example, if i look did you and the areas of my brain involved with processing, it is consuming much more glucose then if i had my years closed. if i had my ears closed, then no sound would come through. the amount of information consumed by the visual cortex of my brain will be dependent on the complexity of the visual stimulus. in this case, it is a person, object. how much glucose is likely to be increasing in my visual cortex -- it will probably be between 20% and 50%. this is one of the areas that require the most glucose consumption. when i am speaking, for example, the area that may be consuming 10%, up 15% while i am

talking rather than when i am silent. it also depends on the complexity of operations he may be performing, the stimulation you were being exposed to. what we observe when you have a cell phone like this -- and by the way there is noise that would activate the our lateral cortex. it is transmitting, but it is muted. what is happening -- it is very close to the antenna in this area here. it reflects the electromagnetic radiation admitted from the antenna. that increase in glucose consumption was approximately 7%. >> 7%? >> it is a low range. >> you have a slide here that

you provided to us, and this is with the cellphone off, a brain scan. >> yes. >> and this is the front of the brain? the part up at the top. and then with the cell phone on. and you see a lot more on in the front of the brain here. could you explain that -- as well as a change in the red court. is there anything significant about that? >> this is a rainbow scale, so the red are the areas with the highest consumption. one of the images -- uc is actually this area of the brain -- you see is actually this area of the brain, on the top of your eyes that has the area that has the closest relationship to the antenna. you have more read and more yellow, which is an indication

of the fact that glucose consumption is higher under those conditions. these images show this display of numbers. we can extract a particular area in front of the cortex. you can compare the on/off, and when you do that, you see an average 7% increase in cooker's consumption. you see this area has more red than yellow. >> the question everyone is asking, dr. volkow, is this an indication of danger? when you're talking about the electromagnetic force is being emitted. >> i wish i could answer that question, because everyone has asked me. i cannot. i would love to say our study is able to clarify this

controversial issue of whether sulfone -- cell phones are hard -- bad for the brain, but what our study does tell us is the human brain appears to be sensitive to a letter magnetic variation set remitted, and whether this is harmful or not, that is something that needs to be addressed by future studies. it is important from many perspectives. it impacts, say -- and i am not saying that it is -- but some studies could show long-lasting consequences that could be negative. it is very easy to avoid. we can show that. you can set far away. because the identity of the radiation and is on the cellphone rapidly decreases with distance. if i have my cell phone away

from me, the exposure will be minimal. that is why the study shows there is this the fact. on the other hand, if it does not show there are negative effects, we as narrow scientists -- obviously, i love the idea of do we start applying the technology for other purposes? it may be therapeutically beneficial. that is something that has to be addressed. whichever way the field shows, i think it is extremely interesting that it is sensitive to electromagnetic current. >> what are re emf's and how do we receive them? >> the electro magnetic

radiation you're getting -- there is the power for other types of wireless technology. for example, your regular phone that is wireless. it has much less power than a regular cell phone. and it is estimated to be somewhere around one hundredfold less powerful. you need to consider the intensity, the power of your signal. that is very relevant for physiological purposes. it has to do with frequency. and the way cell phones offload is megahertz frequencies, which is a very different from the extremely low frequency waves. we have shown that they do in

fact electromagnetic signals in the human brain. the other aspects of these radiations that is supposed to be relevant is the control that has a very low frequency pattern. frankly, most of the variables that concern me, alternately, the extent to which the biological issue may or may not be sensitive to these exposures. you cannot just say there is one type of energy in knitted by cell phones and another -- emitted by sons and another debt of energy committed by other devices. >> so are r.e. emf's being emitted from laptops as well? >> they are very weak, much weaker than anything on a cell phone.

there has been no consent with respect to the cell from. >> can you compare the amount of radioactivity from us so fun to an x-ray or an airport screening machine? >> those are different types of radiation. one is based on ionizing radiation, and on the other there is clear-cut evidence that at a certain range it can be associated with cancer. and that is why there are strict limits in terms of how much ionizing radiation exposure you can have on your body. in extreme, like an atomic bomb, we all know there are consequences. so, that is a very different type of radiation. there are also biological issues in a very different way. >so, they are very distinct.

on in one case for ionizing radiation, no one questions there are high levels. at a certain threshold it does not create a risk for cancer. that is not the case for electromagnetic radiation come up follow -- provided there following the standard for laboratory agencies. that is based very much on the threshold, after which, there should be no exposure for the tissue. regulatory agencies are concerned that your son does not emit -- yourself and does not admit waves that will expose your tissue to a electromagnetic radiation. my understanding is all devices follow very rigorously these specifications. >> is your study the first of

its kind, or have other studies been done like it? is your study consistent with other studies? >> there's been many studies that try to understand whether sulfone exposure affects human brain function. there used a variety of technologies. for example, do they interfere with your ability to memorize, does it interfere with other kinds of telegraphic signals, does it interfere with the ability of the tissue when you send in an electromagnetic -- when you send an electromagnetic pulse. but the studies differ on an important -- a very important thing. >> blood flow? >> low blood flow, which actually, is the main mechanism by which the brain delivers

nutrients, glucose and oxygen. it is also the main mechanism by which the brain maintains tissue. if there is an increase in temperature, blood flow will be increase in that area. we can directly measured the levels of narrow activity artificially -- neuroactivity artificially. one works on blood flow. there are studies that have measured the effects on blood flow. this is the first study that has measured the affects on blood -- brain glucose. we have the advantage of learning what the others have done, right? and one of the things that's has been in prior studies -- basically, all those studies were done in a very small pool.

i think the largest may have been 14, at most 16 subjects. that is okay if you are expecting a large effect. if i am studying the effects of ibuprofen, 10 subjects will be sufficient to show that effect. but with a cell phone, where we expect a small effect -- because if there were a big effect, we would see it -- we would be able to detect a small effect, which was not the case for any of the prior studies and was one of the reasons why we were able to show a significant effect like the one that we showed, the exposure close to the antenna. having said that, other studies -- what the studies showed about the blood flow, they were significant that the area around the antenna was a decrease in

blood flow. it is really where we are seeing an increase in the areas close to the antenna. that shows a significant increases in blood flow, far away from the antenna. it is very difficult to integrate what we observe, which is increases in glucose of -- locos consumption close to the antenna, and nothing -- colugos consumption close to the antenna, and nothing significant far from the antenna. when you are measuring blood flow with these technologies, your averaging the activity of the brain over 60 seconds. which is good for certain things. whereas, if you are measuring brain glucose, your averaging the activity over 20 to 30

minutes. if you are interested in observing a cumulative effect of stimulation, then having a window of 20 minutes to 30 minutes gives you a better chance of detection as opposed to a window of 60 seconds. if you have a very low-level supply and your opening your average for a short time, the likelihood you will take a picture is very low, as opposed to if you leave it -- leave it wide open, just wide open, and that would allow you to extract the photographs even when the light conditions are low. i am using that metaphor to say we have a technology that allows us to integrate technology over a 30-minute period.

>> dr. volkow, you are the director of the national institute on drug abuse. why are you conducting a study on cell phones? >> what has happened is all my professional life i have been very interested in studying the effects of drugs on the human brain. thermography is one of the imaging technologies i've been using in close collaboration with my colleagues. the other imaging technology we have been extensively using is dynamic resonance imaging. it relies on magnetic fields in order to see how the brain functions. for the past 16 years, our group does been interested in whether in fact the electromagnetic

fields used in mri imaging could have an effect on brain function when we started the first study 16 years ago, we showed that static magnetic fields overrode it something in the brain. we recently showed in contrast when you are using gradients, which are shifting more magnetic currents, then we see a significant change in the human brain. and those results were very unexpected. we are seeing an effect. it is money that is changing, frequenciesay it's may be relevant in the way biological systems respond.

that led us to study whether cell phones can effect brains. that was because we were trying to understand human brain functions. good magnetic fields at the brain? -- could magnetic fields at the brain? >> how was the study conducted? brought into the laboratory. all the subjects had histories of sulfone exposure -- cell phone exposure. they were tested over dry days. on each day, the subject had a cell phone, one on the left and one on the right.

the subjects did not know whether the cell phones were off or on, nor did they know whether the right or the left would be on. this was important because we did not want to -- if i have a cell phone here, i may have an expectation and make me a lawyer to try to figure out -- make me alert and try to figure out something. for half the subjects, the first day, the left a phone was on. for the other half, those phones were off. we activated the phones 30 minutes before we injected them with radioactive glucose, because we wanted long-lasting exposure. 30 minutes after the indication

of the stimulation, we tested the radioactive glucose for 20 more minutes. that was a total of 50 minutes of cell phone exposure. at the end of another 20 minutes, the cell phones were turned off. the patients were brought into the scanner, which takes approximately 20 minutes. those images -- what you are doing there is measuring the glucose you have dropped over those first 30 minutes, and that allows you to average the activity. so, then, when you're measuring, it has already dropped and it is not going to change. >> do you use a cell phone up to

your ear? >> i use one all the time, but i do not use it up to my ear. in erotic. -- i am neuretoc. it is interesting to see how people react to new technologies. looking at electricity -- people were afraid of electricity. it is normal. radiation -- we were not afraid of radiation. because i do not know, this had easy solutions. it does not cost me anything. are there or are there not harmful effects? i can use the cell phone.

i can keep the cell phone far away from my head? >> what about the use of bluetooth? >> i think it is important. i think it is important. as there is not information. >> who funded the study? >> we have -- the national institute of drug abuse. my laboratory as part of the national institute of all of use. -- alcohol abuse. >> so, fully funded by the u.s. taxpayer? >> there is no private company. >> dr. nora volkow is the

director of the national institute on drug abuse. she also conducted a recent study on cell phone abuse. you can find that online. and now joining us, dr. kenneth foster, a bioengineering professor at the university of pennsylvania who was done a lot of research on radio frequency imaging. we've been talking with dr. volkow about studies done by her group at nih. what is your opinion? >> i think it will be hard to interpret. one thing, the subjects received almost no exposure and the effect the reported was very small. so, it will be very hard to understand what it means. >> does it matter what kind of phone they used in the study? >> it does.

this particular phone was a samsung handset. i cannot imagine of phone less able to reduce exposure to someone's brain. >> why? >> the antenna was in a part of the phone that was as far away from the brain as possible. the pattern of absorption was pretty much limited to the cheek and the job. another problem -- these kinds of loans under those conditions only transmit -- phones only transmit infrequently. the level of radiation was quite low. and also, the level of transmission is determined by how strong the signal is from a local base station. these are always powered down. given these factors -- and also

the phone was some distance from the head. but they used on muffled or something between the phone and the head. given the uncertainties, there is no way of knowing what the exposure was. i am quite sure it was extremely low. this was a fairly homeopathic study. >> dr. foster, if they had used an iphone or a droid, would there have been different results? >> they definitely have different power levels, but because the level of transmission is so variable depending on all sorts of things, they really would have had to work in collaboration with an engineer who understands these things and perhaps use a cellphone designed to in that certain levels. there's no way of knowing the exposure that was received in the brains. >> when you receive the studies

done on cell phone use and the potential effects on the brain, do you have a conclusion at all? >> yes. my conclusion is basically those -- that of health agencies that looked at this, and that is there are many reports, but they are all small. there is no clear biological significance and they tend to come and go. there is no clear evidence after all these years that there are significant health effects from using mobile phones. >> do you any connection with the cell phone companies in your research, sir? >> no. i am a professional engineer. sometimes i provide calculations to determine whether transmitting facilities comply with federal regulations, but that is quite different. >> dr. kenneth foster, bioengineering department of the university of pennsylvania. thank you. >> nice to be with you. >> in 2010, a book came out.

it was called "disconnect," and it was written by deborah davis. you said you went from three cell phones to no cell phones. why? >> i did not give up completely, but contrary to what mr. foster has told you, a number of health agencies have issued warnings about cell phones. i learned the british government had a review group cell phone that cell phones in 2000, and i was stunned, to learn that they recommended back then that teenagers be limited in their use of cell phones. >> when you look at the nih study and the slide showing increased brain glucose activity, what is your conclusion? >> i think it is a stunning piece of work and i agree with mr. foster.

the exposures were quite low. that is why we need to be concerned. what i have done in my book is to show that dr volkow's study was not a breakthrough in terms of showing the effects on the brain, but it was one of the most elegant pieces of work ever done. the reason i think it was not a breakthrough is other pieces of research and in 1994 that post- microwave radiation could unravel rats dna, and a study in finland it showed that you could aspect cerebral blood flow with radiation and in 2006, other studies were done showing you could alter brain in -- energy. unfortunately, these studies appeared in finnish language and others in english, have not gone to the media. dr. volkow is to be commended

because she is such a good researcher. even of the exposures were quite low and the funds were simply seeking -- and the phones were simply seeking information from a tower, there was a significant change in the areas of the brain where we model that the radiation gets too. there are studies that show that children who have twice as much exposure into their brain as adults, and that is why we are concerned we are starting a cell phone safety awareness campaign in bethesda and wyoming and montana. we're working with teachers and parents to promote cell phone safety. we are not opposed to cell phones. which is more people to be aware of the safe ways to use them,

particularly around children. >> the wireless industry responded. they said "the peer reviewed scientific evidence is overwhelmingly indicated that wireless devices within the limits established by the fcc do not pose a public health risk or cause any adverse health? ." -- effects." >> that is a misreading of the literature. they have been around for a while. governments in israel and britain have issued new warnings about direct radiation to the brain for everyone. the british government help the pamphlet was just we issued march 6, and it says all people should be encouraged to text rather than hold up a phone next to their head. i think that is sensible advice. i think it is