Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Caxton Rhodes who wrote (33851)	7/1/1999 5:29:00 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Brain Cancer Voluntarily [and ignorantly] consumed carcinogens and poor nutrient supply cause nearly all brain cancer. Maybe with some poor genes [low lymphocytes or some sort of thing which normally kills off cancer cells]. Gamma rays and other high energy radiation, mostly from space, would be a significant contributor too. Maybe even a virus or two. Cellphones are certainly so low on the pecking order that talking about the risk from them is a waste of time. The energy from 2GHz wavelength is too low to split the DNA chains, let alone the atom. The most it can do is shake things up a little, which means an infinitesimal warming. Like from 37.3142 deg C to 37.3143 deg C. Brains produce many watts of heating, with blood supplies to remove that heat. Natural variation would be huge compared with cellphone increases. 10 cellphones would give one watt. 100 would equal a very weak flashlight - try using that to warm something. 1000 would give 100W, which sure does put out some heat - feel the heat from a 100W lightbulb. But even 1000 wouldn't warm a brain much because of the cooling. I've done my best to see how there could be a problem with low power cellphones and can't get one any way I look at it. The nearest I could come is to guess that a 2GHz photon from the cellphone and a high energy photon from space land on a particular DNA molecule together and the extra incy wincy bit of energy from the cellphone photon gives that extra little bit of energy to break the DNA chain and cause a chemical carcinogen to join to the DNA chain. It's stretching a point, but the best I could do. Not a big risk if there aren't any carcinogens present from sucking in smoke or eating roasted food. The way to avoid it is to avoid consuming the carcinogens. I bet the people with brain cancers have better correlations with carcinogen consumption and no correlation with cellphone use. Which is why some study showed cellphones protected against brain cancer. They didn't - it was just that high socioeconomic people, who have cellphones, don't smoke so much or eat a poor diet. The easiest way to look for a correlation would be to count tumours. People use one ear or the other, almost exclusively, to listen. So just count the lumps in each side of the head - if there are more on the cellphone side, maybe it is worth looking further. There are a LOT of cellphones around so that correlation should be only a day's work to establish. Get all the people with gliomas and ask them to listen to a cellphone call and see which ear they use. Correlation isn't causation so even if there were more on the cellphone side, that would not be proof that was the cause. Maybe the cellphone listening side is the more active brain side, which is why they choose that side, and it's the extra brain activity which causes the cancer in conjunction with dietary or air carried carcinogens. Or listening cells are subject to a particular virus. Or some damn thing. It is hard to pin down biological causation. Anyway, cdmaOne handsets are very low power and no danger. Those are my theories anyway. Mqurice