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.

Non-Tech : Philip Morris - A Stock For Wealth Or Poverty (MO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Theo Karantsalis who wrote (3435)	3/24/1999 10:57:00 PM
From: Walter in HK	Respond to of 6439

Texas is not the only state. Interesting case. It was proposed by the tobacco companies to research the matter, for $ 300 million, funded as part of the settlement. Lawyers and other costs are $ 49 Million. How many flight attendants were sick, what diagnosis ? It doesn't matter. This Foundation to research may be an excellent idea. Because it is likely that one can not prove a statistically significant connection between secondary smoke and any disorder. The strangest thing is that no one ever (hardly ever) talks about the radiation exposure of flight attendants. You all know how much fuss is being made about radioactive radon seeping into your leaky house from the basement. Well, I have a radiation counter which usually reads 12 counts / minute background radiation, 20 counts when held close to my (radioactive!) granite fireplace. Well, I took it up in a plane one day. First through the X-ray security, turned on, 5000 counts in 15 sec. But we don't put people though that. Seriously, up at 34 000 feet it registered 300 counts per minute, vs. 12 on the ground. Cosmic radiation, not attenuated by 14 pounds of air on every square inch, above us when we are on the ground. If radon is so dangerous, why is there not more concern ? The answers are: It is still not much radiation and what would we do if we couldn't fly ? We are hooked. The older you get, the more everything reminds you of something else. Sorry, fellows.

To: Theo Karantsalis who wrote (3435)	3/25/1999 6:19:00 AM
From: Theo Karantsalis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6439

''It's a non-issue..., " Sanford Bernstein. Thu, 25 Mar 1999, 6:12am EST Tobacco Firms' $349 Mln Florida Settlement Upheld (Update1) Tobacco Firms' $349 Mln Florida Settlement Upheld (Update1) (Adds analyst comment in third paragraph, detail in fourth and fifth paragraphs. Updates share price.) Miami, March 24 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. tobacco industry's $349 million settlement with a class of non-smoking flight attendants who claimed secondhand smoke made them ill was upheld by a Florida appeals court. The 1997 settlement involving Philip Morris Cos., RJR Nabisco Holdings Corp., B.A.T. Industries Plc's Brown & Williamson and Loews Corp.'s Lorillard unit was upheld after the Florida Third District Court of Appeal rejected challenges brought by flight attendants unhappy with the deal. ''Everybody knew it would be approved,'' said analyst Gary Black of Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. Inc. in New York. ''It's a non-issue as far as investors are concerned because it was something that was expected.'' New York-based Philip Morris and the other cigarette makers reached the settlement after six years of litigation with thousands of flight attendants, who claimed they were exposed to secondhand smoke in airliner cabins. Among other things, the settlement established a $300 million medical foundation fund to sponsor scientific research on smoking-related diseases. The dissenting flight attendants' primary concern was that the medical fund provides no specific benefit to flight attendants. The appellate court disagreed, though, saying ''the benefits of this settlement are abundant.'' Shares of New York-based Philip Morris, the world's No. 1 cigarette maker, rose 5/16 to close at 40 13/16 Wednesday. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ©1999 Bloomberg L.P. All rights reserved. BLOOMBERG, the BLOOMBERG service, BLOOMBERG NEWS, BLOOMBERG Data License, BLOOMBERG Energy, BLOOMBERG Magazine, BLOOMBERG PERSONAL FINANCE, THE BLOOMBERG FORUM, BLOOMBERG TRADEBOOK, BLOOMBERG SMALL BUSINESS, BLOOMBERG NEWS RADIO, BLOOMBERG NEWS RADIO AM 1130, the BLOOMBERG Web site, BLOOMBERG TELEVISION, BLOOMBERG PRESS, BLOOMBERG PROFESSIONAL LIBRARY, BLOOMBERG PERSONAL BOOKSHELF, and BLOOMBERG Road Shows are trademarks and service marks of Bloomberg L.P. Certain products and services are not available in some countries.