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: Fiero who wrote (72208)	12/11/2007 2:15:51 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 196958

It was under discussion here <Shouldn't this kind of stuff be on your "Write what you like" forum? > If you check the energies, a 2GHz photon has more effect than an ant on a railway bridge. It's a factor of about 1000 in the case of 2GHz. If that energy is combined with other co-incident photons of high energy, of which there are plenty, then they can indeed be the straw on the camel's back [though a straw on a camel is like an ant on a railway bridge]. Cancer is a probabilistic business and the aether is full of photons all jostling for absorption at the right spot and coincident absorptions are going to happen. Not to mention what we eat, and need, contributing: <The main contributor to our personal exposure to radiation from terrestrial sources is from potassium-40. Potassium-40 is relatively abundant in nature. Since potassium is also an essential element for our bodies, potassium-40 is a major contributor to out internal radiation exposure. > It's a busy life in the radiation department. <The energy of each photon in the telecommunications part of the electromagnetic spectrum is well below the excitation energy of even the most electronically fragile atom. The highest energy photons are in the 1-2GHz region. These photons have energies of up to 9x10-6 eV. The binding energies of the weakest molecular bonds in biological systems are about 4x10-2eV, more than a thousand times larger (and therefore stronger) than energies of the incident photons of the electromagnetic radiation in the telecommunications spectrum. Recall that the intensity of the radiation is not important, it is the photon energy that determines whether or not photons will break molecular bonds or ionize an atom. While the photons of electromagnetic radiation in the telecommunications spectrum cannot interact at the atomic or molecular level, they can cause slight oscillations of an entire molecule leading to an increase in the average thermal kinetic energy of the molecules in a substance, and hence causing an increase in the temperature of the substance. Extraordinarily intense radiation is needed to create a measurable temperature change. Such radiation intensities are found in the cavity of a microwave oven. > Cancer is also a chemical reaction. Chemical reactions go better with more energy input. Although small, a 2GHz energy addition might just tip the reaction of the benzene ring to hook into the DNA to produce the cancer, which might not otherwise have happened. There are obviously small enhancements to cell disruptions due to microwaves from cellphones. The question is whether they are worth worrying about. I don't think so. I have a very long list of things to worry about before I worry about getting brain cancer from my cellphone. My point is that the industry, namely QUALCOMM which is my main investment should not contribute to the claim that there is NO effect due to cellphones. They should say that there is probably some effect but it is too small to be measured. A class action suit by people suffering brain cancers is NOT an addition to the list of litigation that I'd like to see. People who die from glioma and other brain cancers lose ALL their lives and probabilistically, they would have lived until 80. So a value could be estimated for that loss of life. If they died at 30 from it, that would be worth a lot more than dying at 79. A proportionate risk from cellphones could be argued over in court. While a particular individual couldn't be said to have died due to a particular cellphone or ASIC or piece of intellectual property, which means legally QUALCOMM would get away with it, the tobacco companies were caught in the end. A good approach is to take responsibility and be upfront about things. At least if people have been told there is a small to tiny risk, then it's up to them whether they take it, rather than being lied to by people who should know, or do know, better. Mqurice