Sie sind auf Seite 1von 15

Warning: Your Cell Phone May Be Hazardous to

Your Health
Ever worry that that gadget you spend hours holding next to your head
might be damaging your brain? Well, the evidence is starting to pour in,
and it's not pretty.
So why isn't anyone in America doing anything about it?
By Christopher Ketcham for Gear + Gadgets

Photograph by Tom Schierlitz

February 2010

EARLIER THIS WINTER, I met an investment banker who was diagnosed with a brain tumor five years
ago. He's a managing director at a top Wall Street firm, and I was put in touch with him through a
colleague who knew I was writing a story about the potential dangers of cell-phone radiation. He agreed
to talk with me only if his name wasn't used, so I'll call him Jim. He explained that the tumor was
located just behind his right ear and was not immediately fatal—the five-year survival rate is about 70
percent. He was 35 years old at the time of his diagnosis and immediately suspected it was the result of
his intense cell-phone usage. "Not for nothing," he said, "but in investment banking we've been using
cell phones since 1992, back when they were the Gordon-Gekko-on-the-beach kind of phone." When
Jim asked his neurosurgeon, who was on the staff of a major medical center in Manhattan, about the
possibility of a cell-phone-induced tumor, the doctor responded that in fact he was seeing more and
more of such cases—young, relatively healthy businessmen who had long used their phones obsessively.
He said he believed the industry had discredited studies showing there is a risk from cell phones. "I got a
sense that he was pissed off," Jim told me. A handful of Jim's colleagues had already died from brain
cancer; the more reports he encountered of young finance guys developing tumors, the more certain he
felt that it wasn't a coincidence. "I knew four or five people just at my firm who got tumors," Jim says.
"Each time, people ask the question. I hear it in the hallways."

It's hard to talk about the dangers of cell-phone radiation without sounding like a conspiracy theorist.
This is especially true in the United States, where non-industry-funded studies are rare, where legislation
protecting the wireless industry from legal challenges has long been in place, and where our lives have
been so thoroughly integrated with wireless technology that to suggest it might be a problem—maybe,
eventually, a very big public-health problem—is like saying our shoes might be killing us.

Except our shoes don't send microwaves directly into our brains. And cell phones do—a fact that has
increasingly alarmed the rest of the world. Consider, for instance, the following headlines that have
appeared in highly reputable international newspapers and journals over the past few years. From
summer 2006, in the Hamburg Morgenpost: ARE WE TELEPHONING OURSELVES TO DEATH? That fall, in
the Danish journal Dagens Medicin: MOBILE PHONES AFFECT THE BRAIN'S METABOLISM. December
2007, from Agence France-Presse: ISRAELI STUDY SAYS REGULAR MOBILE USE INCREASES TUMOUR
RISK. January 2008, in London's Independent: MOBILE PHONE RADIATION WRECKS YOUR SLEEP.
September 2008, in Australia's The Age: SCIENTISTS WARN OF MOBILE PHONE CANCER RISK.

Though the scientific debate is heated and far from resolved, there are multiple reports, mostly out of
Europe's premier research institutions, of cell-phone and PDA use being linked to "brain aging," brain
damage, early-onset Alzheimer's, senility, DNA damage, and even sperm die-offs (many men, after all,
keep their cell phones in their pants pockets or attached at the hip). In September 2007, the European
Union's environmental watchdog, the European Environment Agency, warned that cell-phone
technology "could lead to a health crisis similar to those caused by asbestos, smoking, and lead in
petrol."

Perhaps most worrisome, though, are the preliminary results of the multinational Interphone study
sponsored by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, in Lyon, France. (Scientists from
thirteen countries took part in the study, the United States conspicuously not among them.) Interphone
researchers reported in 2008 that after a decade of cell-phone use, the chance of getting a brain tumor—
specifically on the side of the head where you use the phone—goes up as much as 40 percent for adults.
Interphone researchers in Israel have found that cell phones can cause tumors of the parotid gland (the
salivary gland in the cheek), and an independent study in Sweden last year concluded that people who
started using a cell phone before the age of 20 were five times as likely to develop a brain tumor.
Another Interphone study reported a nearly 300 percent increased risk of acoustic neuroma, a tumor of
the acoustic nerve.

As more results of the Interphone study trickled out, I called Louis Slesin, who has a doctorate in
environmental policy from MIT and in 1980 founded an investigative newsletter called Microwave
News. "No one in this country cared!" Slesin said of the findings. "It wasn't news!" He suggested that
much of the comfort of our modern lives depends on not caring, on refusing to recognize the dangers of
microwave radiation. "We love our cell phones. The paradigm that there's no danger here is part of a
worldview that had to be put into place," he said. "Americans are not asking the questions, maybe
because they don't want the answers. So what will it take?"

TO UNDERSTAND HOW radiation from cell phones and wireless transmitters affects the human brain, and
to get some sense of why the concerns raised in so many studies outside the U.S. are not being seriously
raised here, it's necessary to go back fifty years, long before the advent of the cell phone, to the research
of a young neuroscientist named Allan Frey.

In 1960, Frey, then 25, was working at General Electric's Advanced Electronics Center at Cornell
University when he was contacted by a technician whose job was to measure the signals emitted by
radar stations. At the time, Frey had taken an interest in the electrical nature of the human body,
specifically in how electric fields affect neural functioning. The technician claimed something
incredible: He said he could "hear" radar at one of the sites where he worked.

Frey traveled to the facility and stood in the radar field. "And sure enough, I could hear it, too," he said,
describing the persistent low-level hum. Frey went on to establish that the effect was real—
electromagnetic (EM) radiation from radar could somehow be heard by human beings. The "hearing,"
however, didn't happen via normal sound waves perceived through the ear. It occurred somewhere in the
brain itself, as EM waves interacted with the brain's cells, which generate tiny electrical fields. This idea
came to be known as the Frey effect, and it caused an uproar in the neuroscience community.

The waves that Frey was concerned with were those emitted from the nonionizing part of the EM
spectrum—the part that scientists always assumed could do no outright biological damage. When Frey
began his research, it was assumed that the only way microwaves could have a damaging biological
effect was if you increased the power of their signals and concentrated them like sword points—to the
level where they could cook flesh. In 1967, this resulted in the first popular microwave oven, which
employed microwave frequencies at very high power, concentrated and contained in a metal box. Aside
from this engineered thermal effect, the signals were assumed to be safe.

Allan Frey would help pioneer the science that suggested otherwise. At the vanguard of a new field of
study that came to be known as bioelectromagnetics, he found what appeared to be grave nonthermal
effects from microwave frequencies—the part of the spectrum that belongs not just to radar signals and
microwave ovens but also, in the past fifteen years, to cell phones. (The only honest way to think of our
cell phones is that they are tiny, low-power microwave ovens, without walls, that we hold against the
sides of our heads.) Frey tested microwave radiation on frogs and other lab animals, targeting the eyes,
the heart, and the brain, and in each case he found troubling results. In one study, he triggered heart
arrhythmias. Then, using the right modulations of the frequency, he even stopped frog hearts with
microwaves—stopped the hearts dead.

Frey observed two factors in how microwaves at low power could affect living systems. First, there was
the carrier wave: a frequency of 1,900 megahertz, for example, the same frequency of many cell phones
today. Then there was the data placed on the carrier wave—in the case of cell phones, this would be the
sounds, words, and pictures that travel along it. When you add information to a carrier wave, it embeds a
second signal—a second frequency—within the carrier wave. This is known as modulation. A carrier
wave can support any number of modulations, even those that match the extra-low frequencies at which
the brain operates (between eight and twenty hertz). It was modulation, Frey discovered, that induced
the widest variety of biological effects. But how this happened, on a neuronal level, he didn't yet
understand.

In a study published in 1975 in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Frey reported that
microwaves pulsed at certain modulations could induce "leakage" in the barrier between the circulatory
system and the brain. Breaching the blood-brain barrier is a serious matter: It means the brain's
environment, which needs to be extremely stable for nerve cells to function properly, can be perturbed in
all kinds of dangerous ways. Frey's method was rather simple: He injected a fluorescent dye into the
circulatory system of white rats, then swept the microwave frequencies across their bodies. In a matter
of minutes, the dye had leached into the confines of the rats' brains.

Frey says his work on radar microwaves and the blood-brain barrier soon came under assault from the
government. Scientists hired and funded by the Pentagon claimed they'd failed to replicate his findings,
yet they also refused to share the data or methodology behind their research ("a most unusual action in
science," Frey wrote at the time). For more than fifteen years, Frey had received almost unrestricted
funding from the Office of Naval Research. Now he was told to conceal his blood-brain-barrier work or
his contract would be canceled.

Since then, no meaningful research into the effect of microwaves on the blood-brain barrier has been
pursued in the United States. But a Swedish neurosurgeon, Leif Salford, recently expanded on Frey's
work, confirming much of what Frey revealed decades ago. Salford found that microwave exposure
killed rodents' brain cells and stimulated neurons associated with Alzheimer's. "A rat's brain is very
much the same as a human's," he said in a 2003 interview with the BBC. "They have the same blood-
brain barrier and neurons. We have good reason to believe that what happens in rats' brains also happens
in humans'. " His research, he said, suggests that "a whole generation of [cell-phone] users may suffer
negative effects in middle age."

THE POTENTIAL complications don't end there. In the mid-1990s, a biophysicist at the University of
Washington named Henry Lai began to make profound discoveries about the effects of such frequencies
not only on the blood-brain barrier but also on the actual structure of rat DNA. Lai found that modulated
EM radiation could cause breaks in DNA strands—breaks that could then lead to genetic damage and
mutations that would be passed on for generations. What surprised Lai was that the damage was
accomplished in a single two-hour exposure.

"This was explosive news," Slesin said. "The reason it was so important was at the time you had all
these allegations of brain tumors and cell phones being connected"—specifically the 1992 lawsuit
brought by a Florida man, David Reynard, against a number of companies that manufactured phones and
provided cell service, following the death of his wife from a brain tumor. "If you can break up DNA
with cell-phone radiation, suddenly it's not such a stretch to think of brain tumors developing from this
radiation."

Galvanized by the Reynard case, Motorola frantically mobilized to reassure its investors. Then, in 1994,
the company went on the attack to discredit Lai, issuing a memo, later obtained by Slesin, stating it had
"war-gamed" Lai's work. "We do not believe that Motorola should put anyone on-camera," the memo
said. "We must limit our corporate visibility." It further stated that the "key question" was whether "this
experiment [can] be replicated."

The cell-phone industry funds lots of risk studies, and many of them show no effect from cell-phone-
related radiation. The industry pointed to those favorable studies when countering Lai's DNA findings.
(In 2004, it should be pointed out, a European Union–funded study carried out by twelve research
groups in seven countries found evidence of genotoxic effects resulting from cell-phone radiation—the
same kind of DNA damage that Henry Lai uncovered in the 1990s.) But when Jerry Phillips, a scientist
with the Veterans Administration whose work was funded by Motorola, replicated Lai's findings, the
company put him under so much pressure not to publish that Phillips abruptly quit microwave research
altogether.

Industry-funded studies seem to reflect the result of corporate strong-arming. Lai reviewed 350 studies
and found that about half showed bioeffects from EM radiation emitted by cell phones. But when he
took into consideration the funding sources for those 350 studies, the results changed dramatically. Only
25 percent of the studies paid for by the industry showed effects, compared with 75 percent of those
studies that were independently funded.

The cell-phone industry has managed to exert its influence in other ways, too. In the United States, the
organization most influential in the government's setting of standards for microwave exposure is the
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), which bills itself as "a leading authority on areas
ranging from aerospace systems, computers, and telecommunications to biomedical engineering, electric
power, and consumer electronics." According to Slesin, "The committees setting the EM safety levels at
the IEEE historically have been dominated by representatives from the military, companies like Raytheon
and GE, the telecom companies, and now the cell-phone industry. It is basically a Trojan horse for the
private sector to dictate public policy." The IEEE's "safe limits" for microwave exposure are considerably
higher than what they should be, says Allan Frey, who was a member of the organization in the '70s.
"When it comes to this matter, the IEEE is a charade," Frey told me.

There have been attempts over the years to set exposure limits based on something other than industry
and military preference. In the '70s and '80s, the Environmental Protection Agency was foremost in this
effort. But with Ronald Reagan in office, antiregulatory sentiment crested and the EPA's research and
standards programs were gutted.

Among the EPA's most talented bioelectromagnetics experts at the time was Carl Blackman, who has
worked at the agency since its inception in 1970. Blackman's research at the EPA would advance much
of what Allan Frey and others had discovered: The effects from EM fields were many and troubling,
though far from fully understood. In 1986 the EPA killed Blackman's research entirely. Carl Blackman
believes "a decision was made to stop the civilian agencies from looking too deeply into the nonthermal
health effects from exposure to EM fields. Scientists who have shown such effects over the years have
been silenced, had funding taken away, been laughed at, been called charlatans and con men. The goal
was to only let in scientists who would say, 'We know that microwave ovens can cook meat, and that's
all we need to know.' " One veteran EPA physicist, speaking anonymously, told me, "The Department of
Defense didn't like our research because the exposure limits that we might recommend would curtail
their activities."
Industry influence appears to have permeated even the purest international watchdogs, such as the
World Health Organization. Slesin unearthed a hoard of documents showing that hundreds of thousands
of dollars from the cell-phone industry was doled out to WHO personnel working on wireless health
effects. Some of the heaviest pressure falls on the Federal Communications Commission, for obvious
reasons. In 2005 the specially appointed thirty-member Technological Advisory Council to the FCC
sought to look into EM effects on human beings. According to one member of the TAC who spoke
anonymously, officials at the FCC "told us we couldn't talk about that. They would not give us any
reason. The FCC people were embarrassed and terrified."

If all this sounds like some abandoned X-Files script, consider the history of suppression of evidence in
the major issues of consumer health over the past half century. Big Tobacco hid the dangers of smoking
and the addictiveness of nicotine, supporting its position with countless deceptive studies. Asbestos
manufacturers hid evidence that the mineral was dangerous even as tens of thousands of workers died
from exposure; the makers of DDT and Agent Orange stood behind their products even as it became
clear that the herbicides caused cancer. That the cell-phone industry, which last year posted revenues in
the hundreds of billions of dollars, has an incentive to shut down research showing the dangers of cell-
phone use is not a radical notion.

CELL TOWERS, AS YOU'D IMAGINE, also emit EM radiation in the microwave spectrum, and while the
science is much less exhaustive than that associated with handsets, the installations have nonetheless
incited violence in various places around the globe. In Spain and Ireland, saboteurs have taken to
destroying cell towers, cheered on by the communities living in their shadows. In Sydney, Australia, a
retired telecom worker, convinced that cell towers had sickened him, hijacked a tank in the summer of
2007 and rammed six towers to the ground before police were able to leap into the vehicle and subdue
him. In Israel, which has the seventh-highest per capita use of mobile phones in the world, attacks on
towers have become a regular occurrence in recent years in both Jewish and Arab communities. Two
years ago in Galilee, a Druze community protested the erection of a new tower, claiming that the towers
already in their midst had caused cancer rates to skyrocket. The tower was built anyway; soon after,
local teenagers burned it down. When the police came for them, the Druze rioted, injuring more than
twenty-five officers.

Here, in the U.S., there's been very little resistance to the march of the cell towers. In fact, in Congress
there's been almost nothing but support. The Telecommunications Act of 1996—a watershed for the
cell-phone industry—was the result, in part, of nearly $50 million in political contributions and lobbying
largesse from the telecom industry. The prize in the TCA for telecom companies branching into wireless
was a rider known as Section 704, which specifically prohibits citizens and local governments from
stopping placement of a cell tower due to health concerns. Section 704 was clear: There could be no
litigation to oppose cell towers because the signals make you sick.

When President Bill Clinton signed the TCA into law in February 1996, the rollout of "personal
communication services," marketed as PCS, was in full swing. By the end of the year, telecom
companies had paid the federal government more than $8 billion to purchase portions of the microwave-
frequency sequence. (According to the FCC, fees paid for allocation of spectrum as of 2009 amounted to
$52 billion.) Almost immediately, cell-phone antennas sprang up across the country, appearing on
church steeples and apartment buildings, in parks and along highways, on streetlights and clock towers
and flagpoles. One industry estimate tallied 19,850 such installations in the U.S. in 1995. Today there
are 247,000, most hosting multiple antennas.

In a study by researchers associated with the venerable Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, which hands
out the Nobel Prize for medicine, the massive expansion of digital PCS in Sweden during 1997 was
found to have coincided with a marked but subtle decline in the overall health of the population. Might it
be, the Karolinska researchers asked, that Swedes fell victim to the march of the first big microwave
PCS systems? The number of Swedish workers on sick leave, after declining for years, began to rise
abruptly in late 1997, according to the study, doubling during the next five years. Sales of antidepressant
drugs doubles during the same period. The number of deaths from Alzheimer's disease rose sharply in
1999 and had nearly doubled by 2001. The authors of the study—Olle Johansson, a neuroscientist, and
Örjan Hallberg, a former environmental manager for Ericsson, the Swedish telecommunications
company—"found that for all individual counties in Sweden there was a similar precise time" when
health worsened. It occurred, they said, almost simultaneously with the rollout of the new digital service.
Correlation does not mean causation, but epidemiologists I spoke with say the data are strongly
suggestive and need to be followed up. (In other studies at the Karolinska Institute, Johansson has
posited that adverse reactions to cell-phone radiation may develop only after long periods of exposure,
as the immune system fails, much in the way that allergies develop.)

ALL OF THESE concerns—the danger of microwaves issuing from the phones we place next to our skulls,
the danger of waves emitted by the cell towers that dot our landscapes—also apply to the Wi-Fi
networks in our homes and libraries and offices and cafés and parks and neighborhoods. Wi-Fi operates
typically at a frequency of 2.4 gigahertz (the same frequency as microwave ovens) but is embedded with
a wider range of modulations than cell phones, because we need it to carry more data. "It never ceases to
surprise me that people will fight a cell tower going up in their neighborhoods," Blake Levitt, author of
Electromagnetic Fields: A Consumer's Guide to the Issues and How to Protect Ourselves, told me.
"They they'll install a Wi-Fi system in their homes. That's like inviting a cell tower indoors."

In the summer of 2006, a super-Wi-Fi system known as WiMAX was tested in rural Sweden.
Bombarded with signals, the residents of the village of Götene—who had no knowledge that the
transmitter had come online—were overcome by headaches, difficulty breathing, and blurred vision,
according to a Swedish news report. Two residents reported to the hospital with heart arrhythmias,
similar to those that, more than thirty years ago, Allen Frey induced in frog hearts. This happened only
hours after the system was turned on, and as soon as it was powered down, the symptoms disappeared.

Today, Sprint Nextel and Clearwire are set to establish similar technology across the U.S., with a $7.2
billion government broadband stimulus speeding the rollout. A single WiMAX system would provide
Internet coverage for an area of up to 75 square miles. "This means an even denser layer of radio-
frequency pollution on top of what has developed over the last two decades," Blake Levitt says.
"WiMAX will require many new antennas."

The concern about Wi-Fi is being taken seriously in Europe. In April 2008, the national library of
France, citing possible "genotoxic effects," announced it would shut down its Wi-Fi system, and the
staff of the storied Library of Sainte-Geneviève in Paris followed up with a petition demanding the
disconnection of Wi-Fi antennas and their replacement by wired connections. Several European
governments are already moving to prohibit Wi-Fi in government buildings and on campuses, and the
Austrian Medical Association is lobbying for a ban of all Wi-Fi systems in schools, citing the danger to
children's thinner skulls and developing nervous systems.

I DROVE DOWN to Annapolis, Maryland, recently to visit with Allan Frey. He was preparing to set out on
his forty-foot sailboat for a month at sea, so we talked at a restaurant near the marina. After retiring from
full-time research in 1985, Frey, now 75, took up the philosophy of science as an avocation, looking at
the question of how science progresses, how it fails to progress, how new ideas are birthed or aborted,
how a shift in paradigm is a rare thing. The failure to look squarely at the dangers of microwave
radiation is a case study in frozen paradigms, he said, a worldview that can't keep pace with reality.

To illustrate what he meant, Frey held up a glass of water. "We're all just big teacups, bags of water that
you can heat up—that's the paradigm," he said. It's the engineer's paradigm, the mind-set of people who
had no training in the complexity of living systems. The branches of the military, the major defense
contractors, the manufacturers of microwave ovens, the telecom companies, were happy to embrace the
engineer's paradigm. The thinking was simple and easy to understand, and most important, it
indemnified their operations from liability.

"It's a very primitive mind-set," said Frey. "Plato said we don't see the reality; we see shadows on the
cave walls. We've got a lot of people who are seeing shadows and saying this is the reality." He nodded
at his water glass. "We now know a human being isn't a bag of water. A human being is a complex
organization of electrical fields. Electroencephalograms and electrocardiograms, for example, measure
these fields. Every cell has an electrical field across the cell membrane, which is a regulatory interface
and controls what goes into and out of the cell. All nerve signals are electric. And between the nucleus
and the membrane there is an electrical field, you can measure voltages of individual cells! Electricity
drives biology. We evolved in a particular electromagnetic environment"—the magnetic fields from the
earth's iron core, the terrestrial magnetism from lodestones, visible light, ultraviolet frequencies,
lightning—"and if we change that environment as we have, we either adapt or we have trouble."

Later, after Frey and I parted, I walked around Annapolis and took note of the number of cell towers
poised atop the buildings, the number of people who talked on their cell phones. They were everywhere,
and after a while I stopped counting. At one point, I watched two women pacing in a parking lot, heads
bent against their microwave transmitters. They talked and talked and aimlessly circled. When I got
home, I looked up a line from Orwell that I couldn't quite remember as I watched them, about the power
that machine technology would exert over mankind. "The machine has got to be accepted, but it is
probably better to accept it rather as one accepts a drug—that is, grudgingly and suspiciously," Orwell
wrote. "Like a drug, the machine is useful, dangerous and habit-forming. The oftener one surrenders to it
the tighter its grip becomes."

Modern society, needless to say, is in the grip of wireless technology. All you have to do to understand
this is step outside your door. "It just so happens," Frey had told me, "that the frequencies and
modulations of our cell phones seem to be the frequencies that humans are particularly sensitive to. If
we had looked into it a little more, if we had done the real science, we could have allocated spectrums
that the body can't feel. The public should know if they are taking a risk with cell phones. What we're
doing is a grand world experiment without informed consent." As for Louis Slesin's question—what will
it take to change the paradigm?—Frey shook his head. "Until there are bodies in the streets," he said, "I
don't think anything is going to change."
CHRISTOPHER KETCHAM is a reporter in New York City. Research support for this article was provided
by the Investigative Fund at The Nation Institute.

http://www.gq.com/cars-gear/gear-and-gadgets/201002/warning-cell-phone-radiation
The BioElectric Shield Company has been dedicated to helping create a more balanced and peaceful
world one person at a time since 1990.

In the 1980’s, when Dr. Charles Brown, DABCN, (Diplomate American College of Chiropractic
Neurologists), the inventor of the Shield, became aware that a certain group of his patients exhibited
consistent symptoms of stress and a slower rate of healing that the rest of his patient population. This
group of patients all worked long hours in front of CRT computer screens for many hours a day, and
usually 6 days a week. He began researching the effects of electromagnetic radiation in the literature, and
found there were many associated health effects. He wanted to help these patients, and hoped that he
could come up with a low-tech, high effect product.

In 1989, he had a series of waking dream that


showed him a specific pattern of crystals. Each
of 3 dreams clarified the placement of the
crystals. He showed the patterns to an individual
who can see energy and she confirmed that the
pattern produced several positive effects. She
explained that the Shield interacts with a
person’s energy field (aura) to strengthen and
balance it. Effectively it created a cocoon of
energy that deflects away energies that are
not compatible. In addition, the Shield acts to
balance the physical, mental, emotional and spiritual bodies of the aura.

A series of studies was conducted to investigate the possible protection from EMF's wearing this kind of
device. Happily the studies were consistent in showing that people remained strong when exposed to
these frequencies. Without the shield, most people showed measurable weakening in the presence of both
EMF’s and stress. Of interest to us was that these same effects were noted when people IMAGINED
stress in their lives. It seems obvious that how we think and what we are exposed to physically both have
an energy impact on us. The Shield addresses energy issues-stabilizing a person's energy in adverse
conditions. See “How the Shield Works” for more information.

Since that time, we have sold tens of thousands of Shields and had feedback from more people than we
could possibly list. Here are just a few of the testimonials we have gotten back from Shield wearers.

Dr. David Getoff was one of the earliest practitioners to begin wearing a Shield and doing his own testing
with patients with very good results (video).

BioElectricShield.com | About the Shield | Shield Products | In the Media | Contact


OUR MISSION

Our mission is to make the BioElectric Shield available worldwide. In doing so, we feel we are part of the
solution to the health crisis that is, in part, caused by exposure to electromagnetic radiation and well as
exposure to massive amounts of stress, from situations and other people’s energy.

We also want to bring more peace, balance and joy to the world - and the Shield offers a vibration of
peace, love, and balance in a world filled with fear and uncertainty. Selling a Shield may seem like a
small thing in the scheme of things, but each Shield helps one more person find a greater sense of ease,
balance and protection, allowing them to focus on living their dreams

To enhance your sense of well-being, (In addition to the Shield, ) we offer other products that provide
health and wellness benefits on many levels.

By working together we can, and are, accomplishing miracles.

Charles W. Brown, D.C., D.A.B.C.N.

Dr. Brown graduated in 1979 w ith honors from Palmer College of Chiropractic. He
is a Di plomate of the National Board of Chiropractic Examiners and a Di plomate of
the A merican B oard o f Chiropractic Neu rologists. He al so i s cer tified i n Ap plied
Kinesiology. Dr. Brown has had his own radio show "Health Tips". Additionally, he
has t aught an atomy at B oston Un iversity an d t he New E ngland I nstitute o f M assage
Therapy.

He invented the BioElectric Shield, Conditioning Yourself for Peak Performance (a DVD of series of
Peak Performance Postures with Declarations) and Dr. Brown’s Dust and Allergy Air Filters, as well as
Dr. Brown’s Dust and Allergy Anti-Microbial, Anti-Viral Spray. He is presently working on other
inventions.

Dr. Brown’s experience of the Shield is that it has helped him move deeper into spiritual realms, quantum
energy, and creative meditative spaces. It has always been his desire to help others, and he is grateful that
the Shield is helping so many people worldwide.

Virginia Bonta Brown, M.S., O.T.R.

As child, I always wanted others feel better. As a teenager, I volunteered as a


Candy Striper at the local hospital, wheeling around a cart of gifts to patients’
rooms. The hospital setting didn’t really draw me, so summers were spend
teaching tennis to kids at a wonderful camp in Vermont. With the idea of
becoming a psychologist, I received a B.S. degree from Hollins College in

BioElectricShield.com | About the Shield | Shield Products | In the Media | Contact


psychology and worked with drug addicts for a year. Called by the practicality of Occupational Therapy, I
received an M.S. degree in Occupational Therapy from Boston University in 1974

For the next 16 years, working with ADD, ADHD, autistic and other special needs children was my
passion. Because of my specialty in Sensory Integration Dysfunction (a technique based on neurology), I
met Anne Shumway Cook, RPT, PhD, a brilliant PT, with a PhD in neurophysiology. We created special
therapy techniques for children with vestibular (balance and position in space) dysfunction while she
worked with the Vestibular Treatment Center at Good Samaritan, and while I managed the therapy
services of the Children's Program at this same hospital in Portland, Oregon. A fun project at that time
also included collaborating with a team of other therapists to create a therapy in the public schools manual
for OT, PT and Adapted PT procedures. It included goals and treatment plans which has served as a
model for nearly every school district in the United States. There was nothing quite so satisfying as
seeing a child move from frustration to joy as they began to master their coordination and perceptual
skills.

For the next seven years, I shifted my focus. Married to Dr. Charles Brown, we decided that I’d begin to
work with him in his Pain and Allergy Clinic, first in Boston and then in Billings, Montana. During this
time I began to hear people talk about how thoroughly stressed out they were by their job environment.
Their neck and shoulders hurt from sitting in front of computer screens. They were fatigued and
overloaded dealing with deadlines and other stressed out people! They wanted to be sheltered from the
“storm” of life. Though conversation, myofascial deep tissue and cranio-sacral therapy helped them, the
stress never disappeared. It was our patients who really let us know that something that managed their
environment and their energy would be a wonderful miracle in their lives.

What could we do to help them? I became an OT so I could help children and adults accomplish whatever
it was that they wanted to do. When my husband, Dr. Brown, invented the Shield, initially I felt I was
abandoning my patients. Running the company meant I didn’t spend as much time in the clinic. But then
I saw what the Shield was accomplishing with people. They got Shields and their lives began to improve.
People told me they felt less overwhelmed, didn’t get the headaches in front of the computer, were less
affected by other people’s energy and enjoyed life more. I began noticing the same thing!

In 2000, we received a request for a customized shield for a child with ADD/ADHD. After it was
designed, our consultant told us that she could create a special shield that would help any person with
these symptoms. Read more about the ADD/ADHD Shield.

When we started the company in 1990, I was still seeing patients nearly full time. I was wearing the
Shield and began to notice something different about my own life. At the clinic, I noticed my energy was
very steady all day. Instead of being exhausted at the end of the day, particularly when I had treated
particularly needy patients, I was pleasantly tired and content. I noticed I was more detached from the
patient’s problem. In other words, I didn’t allow it to tire me. Instead I became more compassionate and
intuitive about what they needed to help them. I was able to hear my Guides more clearly as they helped
me help them. As I wore it during meditation, I felt myself go deeper into a space of Unity of all things,
from people to mountains to stars.

BioElectricShield.com | About the Shield | Shield Products | In the Media | Contact


Over the years, I’ve spoken with many, many people, from all walks of life. Because they consistently
tell me how much it’s helped them, I become more committed each year to offer this to as many people
as possible. It is my belief that the Shield is a gift from the Divine, and that those who wear it will be
helped on earth to accomplish their own mission, with greater health and greater compassion. For this
reason, it is my desire to provide the blessing of the BioElectric Shield to as many people as possible.

Carolyn (Workinger) Nau:

I joined the BioElectric Shield Company in January 1994 when the shipping and order
department consisted of one computer and a card table. With my help, the company
grew to what it is today. From 1994 to 2000 I traveled and did approximately 100 trade
shows, talking to people, muscle testing and really finding out how much difference the
Shield makes in people’s lives.

An empath and natural intuitive, I have personally found the Shield to be one of my most important and
valued possessions, as it assists me in not taking on everyone else’s stuff. That ability has also been
invaluable when I talk to and connect with clients in person, over the phone or even via email. I am
frequently able to “tune in” and help advise on the best Shield choice for an individual.

I felt a strong pull to move to California and reluctantly left the company in 2000. While in California I
met the love of my life, David Nau. After being married on the pier in Capitola, we relocated to
Milwaukee, Wisconsin where he’d accepted a job as design director of an award winning exhibit firm.
David is an artist and designer, and has taken all the newest photos of the Shields. They are the most
beautiful and accurate images we have ever had!
Through the magic of the internet I was able to return to working with the company in January 2008. I
love how things have changed to allow me to live where I want and work from home. I am fully involved
and even more excited about the Shield’s benefits and the need for people to be strengthened and
protected. I am thrilled to be back and loving connecting with old and new customers. It’s great to pick up
the phone and have someone say, “Wow, I remember you. You sold me a Shield in Vegas in 1999”

How did I get started making Energy Necklaces? It's not every day that going to a trade show can totally
change your life. It did mine. I must have been ready for a drastic change. I just didn't know it. I guess
I’ve just always been a natural Quester.

Quite by chance, I went to the Bead and Button Show in Milwaukee. The show is an entire convention
center filled with beads, baubles and semi-precious stones. I looked over my purchases at the end of the
first day and realized I didn't have enough of some for earrings. So I went back with a friend who
normally is the voice of reason. I thought if I got carried away she’d help me stop. Joke was on me.

I was unable to resist all those incredible goodies. My friend turned out to be a very bad influence, she’d
find fabulous things and hold semi-precious and even precious stones in front of me saying "Have you
seen this?". How can a woman resist all that beauty? I can’t! I couldn't. I walked out with a suitcase full
of beads and stones. The only problem was, I didn’t even know how to make jewelry.

BioElectricShield.com | About the Shield | Shield Products | In the Media | Contact


I spent the summer taking classes, reading books, practicing jewelry making. Immediately people were
stopping me in the street asking about the jewelry I was wearing. It finally dawned on me that just maybe
I was meant to design and share my creations. Thus Bold Bodacious Jewelry was born.

I still laugh about this whole process. Obviously the Universe or someone was guiding me. Looking back
it should have been obvious that I was buying enough to start a business. But at the time, it just felt like
the right thing to do. Not a conscious plan. Sometimes following your gut can change your life.

In the fall of 2008, I felt a pull to examine how various gemstones could enhance the protective and
healing effects of the BioElectric Shield. I also wanted to wear great jewelry and my gold and diamond
Shied at the same time, so I created something new so I could do that. After making a few “Shield energy
necklaces”, I was convinced that not only was my jewelry beautiful and fun to wear, it had additional
healing qualities as well. Since then I’ve been immersed in studying stones and their properties, paying
particular attention to the magical transformation that happens when stones are combined. Much like the
Shield, the combined properties of the stones in my jewelry are more powerful than the same combination
of stones loose in your hand. To view gem properties and styles to complement your shield, please visit
Shield Energy necklaces .

David Nau:

We’re pleased to have added David to our team. David is an award winning creative
designer who readily calls on the wide variety of experience he has gained in a
design career spanning over thirty years. His familiarity with the business allows
him to create a stunning design, but also one that works for the needs of the client.
The design has impact, and functions as needed for a successful event. Having
owned his own business, David maintains awareness of cost as he designs, assuring the most value
achieved within a budget.

A Graduate of Pratt Institute, Brooklyn, NY, David’s career has included positions as Senior Exhibit
Designer, Owner of an exhibit design company, Design Director, and Salesman. This variety of positions
has provided experience in all phases of the exhibit business; designing, quoting, selling, directly working
with clients, interfacing with builders and manufacturers, staging and supervising set-up.

David has worked closely with many key clients in the branding of their products and themselves in all
phases of marketing, both within and outside the tradeshow realm. He has designed tradeshow exhibits,
museum environments and showrooms for many large accounts including Kodak, Commerce One,
Candela Laser, The Holmes Group, Kendell Hospital Products, Enterasys, Stratus, Pfizer, Ligand
Medical, Polaroid, Welch Allyn, and Nortel. He has also designed museum and visitor centers for
Charlottesville, NASA Goddard, Hartford and Boston children’s museums.

David’s artistic eye has added to other aspects of our BioElectric Shield site and we appreciate his
ongoing contributions. David is currently unemployed and so has started going to trade shows with
Carolyn. For someone who has been designing trade shows for 35 years actually being in the booth he
designed is a whole new experience for him.

BioElectricShield.com | About the Shield | Shield Products | In the Media | Contact


Sam Sokol

Sam is our Internet consultant, bringing expertise and wisdom to this area of
communication for our company. Sam works with a wide variety of companies
in many industries to build, market and maintain their online presence. He has
helped both small and big companies to increase their online sales and build their
businesses. He has helped us to grow BioElectric Shield by giving us direct
access to great tools to make changes to our web site.

Dedicated to helping create a more balanced and peaceful world one person at a time Let's change our
lives and our worlds one thought, one action at a time.

BioElectricShield.com | About the Shield | Shield Products | In the Media | Contact

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen