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 : The New Qualcomm - a S&P500 company -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: w molloy who wrote (2585)	10/21/1999 8:54:00 PM
From: Art Bechhoefer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13582

Similar concerns about cell phones were publicized during 1993, I believe, causing stock prices for both QUALCOMM and Motorola to fall. There was no evidence showing a causal relationship between cell phone RF and cancer or any other disease. Furthermore, it was pointed out at that time that a CDMA phone would deliver less RF to the brain, because it is "on" only when actually transmitting a voice signal, and idle during any pauses. I would certainly prefer to be exposed to CDMA signals rather than second hand smoke, diesel fumes, insecticides, and the like.

To: w molloy who wrote (2585)	10/21/1999 10:46:00 PM
From: idler	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13582

The FDA site you linked us to refers, I believe, to one of the studies that was mentioned on the 20/20 program -- and if so, the FDA summary shows what to me is irresponsibility bordering on outright duplicity: "In a study of 209 brain tumor cases and 425 matched controls, there was no increased risk of brain tumors associated with mobile phone use. When tumors did exist in certain locations, however, they were more likely to be on the side of the head where the mobile phone was used. Because this occurred in only a small number of cases, the increased likelihood was too small to be statistically significant. The ABC presentation of this study ONLY mentioned the "more likely to be on the side of the head where the mobile phone was used" WITHOUT mentioning that the "increased likelihood was too small to be statistically significant."