SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting
QCOM 159.42-1.2%Jan 16 3:59 PM EST

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: kyungha who wrote (59696)2/3/2007 9:10:31 PM
From: Maurice Winn  Read Replies (1) of 197272
 
Best to leave the lead and petrol and octane rating out of it. For a start, you are wrong on lead being related to lung cancer. Lead poisons brains in children [the main problem].

The higher the frequency, the higher the energy of photons. At 2.5GHz they are still too low to ionize, but combined with a simultaneous higher frequency wave from another source [there are always some around], the interference pattern would boost energy of the combination into ionizing range.

Since carcinogens such as benzene can do their work without radio frequency, my guess is that the presence of even low frequency providers some slight increased probability of the necessary chemical reaction taking place - more heat generates more chemical reaction. Benzene causes myeloid leukaemia [a good thing to worry about with petrol/gasoline if levels aren't low but much better to worry about it from cigarettes]. Brain tumours come from other chemical/DNA/viral/radiological/nutritional causes.

My guess is that the brain cancer contribution from cellphone radiation is so low that it would be hard to find among those other causes and that is shown to be the case with small studies done so far.

Mqurice
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext