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 reaso

kenneth foster, bioengineering department at the university of pennsylvania. thank you for being on "the communicators." >> guest: nice to be with you. >> host: in 2010 a book came outside, it was called "disconnect," and it was britain -- written by deborah davis. in your presentation about your book, you said you went from three cell phones to no cell phones. is that correct? and why? >> guest: no, i didn't go to none, i still have one, but i certainly gave up my three because i began to learn that contemporary to what mr. foster just told you, a number of health agencies have issued warnings about cell phones, some as long ago as ten years. the british government had a review grouped that that looked at cell phones in the year 2

kenneth foster who is at a new engineering professor at the university of pennsylvania who has done a lot of research on radiofrequency energy. dr. foster we have been talking with dr. volkow about cell phone studies conducted by her group with nih. what is your opinion of this study? >> guest: well, think it will be very hard to interpret. for one thing, the subjects received almost no exposure and the effect they reported was very small. and so, it will be very hard to understand what it means. >> host: does it matter what kind of phone they use in this study? >> guest: well, it does. this particular phone they use with the samsung handset and i can imagine a phone that is less able to produce exposure to somebody's brain. >> host: what you say that? >> guest: the antenna was located at the very bottom of the phone as far away from the brain as possible and the pattern of absorption in the head was pretty much limited to the cheek and the job. another problem was that the phone was receiving a message from somebody else and these kinds of phones under those conditions only transmit

kenneth foster by engineering department at the university of pennsylvania, thank you for being on the computer -- communicators. .. because i thought i knew what was going on to learn they recommended back then that teenagers be very limited in their use itself focus salles phones. islamic when you look at the slide showing the increased glucose activity, what is your conclusion? >> i think it's a stunning defeat piece of work and i agree they were quite low and that's why we need to be very concerned. what i've done my book disconnect is to show that the study was not a breakthrough in terms of showing the effect on the brain that was one of the most elegant pieces of work ever done. the reason i say it wasn't a breakthrough is other research document in my book disconnect found in 1994 that microwave radiation to the brain could unravel their dna and research in 2002 done in finland shows the you can get cerebral blood flow from sulfone radiation and that in 2006 of their studies were done also in finland showing that you could alter brain energy after cell phone use. unfortunately