changes to the law, including stripping military commanders of the ability to overturn a conviction. that's all. remember you can get the latest news online at al jazeera. >> president obama's hot seat is boiling over ukraine, becoming the target about heated accusations about his inability to deal with pam -- put jip. >> and how to deal with sexual assault in the forces. >> science backlash over juice cleanses. i'm antonio mora, welcome to "consider this," here is more on what's ahead. growing.

>> the pro-russian parliament voted to break away from ukraine federation. >> we are well beyond the days when borders can be redrawn. >> crimea was, is and will be an integral part of the ukraine. >> the senate shot down a bill that would have changed the way the military prosecuted sexual assaults. >> the shocking ruling... >>..in favour of a man who took up-shot photos. makeover. >> what you do on sat is not what you do in high school. >> we begin with the ongoing crisis in ukraine. president obama spent an hour on the phone with russian president vladimir putin on thursday, urging him to find a diplomatic solution seeing russian forces

pull back to their bases in crimea, and informational monitors deployed to prevent violence in ukraine. earlier crimea's pro-russian parliament voted to join the russian federation as did the sevastopol city council. the parliament called for a referendum on march 16th, where crimea citizens will vote on whether to a prove parliament's move or stay with ukraine. travelling in brussels the ukrainian prime minister blasted the decision as illegitimate, as did european leaders. in washington president obama condemed the move as illegal. >> the referendum would violate the ukrainian constitution and international law. discussion about the future o ukraine must include the legitimate government. >> for more to sevastopol and jennifer glasse. what is the response to the

crimean parliament and the sevastopol city council's vote to join the russian federation? >> well it's welcomed by many pro russians who want to see closer ties with russia. it's unclear how it will be administered. the sevastopol council need the decision. in an extraordinary session of the council, the vote, they say, is in compliance with ukrainian laugh and ukrainian constitution. it seems the parliament and the sevastopol city council are trying to kind of prelode opinion before the referendum on march 16th. it was supposed to be on march 30th. they are trying to speed things up. create facts on the ground. there'll be some opposition to that here. there is ethnic - an ethnic tat tar population, as well as ethnic ukrainians that want to

stay within ukraine. that is a big divide. they make up 60% wanting to remain in ukraine. it's not sure how it will be administered or how it will change your. things are up in the air. >> are people afraid that the stalemate between russia and ukraine will lead the violence, seeing. >> there's a lot of tension. this is close to many people's hearts, where they live, their life and heritage, and people say they are russian, ethnic russian, my children speak russian, we are in ukraine. i have seen fist fights almost every day, altercations between people on the streets where tensions one high. some who believe that the future here lies with moscow and some

who believe the future only lies within a united ukraine. and it is a very, very big divide. i'm not sure that the referendum is really going to solve it because it's been so hastily done. it's unclear whether crimea is prepared for a referendum to get 2 million people to the ballot boxes in 10 days time. they just decided on the questions. they have to do the administrations for that. the people have to see it as legitimate. it's a big challenge. it will make things tense at a tense time. you have the ukrainian navy faced off against each other. blockaded in the bases and what the intentions are. >> jennifer glasse in the port city of sevastopol, and crimea. >> for more on the crisis in ukraine and president obama's management i'm joined by

ambassador paul bremer, former chairman of the bipartisan national commission on terrorism and ambassador for the netherlands. and ambassador william court academy, former u.s. ambassador to khazakhstan and georgia and russia, ukraine and eurasian affairs under president clinton. president obama ramp up sanctions on thursday, congress threatened to add its own. moscow threatened to retaliate by imposing sanctions on individuals. if you look at the numbers, e.u.'s trade dies are worth 440 billion in trade between russia and the u.s. if the e.u. doesn't jump on effective. >> it can, it's not a question of looking at trade, the most

important ones which we have not talked about are financial sanctions, an ability to tie up russia's capacity to send money. it's the major sanction that brought the iranians to the negotiating table. there are other things we can do. it would be useful to have the europeans joining us in a broad crisis. >> if the europeans don't jump on bored the money goes through london. would u.s. unilateral sanctions affect them much. >> they would. it's hard to move money around the world without touching through the united states system. i don't think - i think the europeans are concerned. they will once they see leadership. i want to join in and a peaceful resolution to this without

having to move beyond sanctions. >> russia's sanctions are tougher. and threatened at this point. if they were to go through with the sanctions, and take over assets of u.s. companies and individuals in russia, who would get hurt most? >> i think the russians would be making a mistake to do something like that, because it would destroy the stock market. the invest. climate in russia. russia is in a severe economic crisis. they have a slow down, they can't get at the remaining reserves. so they straight reply need foreign technology and investment. let's talk about the referendum

that has been discussed and set for next week. if it takes place and there's a vote to join the russian federation, is there anything the u.s. and the e.u. can do about it. >> i think it's important to step back and say what are our interests. it's in america's interests that at the end of the crisis ukraine is unified, independent and whole. it's important that russia does not grab territory. particularly the allies in the baltics, bordering an russia, where there's a russian enclave that could be used the same way to cause trouble in the north. the second objective is that russia does not grab territory. that means that crimea is not independent. we need to recognise that there are special and long-standing

russian interests in crimea, not the least is the black sea port. some means will have to be used to take into account russian interest. it's hard, when you are outside government to tactically suggest what should happen in the middle quickly. the -- because event move quickly. it's important to keep an eye on those interests. >> president obama's foreign policy has been criticised and the conservative political aspect conversation is underway. leading conservatives got aggressive. let's listen to that. . >> we cannot ignore that the policy of the last two years brought us to the stage. the president of russia invaded our country while our president wants to downsize our military. >> we do not accept an-american

country. >> what do they realliening? do they have a point. >> basically there's an important point that the america has to be decisive. one has to look at this in perspective. in 2008 russia invaded georgia, taking control of the the areas. the bush 43 administration had political statements to make. they weren't strong sanctions. the obama administration is in. from the kremlin perspective they weren't all that great. this time they'll be greater. the kremlin underestimated the penalties. inside russia, is a state polling firm has done a poll and found 73% of russians opposed

intervention in crimea. all of the political opposition groups in russia have opposed it. from the western side, if they go - if russia goes ahead and annexes crimea, it may cause nato countries to be felt, their military capacity closer to russia, and secondly to cause n.a.t.o. to revise his policy, develop a strategic partnership with russia. so the cost to russia are high for annexing crimea. >> there could be a multiplier effect. the bush administration did not act strongly when it came to the invasion of georgia in 2008. we heard the comments from conservative republicans. this week "the washington post" talked about president obama's foreign policy based on fant si.

do you think that is too strong? >> look, i think that credibility is the current si in international relations. and for the last years, five years, american foreign policy has been ultimate nately inco-heernalt. >> and -- hesitant, reluctant and at some point incoherent. part of the problem in the first major crisis of the 21st septemberurery, president obama has to -- century, president obama has to gain back his credibility. it's significant that the criticism came from "the washington post", which is a developmentic supporting newspaper in washington. that will have gotten the president's

attention. i am sure. >> turning to sexual assault in the military, a bill that would remove military commanders from decisions over the prosecution of sexual assault cases in the armed forces was defeated in the senate. the main sponsors vowed to keep fighting for victims. >> we know that the deck is stacked against victims of sexual assault in the military, and today, sadly, we saw the same in the halls of congress. for two decades every secretary of defense said zero tolerance, but all that we have seen is zero accountability. >> but the pentagon's own survey found 26,000 incidents of unwanted sexual conduct in 2012, and the problem was driven home on wednesday with a suspension of the top army prosecutor for sexual assault cases, accused of

groping a colleague at a sexual assault legal conference. on thursday, a high-ranking officer admitted to an affair with a subordinate, possessing pornography and pressuring female subordinates to sent him nude photos of themselves. we are joined by soouch bourke who at -- susan bourke who advocated for the bill, spear heading lawsuits designed to change your the manner in which the military prosecutes rape and sexual assault. her work is part of "the invisible war." >> the senator came close to getting the bill. as we heard, for two decades every secretary of defense said there's zero tolerance for sexual assault, but there has been no accountability. is there a doubt that the system

is broken as we see in a number of cases? >> there's no doubt at all. the sad reality is we, as a nation, have sat by and let the service members bear the brunt. from 1981, everywhere has been on notice that the system is broken. the senator said she was disappointed with the lack of support from the white house. would that have helped in. >> it definitely would have helped. obviously the president is the commander-in-chief much he should have the same impatience and unwillingness to tolerate the sexualities. the majority of the senate. we know there's time for a change. there has to be reform. the main component of her bill was to take the prosecution of sexual assault cases outside the chain of military command. she believed that would

undermine, that if it stayed as it is now. people would not come in and support the cases, the assaults. >> it's an important structure reform. the way it's set up, you have people that are in charge, the commanders serving as jums, in an ajud catery function. we know that the best justice is blind justice. that's why, for example, if you are sitting on a jury you are excused. the way the military system is structured, is that the commanders, whoever is the boss of the person accused. they get to decide the legal steps taken. these are not people trained in the law, any legal training. they are the ones given this judicial power. >> the argument, of course, is that the commanders need to impose their authority and take things out of that chain of command and overrun the

hierarchy of the military. as this clears the way, it's been in the senate. the bill doesn't go as far as senator jilla brand. but it doesn't stop those using military conduct. they will not be able to under the bill. the commander's decision would be reviewed by a superior and by a legal individual. is that not enough. at that point, it's not just one commander making a decision. if he decides not to move forward, another has to review it and a lawyer has to look at it too. >> no, sadly it's not enough. first, everyone has been supportive. this was not a question of alternatives, this was a question as to the military, nation, congress would step up and fix a broken judicial system. the changes are essentially tweaks.

the underlying structure is flawed. the problem is you have a system that has year in, year out, failed to incarcerate predators. as a result you have seen a number of rapes continuing to rise and climb. it's an epidemic. rape is committed by a few predators but repeatedly. you have to fix your judicial system. you have to look at why we are not getting enough reporting and when we are getting reporting, why we are not getting convictions. the flaw is the fact that the command release are tinkering with the judicial system. ize ram, ukraine, other nations modernized codes of justice. they realised it's an anabbing ronism. they stepped forward into the present. we need to do the same. >> there's argument that prosecutors follow through on

fewer cases. we saw the situation this week with the head prosecutor for sexual assault being accused of sexual assault himself. >> the reality of a system of justice is when you have prosecutorial discretion, some cases will be brought, and some will not. what we know from having an admired judicial system, that it places reliance on objectiveness. people making the decisions do not have personal bias or skin. here, for the service members, for those that are brave enough to put their lives on the line. we give them justice. we let people hold decision-making power. career interest, promote ability interests.

it's a straight forward public policy, it needs to be fixed. there's no doubt that it is broken. >> general jefferson st clair pleaded guilty. clearly there's some effort being made, and soouch bourke, it's a pleasure to have you with issues. >> the battle heats up over women's undergarments. why a supreme court said up-skirt shots are legal. >> the sats go through changes, but problems. web. >> more news in the fight against h.i.v. i have the details ahead. leave a comment on our facebook or google+ pages.

>> can you take pictures up a woman's skirt? according to the massachusetts you can. and georgia supreme court says you can text pictures of your genitals. why? because the law doesn't say you can't. these are two instances of the law being more than a step behind technology. as technology develops, what can we do to keep it from outcasing

the law. joining us is our legal contributor. this case is stunning, in massachusetts, they basically ruled a guy taking pictures up a woman's skirt was legal. >> the pictures were taken in public, where you don't have reasonable expectation of privacy, and the women, and there are only two documented, but the women were not undressed. they were not naked or partially nude. and the peeping tom law requires you be in a dressing room or some place of privacy and be partially unclosed. the specificity of the law, the violated. >> they are trying to get new alert of the law and pass a law saying that this is illegal. >> at breakneck speed. >> they passed it. it's up to the governor to sign it. the question is couldn't the

judge have looked at the peeping tom law and said - the intention of law - or do they have to stick to it. >> you are asking about the spirit of it. it happened in washington. upskirting. the court ruled the same way. judges are supposed to interpret law, not make law. when they come down with this rulings, it's a cry to make a law fitting modern times. the law is only 10 years old, iphones, five years old. that's how quickly the law is change youring. the court made it clear this they didn't like that they had to do this. they don't agree with the sit of the law, but had to do what the law required. >> in the georgian court it was more extreme. a guy sent - to put it bluntly.

pictures of his tattooed penis to a woman who had no interest getting it. >> unsolicited. >> they said it was fine. >> they said it wasn't covered by the law there, what it covered. hard copy. >> you could not send mail. >> electronic pornio graphic imagery was not covered by the law, and, therefore, under the letter of the law again. what the man had done was not illegal, but they weren't saying it was okay. they were saying get with it legislature. let's make laws that cover the new challenge. >> is this the case, where the court has lee way, if you say you can't send it by snail mail, what is the difference sending it by email. you are sending pornographic email over some form of mail. >> it is fundamentally different the the means and method are different.

it gets to the bigger question, how can the law keep up with technology, can it. the supreme court gets these cases every year. we'll have to look forward instead of backwards. the law is reactionary. we wait until there is victims, that's the position that judges are this, not just high court, but this case today was the supreme court of the state of massachusetts. it went all the way through the system in that state. state court judges before you get there, is always looking backwards. that's what our judges have to do. it's for the legislators to make laws that look ahead. >> that's the thing. shouldn't there be a movement, is there nothing out there trying to suggest new laws to deal are technology. >> i think of the kids.

my daughter said "cell phones under skirt, that's the least of your problem, what about google glass, some guy will look through my clothes, i won't have to worry about them looking under my skirts", young people are visionaries about the way technologies run up against the 200 plus constitutional rights. we need to talk with them, our thought leaders, about how to make the laws fit. and talking about technology and our constitutional rights, the state's supreme court of georgia did not rule on this. there's something that was brought up. whether sending pictures by text or email, that was within the first amendment rights. we have to be clear about this. the first amendment, google glass, technology. all of this stuff, positive, great, it's good.

>> when used properly. >> we are focused on victims of massachusetts, the ways in which the court's hands were tide and the ways to protect victims in the future. we don't want to focus too much on the fear factor. we want to work with the legislate tours and our technology leaders to make technology work for the society and not allow the wrong doers work like this to have control over technology than those of us in positive ways. >> turning to sat. it's now the second biggest college entrance exam after the act and it got a do over. the college board asked major revisions. going back to a 1600 scoring system, the critics are not sure the changes will judge a

student's ability to succeed. bob joins us. with more, he's the director of public education fair test. it's good to have you with us, the first big exchanges in nine years. why so many now. >> well, the leaders of the college board figured out the changes that they made in 2005 failed in the marketplace. the act overtook the sat as the nation's most pop u lied test. 95 more colleges drop any testing requirements. >> do you think this is a competitive thing that they want to get people taking the sat more again. >> look at what happened. it's like when the coca-cola company introduced new coke. they have to go back and reformulate the changes the

college board. to make it look like the ac t. the college board will make the sbsa oppositional. >> as it's the ace cas on the act. they'll score differently so you are not penalized for guessing or wrong answers. they'll eliminate esoteric words, like the act. if you want to see what the new sat will be like, take the now. >> they'll narrow the focus. some of the headlines have said that these changes are making the sat harder. it makes it seem like the opposite. it won't make it hard or or easier. tests are equally hard from year to year. >> we'll make it more attractive to students around the country.

so they can regain market share. >> one big criticism is the sats open the door for all the tutors and prep courses and look, allowing or giving an unfair advantage for kids with money. they are trying to counter that by providing tutoring for the con academy. will that help balance things. >> maybe a bit. the fact of the matter is that there's free video tutoring available. >> free sat prep, and there's hundreds of products, free or low cost. virtually every high school library or guidance offers have copies of books. including one by the college board that will get you ready. this is likely to affect the high-end prep in which parents

buy kids test score ter i said paying tutors $100, $200 an hour or personal trainers $15,000 or $25,000 to give kids personalised one on one coasting to boost scores and give the kids who have every advantage because their parents have money another leg up. it's not going be a more level playing field. rich kids will do better. as a result, schools that rely on test scores for admissions or scholarships will give an advantage to the kids that need it the least. as you said. some schools move away from test scores for admissions purposes, but without them, doesn't it make it that much harder for college admissions people to figure out how strong a student, kid is, given the difference in the quality of schools around the country. >> not at all.

a detailed report comes out weeks ago looking at 123,000 students applying to 23 institutions and found they were making as good or better administrations decisions without reliance on sat or act scores. they admitted kids that did as well in college as those with higher test scores and those with diverse classes. test scores are not necessary. they are not as good a predictor. everyone says great. they are tough scores. grades are better than test scores, showing you how poor the sat or act is as a predictor. that will not change your from the overhaul. it has been shown that high school grades are predictive. what are the biggest changes that these don't address. they don't address the week predict ability of the test or

the biases of the exam. there's a straight relationship between a family income and test scores which gives advantages to kids that come from well to do families. it underestimates for fail ails and overestimates tore males. kids whose first language is not english is at a disadvantage. add to that the skews of coaching and some kids get tremendous advantages compared to their peers in going to scores. >> bobshaver, a lot of kids taking the test. >> let's check about in with harmeli aregawi. >> there's a possible break through with h.i.v., when it comes to infants born with the disease. experts are tracking two cases where the kids were treated just

after birth the the latest is a baby born in los angeles, treated with an addressive ridgement four hours after birth. she appears to be in remission. the first case was announced last month, involving a mississippi baby who is 3.5 years old. right now there's a federal fund under way to determine if early treatment can treat h.i.v. >> now to your reaction. sophie says: >> thanks to the scientist, act fist and all those that spent countless hours for this moment. you can read more at the website. back to you. >> straight ahead edward snowden has sed

the debate over -- has change youred the debate. we hear from someone that spent a long time researching his background. unplugging from the digital world for a day. why it is tougher to send off the devices, and later are the juice cleanses beneficial. are they based on faulty >> tafficked labor on the front lines? >> they're things...they're commodities... >> we go undercover... >> it isn't easy to talk at this base... >> what's happining on u.s. bases... >> the taxpayer directly pays the human trafficker. >> fault lines... al jazeera america's hard hitting... >> they're locking the doors... >> groung breaking... >> they killed evan dead. >> truth seeking... >> they don't wanna show what's really going on... >> breakthough investigative documentary series america's war workers only on al jazeera america

>> al jazeera america presents extrodanary documentaries. colin comes from a long line of ferrymen. >> you're a riverman from start

to finish... >> now he leaves home to see what life is like on the waters of bangladesh. >> it's absolutely filthy... >> he learns how difficult working ther can be. >> how do you say..."get out the way"? >> shoro >> can this brittish man find common ground with his local host? >> "must really take it out of mr. loteef"... >> toughest place to be a ferryman on al jazeera america >> it's a modern day spy story, secret signals, code words, secret meetings across the globe and the story of the edward snowden, who leaked possibly the most secret collection of classified information in the united states. who is edward snowden, and more importantly who was he before he became a household name. >> joining him is the

edward snowden files. the inside story of the world's most wanted man. great to see you. we did incredible research. going back and finding all sorts of postings that edward snowden made when he was younger. and it paints a picture of a different guy to what you think. he's the classic geek. he is someone of the right. not the left. he is a conservative libertarian and compatriot. >> you found a series of things that he talked about. he seems to be a libertarian. >> he's a libertarian. a native to ron paul. he didn't think a great deal of president obama and disliked him. he was waiting for president obama to roll back whether or not he regarded as the surveillance statement when it didn't happen he decided to take things into his own hands.

he was vehemently against whistleblowers. and to call some traitors, we have quotes. he said ": >> he was ranting against "new york times" leaks about iran. he said who the expletive, are the anonymous sources telling him this. this expletive is classified. whatever his anger was, how did he go from someone that angry about leaks, to what he became. >> he wrote the stuff is that at the time he owed the system. he was more disillusioned. there was more information, plus he ran with the superiors. i think about three or four years ago, he came up with an extraordinary plan, that he

journalists. >> what are the things that comes to mind as you read through this. one thing this comes through it. he got to work for major spy agencies. happen? >> it was technically gifted. he was brilliant at computers. and the n.s.a. needs people that can do the stuff. also, the other thing is there were 850,000 people in america with a clearance. many of the attractors like edward snowden. he was able to go into the him. >> you work for the guardian. glen was with laura, the two people that met with edward snowden in hong kong when he gave out the leaks. you are right about how they were shocked when they saw this person in front of them. >> running with a source for

three or four months. >> they didn't have a name or picture. they couldn't search on google. they expect the c.i.a. or hong kong to shuffle towards them. they get a lanky student barely old enough to shave. we think "is this for reel?", and when they talk to him, they realise that he is for ril. >> part of the problem is he was so for real he struggled with communicating with greenwald that he wanted to do everything in an encrypted way. >> this story had several falls parts before they got together. glen is a terrific journalist, he's busy, he has chat windows open, he had a tantalising email saying, "i'm a member of the community. put this encrypted software in. >> some of your book reads like

a spy novel. there are all aspects. including that you felt they may have been not only bugging you but getting into your computers and affecting you. i had a strange moment where i wrote something disparaging. which sounds crazy. everyone was looking at the top secret documents. i think clearly the agencies wanted to know what was going on, what was to come and how much was to be leaked. if they were that powerful, and we have seen the spy shows and movies, and those of us that like spy novels, there's so much out there about the power of the n.s.a. and c.i.a., you were able to figure out all the stuff about edward snowden because of stuff he posted on websites. if there is that enormous capacity to get into communications, the question i

have is if or how in the world was this guy able to get this information out. >> i think they were snoozing, asleep on the job. he was doing this stuff while everyone informed me he was asleep and had gone home. they were looking out, not inside. i think this is the problem. i suspect there'll be other edward snowdens out there who will do this thing again. >> is he done. >> he's done, we are not done. we have a lot of material. there'll be more revelations. >> there's more information out there. what is next for him? >> that's a good question. it's tricky. he's stuck in moscow. we won't go back to the u.s. the russian government, in the news has a strong interest.

i fear he'll be stuck in moscow. it would be better if he was somewhere else. he's trapped in putin's moscow. >> and was a guy who was probably conservative. it? >> no, i think he wanted to start a debate. we talked about the whole thing for nine months. he succeeded. the bigger question is will he challenge the system. but we know more than we knew a year ago. >> the book is the edward snowden files, the inside story of the world's most wanted man. great to have you with us. ahead. the biggest turn off. why there's movements afoot to get people off their devices. >> and the craze behind juice cleanses. >> no doubt about it, innovation changes our lives.

opening doors ... opening possibilities. taking the impossible from lab ... to life. on techknow, our scientists bring you a sneak-peak of the future, and take you behind the scenes at our evolving world. techknow - ideas, invention, life. on al jazeera america

>> every sunday night al jazeera america brings you controversial... >> both parties are owned by the corporations. >> ..entertaining >> it's fun to play with ideas. >> ...thought provoking >> get your damn education. >> ...surprising >> oh, absolutely! >> ...exclusive one-on-one interviews with the most interesting people of our time. >> you're listening because you

want to see what's going to happen. >> i want to know what works what do you know works? >> conversations you won't find anywhere else. >> talk to al jazeera. >> only on al jazeera america. >> oh my! >> today's data dive is a turn off. the weekend brings the day of uppluging sun down to sun down starting friday evening. people are urged to turn off digital devices, inspired by observants of the jewish sab ith. it has nothing to do with religion, but turning off communication may turn into a religious experience. there's 96 cell phones for every 1 100 on earth. cell phone users are dependent upon them to go online. pew research found three out of five users used them

for that, and that leads them to distractions, distracted driving because of cellphone is soaring. costing 50% bicyclists. it used to be you could escape cell phones, but you can now go online in most flights and the fcc proposed removing a ban to make calls from the air. delta airlines and the association of flight attendants came out against it. the senate is considering a bill to keep your phones off. and give peace while you fly. >> cleansing and juicing is on the rise. is there science behind it or a mass of misinformation.

the stream is uniquely interactive television. in fact, we depend on you, your ideas, your concerns. >> all these folks are making a whole lot of money. >> you are one of the voices of this show. >> i think you've offended everyone with that kathy. >> hold on, there's some room to offend people, i'm here. >> we have a right to know what's in our food and monsanto do not have the right to hide it from us. >> so join the conversation and make it your own.

>> watch the stream. >> and join the conversation online @ajamstream. al jazeera america. we open up your world. >> here on america tonight, an opportunity for all of america to be heard. >> our shows explore the issues that shape our lives. >> new questions are raised about the american intervention. >> from unexpected viewpoints to live changing innovations, dollars and cents to powerful storytelling. >> we are at a tipping point in america's history! >> al jazeera america. there's more to it. >> juicing and cleansing attracted legions of followers. celebrity endorsements. the trend has boosted the diet industry to more than $60 billion. fans of juice cleansers say they

are a great way to lose weight, rid their body of toxins, but did they do that and could good. >> joining us is a fellow from george mason university. good to have you back on the show. sellers make claims on how good they are for you. ridding your bodies of tox jips. >> is that the case. >> they'll do certain things. they will not relieve you of any toxins, i don't believe. but they will relieve you of money from your wallet. there's no evidence of these kinds of therapies. in many cases some of the juicing diets colonics, procedures that are proposed they can have health impacts.

it's a bit of a - i think a con job. i hate to be so blunt. >> let's talk about what you said. toxins. are there tox jips in the muman body. you read about merc uary. can we get rid of those things by switching over to juicing for weeks. >> it's a great question. it's a little misunderstood. people think there's a list of toxins and you can look at the toxins and the body takes them in, through food and the environment. the fact is that almost any substances can be toxic, it's how much you cake of it and how long you are exposed to it. a tiny bit of a chemical is harmless. we injest chemicals in fruits and vegetables, toxic to insects.

at the min ute levels, they have no impact at all. are there certain things, mercury, sure, if you are exposed to an environmental chemical. the idea that taking a juice will rid your body of an excess of the a chemical that may be harmful is ludicrous. >> in fact, there are no studies that explain this either way, as to what kind of toxins exist in the human buying, and how many have been out of the body. it seems there's no clear signs on this. there's not enough things as a toxin. if you suggest laying ums. a lot of hux terse say don't eat beans, because there's tox jips, and a comment. and if you take a high volume of

string beans, that would be a toxin in your body, how do you get rid of it. it's not like those chemicals stay in your body. >> we have an amazing system. developed over millions of years of evolution. that detoxifies harmful substances and excretes them. the idea of taking fruit juices is a selling point. fruit juices made up of sugar at a high level of consumption. some of the major products they are pushing are more harmful. that's what you should be focussing on, a balanced healthy diet. see a nutrition. don't respond to an add where juices. >> what do you say to people that do the cleanses and say they feel incredible and

recharged? >> there's no question people feel that way. you take a sunny day outside and you feel recharged. whenever you start a diet you get a sense of commitment and adrenaline and you feel like you have a sense of purpose. they are placebo effects. do they hold up in a laboratory. >> no. >> a one-day diet you can feel good about that. you go on a diet for one day, you can go into starvation mode. it has a mild euphoria and many days in. you talk about a toxic effect, you can die from a multi-day juice diet. >> we've looked at the science, they say these therapeutic remedies are really just pure bunk. >> the dr spoke out about it coining a term juice-a-rex-ia,

that you may feel good, because you lose weight, but there's a danger to sticking to a diet depriving you of nutrients. all the one-stop solutions go in, take pills with it, buy supplements and the vitamins. it's a package deal. it's a billion dollar, multi-billion business. the upsexy reality about nutrition is upsexy. it's about eating a diet. drinking water, avoiding substances. the idea that you should avoid beans or wheat in other things, purely because i'd log says, "we think it's harmful to you", that's a doengs gamble on the health. good to have you on the show. thank you very much. >> the show may be over.

the conversation continues on the website aljazeera.com/considerthis. >> two world leaders trying to find common ground - president obama and putin working to strike a diplomatic solution to the crisis in ukraine. >> new jersey governor chris christie facing the music as he goes before his party, working to do damage control in the aftermath of the george washington bridge. >> finding a new purpose after losing so much. law enforcement