Why Are the Birds Disappearing?

Call Toll Free: 877-985-2695

SEARCH:

FREE Subscription

The World’s Most Popular Natural Health Newsletter

POSTED BY:

Dr. Mercola
January 17 2008

53,774 views

ARTICLE TOOLS:

Current Newsletter

Share Your Comment

Print this Page

Save as Favorites

Submit My Story

Newsletter Feed

Health Blog Feed

TRANSLATE THIS PAGE:

Email this article to a friend

Bookmark & Share

Why Are the Birds Disappearing?

Tens of millions of the most common birds in North America have disappeared, and their absence is signaling a silent alarm bell about the state of our ecosystem.

According to a report by the National Audubon Society, the numbers of some species of birds have plummeted by 60 percent to 80 percent.

The video above explains some of the dramatic environmental disruptions that are contributing to the decimation of the bird population, and what their disappearance means to the future of our planet.

Sources:

Raw Replay December 29, 2007

Dr. Mercola's Comments:

Like the tragedy of the disappearing honeybees, the disappearance of millions and millions of birds means that something has gone terribly wrong in our environment.

There are many likely contributing factors for this observation, everything from pesticides to urban sprawl and pollution, but there is an extremely pervasive, silent killer out there that hardly anyone is mentioning: Information-carrying radio waves.

These radio waves are coming from your cell phones and other wireless technologies, and they have increased exponentially in the past three or four years alone.

It’s already known that birds living near mobile phone base stations do not breed well. It’s also known that exposure to these frequencies causes disorientation in migratory birds.

Now, at the end of 2007 there were 4 billion cell phones on the planet. What this means is that even if you are one of the few who decides not to use a cell phone, you are being exposed to information-carrying radio waves at unprecedented levels, and so are all of the birds, bugs and wildlife that live among us. In other words, they’re everywhere.

And when we talk about these radio waves you have to understand that there is no safe level of exposure. This is completely different even from electromagnetic fields (EMFs), which are well-known to cause brain cancer, tumor growth, and maybe even Alzheimer’s disease.

We have built up certain defenses against EMFs, which are actually two parts: the magnetic field and the electric field. We have been exposed to a magnetic influence simply because of gravity, while lightning and other natural sources have exposed us to some level of electric fields.

As a result, we can be exposed to low levels of EMFs and perhaps not be affected. But this is not so with radio frequencies (RF) and information-carrying radio waves.

The huge explosion in cell phone use and their corresponding information-carrying radio waves is causing the following problems:

Damaging cell membranes
Decreasing intracellular communication by disrupting microtubular connections that allow biophotons to communicate between cells
Increasing deposits of heavy metals into your cells, which increases intracelluar production of free radicals and can radically decrease cellular production of energy thus making you incredibly fatigued

First the Honeybees, Now the Birds, Next … Humans?

It would be naïve to assume that the bees and the birds are the only living creatures being impacted here. Perhaps because they are smaller, or more sensitive to the radio waves and changes in frequencies, they are being tragically impacted right now.

But who, or what, will be next?

The only real solution to this major problem is to move our culture away from wireless and back to wires.

Is this going to happen? No way. The telecommunication industry has even more power than the pharmaceutical industry, and there is no way they are going to let that happen.

Well, I took some steps in my own life and when I moved I had my new home completely renovated with wired CAT-5 cables -- so I have no wireless connections at all.

For you and your family, I would suggest keeping cell phone use to a bare minimum and using a speakerphone feature when you do use it. If you must keep your conversation more private, a NON-BlueTooth headset can be used.

And please, whatever you do, do not allow your children to use cell phones, as their skulls are far less dense than yours, and their brains are far more susceptible to damage from information-carrying radio waves.

I believe that one day it will be shown that using cell phones is far more dangerous than smoking cigarettes ever was, and I will reveal the details of why this is so in my next book, coming in 2009.

Related Links:

Cell Phone Users 240 Percent More Prone to Brain Tumors

Cordless Phones Increase Your Brain Cancer Risks

"If Mobile Phones Were a Type of Food, They Simply Would Not be Licensed"

Community Comments (83)

Posted On Jan 03, 2008

This post was deleted because it violated our Terms Of Use :
Abuse, harass, humiliate, deceive, threaten, impersonate, intimidate or engage in any other abusive behaviors with those who comment on Mercola.com.

Mark as Spam

24 Points

Katie_Beth
Users with negative points

NoviceUser, Joined On 8/2007

Send Message

Add as Friend

BeyondOrganic

Savvy User Joined On 6/2006

Send Message

Add as Friend

Posted On Jan 05, 2008

LOL!!! Thanks Jonny, your comment made me laugh!

(I don't know who thumbed Katie Beth down, but I'm going to thumb her up because I don't think her comment deserves negatives! The whole point system here is rather ridiculous period, especially since people thumb people down for no legitimate reasons much of the time and it's all not very fair if you ask me and only makes people who care feel bad.)

Mark as Spam

14 Points

BeyondOrganic

Savvy User Joined On 6/2006

Send Message

Add as Friend

Posted On Jan 06, 2008

I also feel safer having my cell phone on me Katie. Mace, an axe and a gun would be a good addition as well. Although my kids may kill each other or me first.

Mark as Spam

9 Points

BeyondOrganic

Savvy User Joined On 6/2006

Send Message

Add as Friend

Posted On Jan 06, 2008

I was kidding Jonny..... but since you mentioned it, I do believe guns can be very dangerous around kids. I have two very young and wild boys, and I have no doubt that if a loaded gun got into one of their hands, it is very possible someone could get killed. By the way, we know a couple who's son is now dead today from his daddy's weapon. He was 7.

Mark as Spam

-1 Points

Gray Stroke

Apprentice User Joined On 1/2007

Send Message

Add as Friend

Posted On Jan 17, 2008

I'd like to help you out w/your self defense/protection concerns. First there are about 3 good books from Amazon.com on CHL's concealed hand gun license and the responsibility that goes with it. There are legal procedures and point of consideration that one should be mentally armed with for a sound personal court room defense and selecting and attorney. Now the pistol I would recommend for a lady is called the 'judge'.

Here is a link that gives good reason for consideration according to one's personal choice and life style/dwelling/values.. www.gunsandammomag.com/.../blog071807

Also the vendor's web site.. www.taurususa.com/.../taurus-theJudge-video.cfm

I will be getting one for my wife she is not an enthusiast shooter as myself and I prefer a FN57 or Ruger 9mm w/ hydra-shock rounds. So I share this with you because it has many pluses... it's not costly, it can alternate between 410 and 45 cal. rounds, revolvers fire all the time versus semi's potential for hang ups, the firing report will or should be a cause for the perpetrator to consider another line of work or another home to break into.

Also I would recommend joining a local gun club (if one is near by) for one year in order to have access to practice and get very familiar with the weapon. Then the confidence level will be very high.

Hope this helps you and many more out there. Please I do not want to get into a philosophical discussion about guns. This only applies to those that may consider this for personal protection if you have an aversion for such direction then please look for your solutions that are accommodating to your style.

Mark as Spam

1 Points

zoarian

Novice User Joined On 6/2006

Send Message

Add as Friend

Posted On Jan 17, 2008

I had a cell several years ago when i was in outside sales, i got rid of it when i left there, but for a minute or two i went into fear, thinking i might need it for emergencies, then i realized thats exactly what 'they' want me to do is go into fear, i did just fine w/out it before. I got rid of it anyway and have never needed it and the times i did get stranded was brief; someone always was always there to help me. I also dont have health insurance, i dont buy into that fear either; i just dont buy what they're selling period. I have risen above the fear factor and when you do all is well; I employ radical trust and thats how i live my life..But i am not criticizing anyone for having one, but yes they need to limit their use of it to emergencies and stop all this constant chatter on it, i mean i cant go anywhere and relax like in a coffee shop etc, w/out someone chattin' it up...

Mark as Spam

8 Points

banEMR

Novice User Joined On 10/2007

Send Message

Add as Friend

Posted On Jan 17, 2008

Katie_Beth,

This is the same excuse heard all the time. But this will NOT solve the problem of cell towers that are being installed everywhere.

Why not have "satellite phones" that have a single feature -- a 911 call that consists of a single instantaneous signal from the phone to the satellite that indicates a car breakdown or other problem and the nearest highway patrol office is notified so they can send a cruiser to determine what the problem may be?

In that way you have your "safety" valve for those rare "emergencies" without endangering the health of every living thing while allowing the infrastructure to be built by those who wish to "microchip" and monitor the population 24/7.

If you have a cell phone, you are STILL a part of the problem, even if you say you only have one for an "emergency". You're "funding" not only your own demise but that of other humans, animals, plants, birds, insects, etc.

Go do your homework to get a glimpse at what you are supporting by giving your money to the cellular companies:

Major Electromagnetic Mind Control Projects

Leading Edge International Research Group

www.surfingtheapocalypse.com/intelligence2.html

educate-yourself.org/.../mctotalcontrol12jul02.shtml

Microchip Implants, Mind Control, and Cybernetics

By Rauni-Leena Luukanen-Kilde, M.D.

Former Chief Medical Officer of Finland

educate-yourself.org/.../implantsmcandcybernetics06dec00.shtml

Total Population Control

By Nicholas Jones

educate-yourself.org/.../mctotalcontrol12jul02.shtml

Mark as Spam

3 Points

Knobby

Novice User Joined On 11/2007

Send Message

Add as Friend

Posted On Jan 20, 2008

I agree, we should probably use cell phones only for emergencies. In this way they may save our life or the life of someone else.

Mark as Spam

0 Points

Pat Ormsby

Savvy User Joined On 6/2006

Send Message

Add as Friend

Posted On Jan 25, 2008

Dear Katie,

I did not get to see you post before it was deleted, but it is obvious you struck a chord among many here. From the comments, it sounds like you fear having your "life line" taken away. I don't think you need to worry about that for the foreseeable future. "Reduce your use" is the real message. If that upsets you, you should take a good long look at your addiction. Addiction to cell phones has a biological basis in addition to the clear psychological ones (Kositsky et al., 2001).

We are facing very hard times. You want to face these times in as rational a manner as possible. (BeyondOrganic's suggestion of mace, and axe and a gun made me smile.) If you have not tried EFT, I suggest it. Please open your heart as well to the victims of this technology. I think there should be places with cell phone service and other places without it, with respect for the needs of people who do not want to be irradiated, and knowledge that most areas of the world should not be irradiated so as to protect our environment. To do otherwise is to turn up the heat under the frying pan.

Just my opinion.

Mark as Spam

0 Points

Posted On Jan 04, 2008

Dear Frans,

I said "it could very well be the microwaves (and when you combine chemtrails, well) that are killing the birds." Sometimes though, we do indeed need to jump to conclusions. It is called the Precautionary Principle, my friend, and if this principle was used more prudently, we would and could indeed save a lot of people (and wildlife) from unnecessary suffering.

When I first realized what was indeed making me sick, I found a place up in the mountains of Japan which did not have any cell phone (or television) reception. One thing we immediately noticed were the number of frogs around our cabin. Interestingly, we could not find frogs in most other places in Japan - areas with mid to high levels of electrosmog. And we did search!!!

After I healed to a certain degree and realized I couldn't live in Japan anymore, I traveled to a number of places looking for a place to live. One of those places was in Auroville, India. Auroville will not allow cell phone towers on their land, and the level of microwave radiation was the lowest I have found anywhere.

One thing that was very evident from the first day I stayed in Auroville was the fact that when I went to sleep at night I could hear the sounds of insects and when I woke up in the morning I could hear the songs of birds. I also slept so well when I was there. When I rode a bicycle around the grounds I could see beautiful butterflies everywhere. Nowhere else in India did I experience this!

(I was back in Japan this summer, and another thing I noticed was that the usually summer sound of cicadas was mysteriously and eerily absent this year. Hmm! I wonder why!)

I certainly do believe that microwaves are indeed playing a role in the disappearance of bees, frogs, and of course, birds, and there is lots of scientific evidence to back all this up - though, of course, I don't discount the other factors either

Mark as Spam

10 Points

Paul Doyon

Apprentice User, Joined On 11/2006

Send Message

Add as Friend

Paul Doyon

Apprentice User Joined On 11/2006

Send Message

Add as Friend

Posted On Jan 04, 2008

(though the not-mentioned Chemtrails and GM food is most certainly also probably playing a role). Canada has pretty lax laws when it comes to the legal level of ambient EMR - I think 10 times more lax than the USA, which are also pretty lax (according to the BioInitiative anyway). Come on, even the WHO states that we are now being exposed to thousands of times the amount of EMR we would get from the Sun or the Earth. It is completely unnatural and it has been shown - in numerous scientific studies - to be causing all kinds of illnesses in human beings - so it doesn't take much imagination to think what it is doing to wildlife!

We are the Canaries in the Coal Mine - just because others don't feel it, doesn't mean that it isn't dangerous and they are not being affected!

Regards,

paul

Mark as Spam

8 Points

Reverend Alan

Apprentice User Joined On 12/2007

Send Message

Add as Friend

Posted On Jan 17, 2008

Beyond Organic wrote: I do believe guns can be very dangerous around kids. I have two very young and wild boys, and I have no doubt that if a loaded gun got into one of their hands, it is very possible someone could get killed.

ALAN: When a gun changes from a devise of protection and defense into a weapon of murder or killing, it is people who change the gun from one thing into the other. The problem is not the gun, but the "wild boys". And should they get hold of a gun and kill someone it would not be the fault of the gun. I believe that courts are prosecuting parents today who do not secure their guns when they children play with them and cause harm. What else, put the gun in prison?

Mark as Spam

3 Points

Posted On Jan 04, 2008

Dear Paul:

"Canaries in the Coal Mine" is the operating concept to be sure. But it is a bit more complicated than the historical example, and therein lies the risk of missing the truth..... What we have found in our work with Autistic children, electrohypersensitives and other patients with membrane hypersensitivity related conditions is that the ability of the person -- or species -- to counter environmental insults becomes severely impaired. EMR is most likely a synergen in these cases, including the case with the disappearing birds. The exposures such as pesticides, chemtrails, harvesting of forests and urban sprawl are not causes competing with EMR -- they are additive and synergistic causes. They are insults to the system that require strong biological compensation to overcome. EMR depletes that ability to compensate, and thus the person -- or species -- succumbs to the effects of the environmental insult more severely and more rapidly. To me, it is a matter of perspective. There are some naysayers who would have us look only one dimensionally at causes of disease and other catastrophes. This is to be sure the tactic now being supported by the mobile phone and electric utilities industries -- sort of like a 'bait and switch' tactic used by magicians. The truth is there, but they focus your attention on something else so that the truth is covered and not seeable. The problem is 'the bait' and the other causes are 'the switch'.
Epidemiologically, when one looks only at one etiologic factor at a time, the additive and synergistic aspects are lost in the mix. We now know that for almost every disease that befalls mankind, there is a combination of factors that lead to demise -- or healthy compensation. Those factors are a mix of genetics, epigenetics, environmental timing and plain, old-fashioned luck -- good and bad...

Mark as Spam

6 Points

Paul Doyon

Apprentice User, Joined On 11/2006

Send Message

Add as Friend

Paul Doyon

Apprentice User Joined On 11/2006

Send Message

Add as Friend

Posted On Jan 04, 2008

...When the ability of the organism or ecosystem to compensate is surpassed by the impact of damage itself, there is disease, disruption and sometimes extinction. This is simply the way it works.

There is no doubt that the science supports the hypothesis that the explosion of EMR exposures in these ecosystems is having an impact on the disappearing birds. Based on the mechanisms of harm we know to be operating, the impact likely includes ability to navigate and flock because of EMR disruption of magnetite and magnetic grid-related physiology, immune compromise, neurophysiologic disruption with resultant adaptive deficits, as well as indirect impacts on species food supplies and other survival necessities.

George

______________
Dr. George Carlo
Safe Wireless Initiative
Washington, D.C.

Mark as Spam

7 Points

lighteningbluyahoo

Novice User Joined On 1/2008

Send Message

Add as Friend

Posted On Jan 24, 2008

I'm very new at this but if you type in "strange days strange skies" on google it gives alot of information on chemtrails and dead birds and morgellons.I think this is what is wrong with the bees and when the trails are strong I always find some dead birds I also have honeybees and the trails are the only thing that I know of that we have in common with so many other countries and what the birds and bees have in common but what can be done world wide?

Mark as Spam

0 Points

Posted On Jan 04, 2008

Dear Paul

'Jumping to conclusions' is a complete misreading of the Precautionary Principle.

The Precautionary Principle assumes the development of normal scientific evidence-based conclusions using scientific methods.

It merely says: "When the outcome of some change is potentially catastrophic, then we should tend on the side of caution -- and take action to prevent the possible catastrophe, even if all the science is not in, and the accumulated evidence is not yet totally conclusive."

It doesn't suggest we abandon the scientific method - nor does is promote the idea that there is an alternative, or intuitive path to understanding.

With the Precautionary Principle, there is no 'jumping' to anything -- just normal evolutionary evidence-based scientific analysis -- with the suggestion that precautionary actions should be taken earlier than we normally would, if the outcome was not potentially catastrophic.

As far as I can see, the bird/frog/bee/cicada-loss theories have no evidence-based links to microwaves. These disappearances could equally be linked to the use of plastics -- or viruses -- or changes in habitat -- or the higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere -- or to gasoline-based air-pollution. Maybe GM is involved, and maybe it isn't.

We can't decide such matters on intuitive guesses. There may be a connection between birds and microwaves, but I have yet to see any evidence of this.

The importance of not coming to premature conclusions is a problem well-known in discussions of scientific method. When you come to your conclusion first, and then begin to look for evidence, you will always find what you are looking for. And you will always be misled, because you will also miss the true causal relationships.

If people like you are convinced that microwaves are killing birds/frogs/whatever then the scientific solution is easy, and will only

Mark as Spam

6 Points

Paul Doyon

Apprentice User, Joined On 11/2006

Send Message

Add as Friend

Paul Doyon

Apprentice User Joined On 11/2006

Send Message

Add as Friend

Posted On Jan 04, 2008

ost $100 or so to prove.

Buy a cheap microwave oven. Rip off the door. Point it at a bird cage from a distance of a couple of metres, and switch it on and off for a few weeks using an electrical timer.

A microwave oven output from two to three metres would deliver thousands (up to millions) of time the power-density to that of a cellphone tower in a normal bird habitat.

If you are right, then you should see your exposed canaries dropping like flies -- or failing to breed. If you have a dozen canaries in one cage being exposed, and the same number in another cage not being exposed (the controls), the difference would be pretty dramatic.

And if your theory was then scientifically-proven to be true, the report would be publishable in many scientific journals, and probably find its way onto the front page of most newspapers.

The problem with this whole area of medical and scientific research is not a lack of theories, it is a lack of science.

Stewart Fist, writer, columnist, film-maker
70 Middle Harbour Rd, LINDFIELD
NSW 2070 Australia

Mark as Spam

5 Points

Posted On Jan 01, 2008

So, if people decry the horrble side effects of cell phones, has anyone here actually given them up? I don't own one, never have,

Kel

Mark as Spam

5 Points

Kissamee

Apprentice User, Joined On 12/2007

Send Message

Add as Friend

Patty D

Savvy User Joined On 6/2007

Send Message

Add as Friend

Posted On Jan 01, 2008

I have one and had no idea they were dangerous until a few months ago. I got my first one in 1995 when they were still these huge heavy things you had to lug around or leave in your car. I still have one now because I live alone and also have a daughter nearby with no transportation with 2 babies, so it's nice to have for emergencies. I have very limited minutes and always use the speaker phone. When I got lost on my Christmas trip in the backwoods of Georgia, I was glad to be able to call my brother. I really do try not to use it but it's gotten me out of a few jams.... IE being surrounded by a gang and able to call 911 before anything bad happened. Oh and I'm also tied into a contract I can't afford to break. Will I keep a cell phone once that expires? I honestly don't know right now.

Mark as Spam

3 Points

Paul Doyon

Apprentice User Joined On 11/2006

Send Message

Add as Friend

Posted On Jan 04, 2008

I would never stick one of these microwave ovens up to my head! When people ask me if I have a cell phone, my reply is "Do I look stupid?" I know it's mean, but you really have to be pretty stupid to stick a mini microwave oven up to your head. And after you do, you are definitely frying your brain cells and decreasing your IQ rapidly. One thing we should also note is that 1984, the year that the 1st commercial cell phone network spread across the USA, people started to get what was then called "Yuppie Flu" in droves. It wasn't until 1988 that the CDC officially and misleadingly dubbed it Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) and later Chronic Fatigue Immune Dysfunction Syndrome (CFIDS) though the symptomology is closer to AIDS than anything else. In 1992, an insurance company memo stated that the insurance industry would go broke if it kept on paying out for this disease - and low and behold, the CDC comes out with a criteria the same year making it much more difficult to be officially diagnosed - one highly suspects collusion here. At any rate, a recent survey by the CDC put the present rate at one in forty of the American population.

By the way, brain tumors are now the leading cause of death in children in the USA (surpassing leukemia in 2002); one in one hundred children are now predicted to suffer from Autism (up from one in ten thousand in the 70s); ADHA is rampant in our schools; and 40 millions Americans now take sleeping pills for insomnia (up 60% from 2000) while 60% of all Americans suffer from sleep disturbances. This all occurred with the advent of the cell phone and other Wireless communication devices. Maybe the reason it is so dangerous out there has to do with the fact that people are going nuts from all the microwave radiation exposure! So what are you going to do? Give your child a cell phone? I would certainly hope not! Microwave radiation affects all the brain hormones: dopamine, serotonin, melatonin, etc. Hormones affect behavior.

Mark as Spam

7 Points

Email this article to a friend

Bookmark & Share

Would you like to republish this article?

© Copyright 2009 Dr. Joseph Mercola. All Rights Reserved. If you want to use this article on your site please click here. This content may be copied in full, with copyright, contact, creation and information intact, without specific permission, when used only in a not-for-profit format. If any other use is desired, permission in writing from Dr. Mercola is required.

* These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease. If you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or have a medical condition, consult your physician before using this product.