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?))?