Just a factor is often not enough. If a study would show that cell phone usage increased the risk of a certain cancer with 40%, that might still not be interest

Just a factor is often not enough. If a study would show that cell phone usage increased the risk of a certain cancer with 40%, that might still not be interesting if it's an extremely rare cancer and they found 7 cases instead of 5. Or it doesn't show whether various correlation factors matter, or whether this is a statistical paradox. Did you know that babies of smokers are healthier than babies of non-smokers of the same weight? This is because baby born to the smoker will have decreased weight because of the smoking, whereas if the baby of the non-smoker is underweight it will be for other reasons that are often worse. There's heaps of these kind of paradoxes and pitfalls that need to be taken in account. What we need in newspapers and other media is a simplified abstract of the paper and an explanation or approval of a real life statistician, with no relation to the study.