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: A.J. Mullen who wrote (79256)	7/27/2008 10:25:02 PM
From: techlvr	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 196562

The issue with radiation, as I would see it, has to do with whether the frequency is high enough to break chromosome linkages (for example, x-ray, UV, and frequencies beyond X-rays). If so, then a particular radiation would be likely to cause cancer due to the destruction of the normal genetic cell coding. If the frequency is not high enough for that (in decreasing frequency, visible light, infrared, microwave, radiowave including phones), then the only significant effect is heating. It would be possible that very strong radiation strength could overheat tissue and as a result cause some molecular vibration sufficient to break bonds and damage chromosomes. However, even in microwave ovens there has not been shown that effect. The brain is capable of consuming up to 1/3 of the total body calories, and in order to do so has a very huge blood supply. The flow rate of blood through the brain, like in a radiator of a car, is sufficient to carry off any local build-up of heat. Cell phones do not radiate broadcast radiation at anywhere near the strength of microwaves. Hence, the likelihood of a cell phone causing cancer is remote to say the least. Maurice may have something there with his idea of cell phone users being able to moderate their body heat generation by using any local heating from their cell phones dissipated throughout their body to reduce the heat production demand. It is possible that we could be healthier after all. Sorry, got to go now. Calls to make, body heat to generate. Techlvr

To: A.J. Mullen who wrote (79256)	7/28/2008 7:35:30 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 196562

Yes Ashley , it's early days in the cyberphone radiation/brain cancer epidemiology, but we can already say that the hazard is way down there at normally acceptable risk levels. Today Tarken-san told me a prospective Zenbu provider is concerned about radiation from the Zenbu Wi-Fi router antennas, but he likes to go to the top of Mount Ruapehu and take photos of the crater lake etc. Mount Ruapehu is an active volcano which lets rip now and then, without warning. The risk assessment of some people is baffling. I'm not on the fence = I'll bet real money that cyberphones cause brain cancer. Cancer is a function of DNA, heat, radiation, diet, chemistry, toxins, viruses, luck. DNA problems can cause cancer. Viruses can. Radiation can. Toxins can. Dietary deficiencies and surpluses can. They can do it alone or in combination with other variables. The way to get cancer going is to have a person with DNA prone to the cancer in question, who happens to get the right toxins while in a dietary deficient state, then load them with ionizing radiation, boosted with heating radiation. Do it lots of times so bad luck gets a chance to do its work. As mentioned, correlation is not causation, but there is an obvious mechanism by which cyberphones can increase the rate of cancer formation. Suppose a cancer causing molecule is bumping into a DNA molecule just at the instant that an almost-ionizing photon smacks into the molecule at just the right point. Maybe there is not quite enough energy for the cancer-causing chemical reaction to take place. But just then, the phone rings and the person starts transmitting and a low energy 800MHz photon joins the almost-reacting situation just in time to boost the reaction energy enough to cause the cancer-causing chemical to react and start the cancer cell on its way to glory. One of the major issues in the oil industry is carcinogenicity [with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, benzene, nitrites, amines [causing nitrosamines and stomach cancer] and all sorts] in liquids being handled on skin and by inhalation and from exhausts. Even with NO ionizing or 800MHz radiation, there's plenty of scope for cancer. Add energy from radiation to the brew and the process is accelerated. In single-variable experiments, yes, 800MHz photons would not succeed at causing cancer, but add in carcinogenic chemicals, DNA deficiencies in the individual, cancer causing viruses, dietary deficiencies leaving immune systems defective, cook it up with some high-energy photons and then top it off with some low energy 800MHz and there should be an increased production of cancer cells and their precursors. The cellphone energy doesn't have to raise bulk brain temperature. It only has to raise the temperature at a particular part of a molecule for an instant, being the place and instant when the carcinogenic reaction is deciding whether to proceed or not. That's my theory. But that risk is really low and can best be reduced by avoiding the toxins, poor diet, gamma rays [stay out of aircraft], viruses, by choosing good parents [with good DNA]. Maybe good sleep helps too. Given the variation in glioma risk across countries, it looks as though 800MHz cellphones are trivial compared with the serious causes. Mqurice PS: <<What can we expect in 50-60 years time? (Apart from death for you and me, Maurice.>> Where did you hear that unscientific vicious rumour? And yes, "fewer than 80", not "less than 80" [ooops].