Could certain frequencies of electromagnetic waves or radiation interfere with brain function?

2 inShare

Share on Tumblr Amir Raz, assistant professor of clinical neuroscience at Columbia University, offers the following answer. Definitely. Radiation is energy and research findings provide at least some information concerning how specific types may influence biological tissue, including that of the brain. In some cases the effect may be therapeutic. For example, transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a technique used to induce a short-term interruption of normal activity in a relatively restricted area of the brain by rapidly changing a strong magnetic field near the area of interest. Mark George provided a nice account of TMS in the September 2003 issue of Scientific American. In it he described how head-mounted wire coils can deliver powerful yet evanescent magnetic pulses directly into focal brain regions to painlessly modulate neural activity by inducing minute electric currents. Clinically, TMS may be helpful in alleviating certain symptoms, including those of depression. Researchers typically differentiate between the effects of ionizing radiation (such as farultraviolet, X-ray and gamma ray) and nonionizing radiation (including visible light, microwave and radio). The ionizing variety may be undesirable because it can cause DNA damage and mutations, thus we should all limit our exposure to its sources--radioactive materials and solar radiation among them. However, given modern technology, nonionizing radiation from power lines, personal wireless devices, cell phone towers and other sources is practically unavoidable. Extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields (EMF) surround home appliances as well as high-voltage electrical transmission lines and transformers.

Evidence of health effects from EMF, including their influence on the brain, is inconclusive, and the probability that EMF exposure is a genuine health hazard is currently small. Nevertheless, exposure to high levels of nonionizing energy, such as at radio wave frequencies, can damage the structure and function of the nervous system. For example, microwave frequencies below 3,000 megahertz can penetrate the outer layers of the skin, be absorbed in the underlying tissues, and result in all of the known biological effects of heating, including burns, cataracts, and possibly death. Indeed, government regulators set most exposure limits to ensure that the amount of tissue heated by the absorption of energy is not in excess of what the body can take. It is possible that heating is not the only effect of radiation. Some scientists claim that human tissue, including the brain, may be affected nonthermally. Regrettably, many exposure parameters, such as frequency, orientation, modulation, power density and duration, make it difficult to directly compare experiments and draw specific conclusions at nonthermal levels. Also, it is important to remember that, perhaps expectedly, interpretations of findings in this area of investigation are shrouded in controversy, particularly because special interests may influence some of the research. The publication of findings does not necessarily scientifically validate a study. At lower levels of exposure, evidence for specific effects that may occur as a result of direct neural interactions with radio frequency fields is sparse. In addition, many of the studies that claim provocative results have yet to be replicated by independent laboratories. Other studies describe potential associations. For example, a recent report suggests that the low-intensity electromagnetic field of geomagnetic storms--disturbances in the earths magnetic field caused by gusts of solar wind--may have a subtle but measurable influence on suicide incidence in women. In recent years, cell phones, which transmit and receive at radio frequencies, have become ubiquitous. Researchers have investigated whether these low-intensity radio waves influence the central nervous system and cognitive performance. A few studies concluded that cell phone exposure enhanced certain aspects of cognitive performance as measured by reaction time and accuracy; others showed no difference, and a few, including a very recent investigation, showed that such exposure had detrimental effects in specific contexts such as attention span. Replication of either the negative or positive effects of exposure on cognition is sorely lacking in the scientific literature and more work is required to verify and reconcile differences between studies reporting either contradictory or no effects.

****
Using particle duality, consider the electromagnetic particle created by a neuron. It contains information that travels from point A to points B, C, etc.; within the brain. The electromagnetic waves that are emitted from brain activity produce a sea of light and sound around us and any living organism that produces or consumes energy. Each information particle produced in the brain by the sparking of a neuron carries a wave that connects a doppelganger particle outside the brain. The swarm of particle activity inside the brain is copied and tethered outside the brain and swirls in the light and sound we produce. Because our brains do not produce high energy, the wave lengths are too low to be detectable

by our own senses. The light and sound is like a personal bubble that resonates at a certain frequency that corresponds to our mood and intensity of brain activity. When two people's bubbles intermingle, the information particles swirling in the sea of light and sound have an opportunity to exchange or transfer information from person to person. If the polarity and frequency is compatible, the exchange and/or transfer take place. A personal quantum signature tags every electromagnetic particle created by our brains. This tag stays with the particle no matter where it goes. I believe that these particles containing information can also be sent to a specific location; an intentional transfer, especially if the sender is familiar with the quantum signature of the receiver, such as a twin. These particles can go from person to person to flower to rabbit to person,.. basically riding the light and sound waves of living things to arrive at its destination. The particle would find suitable polarities and frequencies to propel itself along the waves. EEG's can record the brain waves that can be transferred to sound through a little creativity and some background in music and sound. Work is being done on that right now by a hand full of people, however they are either missing the science or the music background to get anywhere. Aura photography has captured the light waves emitted by our brains, but the resolution has not gotten to the point of seeing the particles within the light. A slow motion camera has been used to see the firing neurons inside the brain to the tune of 1 million frames a second. Although, I have seen; with relaxed eyes and a focus close to my face, these particles moving around. It is always only seen against a baby blue sky background. They look like small balls of energy riding along invisible pathways; like that of a network of neurons. The number of particles and the speed are always dependent on how deep in thought I am. I think that if we can fine tune and connect these detecting devices, we should be able to view and hear the sights and sounds of our consciousness. We would then realize that we are connected to all living things and are in a sense all the same, only quantifyingly different. We may also find this micro process to be the case for larger things in the universe. Thank you for the opportunity to share my theory with you. I look forward to your comments. **

Electromagnetic fields (EMF) produced by electronic devices have long raised public concern. Although no studies have shown brain injury due to the use of these devices, some individuals report developing headaches or localized warming during cell phone use. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of radio frequency EMF on human electroencephalography (EEG) signals. A single blind randomized test procedure was used in this study. Ten healthy subjects were exposed to EMF from a cordless phone and wireless router, which emit at 900MHz and 2400MHz, respectively. Three 100 second trials for each condition were conducted on each subject. The subjects EEG was also measured while wearing a Farabloc hood which blocks any EMF with frequencies above 1000 Hz. Neither the cordless phone nor the wireless router produced any significant changes in the EEG of the subjects compared to the control condition. Our results imply that the everyday utilized wireless communication devices such as wireless phones and routers have little influence on the electrical activity of the brain in the short term.
*** Cell phones emitting pulsed high-frequency electromagnetic fields (EMF) may affect the human brain, but there are inconsistent results concerning their effects on electroencephalogram (EEG). We used a

16-channel telemetric electroencephalograph (ExpertTM), to record EEG changes during exposure of human skull to EMF emitted by a mobile phone. Spatial distribution of EMF was especially concentrated around the ipsilateral eye adjacent to the basal surface of the brain. Traditional EEG was full of noises during operation of a cellular phone. Using a telemetric electroencephalograph (ExpertTM) in awake subjects, all the noise was eliminated, and EEG showed interesting changes: after a period of 10-15 s there was no visible change, the spectrum median frequency increased in areas close to antenna; after 20-40 s, a slow-wave activity (2.5-6.0 Hz) appeared in the contralateral frontal and temporal areas. These slow waves lasting for about one second repeated every 15-20 s at the same recording electrodes. After turning off the mobile phone, slow-wave activity progressively disappeared; local changes such as increased median frequency decreased and disappeared after 15-20 min. We observed similar changes in children, but the slow-waves with higher amplitude appeared earlier in children (10-20 s) than adults, and their frequency was lower (1.0-2.5 Hz) with longer duration and shorter intervals. The results suggested that cellular phones may reversibly influence the human brain, inducing abnormal slow waves in EEG of awake persons.

Radio waves from a cell phone can affect the metabolism of a person's brain, in the Journal of the American Medical Association. But the effect has nothing to do with cancer, and researchers say there's no evidence that the increase in metabolism is harmful. The human brain relies on electrical signals to communicate, so it makes sense that the electromagnetic energy that a cell phone puts out might affect brain cells, researchers say. Nora Volkow, a brain researcher and director of the National Institutes of Health's National Institute on Drug Abuse, says she was intrigued by this possibility for personal as well as professional reasons. "I'm seeing many of my relatives and friends spending hours on their cell phones," she says. "And the question in my brain is, 'Could this have any effect?' " Volkow knew that some MRI scanners produce electrical and magnetic fields powerful enough to cause brain cells to consume more energy, in the form of glucose. "Glucose metabolism goes up when you activate your brain, when you're thinking, when you're speaking," she says, "because you need the energy source in order for cells to function." Volkow wanted to know whether the electromagnetic fields produced by cell phones were strong enough to affect glucose metabolism in brain cells the same way a scanner can. So she and a team of researchers studied 47 people. The team used two cell phones for each participant one on the right ear, one on the left. The scientists muted the sound on the phones to make sure it wasn't the sound of someone talking that affected parts of the brain. The participants couldn't even tell whether the cell phones were on.

Then the researchers activated the phone on one side and used a PET scanner to measure how much glucose was being consumed by brain cells. Volkow says a 50-minute call clearly boosted brain metabolism. "There was an overall increase, approximately 6 to 8 percent," she says. "But only on the areas of the brain that were close to the antenna." Volkow says that level of increase in brain metabolism is not terribly dramatic studies have shown that just opening your eyes can produce a much greater change in brain cells that process visual information. And scientists say it's hard to know what to make of the change. No Clear Message "Based on this finding I cannot say, 'Is this bad that you're increasing glucose metabolism?' Or 'could it be good?' " Volkow says. Other researchers agree there's no clear message from the result. "There are many questions that are now raised from this very, very important study," says Lennart Hardell, a cancer researcher at University Hospital in Orebro, Sweden, and the co-author of an editorial accompanying the study. "What about long-term use, and what about children and young persons?" Hardell, who has previously suggested a link between cell phone use and brain cancer, says the finding doesn't necessarily strengthen his case, because there's no direct link between increased brain metabolism and cancer. But he says it's still possible researchers will find an indirect one, perhaps involving hormonal changes or the production of molecules known as free radicals in the brain. Such a link is unlikely, says Steven Novella, a neurologist at Yale, because nearly everything that happens to us affects cell metabolism. "If you go into a warmer room your metabolism will increase," Novella says. He notes that the authors of the new study wondered whether the increase in brain metabolism could have been from the heat generated by a cell phone, though they concluded that was unlikely. Several large, international studies have found no connection between cancer and cell phone use, Novella says, and studies haven't found any other health risks from cell phones' electromagnetic radiation either. So if there is any risk from cell phones, Novella says, it must be very small. But he says it is important to keep looking for health effects from a technology that's used by so many people, and there still isn't much research on children and cell phones, he says.

So parents may want to limit cell phone use by their children, Novella says, adding that people who just want to be cautious can use a land line when possible, buy a headset for their phone or just use the speakerphone function. Those steps are highly effective, he says, because exposure to electromagnetic radiation decreases dramatically if you hold a phone "away from your head rather than up against your ear."

Can brain waves interfere with radio waves?

Not likely. Brain waves are too slow, and so weak theyre extremely hard to measure Radio waves and brain waves are both forms of electromagnetic radiationwaves of energy that travel at the speed of light. The difference between brain waves, radio waves, and other electromagnetic waves (such as visible light, X-rays and Gamma rays) lies in their frequency that is, how often the waves peak and trough in a second. Radio waves, which include radio and other wireless transmission signals, as well as other natural signals in the same frequency, peak and trough at between 50 and 1000 megahertz thats between 50 million and one billion oscillations per second. The human brain also emits waves, like when a person focuses her attention or remembers something. This activity fires thousands of neurons simultaneously at the same frequency generating a wavebut at a rate closer to 10 to 100 cycles per second. Interference happens when two waves of the same or very similar frequencies bump into each other. This might happen when the signals from two radio stations, both broadcasting at 89.7 megahertz from different cities, bump into one another. The shape of the waves changes linearly, they add to and subtract from one another, saysDimitrios Pantazis, director of the Magnetoencephalography (MEG) Laboratory at MITs McGovern Institute. As a result, songs become static. But, says Pantazis, since their frequencies are so wildly different, brain waves dont interfere with radio waves. Even if that was the case, brain waves are so weak, they are hardly measurable at all. For comparison, says Pantazis, the magnetic field of the earth is just strong enough to move the needle of a compass. Signals from the brain are a billionth of that strength. Hard to measure, but not impossible. MIT recently installed a new MEG scanner to study the function of the human brain. To capture brain signals, the MEG scanner is in a room shielded with mu metal, a special alloy that blocks external magnetic fields. Like a rock in the middle of a river, this metal forces all electromagnetic signals to flow around the room and doesnt let any inside, says Pantazis. The MEG scanner consists of a helmet that contains 306 sensors spaced uniformly across its surface. These superconducting quantum interference detectors (SQUID) are cooled to near

absolute zero, which makes them superconductive and, according to Pantazis, able to measure even the slightest magnetic signals from the brain. The MEG lab, open since March 2011, is used by researchers across MIT. Projects are as diverse as studying visual attention, language processing, or even olfactory responses to pleasant and unpleasant smells. It is a very exciting field of research, you never know how the brain will respond to different stimuli, says Pantazis. Meanwhile, the song on the radio remains the same. Elizabeth Dougherty

1. What Qualifies as a Radio Signal?

o

Radio signals are those waves of electromagnetic radiation that have a frequency between 0 hertz (Hz, or cycles per second) up to about 3 terahertz. A cycle is a single round of energy change in the wave--when the wave goes from its maximum energy level down to its minimum energy level and then back up to its maximum level. A wave with a frequency of, for example, 103 kHz would go through that round of energy change 103,000 times per second. Note that simply knowing the frequency of the wave does not provide any information about how powerful the wave's energy is and vice versa.

2. What Kinds of Radiation Affect the Human Body?

o

The main forms of EM radiation that can negatively impact the human body are those with a frequency higher than visible light. Ultraviolet radiation (beginning at about 7.5 x 10^14 Hz), X-rays and gamma rays can knock atoms out of place in the DNA molecule, injuring cells and potentially causing disease, radiation sickness and death. Energetic particles released by radioactive materials can also cause damage. In everyday experience, EM radiation with a lower frequency doesn't hurt the body. However, there are exceptions when working with high-power waves. Infrared and microwave radiation are at a lower frequency than visible light, but at very high powers they can potentially cause injury or death.

How do Radio Waves Affect the Brain?

o

The short answer is: They don't. In normal life, the radio waves of the surrounding environment are of an insufficient power to negatively impact health or affect brain function. Some researchers have argued that radio signals from cellular phones could affect the health of brain cells over time by causing temperature rise through energy absorption. Most studies of the issue, including one by the EU's Scientific Committee, have indicated that there is no negative health impact. A University of Toronto study of household cordless phones and wireless computer routers also found no measurable effects of their radio signals upon brain function. There is ongoing research into the prospect of using low energy radio waves to ameliorate cases of insomnia. So-called Low Energy Emission Therapy (LEET) delivers low-powered radio signals to the brain via a transmitting mouthpiece. Some studies have found that LEET successfully reduced symptoms of insomnia and improved sleep without causing negative side effects.

Study: Cell Phone Radiation Stirs Brain Activity, but Health Effects Unknown

By: Lea Winerman

A PET scan shows activation in the part of the brain nearest a cell phone antenna when the phone is turned on (left) and off (right) Talking on a cell phone increases the activity in the parts of your brain near the phone's antenna, according to researchers who scanned the brains of a small group of people making 50-minute cell phone calls.

The study provides perhaps the strongest evidence yet that the weak electromagnetic energy emitted from cell phones can affect the brain. But the researchers, and other experts in the field, caution that we still don't know whether the kinds of changes seen in the study could harm people's health. The research shows "that the human brain is sensitive to electromagnetic radiation even if it's very weak," says neuroscientist Nora Volkow, the head of the National Institute on Drug Abuse and a lead author of the new study. "It is crucial that we now assess whether there are longlasting effects from these exposures." Watch Volkow discuss the findings below, in a video from the Journal of the American Medical Association. The findings, published Tuesday in JAMA, are the latest turn in an ongoing debate over the potential dangers of cell phone radiation. For more than a decade, researchers have tried to decipher whether heavy cell-phone users are more likely to develop brain cancer or other problems. They haven't found any clear answers. One of the largest studies, for example, the European Interphone study, found that overall there was no link between cell phone use and brain tumors, but noted that among the longest-term and heaviest cell phone users, there was a possible increased incidence of a type of tumor called a glioma. Another study, released just last week by the journal Bioelectromagnetics, looked at the number of cases of brain cancer in the U.K. between 1998 and 2007 -- a time cell phone use was skyrocketing -- and found that the number of cases didn't go up during that time. But other researchers argue that those results don't mean much, because brain cancer can take 20 to 30 years to develop. The new study does not address the question of cancer. Instead, it simply looks at a measure of brain activity called brain glucose metabolism. Cells in the brain use glucose as their energy source, so increased glucose metabolism means the brain is more active. Volkow and her colleagues used PET (positron emission tomography) scans to look at glucose metabolism in the brains of 47 people during 50-minute cell phone calls. They found that the parts of the brain nearest the phone's antenna were about 7 percent more active when the phone was on and receiving a call then when it was off. That's roughly equivalent, Volkow said, to the amount of activity seen in the language areas of your brain while you're speaking. David Carpenter, the director of the Institute for Health and Environment at the University of Albany, has testified before Congress that more research is needed on the health effects of cell phone radiation. He was not involved in the new study, but said that it provides a crucial piece of evidence. "One of the big arguments used to discount the epidemiological studies [that showed a link between cancer and cell phone use] is that nobody has demonstrated a mechanism whereby

radiofrequency fields affect the brain," he said. "And this is such a clear demonstration of an alteration of nervous tissue." But the researchers caution that their study does not prove anything about whether cell phones cause cancer or other health issues. "Results of this study provide evidence that acute cell phone exposure affects brain metabolic activity. However, these results provide no information as to their relevance regarding potential carcinogenic effects (or lack of such effects) from chronic cell phone use," they wrote. In fact, said Volkow, much more research needs to be done to figure out whether the brain activity changes she showed are harmful. And if they're not, she said, it's even possible that the type of radiation emitted by cell phones could be used therapeutically (like transcranial magnetic stimulation, used to treat depression.) Still, for her own part, Volkow said that she uses the speakerphone option or an earpiece when she talks on a cell phone -- a simple change that keeps the antenna far away from the head. "I am conservative when it comes to my brain," she said.

Cell Phone Radiation Changes Brain Metabolism

Low-Level Effects Get a Boost
February 22, 2011

A well-regarded and influential team of researchers from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Brookhaven National Lab (BNL) is on the brink of resolving a long-standing dispute with enormous implications for public health. In a paper due out tomorrow, Nora Volkow and coworkers are reporting that cell phone radiation can affect the normal functioning of the human brain. Whether these short-term changes will lead to health consequences (and what they might be) is far from clear though Volkow already has preliminary indications of a long-term effect. Nor is the mechanism of interaction yet known. But the new finding, if confirmed, would at the very least force a rethink of the prevailing orthodoxy, which maintains that low levels of RF and microwave radiation are too weak to have any effect and can be disregarded. "The study is important because it documents that the human brain is sensitive to the electromagnetic radiation that is emitted by cellphones," Volkow told the New York Times. Using positron emission tomography (PET), the NIH-BNL researchers have shown that radiation from a 50-minute cell phone exposure can speed up glucose metabolism, an established measure of brain activity. The finding is highly statistically significant. What is particularly remarkable about the new work is that those regions of the brain that were most highly exposed to phone

radiation had the largest increases in metabolic activity. The NIH-BNL paper is published in the February 23rd issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). "This paper is just dynamite," said David Carpenter, the director of the Institute for Health and the Environment in Albany, NY. "It's going to be very difficult to deny that RF radiation from a cell phone does not alter nervous system activity." Carpenter, a neurophysiologist, has been active in the electromagnetic research community for over 30 years. "This work will turn the whole issue around," he told Microwave News. Ronald Herberman, the former director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, called the NIH-BNL report "stunning." The still dominant view among health and safety committees is that if RF and microwave radiation does not cause bulk heating, there will be no biological effects. Yet, the changes in brain metabolism observed by the Volkow group do not appear to have been caused by a temperature rise. It is unlikely that the changes seen in the brain could result from a thermal effect, Volkow told Microwave News. Volkow is the director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), one of the 21 institutes that make up the NIH. An editorial that accompanies Volkow's paper echoes this conclusion. "[B]rain areas that showed an increase in glucose metabolism were quite distant from the [phone]. Thus, it is not likely that the effects were caused by heating," wrote Henry Lai of the University of Washington, Seattle, and Lennart Hardell of Sweden's reboro University Hospital. "It's time to stop denying the existence of non-thermal effects," Hardell said in an interview. Lai and Hardell pose what they call "an important question": whether glucose metabolism in the brain might be "chronically increased from the regular use of a wireless phone." Such potential health effects need to be clarified, they stated. In fact, Volkow has some data suggesting that such chronic effects do occur: The most active users of cell phones were found to have the largest changes in glucose metabolism in those areas of the brain exposed to the phone radiation. "We want to replicate these findings before submitting them for publication," Volkow said. She added that that she would continue to investigate whether the use of cell phones has long-term consequences. The new paper does not address whether the use of a mobile phone may entail a brain tumor risk. "[T]hese results provide no information as to their relevance regarding potential carcinogenic effects (or lack thereof) from chronic cell phone use," according to Volkow and her colleagues. An acute, short-term effect alone would forever change the research landscape for electromagnetic field effects. For decades, the microwave community has been awash with reports that low-level radiation can lead to numerous neurological effects, such as leakage through the blood-brain barrier, changes in calcium in and around brain cells and DNA breaks in

the brains of exposed animals. But in each case skeptics have countered that they could not repeat the experiments and therefore the original work must have been flawed and should be repudiated. Volkow's new study will no doubt face a similar barrage of criticism.
Cell Phone Brain Scans

In the study, 47 healthy subjects, nearly evenly split between men and women, were outfitted with a cell phone on each ear. Glucose metabolism was measured using PET scans, a technique first developed at BNL in the 1970s. Each participant was scanned twice, once when the righthand phone was turned on and once when both phones were off (the phones were kept muted and the subjects were unaware when one of the phones was active). The phone exposures lasted 50 minutes and the PET scans were started five minutes after the phone was turned off. They reflect the average brain activity over a 30-minute period. Although glucose metabolism was not altered for the brain as a whole, there were significant effects in those locations closest to the phone, the right orbitofrontal cortex (see the arrowhead in the figure on the left below) and parts of the temporal lobe. These areas of the brain have been shown to have the highest RF radiation exposures when using a mobile phone. As Volkow explains in the paper: The "regions expected to have the greatest absorption of RF-EMFs from the cell phone exposure were the ones that showed the larger increases in glucose metabolism."

The scan on the left is after a 50-minute cell phone exposure. Note the greater metabolic activity in the right orbitofrontal cortex (marked by the arrow). The scan on the right was made when the phone was

off. The regions in red are those with the highest rates of glucose metabolism.
Source: Journal of the American Medical Association, 305, p.811, February 23, 2011

The observed increases were "similar in magnitude" to those reported after transcranial magnetic stimulation, a treatment for depression, according to the NIH-BNL researchers. Their new study is one of many they have carried out over the last decade. Last year, they published a paper in NeuroImage showing reduced metabolic activity in some regions of the brain during an MRI scan. Their emphasis has most often been on the effects of drugs on the brain. The NIH-BNL team used two Samsung cell phones (model SCH-U310), transmitting and receiving CDMA signals, with a maximum specific absorption rate (SAR) of 0.901 W/Kg in the head. That is substantially lower than the U.S. FCC's limit of 1.6 W/Kg for hand-held cell phones. The paper does not estimate the SARs expected in the regions showing the largest changes in glucose metabolism. While it leaves the impression that the phones were operating in receiveonly mode and therefore inducing lower SARs than when transmitting Dardo Tomasi, a member of Volkow's team who has appointments at both NIH and BNL, told Microwave News that the phones were operating "under normal conditions, that is they were both receiving and transmitting RF signals." Volkow's new study is bound to draw a great deal of attention, if only because she is something of a science superstar. She has a high media profile, turning up on numerous lists of the influential and powerful, including Time magazine's "Top 100 People Who Shape Our World" (2007) and Washingtonian magazine's "100 Most Powerful Women" (2009). A decade ago, Volkow was named "Innovator of the Year" by U.S. News and World Report. In 2003, when she left a senior position at BNL to become the head of NIDA, Volkow was the subject of a glowing profile in JAMA, which credited her as having authored "dozens of pioneering brain imaging studies." Today, she has published more than 440 peer-reviewed articles and 75 book chapters, according to her official NIH profile. Volkow is the great-granddaughter of Leon Trotsky, the Russian revolutionary.
NIDA Director Volkow Endorses Precaution

In an e-mail exchange with Microwave News, Volkow said that she recommends taking precautionary measures. "Because we are uncertain of whether there are or are not long term consequences," she stated, "my recommendation is to use a wired earpiece, use the cell phone in speaker phone mode or text message." Volkow is the highest-ranking health official in the U.S. to call for caution in the use of cell phones. The closing sentence of original version of the JAMA paper advised cell phone users to keep the antenna away from the brain by using a wired earpiece. This was edited out in the review/revision process.

Cell phones can affect your brain

Dinesh C. Sharma | Mail Today February 23, 2011 | UPDATED 17:39 IST If you talk on your mobile phone close to an hour a day, you need to watch out. There is no conclusive proof yet that mobile phone radiation causes brain cancer, but a preliminary study made public on Tuesday has shown that acute mobile phone use does affect brain activity. Researchers have found that 50-minute mobile phone use is linked with increased brain glucose metabolism - a marker of brain activity - in the region closest to the phone antenna, but they are unsure of clinical significance of this finding. The study appears in the Journal of American Medical Association. The study results provide evidence that "the human brain is sensitive to the effects of radiofrequency-modulated electromagnetic waves from acute cell phone exposures" the researchers said. However, the mechanisms by which the radiation could affect brain glucose metabolism are not yet understood. More long-term studies are needed to assess long-term health hazards including carcinogenic effects of mobile phone use. A team led by Nora D. Volkow of the National Institutes of Health conducted the study which involved 47 human participants. Mobile phones were placed on the left and right ears and brain imaging was performed with positron emission tomography (PET) using fluorodeoxyglucose injection to measure brain glucose metabolism twice - once with the right cell phone activated (sound muted) for 50 minutes and once with both mobile phones deactivated. It was found that whole-brain metabolism was not affected in both the conditions, but there were significant regional effects. Metabolism in the brain region closest to the antenna was significantly higher (about 7 per cent) for mobile phone 'on' than for mobile phone ' off ' conditions. The increases were correlated to the electromagnetic field amplitudes indicating that the regions with greater absorption of electromagnetic radiation were the ones that showed the larger increases in glucose metabolism. "Although the biological significance, if any, of increased glucose metabolism from acute cell phone exposure is unknown, the results warrant further investigation", the journal said in an accompanying editorial." An important question is whether glucose metabolism in the brain would be chronically increased from regular use of a wireless phone with higher radiofrequency energy than those used in the current study. Potential acute and chronic health effects need to be clarified. Much has to be done to further investigate and understand these effects." In addition, it was observed that the effect was greatest in brain regions that had the highest amplitude of

emissions, which suggests that the metabolic increases are related to the absorption of radiofrequency energy emitted by the mobile phone. The Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) is currently engaged in carrying out a longterm study of health impacts of cell phone use. Concern has also been raised about adverse health impact of emission caused by mobile phone towers.

Read more at: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/cell-phones-can-affect-your-brain/1/130679.html