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.

Pastimes : The New Qualcomm - write what you like thread. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (6023)	3/23/2003 1:57:35 AM
From: Jon Koplik	Respond to of 12235

Soldiers Adapt to Sleeping on the Move March 22, 2003 By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Filed at 4:33 a.m. ET IN THE IRAQI DESERT (AP) -- It's not easy napping in a Humvee rumbling across the Iraqi desert. Or in a shallow, single-soldier foxhole. Or stretched out on chilly sand. Still, exhausted U.S. soldiers are adapting to sleeping on the move. As the 101st Airborne Division sprints deeper into Iraq, troops catch shut-eye when they can. Friday night was spent in dusty foxholes dug into the Kuwaiti desert, each one just wide enough, long enough and deep enough to hold a single soldier. Some tried to nap Saturday as the convoy trekked north. Staff Sgt. Michael Vaughn eagerly stretched his aching limbs during a break in the marathon roadtrip. He'd managed to doze in the passenger seat of a truck for several hours, wedged between ammunition, rucksacks and bottled water. ``It's not the most comfortable sleeping position,'' said Vaughn of Newport Richey, Fla. ``It's left, right -- more right than left.'' The soldiers have driven almost ceaselessly since tearing across the border from Kuwait on Friday evening, a day behind the first U.S. and British troops into Iraq. They stop about every four hours for rest breaks. Sleeping in heavy combat helmets -- required in the battle zone -- and behind goggles that protect against the relentless desert dust would be hard enough for most. But a solid rest seems even more elusive amid the roar of trucks, the clatter of gear and the tight quarters. Units across the front are facing similar sleep deprivation. Members of the 18th Military Police Brigade slept in Humvees and Army trucks, on cots or in sleeping bags tossed on the sand alongside the vehicles. A light rain chased some inside, or even underneath the bulky personnel carriers, but some exhausted soldiers simply turned their faces and slept in the rain, despite the constant drone of equipment and blast of headlights. Many woke with grimy faces. Marines of a heavy helicopter squadron near Iraq fly day and night across the desert delivering equipment, fuel and ammunition to ground troops. Under threat of missile attack, those at the secret camp are continually sent to their bunkers by warnings, and they get little unbroken sleep. On Thursday, their unit lost eight British and four U.S. Marines when a helicopter crashed in Kuwait -- the first coalition casualties of the war. Those who seem to have it worst of all are the infantry; those with the 101st Airborne sleep in the back of open trucks, up to 16 packed in cheek by jowl, resting with their gear hanging nearby. Some get up during the night and eat in the cabs of Humvees -- beef ravioli and shrimp jambalaya. Constant worries about chemical weapons also keep everyone on alert. Marines with the 1st Platoon, Echo company mechanized infantry, sleep under the stars in the chilly desert, as explosions are heard in the distance. They must rise regularly to don gas masks. As uncomfortable as it is, the ones that do get to sleep are the lucky ones. Pvt. Andrew Herzog, 19, of the 101st Airborne, spent a night standing on top of his Humvee, an MK-19 grenade launcher at the ready, wearing goggles and scarf to brace against the 40-degree temperatures, howling winds and dust. ``It's not too bad,'' said Herzog, of Camden, Mich., snacking on peanut butter, crackers and water. Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (6023)	2/2/2004 5:16:05 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 12235

MQ + X = 2C and more on acoustic neuromas. A study which disagrees with that one in post6023, but tries to find a minuscule effect with a minuscule study. newscientist.com <NewScientist.com news service The first in a series of eagerly anticipated nationwide studies has concluded that the use of mobile phones poses no increased risk of brain cancer - at least not for the first 10 years. Despite this caveat, the Danish study is likely to carry more weight with health authorities and scientists than many previous studies because of its large sample size and careful design. Earlier studies that claimed to find evidence of a health risk have been criticised for weaknesses in these areas. The new work is the first to be published from the huge INTERPHONE study, organised by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). It involves 13 different countries and aims answer definitively the question of whether mobile phone use is safe. In the short term, the study indicates there is no danger of developing tumours, says principle investigator Helle Christensen, at the Institute of Cancer Epidemiology in Copenhagen. Michael Clark, of the UK's National Radiological Protection Board, is impressed by the work: "This is an authoritative study." When the data from all 14 studies is collected over the next 18 months, the number of long-term users should be large enough to reveal any small increases in risk beyond 10 years of use, says Elizabeth Cardis of the IARC, who will be carrying out the final INTERPHONE analysis. Population based One key aspect of the new study is that it was "population-based", i.e. the researchers attempted to recruit every new case of a rare brain tumour in Denmark's entire population of 5.3 million people over a two year period. In total, 106 people were identified and their phone usage and medical records were then compared with those of 212 randomly chosen controls, matched for age, sex and socio-economic status. The researchers found no difference in mobile phone use between the two groups. The tumour type studied, called an acoustic neuroma, is a rare benign tumour that forms between the brain and the inner ear. "It's located right where the radiation is most intense," Christensen told New Scientist. "If mobile phones are in some way able to influence tumour tissue, it should be able to influence acoustic neuromas." Too few of the subjects had used phones for more than 10 years to tell if there was a long-term risk, she says. There were not just fewer people using phones back then, says her colleague Christoffer Johansen, those that had mobiles also used them much less frequently than they do today. The researchers found no correlation between the side of the head on which the phone was used and the side on which tumours formed. And no difference was seen between people who started using old analogue phones or the more recent digital phones. Journal reference: American Journal of Epidemiology (vol 159, p 277) Duncan Graham-Rowe> With only 106 people with acoustic neuromas and with the fact that 70% of people hold the phone on their right ear and 30% on their left [and there might be some switching between the two ears so 70:30 is the maximum difference], then that is about 70 people versus 30 people. Since cellphones might cause 1 in 100 cases of neuroma, they are looking for one extra case. The numbers are too small to find the low risk from cellphones. They'd need a study involving a lot of brain tumours. If ALL the tumours were caused by cellphones, there would be [depending on how much people switch the phone between ears] 70 tumours on the right side and 30 on the left [give or take a few]. Acoustic neuromas weren't invented with the cellphone and the incidence in the 1980s before cellphones were used is probably known [somewhere]. There might have been an increase or decrease in the number of acoustic neuromas over the last 10 years during which cellphones have been used, but that wouldn't show a causal relationship. Other cancers have increased too. But if the incidence hasn't increased, then cellphones are unlikely to be the dominant or even a significant cause. Anyway, the study is too small to find anything other than a gross cause of acoustic neuromas. There's no basis to think cellphones are a dominant cause of brain cancers. If there is any effect, it's going to be of a very small extent. The study doesn't show that cellphones are safe and do not cause acoustic neuromas. All it does is show that the effect is less than a very small amount. It doesn't show just what risk there is. Maybe it's one case in 100. The study doesn't show that is wrong. It could be 2 in 100 and still fit the data. Mqurice