I wouldn't worry about it. Mobile phones emit radio waves, not gamma or x-rays, and large epidemiological studies have shown no link whatsoever between use and cancer statistics.
Oh, reeeeally.
OK, I'm torqued. Bernie Cohen did a
study comparing home radon levels to lung cancer mortality, a very large study of 1600+ counties across the US. This is a large epidemiological study. His data showed a negative correlation -- higher home radon levels corrrelated with lower lung cancer mortality. To be thorough, he took some 54 different possible confounding factors into consideration, and still found a negative correlation.
His critics objected -- correctly, mind you -- that correlation is not causation, and cited still more factors that might be skewing his data.
Cohen reworked his stuff, this time with maybe 102 factors accounted for, and still found a negative correlation.
His critics objected again and cited still more possibly-skewing factors.
He gave a talk here where I work a few years ago; by that time he & his team had looked at something north of 130 possible confounding factors, and were still finding the correlation negative.
Mind you, it's still correlation and doesn't prove anything. And yet, isn't it by now damned
suggestive correlation? Like, suggestive that the idea is worth serious research, instead of being (as it is in my field) blithely
dismissed because it belies the prevailing theory (linear/no threshold)?
Now, what torques me here is that
Cohen's epidemiological study gets wrung through the wringer -- an entirely appropriate wringer -- and yet is still written off, but elsewhere -- like here with your cell phone studies -- epidemiological studies get cited as if they were actual evidence of something, something more than correlation (or the apparent lack of it). Have your studies been subjected to anywhere near this level of criticism? Or are they being taken at first blush, as Cohen's
would have been had it supported the prevailing theory instead of challenging it? If the studies show what we
want to hear, we are inclined to
assume they're good, yes?
"Stoning nonconformists is part of science. Stoning conformists is also part of science. Only those theories which can stand up to a merciless barrage of stones deserve consideration." ---Tero Sand
Until your mobile phone studies get
seriously critiqued, I have to say that we don't know jack about cell phone effects, and those who rely on those studies are, in effect, operating on purblind faith.