From: Paul Pomes <ppomes@Qualcomm.com>
Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 05:45:13 +0800
To: John Young <jya@pipeline.com>
Subject: Re: (fwd) Cell Phone Cancer Study
In-Reply-To: <1.5.4.32.19970506142235.0083d2e4@pop.pipeline.com>
Message-ID: <8567.863039796@zelkova.qualcomm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


While I am not involved with the cellular area of Qualcomm, I am
familiar with the publishing policies of Nature and Science as a
reader of both for the last ten years.  Neither journal shies away
from controversy.  We have only the author's say-so as to why their
papers were rejected.  To me Occams Razor suggests bad science as
a better explanation than conspiracy.

I sent the following to Stewart Fist:

>|When presented to 'Science' magazine for publication the study was
>|rejected on the grounds that publication "would cause a panic".
>
>Proof please.  More likely Nature and Science rejected it because it
>was badly done science.

His response:

|I don't offer proof.  I am a journalist, and I just report what I was told
|in interviews with the scientists involved.

So there's been no confirmation or checking of the science involved, or why
the papers were rejected by both an American and British science journal.

/pbp