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 Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Caxton Rhodes who wrote (6682)	12/23/1997 6:54:00 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 152472

Caxton, the other difference between phones and tomatoes is that phones make your ear hot, whereas tomatoes make them wet. I carefully avoided the irradiated food issue. I get sidetracked easily enough as it is, but also it's a different issue. The concern I have with irradiated food is the same concern I have with food cooked over 160 deg or so. There is a lot of polymerisation, cracking, oxidation and general chemical reactivity initiated. Some of which tastes delicious, kills microbes and even destroys toxins. But some of it makes carcinogens and other nasty chemicals with which your digestive system then has to contend. I guess some people are worried that the tomatoe becomes like a mini nuke after irradiation, but that isn't my concern. While the studies you have seen don't show statistical risk from electric power lines, you realize that doesn't mean there is no risk. The problem with this "There are no studies showing any risk" approach is that the alleged experts then conclude from their inaccurate measurement that the effect doesn't exist. They extrapolate from a pathetic bit of information to a faulty conclusion. As the saying goes, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. A bit like your average ruler and slide rule toting engineer might decide that relativity doesn't exist because his ruler only measures to 3 significant figures. Overall, epidemiology seems barbaric. Much better to establish direct causal relationships. Sometimes pretty tough, but understanding processes helps. You don't really need to count millions of bodies to know that if you inhale benzene from cigarettes, car exhaust, or from a solvent mixture, the effect will be the same. Leukaemia. The epidemiology is really just to get a rough idea of the extent of the problem and what sort of people might be affected. It seems obvious that cellphones cause cancer, but on the risk list, they are way below nearly everything in our lives. Certainly lymphoma from sunlight, hair bleach and dye, Japanese virus, bad genes, xrays, gamma rays, over-cooked food, nutrient shortage or whatever seems a much worse risk to me than some vanishingly small risk from using a cellphone. Especially a cmdaOne one. Unless you carelessly use it while driving a car. Mqurice