Maine Senator Says Cell Phones Cause Cancer... Say What?

What does the FCC tell kids?

Do cell phones cause brain cancer?

There is no scientific evidence to date that proves that wireless phone usage can lead to cancer or a variety of other health effects, including headaches, dizziness or memory loss.... the FDA, which has primary jurisdiction for
investigating mobile phone safety, stated that it did not have enough information at that time to rule out the possibility of risk, but if such a risk exists, "it is probably small." The FDA concluded that there is no proof that cellular telephones can be harmful.

Take a look for yourself, click here.

What does the FDA say. Aren't they suppose to supervise this?

1. The weight of scientific evidence has not linked cell phones with any health problems.
2. Over the past 15 years, scientists have conducted hundreds of studies looking at the biological effects of the radiofrequency energy emitted by cell phones.
3. While some researchers have reported biological changes associated with RF energy, these studies have failed to be replicated.
4. The majority of studies published have failed to show an association [between the two].

Take a look for your self. The official policy of the Food and Drug Administration [in regards to cell phone cancer (i.e. radiation].

"Research abounds, but much of the literature is contradictory."

CNET

"There is currently no firm evidence that using a mobile phone will increase your risk of developing a brain tumour or any other type of cancer."

CancerHelp.org

You are more likely to cause damage to your ear drum with the constant sound waves pressed against your ear than you are by heating your body tissue and causing cancer over the same short time period.

(keep reading please...)

The Belief, Main Idea

Fundamentally, the interested parties (i.e. content providers, such a Yahoo and Google) would have you believe net neutrality is all about equality; the idea that internet users should be in control of what they view and what applications they can use.

The Government, namely the FCC and its philosophy under the guidelines it has proposed since 2005, would have you believe net neutrality is all about obstructing the free flow of information and stifling “…the foundation for democracy in the 21st century.”

Broadband companies – the companies that actually supply the backbone the applications and content run on – say simply the internet is not free:

"The internet did not appear one day with the current infrastructure we have today."

Moreover, broadband companies counter by reminding content companies of the $70 billion in investment costs for last year alone. If investments like this were not made you can easily imagine reading your e-mail – after it took you 20 minutes to download it.

The people believe, as is correct, that speech and the right to it is free. This is absolutely part of the issue but is so small as compared to what net neutrality so largely about.

The people have a right to a voice they do not have the right to go to a private auditorm that took ages and millions of dollars to build and demand access to it.The people have a right to go somewhere else and boycot the building that denied them fair access. If the building in question was the only access to the marketplace - and it was a documented issue - then laws would and should be appropriate. However, carriers are not motivated to control your voice but manage their networks.