But our economy is already dependent on mobile data. So cancer or not, there's no stopping it. The economy decides what's safe.
Let me remind you of a similar situation - 50 years ago, it wasn't common knowledge that smoking was harmful. Many people smoked. Then, overwhelming evidence showed that it was harmful. Then, there were widespread campaigns telling people just that. Today, not as many people smoke, and not to the same degree. Success! Should we have given up on teaching people sense?
Second, what makes you think - assuming that cell phone emissions are indeed significant enough to be harmful - we can't have tech that works as it does now, but is less harmful?
Your point doesn't stand. You implied that society needs cellphones, therefore there can be no ban on them. No one's calling to ban all cellphones. The suggestion is to reevaluate safety criteria, and disallow phones above that threshold.
Seems maybe you're right on one point, it seems plain education seems to be less successful. It's only a contributing factor whereas taxing and banning are the main factors in getting adults to stop smoking: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/25/why-smoking-rates-a...
This is even funnier though, since it suggests that the approach of taxing and banning nonconforming cell phones would work, which is the opposite of what you're suggesting.
Why would you argue that to be a number of any significant size?
There seems to be three possibilities here: A:you believe that killing randomly selected people will prevent more deaths than it causes.
B:you believe that killing a people does.
C:You believe that more people have died of brain cancer from cell phones than have been saved by them (in which case, statistics would be nice maybe? I might not look at your responce, so maybe not worth it to you.)
D: Some other interpretation of what you said that I haven't thought of.
A seems absurd, B seems absurd and possibly problematic, C seems false, but less obviously, D is essentially "other".
Is your claim that em radiation from cell phones (for signal purposes) can alter DNA molecules, Or is your claim that it can e.g. Allow mutant cells to grow or some such ( make it more likely for the cancer to spread and such, instead of being destroyed by the immune system (accuracy?))?