhood I was part of. And several community members became agitated and tried to protest. And the permitting process for this seemed very aire compared to everything else in San Francisco need hundreds of permits to do anything in sf, but to build a 5G tower, they were almost given card blanche to install them. What's interaction with the private manufacturers and the state regulatory agencies in regards to this kind of technology? Do you find any or is just how, is it in Canada or in other markets? I'm just curious.
Dr Havas:
Well, in the United States, the Federal Communication Commission is responsible for giving licenses to operators. So if you have a radio station for example, you have to purchase a permit to operate at that frequency. And the same goes for cell phone providers, so AT&T, Verizon, whatever. So they have to apply for a permit to operate at that frequency. And then the municipal governments in many cases to determine or should be able to determine where things go in their communities. What's happened is that there was a legislation that came through the US government that said you could not use health as your reason to oppose these antennas, which is absolutely ludicrous. You couldn't use environmental effects and you couldn't use health. And they passed this resolution at midnight in the House of Commons. And so this really began to tie the hands of municipal governments.
And if you look at the people who run the FCC, a lot of them are former telecommunication CEOs and people who are working or have been working for the telecom industry. And so there's a revolving door between the telecom industry and government officials at the Federal Communication Commission. And there was a very good report by a Harvard professor saying that the FCC is now a captured agency, and I would agree with that wholeheartedly. And so what they're really trying to do is tie the hands of municipalities so that they can't determine where a cell tower can go. And this is deeply disturbing because there's no control over where they go, who they affect. A lot of them are placed in schoolyards on top of schools, on top of hospitals, and this should never have been allowed. But I think we know since Covid that there's a lot of manipulation of the government by the pharmaceutical industry and other industries.
So we're in a very bad place right now when it comes to the government's tying its own hands in order to benefit the telecom industry rather than the people who they're supposed to be representing, which is the general population.
Unfortunately, the situation in Canada is very similar. We can still oppose towers on the basis of health and the environment, but our Health Canada, which sets the guidelines, doesn't recognize some of the health effects that I've mentioned to you. The only health effect that both Canada and the United States recognize is a heating effect because they know that microwave up microwaves can heat, that's how microwave oven works at the levels of radiation are high enough. It will cause water molecules to vibrate to the point that the friction will increase the heat of the object. So you know, put a potato in there and you can bake it in five minutes.
So basically we're in a situation where the government is not doing its job appropriately, and eventually that will have to change because such a large group of people are getting sick that it's putting too much pressure on our healthcare system and it's preventing people from working in certain environments. So once this reaches a certain threshold, I think things will have to be reversed just like we've reversed them with lead. We don't no longer put lead in paint or in gas, for example. And we've done the same thing limiting the use of DDT and other toxins. So eventually it will come, the longer it takes, the more people who will become ill and who will die. So the sooner this can happen, the better for civilization.
Leafbox:
Continuing on the topic of 5G, I'm just curious what your thoughts were when at the beginning of covid, there was a lot of resistance to the vaccine and that came from people who kind of, I don't know if it was weaponized or cucified, I call it, but people were claiming that the 5G and the vaccine, and it almost seemed preposterous, but I don't know if that was a media kind of psychological operation to discredit people or just kind of link it. But I'm just curious what you thought about that when that happened. I dunno if you heard about that or they were always trying to link these nanoparticles and the 5G, it just seemed so extreme. So I don't know if that was to discredit the actual people who are studying EMF or people who had questions about the vaccine. I'm just curious in how you responded to that as a toxicologist, if
Dr Havas:
You had any question. Well, I agree with you. Don't hard to tell what motivate motivates people. So I tend try not to go there because that's not for me a scientific question. I'm not a psychologist, so I tend to avoid those types of questions. But the question did arise about 5G in the covid and whether or not there was any kind of connection between the two, and that was raised by legitimate electromagnetic researchers and I was one of them. I was wondering if there was any connection. Once again, this is curiosity. You asked the question, you design a study or an experiment or you collect data to see if there's any validity to that. And so with the pandemic at home, I was following the Johns Hopkins daily rollout of how many people developed covid and where globally as well. And so I was following this myself and the question came, is there a connection between the two?
And this is actually a valid question. I think most questions are valid that can be answered by science, but in my opinion, this is a valid question. And the reason I think it's a valid question is because the pandemic and the rollout of 5G antennas occurred simultaneously. So while the rest of us were locked down, the telecommunication industry continued to put up these small cell antennas. If anything, they went into overdrive. And we know that this form of radiation, the microwave radiation impairs your immune system. That's one of the effects it has on the body. And so if you're exposed to this and your immune system is impaired and then you come in contact with someone who has covid you’re more likely to have the covid and the symptoms are more likely to be harmful, more lethal. And so I began a sort of a mini study and I posted it on my website and I asked a lot of other questions as well.
I thought, is there a relationship between population density and the cases and deaths of covid, which you might expect? And I asked a whole series of questions like that, and one of them was, is there a relationship between electricity use and covid because electricity produces a form of electromagnetic fields and can be harmful. And same thing with WiFi and cell phone subscriptions. Was there a relationship? And I did that at the global level and at the global level. The data were really quite messy in the sense that not every country collects data in the same way. And so we got some weak correlations between covid cases and deaths and some of these other things that we were looking at. And then I realized I'd have to narrow it. And so I decided to look at the United States because the United States has some of the best data available on a lot of things.
So the information that the United States collects and various government agencies is really unsurpassed. And so I went to the US and I looked at states that had 5G already installed and states that didn't, and I compared the cases of covid and the deaths of covid in those two states. And I found a very surprising relationship. I found that if you had 5G active in your state, overall, the incidence rate of covid per population was twice as high. And same thing for the death rate. And this was statistically significant. And I posted that on my website in early in April of 2020. So very early on in the pandemic, we found this relationship and a colleague of mine, Angela Tsiang in the United States, looked at the data and asked if maybe we could do it again for a different day to see how robust the relationship was.And so we repeated it in May and found basically the same thing. We then looked at counties in the United States that had counties are smaller than states, so theoretically the data should be tighter. And we did the same thing and found the same relationship, and we eventually published on that.
And my thinking is that because people are exposed to this radiation, it's impairing their immune system. And so they're going to be more likely to develop not only covid but influenza and other types of communicable diseases simply because their immune system can’t handle it as well as someone who's healthy. So there is a relationship between the two we've published on this. Others have published on it as well, taking a slightly different angle. There's a paper by Rubik and Brown that came out in 2022, so just last year. And what they did is they went through all the biological consequences of exposure to microwave radiation, and quite a few of them, not just the immune system impairment, but quite a few of those physiological reactions that we have when we're exposed actually harmed the host, which is the human and benefited the agent, which is the virus.
And many of the symptoms that people experience with electro hypersensitivity overlap over 18 symptoms overlap with covid symptoms. And so in some cases, the thinking here is that in some cases people might actually be suffering from electro hypersensitivity that they attribute to covid because that's what the popular concern is about right now. And if they reduce their exposure, their symptoms would diminish.
Similarly, if there's issues about long covid, for example, so after you've overcome the initial infection, you still have a lot of those symptoms. While those symptoms might be due to the environment you're in, it might not be long covid at all. It might be your inability to sleep. Your aches and pains might actually be due to the fact that you're in an environment where you've got WiFi in your home, you're using cell phones, you might be living near cell phone antenna, you might have neighbors very close to you that are also using this wireless technology. And if you simply minimized your exposure or went to a clean environment, if those symptoms of long covid diminish or disappear, then chances are it wasn't long covid you were suffering from its electrohypersensitivity.
Leafbox:
On the spectrum of electromagnetic resonance and frequency, what is the most concerning? Is it those bandwidths of the cellular microwave bandwidths, or are there even worse or what's the most concerning for you?
Dr Havas:
Well, there's three bandwidths that I'm concerned about. One is the extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields that come from our use of electricity. So the original studies with childhood leukemia, for example, associated it with magnetic field exposure. And so we now know that children should be exposed to a certain level of magnetic fields that are less than one or two milli Gauss, which is how you measure the magnetic field. So that's one area of concern. And that spreads well beyond children. Adults are also sensitive to that, but they can tolerate higher levels without developing the cancers.
And we have evidence that there's another level, and that's called intermediate radio frequencies. The common term for that in sort of the literature is dirty electricity. And this comes from our use of electronic devices. And basically if you have a computer in your home, it's going to generate this. If you have energy efficient appliances, light bulbs, for example, they're going to generate something called dirty electricity. And this is radio frequency that travels along the wires in your home. And because it's a radio frequency, it's radiating from the wires. And we're finding that that affects people as well.
And we've done studies with diabetics, for example, who are electrosensitive. And if you're either a type one or a type two diabetic and you're also electromagnetically sensitive, then chances are you're it's going to affect your blood sugar. And we've published on this, we found that exposure to dirty electricity will increase your blood sugar substantially within a matter of 20 minutes. And then if you simply move into a cleaner environment, it'll go right back down in 20 minutes. So the response is very quick.
We've also worked with people who have multiple sclerosis and they have tremors, they have difficulty controlling, it's a neurological disorder, and they have difficulty controlling their muscles. They have problems with walking, they have cognitive problems depending on where in the brain the sclerosis is. And we've gone into homes, cleaned up the dirty electricity as part of a scientific study, and we documented the change in symptoms. And for those who are electrosensitive, their symptoms either decreased substantially or totally disappeared. So when we presented this to the MS society, they just poo-pooed it. They said, oh, there's no way. And I was so surprised by the relative speed with which this happened. It happened over a six-week period, which was the duration of our research that I began to videotape these participants because I couldn't believe my own eyes as to how much they improved.
And I'll just give you one example because I think examples really help the audience understand what's going on. One of the houses I went to was a woman in her mid-forties who told me that her symptoms were so bad she needed to use a walker. And that when I arrived at her house to do the monitoring, the measurements to find out what the levels were in her home, she said, it'll take me such a long time to walk to the door to let you in. She said, phone me 10 minutes before you arrive and I'll open the door and then when you come, just ring the doorbell and come right in. So, I did that and she had a walker and her, she had tremors and was really in very bad shape. We cleaned up her home and six weeks later I went back to collect the filters that we had used to clean up the dirty electricity. And she came to the door. She didn't have a walker. And when I was interviewing her at the end, she said she had gone dancing with her husband down south, which would've been unheard of when I first met her. And that's what when I began to videotape people, because I could barely believe my eyes as well. So intermediate frequencies, dirty electricity is very, very serious. It's virtually everywhere and people need to clean up their homes if they want to recover.
And then the third one is microwave radiation, which comes from our wireless telecom industry, and that's WiFi your cell phone, your wireless baby monitor, some of the wireless games the kids are using, your wireless printer in your office. All of those are using microwaves to communicate. And so people are sitting in a soup of microwave radiation. The more wireless technology they have, the worse it is.
And in my mind, the dirty electricity and the microwave radiation are equally culpable, both been shown to be biologically harmful, much more so than the low frequency that I mentioned earlier with childhood leukemia.
And some of this is coming through our wire, some of it is actually coming through the ground in the form of ground current, and we've been studying that as well. And that's something that very few scientists are dealing with. But it's a serious problem, especially on farms where they have cattle because they're finding that if you've got a ground current problem, if there's electricity flowing through the ground mostly at the higher frequencies, the dirty electricity frequencies, then your cattle are not going to do well. And dairy cows, because they're milked two or three times daily, the farmer knows exactly how much milk comes from Daisy or Betsy or daffodil or whatever the cows are called. And when that ground current is removed, their cows produce so much milk, it often overflows the milking containers. So we know it is, it's affecting not only cows, but other animals and farmers who are also in that environment.
So we've got extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields. We've got dirty electricity that are intermediate frequencies. And then we've got microwave frequencies that include all the wires list technology, including the 5G.
Leafbox:
Dr. Havas, are some of these studies RCTs? Are they randomized control studies? Do I mean that case study of the MS lady, I mean, it's good to hear that she got better, but how do you differentiate between other environmental factors or placebo or the fact that you interacted with her might have been a positive mental boost or whatnot?
Dr Havas:
If I interacted with people and they were able to walk after I interacted with them, I'd be providing my services to these individuals. First of all, not everyone with MS improved only those who we now classify as electrosensitive. So, if you're not sensitive to this radiation, it's not going to affect you. If it's not, sorry, if it's not going to affect you, it's not going to affect your MS symptoms either. So, some people improved and some people didn't. So that was one thing.
One of the individuals we worked with was a 27-year-old male who developed a progressive MS, which means it doesn't ever get better, it just continues to get worse. And he was fired from his job because they thought he was drinking his gait, his balance were way off. And when we contacted them through the MS user groups, he volunteered to be tested.
He was absolutely convinced that this wouldn't affect him at all, and he was just participating because it wasn't going to cost him anything. And he was at home, he couldn't work, he was bored. So, he thought, why not participate within a few days of us putting the filters in. And he was also not very compliant in completing the forms that we had. So, we had them complete their symptom form on a daily basis, but he sort of took this as a bit of a lark. A few days later, he contacted me and told me that he seemed to be feeling different. So, this was really quite unusual. And within two weeks, he invited me to visit him. And when I visited him, I actually videotaped him before and after. So, I have a video of the first time I visited him before we put any filters in his home and his gate was off. He needed to either wall walk, which means holding onto the wall as you're walking to maintain your balance. So I have that video.
Two weeks later I went back, he was actually shoveling the drive and he was showing off a little bit as to how good he felt. I re-videotaped him walking down the hall in his home and you couldn't tell he had MS at all. He was so amazed by the results. And his mother told me that he was beginning to have difficulty swallowing, so it was beginning to affect his ability to swallow, which is life-threatening – if you can't swallow water or food. And that was totally turned around. And she told me that occasionally he actually went out with friends to the bar to partake in activities, but when he came home, he felt really ill. And it took him about one or two days to recover in a clean environment before he felt like his symptoms were diminishing as well. So, he could now go into a polluted environment for short periods and then come home and recuperate. So, I don't believe this is psychosomatic. I don't believe it's a placebo effect, but even if it was, in my mind, a placebo effect is one of the most powerful ways to heal your body through your mind. So, I wouldn't object to that either, but I honestly don't believe that's what it is. In the studies that we've done
Leafbox:
Consider considering the soup that we're kind of involved in the modern world, what are your recommendations for average people? I mean, it just almost seems you can get quite paranoid with just trying to eliminate the pollution or whatnot. I'm just curious, what do you recommend parents or individuals who are open to these topics?
Dr Havas:
Right. Well, I agree that a lot of people can become a paranoid about this, and they have become paranoid about this. So, there's a psychological element to this that prevents them from healing. And my attitude is don't go to fear. Fear isn't going to help you with this. It's not like a sabretooth tiger that you could run away from. My attitude is empower people, give them information and then they can do anything they want with that information. So, my advice would be to minimize your exposure. And the problem is people often don't even know what they're exposed to. And so one of the things that I recommend is that people buy an inexpensive meter to measure their environment. And I don't get any kickbacks on these meters. So, I recommend different brands that I know are good and not very costly. Most of them you can buy for under $200, and if it's something that could benefit your health and the health of your family, it's a very good investment.
And there are websites that you can go to where these and much more expensive meters are provided. So, the first thing I recommend is measure your environment if you can. I you have a little bit more money, hire someone to come in and do your measure your environment professionally. I'm not quite certain what the costs are for that, but I know they're much higher than simply buying a meter.
Once you've measured your environment, you can determine what's creating the pollution. And then let's assume it's because you have your WiFi router on. Well, there's a number of things you can do. You can keep your WiFi router off except when you're using it. That's one thing you can do. Definitely turn it off at nighttime when no one in the house is using it so that your body isn't exposed to that while you're sleeping. And some people who have done that have noticed an improvement in sleep quality, and that will simply lead to better cognition, much less fatigue the day.
So, minimize your exposure as much as possible. In some cases, you don't have control over your exposure because it's coming from neighbors or it's coming from a cell phone antenna very close to your home. And there are, once again, things that you can do to minimize that to block the radiation. There's fabric that you can buy, and some people make curtains out of them. It's translucent fabric that has metal fibers in it, and these metal fibers will reflect the radiation, and it's like basically using a Faraday cage to block the radiation. And some people use it only in the bedroom. They put a canopy over their bed, and so at least during the nighttime, they can sleep much more effectively. There's paint that you can buy. There's clothing that you can buy when you're traveling, for example, that will reflect the radiation. And just one warning, not everyone can use this material. And if it's used incorrectly, it can actually make your symptoms worse because it reflects the radiation. So as long as it's reflecting the radiation away from your body, it should be beneficial, but it can also reflect the radiation towards your body, which means your exposures would be higher and it would be harmful. So there's a caveat in that you have to be knowledgeable and careful in how you use some of the remediation technology.
The simplest thing is to replace things with wire technology. So for example, in my house, I used to have a cordless phone until I measured my cordless phone and found that it was radiating all the time. So I replaced it with a landline. So I have several landline phones in my home. I don't have a WiFi in my home. I have a wired connection to my computer through ethernet. I have fiber optics coming to my home, so I don't have radiation nearby. So when I turn on one of these meters, I get a green signal. There's virtually no radiation here, and I'm far enough from my neighbors that their WiFi isn't affecting me at all.
So there are a lot of things that you can do by replacing wireless technology with wired, by changing your behavior and how much you have it on versus have it off, increasing your distance from these objects will make a big difference as well. So there are a lot of things that you can do, and there's something called a website called the electrosensitive society.com, electrosensitive society.com, all one word. And they have all sorts of tips for people, for doctors, for people who want to go to hospitals being accommodated now in hospitals here in Canada, because hospitals are now so polluted with this wireless technology that if you're electrosensitive and you have to go to the hospital because your health is compromised already, you certainly don't want to be going into a room with microwave radiation. It's just like allowing people to go to hospitals and everyone's smoking in the hospital. That doesn't happen anymore. And eventually, I think the same thing will happen with electromagnetic radiation. We’ll have wireless or radiation free environments. Not free radiation, where you could use the technology in a coffee shop, for example, but where you won't be able to use the technology because the levels will be so low and people will benefit from that, including hospital staff like the doctors and nurses.
Leafbox:
Maybe we can shift to make our listeners a little more positive. Maybe you can tell me about the work you're doing with the ROSE lab and some of the positive effects of the electric magnetic therapies that you are studying.
Dr Havas:
Well, this is rather interesting, and it's interesting. When I was doing acid rain research, a lot of my colleagues said, oh, leave that radiation for someone else to do. So, they were trying to discourage me from studying it, but my curiosity was too great, so I couldn't do that. My colleagues who are looking at the harmful effects of electromagnetic energy said, oh, stay away from these pulse electromagnetic devices. They're bogus. They're just going to harm your body. And once again, I just ignored them because I was curious. We had a, they're called pulsed electromagnetic field therapy, PEMF therapy, and that's just one type of therapy that you can use that I now believe is actually beneficial. And someone came into our community here in Peterborough and had these units and they were selling them, and I didn't buy one, but a friend of mine did, and she invited me over to try her unit.
So I went over and I, you know, lie on it for 20 minutes and you get up and my headache's gone or whatever. Well, I laid on the mat and abs, I couldn't feel absolutely anything. And so I thought, okay, well, I don't know if it's making a difference, but I'm really not interested. And then one of the statements, the claims that they make are the following. It will reduce pain, it will increase your circulation, and it will reduce inflammation in your body. And those are three claims that they're able to make because the government has said you can make those three claims. So, the fact that it increased its circulation, I thought this was quite intriguing because that's something we can measure. And so I actually purchased a mat to do research. So I purchased the mat and I tested myself on it. And what I did is I looked at my blood before I got on the mat, and then after a 10-minute treatment and my blood looked really unhealthy, and I was kind of shocked about that the blood cells were sticking together, and that's not, your blood should be free flowing. And when I went on the mat within 10 minutes, my every single blood cell was simply separated from the others it was doing. It looked really, really healthy. And I was wondering why my blood looked so bad at the beginning and I had been working on a computer, not a wireless computer, but a computer. So, there's electricity coming from it.
And so the next day I did a very careful experiment. I woke up in the morning in a clean electromagnetic environment, measure my blood wide right away, it looked healthy. I then worked on a computer and I did another experiment where I exposed myself to WiFi radiation. And when I exposed myself to WiFi radiation, this was all intentional and it was just for 10 minutes. I looked at my blood immediately after, and it was totally clumped. It was very viscous. Dr. Steven Sinatra, who was a world-renowned cardiologist, said that the patients he works with, he said their blood should look like red wine, it should have the consistency of red wine. And he said, and what he's finding in his patients is that they come in with ketchup in their vein. So the blood is just very viscous. It puts a lot of pressure on the heart. So when I tested myself before the WiFi, after the WiFi, and then I went on the mat for 10 minutes and after the mat, my blood cleared up again and it looked really healthy. And so now what I do, I know it benefits circulation. There's virtually no doubt about that. And so I expose myself usually once or twice a day when I'm working on a computer. I don't use a mat, I use a coil that I just place under my feet, and I know that's helping improve the circulation. And for people who are sedentary, this is particularly important. And I've becoming increasingly sedentary the more time I spend on the computer.
Now, a lot of individuals have had pain improvement as well. I don't have physical pain in my body, so wasn't when I could test. We then started doing experiments with a different devices. So I've tested at least three or four pulse electromagnetic field devices. And one of the tests we did was with people who were going to a chiropractor because of pain. And we contacted the chiropractor, asked if he would let his patients know that we were doing a study, and if anyone with rheumatoid arthritis, that's what we were testing. If any of them wanted to volunteer to be tested, we would give them a unit to expose themselves. And we had real units and we had dummy units. So, some of the units didn't actually work, even though they looked like they were working. And we compared the results once again, for a small group of those people, and I can't give you a percentage because we didn't do a large enough sample size that would make any effect on the general population, but some individuals with rheumatoid arthritis were able to, first of all, their pain diminished considerably.That was one thing we noticed.
The other thing we noticed is that their ability to move their limbs increased as well. So as an example, we had one woman where we asked her, and we photographed these individuals, we asked her to raise her hands above her head, so like, you're at a police station, raise your hands. And we asked her to raise her hands as high as she possibly could. Well, one hand went up and the other one just stopped at about shoulder level. She couldn't raise her shoulder, she couldn't raise it higher than that. After one treatment, she could raise both hands. I mean, it was absolutely amazing. So we've been getting these phenomenal results. And that was with a device called the Centurion, and that's what I used to for sitting at my computer.
We did another one called Seqex. And here we interviewed the symptoms that people had. We measured heart rate variability, which tells you how your autonomic nervous system is functioning, and it gives you a lot of information about the health of your body. And basically what we did is, I can't remember exactly how many people, I think we had 20 participants in the study. We tested them over a two-day period. They came in, we did an initial health survey. We then measured their heart rate variability. They had a 30-minute treatment, and then we measured their heart rate variability again. So the only difference was they had a treatment in between the two measurements and out of the 20, I believe 16 or 16 or 17 improved some dramatically, some only marginally and two or three were identical, or one was identical and two were slightly worse. So overall, it had a really beneficial effect. So we've really, we've done our homework.
We're testing lots of different things. We had, and this is my situation that I'll share with you. I had open heart surgery quite a few years ago, and that's one of the reasons I retired. My health was compromised. And so after my open heart surgery, I had fluid buildup on my lungs. It's called plural effusion. And it was so bad that I had difficulty breathing and I had to be readmitted to hospital to emergency. Anyway, they released me, and once again, they had so much fluid buildup based on X-ray analysis. You could see that one lung was really compromised.
And a friend and I, I was learning how to use a different technology. It's called Omdamed, a type of electromagnetic field therapy. And we drove down to the states and I was learning how to use it. And the woman who was teaching me, I was having a private lesson, she said, you're not feeling so well, are you? And I said, no, I'm not. She said, would you mind if I treated you? And I said, no, go ahead. Do whatever you want. I was in such bad shape. So she treated me for 20 minutes. I felt nothing, no difference.
The next day I went back for my second lesson on how to use the therapy, and she treated me again. And after the second treatment, I was able to take a deep breath. When I got back to Canada, I had another appointment to have my chest X-rayed, and the plural effusion had gone, and this was two weeks after that I had it done, and they thought that I had it drained, which is the ways that you treat this, it usually doesn't heal that quickly on its own. And I'm absolutely convinced it was the Ondamed. And so once again, I published that information.
So we've published on quite a few different things. This technology in my mind is so amazing that it's going to play a much more important role in the future of medicine than it is today, and it can benefit the delivery of pharmaceutical drugs. So it's not really competing with the pharmaceutical industry, except that if you no longer have pain, you're not going to take painkillers. If you can sleep well, you're not going to take sleeping pills. So it will have some effect on the pharmaceutical industry.
Leafbox:
And what is the basic overview of how the technology works? It's doing something with a cell ionization, or what's the actual mechanism of action
Dr Havas:
I wish on knew. So that's really what we're trying to figure out is why are these different frequencies helping your body? And I honestly don't have an answer that I can share with you at this stage. I'm still curious. So we're still doing research to try to get a bit better handle on that.
Leafbox:
Who is funding some of this work? Is the manufacturers of the technology funding it, or are researchers grants, or I'm just curious, who's interested in this type of work?
Dr Havas:
Right. Well, first of all, the government won't fund this type of work. So I haven't been getting any government funding for either the harmful effects or the beneficial effects. I don't accept money from manufacturers because I'm not working for them. I'm doing independent research. So I've been using my own personal funds to purchase technology and to test it, to purchase equipment that does the testing. So I'm out of pocket by quite a bit as a result. But in my mind, it's a really good use of funds because it's going to ultimately help a lot of people, either by encouraging them to avoid the bad stuff and possibly having them try the good stuff to see if it actually helps them in a way that they're obvious to them.
Leafbox:
Have you found any technologies that just didn't meet your muster or were either grifting or just not reliable?
Dr Havas:
Yes, we have. And we found that some of the things that you put on your cell phone, the little stickers for example, they might benefit some people, but they have little effect on others. And I think in that particular case, the jury's out. I'm not going to say that they're harmful or that they're not effective or that they're not doing anything. I'm simply saying, I don't know. But so far we haven't been able to document consistent beneficial effects from some of those devices. I've only tested a few, so I can't make a general claim about that.
Leafbox:
Is this the Faraday cages for cell phones or those are, I'm not familiar with these stickers.
Dr Havas:
Okay. Well, some companies are selling saying, you know, put the sticker, it's just a little sticker. It's like about the size of your thumb or coin or quarter or something, and you stick it on your cell phone and they say it will give out good frequencies that will benefit your body. So it's not stopping the bad frequencies, but it's giving good frequencies to your body. Similar to the pulse electromagnetic field, things that you plug into an electrical outlet, least you don't plug into anything. And when you ask them which frequencies are they generating, well, it's ones you can't measure. So I can't measure it. So I can't do a scientific study with it in that regard, but I can measure the person using it. And that's what we've been doing with the PEMF stuff. We're not measuring the radiation coming from the mats. The manufacturer will tell you what those frequencies are. We're actually measuring how it's affecting the person. And so we've done some tests where people have put stickers on their cell phone, and then we measure how they're reacting to that with the cell phone on or off, that kind of thing. And we haven't found anything consistent that would benefit the individual.
Leafbox:
Yeah, it seems, is it using the cell phone energy as an amplifier for the sticker?
Dr Havas:
Possibly. They give all sorts of reasons, none of which I understand well enough that I can comment on. So now the Faraday cages that you brought up, they work, we can measure the difference inside and outside of Faraday cage. So the fabric that I mentioned to you, there's also paint you can put on your wall that I would only recommend. Well, I don't know if I would recommend it. And the reason for that is once you sell your home, or if you're living in an apartment and you put this stuff on your wall, you can't get it off. So you're put, the next person who moves in will turn on their cell phone and their cell phone will bounce off the paint and increase their exposure. So it's not something I recommend, but in the Netherlands, I think they put this paint on wallpaper. And so you can wallpaper your home with this protective graphite kind of shield, and then you can remove it as well. So I would probably go that route.
The silver fiber or the copper fiber that they put in fabric actually makes a huge difference. And you can even take mosquito net mosquito screens that are metal, not plastic, and they will reduce your exposure. Some people put aluminum foil on their windows. The tinfoil hatter actually makes sense. If you put a tinfoil hat on, it will reflect the radiation that won't be penetrating into your brain. So as much as people are mocked who are sensitive, that actually makes a big difference. And what some people are doing is they're taking the fabric, putting it on the inside of their baseball cap that they wear. Men that wear these baseball caps all the time, and they can go out into the environment and they tell me that they don't have the brain fog that they normally would get when they're exposed while they're driving, for example, or when they're in a middle of a large city. And so you could put this fabric inside and we can measure the difference with and without the fabric. So we know it's reducing your exposure if used properly.
Leafbox:
Do the manufacturers of the cell phone towers or other frequency generating devices produce research that says the contradict? I mean, I'm just curious if why away or the makers of the cell phone towers are saying, oh no, this is great for your body and whatnot. I'm just, if there's contradictory research they publish or tried to publish,
Dr Havas:
First of all, they'll fund scientists to do research. And very often those studies will turn out negative in the sense that a scientist will do a study testing the effect of radiation or no radiation. And they're saying there's virtually no difference. So even someone exposed to radiation, their heart's functioning properly, their brain's functioning properly, whatever it is that they're measuring. And if you look at the studies carefully, there may or may not be flaws in the studies. Not all the studies are flawed.
In some cases, for example, when they started doing research on brain tumors, one of the studies that showed an increase in brain tumors was after 10 years of cell phone use. And we know it takes time for a tumor, a damaged cell to grow into a tumor that's large enough to measure, to be seen on any kind of imaging technology. And so after 10 years, your risk of developing a brain tumor increased by let's say a factor of two, which isn't very much, but for someone who develops a brain tumor, that's could be deadly. And so what the scientists funded by the telecom industry did is they measured people who used a cell phone for five years and they found that there was no difference in brain tumors among those who used it for five years or never used a cell phone. And so in my mind, this is an erroneous way of doing testing because you haven't given the tumor chance to grow to be large enough to be detected. However, if you now look at the literature, more and more studies, because people have been using cell phones for more than 10 years, and the brain tumor rate, particularly a deadly form of brain tumor called glioblastoma multiforma, is increasing in the population in the frontal and temporal lobe, which is closest to the cell phone radiation.
So now we're getting so many people with this tumor that we can actually pick it up using epidemiology and the rate of tumor develop, the population is now having a higher level rather than just one or two or a few individuals. So the research done by industry funded scientists has to be declared. There is a potential for bias there. And so you can publish the research, but you have to declare that there might be a conflict of interest because you're getting funding from the telecom industry.
However, the telecom industry doesn't have to rely on this bogus research. They just have to rely on the government. And the FCC says it's perfectly safe provided it doesn't heat your body. So it's not the wireless industry that's letting us down. It's our government agencies. The federal communication in the United States and Health Canada here in Canada that are basically toting the industry line, they don't recognize electro hypersensitivity or reproductive problems. They're simply ignoring the literature. And there's been a lawsuit brought against the FCC saying, your guidelines are totally out of date. It's time that you reviewed the literature and updated your guidelines, and we'll see what happens with that lawsuit. They take a very long time, and it might not be something that the court will rule on for years or possibly more than a decade to come.
Leafbox:
Is there any countries in the world that are more concerned about this topic or not? I don't know. Russia, yes, for instance.
Dr Havas:
Yeah. Yeah. Good thing that you mentioned that if you look at guidelines for exposure of anything chemical, let's say, because that's what I originally did research, and if you look at guideline for lead levels in something in or mercury levels in fish, they're going to be very similar. Whether you're in the United States, whether you're in Russia, China, Uruguay, whatever, they're going to be very, very close to each other because we're all relatively have the same sensitivity to that toxic metal. When it comes to guidelines for microwave radiation, they range, gosh, I don't, at least five orders of magnitude. So in one country they might be 0.1 in another country, they might be a hundred. And in the United States they're 10 million. So we're really talking about something that varies enormously. And that's not based on science, that's based on politics. So when politics starts interfering with science, then you get all of these crazy anomalies, and I'm talking about politics and economics at the same time. So the United States has the worst guidelines in the world along with the United Kingdom, Japan, Canada's are marginally better about half of what they are in the United States, but the levels are still far too high. They don't protect you. And then we have countries like Russia and various countries in Europe where the guidelines are a hundred instead of 10 million or are 10. So they, they're much, much lower and much more protective.
Leafbox:
And do you think that's just because of the regulatory capture of the regulatory bodies or,
Dr Havas:
Well, it's got nothing to do with science. It's entirely due to politics. Yeah, interesting. Because the people in the United States aren't more tolerant of this radiation, so they can tolerate more of it. We all have roughly the same sensitivity globally. And so the guidelines should protect all of us equally. The interesting thing is that the research on microwave radiation that started in the United States, it started during World War II with radar microwave radiation used in radar, and it was considered top secret. So the early scientific research in the US was classified.
In Russia, or the Soviet Union back then. The research actually started from a medical perspective, so they exposed people to low levels of radiation to see if they could use it in healthcare. And so one was looking at it from a military perspective. The other was looking at it from a healthcare perspective. And so the Russians started looking at very low frequencies and documenting these health effects. And when they started increasing the intensity of the radiation, they started noticing harmful effects, but at levels much lower than in the United States.
And if you look at the old literature on how the guidelines were developed in the United States, one of the things you'll find in publications that are now declassified, and by the way, anyone can go to these declassified publications. They're on a website and the website is zoryglaser.com. Dr. Glaser was a microwave specialist working for the US military. And when he retired, he gave me his entire collection of documents that are now declassified. And I had them scanned and put on the website as PDF-eye searchable documents. So if you go to these documents, it's very clear that the military was determining what the guidelines should be, and they wanted to make sure that their military, they wouldn't be limited in what they could do with the microwave radiation and the health of soldiers was entirely secondary or tertiary. They just wanted the levels high enough so that they could operate and do the things that they wanted to do. So it comes from a very different perspective, and that's why the Russian guidelines are so much more protective. I still think they're not as protective as they need to be, but that's sort of a personal opinion.
Leafbox:
Could you just tell me a little bit about the weaponization of these electromagnetic wavelengths? I'm sure there's radar guns or I'm just curious what, who's developing those type of tools, and have you studied those at all?
Dr Havas:
Well, I try to stay away from anything military and weaponized, but I do know some of the literature on this. In 1976, the Moscow, the US Embassy in Moscow was irradiated at that time. And people were getting sick. They were developing leukemia, eye problems, all sorts of things, and they couldn't figure out what was causing it. And the US government thought it was something in the water, some bacterial contamination or parasites in the water, and that's what they released to the public. And then eventually some reporters got ahold of this and they dug a little bit more deeply. I really admire investigative reporters. They're just like scientists, and they share their information with the public. And it turns out that the embassy, the US Embassy in Moscow was being irradiated by microwave radiation, and they could eventually measure it. And so they knew this was the case, and that information came out.
So we know that this radiation can be weaponized. the Havana Syndrome, some people think it might be due to microwave radiation, although the symptoms are slightly different than they were in Russia. So I'm not 100% convinced of that. However, it's a possibility.
The US military uses microwaves as a crowd deterrent. And what I mean by that is they have vehicles where they have these large saucer-shaped antennas that can point microwave radiation towards people in a crowd. And what they do is they turn it on high. So we're getting a really high burst of microwave radiation similar to what you might get in your microwave oven. And that if you were able to put your hand in a microwave oven while it was on, you'd burn yourself very quickly and you'd feel the pain. And they're using millimeter waves for this, which penetrate only a few millimeters into your body. So what they do is they basically cause the small water molecules on the surface of your skin to evaporate like to volatilize. And so it's excruciatingly painful, but according to the military, not dangerous because it's only for a split second. And so if they aim one of these beams at you, obviously you're in huge amount of pain and you want to get away from that beam. And they've tested this on soldiers, they actually brag about it and have videos that you can go to where soldiers stand there and then they flip the switch and they run out of the beam. And the value of this is that, well, it's not lethal, okay? You're not shooting anyone and killing them. You're simply making them feel uncomfortable for a short period of time, and you can control the crowd that way. So in that regard, it makes sense from a military perspective. The one thing they fail to mention is that your eyes are extremely sensitive to this radiation, even for a split second, and it will ultimately cause cataracts. And so those soldiers that have been exposed, unless they had glasses on or had their eyes closed or had their hands over their eyes, they could develop cataracts at a much earlier age than they would normally develop them. So this energy isn't more than just a painful, it can actually be quite damaging to the body.
Leafbox:
Has any government, I mean, you're in Canada, so I'm not sure if the Canadian armed forces, have they ever used your research for positive or negative effects that you're aware of?
Dr Havas:
I, no. I don't have any contact with the Canadian military or the US military for that matter.
Leafbox:
Yeah, I was just curious if they use your research to shield their tanks or with the Ukraine war, I'm sure the Russians and Americans and the Ukrainians are using some of these technologies now to,
Dr Havas:
Well, the tanks are made of metal, so you're not going to be able to penetrate a tank with microwave radiation. However, if you have microwave radiation inside the tank, that's going to be bounce around. So it's not going to be used in tank warfare in that regard. It has to be someone out in the open.
Leafbox:
No, I was just, they have those EMF weapons that can turn off devices and whatnot. Very
Dr Havas:
Powerful. Oh, yeah, you're talk, yeah, you're talking about postal electromagnetic weapons. Well, if you have a strong electromagnetic pulse, it will destroy sensitive electronic equipment so they can turn things on and off simply by putting too much energy into something. And that's known for electronics for a long time.
When people first bought computers, you were encouraged to buy a surge suppressor to plug your computer into a surge suppressor rather than into the electrical outlet in your building. And the reason for that is this dirty electricity, they're pulses on the wire, and if the pulse is high enough, it can damage sensitive electronic equipment. So the filters I was talking about, basically clean up the entire circuit in your home, and so it's safe for your computer. And if anything, I remember there was a study done in a school in Wisconsin where they plugged filters in because teachers and students were becoming ill. They had sick building syndrome, and after they plugged them in, they noticed that they didn't have to replace their computers as quickly because it was actually protecting the computers, not just the people in the building.
Leafbox:
Maybe on a more positive note, is your research influencing policy at all? Do you find any kind of positive effects or school boards or whatnot?
Dr Havas:
Well, I wouldn't say my research was doing anything positive. I think that's a two limited way of looking at it. I think the research in general is getting more widely distributed. Some media are now beginning to cover it. A lot of the media is owned by the telecom industry, so if they publish too much on the negative effects of this, certainly they'll be stopped by their editors. However, we are making headways, particularly individuals who are accommodating those with electro hypersensitivity. And I mentioned the Electrosensitive website. The director of that website is reaching out to hospitals, showing them how to do the monitoring, how to do the remediation. She's remediated over 10 hospitals in Canada so far. And now the hospitals are actually encouraging other hospitals to do the same thing. You're not allowed to smoke in a hospital, and so many people are now chemically sensitive as well, that you're not allowed to use any kind of fragrances in hospitals. So creams or anything that give off an odor would be harmful to chemically sensitive individuals. And so we have regulations for that. And the next thing will be regulations for microwave and radiofrequency radiation that you simply, there will be places in hospitals that won't allow this radiation because it's too harmful for their patients.
So individuals are making headways. There's a lot of activist groups that are reaching out to the government. So far, we haven't budgeted the government in either Canada or the United States. They're very powerful. They have huge financial backing, and so they're going to be the last, I think, to respond in a positive way.
Leafbox:
Dr. Havas, I don't want to take too much of your time, but what's the best way for people to, I know you're retired, but who's carrying the torch for you or who are researchers to follow or recommendations for people to keep up with this kind of research?
Dr Havas:
Well, there's a huge number of websites that are available. I would actually go to microwave news.com. That site has been operating for a very long time, and if you do a search at that site, one of the links they have are websites around the globe, and it's the most comprehensive list of websites around the globe, identifying government agencies, companies that sell products, activist groups, research groups. So I would probably start there, but if you go to the electrosensitive society.com that I also mentioned, there's a lot of websites there that you can go to. And there's a huge amount of useful information. If you decide that you, you're really interested in this and you want to do a deep dive, and of course people can reach out to me, I can redirect them to others that are doing this work. There's a group called the Building Biologist, and they do remediation, they do monitoring and remediation, and they're located all through the United States. So if you happen to want to get your home measured, for example, and remediated, you can contact them and find out in your neighborhood who could do that.
Leafbox:
Great. Well, Dr. Havas, I'd really very fascinating conversation, and I thank you for your research and for your time. Any final words or anything?
Dr Havas:
Well, Robert, I'd really like to thank you for your open-mindedness. You said you were skeptical, and as I said, skeptical skepticism is good, but you have to be open-minded before you're skeptical. Otherwise, you won't learn anything new. So I really appreciate you allowing me to share this information, and I hope that someone in your audience will benefit from it, and it might actually improve their health and save their life. So thank you for giving me that opportunity.
Interview: Dr Magda Havas Phd.