I'm remaining skeptical. The NTP study they mention had methodological problems. David Gorski of Science Based Medicine wrote about that study when it made the

I'm remaining skeptical. The NTP study they mention had methodological problems. David Gorski of Science Based Medicine wrote about that study when it made the rounds (https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/no-a-rat-study-with-marginal-results-does-not-prove-that-cell-phones-cause-cancer-no-matter-what-mother-jones-and-consumer-reports-say/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/no-a-rat-study-with-margina...): What’s problematic about this study is that, even though there were 90 rats in each group, that’s actually a small number to detect meaningful differences in low frequency events. Here’s what I mean. The study reports increased incidences of tumors in the brains and hearts of the male rats. ... Comparing such low frequency events between groups can be very problematic, particularly in the case low plausibility associations with multiple comparisons. (I originally wrote something about not knowing the control group cancer rates, but thaumaturgy has access to the paper and addressed that in a sibling comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16659270 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16659270)