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 : Broadband Wireless Access [WCII, NXLK, WCOM, satellite..] -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: quartersawyer who wrote (87)	4/22/1999 10:40:00 PM
From: SteveG	Respond to of 1860

<..The results were negative. Why is that unacceptable?..> Keep your eyes open. Recent results differ.

To: quartersawyer who wrote (87)	4/23/1999 5:53:00 AM
From: Darren DeNunzio	Respond to of 1860

Regarding "Unacceptable" The hostility in your response, must mean you have a stake in the future of wireless. I read your first post, and must admit that for a "newcomer and a relative ignoramus", you have quite a command of the concepts of wireless. All that I said, in my post, was that it may be worth a second look. While the wireless industry says that there is no link to cancer and the use of cell-phones. wirelessonenet.com The tobacco industry also states that there is no link between cancer and smoking. The article below appeared in The Australian Newspaper, April 29, 1997. "The study looked at 200 mice, half exposed and half not, to pulsed digital phone radiation. The work was conducted at the Royal Adelaide Hospital by Dr Michael Repacholi, Professor Tony Basten, Dr Alan Harris and statistician Val Gebski, and it revealed a highly-significant doubling of cancer rates in the exposed group. The mice were subject to GSM-type pulsed microwaves at a power-density roughly equal to a cell-phone transmitting for two half-hour periods each day; this was pulsed transmission as from a handset, not the steady transmission of a cell-phone tower. A significant increase in B-cell lymphomas was evident early in the experiment, but the incidence continued to rise over the 18 months. The implications of the B-cell (rather than the normal T-cell) lymphomas here, is that B-cell effects are implicated in roughly 85 percent of all cancers." So would you still buy a cell-phone for your 14 year old ? I still think it is worth a second look.

To: quartersawyer who wrote (87)	4/23/1999 2:04:00 PM
From: Bonnie Bear	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1860

re health hazards..you can always lie with statistics if you have a product to sell. It's pretty well known among aerospace engineers, the ones that stick around past the age of forty seem to die in their fifties. Fifteen years working around RF aerospace engineers, and i've seen a lot of horrible cancer deaths. Big joke at Boeing and Lockheed was that they offered a pension but you'd never collect on it if you stayed long enough to be fully vested. I've seen calculations showing that DBC satellites powerful enough to do wideband generate enough RF to cause cancer on the ground!. So do your own due diligence. I've just seen too many RF engineers die of cancer, way too many, too young. Re cellphones...the calcs assume people only use them a few minutes a day. The real hazard is excessive use of them.