1997-05-07 - Re: (fwd) Cell Phone Cancer Study

Header Data

From: Paul Pomes <ppomes@Qualcomm.com>
To: John Young <jya@pipeline.com>
Message Hash: 173eca793c8ce72a04ce974cc5cd689fcffc918da54cb1e839bf80ee215c8b1c
Message ID: <8567.863039796@zelkova.qualcomm.com>
Reply To: <>
UTC Datetime: 1997-05-07 21:45:13 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 05:45:13 +0800

Raw message

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: <>
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.