The most ''authoritative'' study on the relationship between mobile phone use and cancer is industry funded, and both meta-analyses, case-study and the IARC warn of the dangers of mobile phone use, while most government guidelines are rather complacent on the issue, and refer to the authority of the industry-funded study

Mobile phones use electromagnetic radiation in the microwave range (450–2100 MHz). Other digital wireless systems, such as data communication networks, produce similar radiation.

In 2011, International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified mobile phone radiation as Group 2B – possibly carcinogenic (not Group 2A – probably carcinogenic – nor the dangerous Group 1). That means that there "could be some risk" of carcinogenicity, so additional research into the long-term, heavy use of mobile phones needs to be conducted.[2] The WHO added in June 2011 that "to date, no adverse health effects have been established as being caused by mobile phone use",[3] a point they reiterated in October 2014.[4] Some national radiation advisory authorities[5] have recommended measures to minimize exposure to their citizens as a precautionary approach.

In 2009, a meta-analysis of 23 studies on mobile phone use and tumor risk found that "there is possible evidence" that mobile phone use causes an increased risk of tumors

In October 2012, Italian high court (Corte suprema di cassazione) granted an Italian businessman, Innocente Marcoloni a pension for occupational disease; "[c]ontrary to the denials of many health agencies in the U.S. and in some other countries, the Italian Supreme Court has recognized a "causal" link between heavy mobile phone use and brain tumor risk in a worker's compensation case." According to Reuters, a lower court in Brescia had "ruled there was a causal link between the use of mobile and cordless telephones and tumours" in the case of "Innocenzo Marcolini who developed a tumour in the left side of his head after using his mobile phone for [between 5 and 6] hours a day for 12 years. He normally held the phone in his left hand, while taking notes with his right hand" and that the ruling was upheld but they summarized experts saying the "decision flies in the face of much scientific opinion, which generally says there is not enough evidence to declare a link between mobile phone use and diseases such as cancer and some experts said the Italian ruling should not be used to draw wider conclusions about the subject." As it takes time to develop cancer, the court disregarded short-term studies.[citation needed] The court based their ruling on "studies conducted between 2005 and 2009 by a group led by Lennart Hardell, a cancer specialist at the University Hospital in Orebro in Sweden" and disregarded studies that were even partially funded by the mobile phone industry such as the INTERPHONE

Lennart Hardell (born 1944), is a Swedish oncologist and professor at Örebro University Hospital in Orebro, Sweden.[1] He is known for his research into what he says are environmental cancer-causing agents, such as Agent Orange,[2] and has said that cell phones increase the risk of brain tumors.[3]

Hardell's research on cell phones and cancer has concluded that long-term mobile phone use is associated with an increased risk of acoustic neuroma and glioma.[4][5] He has said that children should be banned from using cell phones except in emergencies, as he feels the risk of cancer is greater in people who begin using mobile phones before the age of 20.[6]

His research was criticized in a 2002 review for methodological flaws. The review authors, John D. Boice Jr. and Joseph K. McLaughlin, wrote that Hardell's study, published in the European Journal of Cancer Prevention, was "non-informative, either because the follow-up was too short and numbers of cancers too small, or because of serious methodological limitations."[7] Another of Hardell's studies, in which he claimed that mobile phone users in rural areas were at a greater risk of developing brain tumors,[8][9] was criticized by Adam Burgess in Spiked. Burgess wrote that the study was "post hoc and therefore hypothesis-generating only," and said that the increased risk Hardell had claimed to have found in the study was "barely statistically significant."[10]

-Wikipedia

I feel that latent biases associated with vested interests are underappreciated by the rationalist community. From my post on tobacco, to previous times I've raised the issue of mobile phones and health, to Givewells position on the worm wars: they're Master's economics students so It's not surprising that they're biased towards the economists side of the disciplinary debate.