Previous HN thread, with many of the problems in this publication discussed:<p><a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11784160" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11784160</a>
Note that the irradiated group also lived longer. I'm surprised the headline didn't read, "New Study Finds Cancer Good for Your Health!"<p>PSA: health research headlines are generally worse than worthless.<p>Also, remember, "one study on rats" will never be sufficient to correct anything physicists know about EM waves.<p>UPDATE: Here's the WHO announcement explaining the 2B classification. I didn't find it very satisfying, but judge for yourself:
<a href="http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf</a>
Here is the link to the actual paper: <a href="http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/05/26/055699.full.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/05/26/055699.f...</a><p>The rats where exposed to more RF for 9 hrs a day than what is permissable for general public exposure to RF by various safety standards. It does seem like this was more of a study that found that pesticide killed butterflies by crushing them with it.<p>They calibrated the RF levels to be under that which causes heating, rather than levels humans typically are exposed to.<p>I would be worried about this increased cancer risk if I was a cell tower maintenance worker who liked to put in a days sleep while draped over the active antennas.
A study with cancer happy rats does not mean there is a connection to humans.<p><a href="http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/10/massive-15-year-study-finds-no-link-between-cell-phones-cancer/" rel="nofollow">http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/10/massive-15-year-study...</a>
Short answer: NO<p>Sounds a lot like The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy</a><p>Do enough studies and statistically speaking one of them will show a link. This is most likely a statistical outlier and without multiple iterations of this test a false conclusion can easily be created.<p>Also as other commentators have already pointed out there are other points of correlation such as longevity which have been conveniently ignored - again helping to reinforce the TSF :)
The funny thing is people have started to make a big deal out this and smartphones are required to emit less than 1.6 watts. This is in stark contrast to the many, many years, people were using 3 watt phones and nobody ever made a link between cancer and using phones that emitted much more than today's cellphones.
While this isn't particularly worrying, it shows that all people who said that cell phone radiation simply cannot cause harm, who were convinced %100 that harm was impossible, that those people were just arogant baffoons.