[79637] in Cypherpunks
Re: (fwd) Cell Phone Cancer Study
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul Pomes)
Wed May 7 18:36:07 1997
To: John Young <jya@pipeline.com>
Cc: cypherpunks@toad.com
From: Paul Pomes <ppomes@Qualcomm.com>
In-Reply-To: Your message of Tue, 06 May 1997 10:22:35 EDT.
<1.5.4.32.19970506142235.0083d2e4@pop.pipeline.com>
Date: Wed, 07 May 1997 14:16:36 -0700
Reply-To: Paul Pomes <ppomes@Qualcomm.com>
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
