Re: (fwd) Cell Phone Cancer Study

[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