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 Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jon Koplik who wrote (72134)	12/8/2007 10:18:57 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 196660

Jon, a product being "legal" doesn't make it legal to wantonly, knowingly, deceitfully and callously sell it when ignorant people are going to be damaged by it. My understanding of legal processes is that a product could be legal, which does not mean it has been "approved", but the selling of it could be illegal if the buyers are deceived and harmed. That's fraud. I would like to see a class action suit about lead in petrol [gasoline] and in paint. It should be directed at people and companies who knowingly inflicted harm. I have personally seen, and I think still have, evidence of knowing deception about evidence on the harm of lead to brains. It made me angry at the time and would love to present it as evidence against the producers of the misinformation. This is relevant to QUALCOMM because there are theories around that 2GHz and other QUALCOMM-produced photons cause harm to people [specifically brain cancer]. It's not sufficient to say that selling CDMA ASICs, cellphones, cyberphones, building base stations etc is legal. If QUALCOMM knows, or should know, that the products are harmful, then it's reasonable that they be liable for damage done if there is damage done and there is no warning despite QUALCOMM having knowledge, or if they should have such knowledge. If [as would obviously be the case] a particular person suffers a brain cancer but the cause can't be established as being due to a QUALCOMM product, then it would be reasonable to determine a probablistic portion of the damage. Basically, if a gang of criminals commits a crime, each member of the gang should be liable even if the specific person who pulled which trigger can't be separated from the others who were also pulling triggers. Mq's theory of cancer caused by cellphones is mostly on Write What You Like, with Rich Belanger [deceased] who was a consultant on radiological health effects for IDEC cancer treatment, providing some expert commentary. He didn't think microwaves are a problem. I disagreed. MQ + X = 2C is the equation describing the amount of brain cancer caused [which I admit is still in testing in my shed for scientific precision]. Here's a link to the details: Message 22085695 I don't think the problem is significant. But it does exist to a minuscule extent, which, unlike lead, is concentrated in the very unlucky individuals who get the brain cancer. Lead in petrol in somebody's car does small harm to everyone, microwaves do enormous harm to a tiny number of people. The harm is microscopically infinitesimal compared with the vast life-long damage to people caused by lead in their brains. On the scale of harm, from worst to least: Dietary deficiency Lead Tobacco Asbestos Airliners . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cellphones Mqurice PS: That article was wrong about "... now we also know that lead in the bloodstream, even in small doses, has the potential to cause problems in babies." That is false. It is NOT potential to cause problems. It does cause damage in every instance. Lifelong harm. "has the potential" is a deceitful way of presenting the facts. Holding a loaded shotgun an inch away from somebody's head and pulling the trigger has "the potential" to cause brain damage from lead too. The number of times the harm would be avoided would be near zero. <Today, any child who has more than 10 micrograms per deciliter is considered to have an elevated blood lead level — though under these modern standards, the entire baby boomer generation had elevated blood lead levels as children. > In the early 1980s, I had a desk-full of studies on lead in petrol and effects on brains. 10 micrograms per decilitre was low. Normal was about 15. Up to 30 was considered acceptable by doctors. Over that was considered excessive. But actual clinical harm was evident at about 60 or 70, requiring chelation. There was little gap between actual macro clinical damage levels of blood lead and normal levels in swarms of people. It was insane how much lead was considered acceptable. And, the ridiculous thing, is that there was no net economic benefit in having the bloody lead in petrol anyway. It was half a century of MADness.