Your link quotes an article describing
a WHO report. That report actually makes a
precautionary classification of radiofrequency radiation as a
possible carcinogen, on the grounds that the evidence isn't strong enough to empirically exclude the possibility, nor exclude the possibility of longer-term effects. That is not the same as concluding that there is a risk, and the report was completely clear that there is no credible evidence of any link.
Epidemiological research examining potential long-term risks from radiofrequency exposure has mostly looked for an association between brain tumours and mobile phone use. However, because many cancers are not detectable until many years after the interactions that led to the tumour, and since mobile phones were not widely used until the early 1990s, epidemiological studies at present can only assess those cancers that become evident within shorter time periods. However, results of animal studies consistently show no increased cancer risk for long-term exposure to radiofrequency fields.
The bit that the tinfoil hatters (literally!) will point to is the first half of the second sentence of this paragraph:
The international pooled analysis of data gathered from 13 participating countries found no increased risk of glioma or meningioma with mobile phone use of more than 10 years. There are some indications of an increased risk of glioma for those who reported the highest 10% of cumulative hours of cell phone use, although there was no consistent trend of increasing risk with greater duration of use. The researchers concluded that biases and errors limit the strength of these conclusions and prevent a causal interpretation.
However, note the first sentence, and also the qualifier "some". And the second half of that sentence is significant: if RF exposure was a causal factor, as opposed for other environmental and lifestyle factors, you would expect a correlation between total exposure and risk, and this is not found. As someone who understands statistics (professionally), and who has a medical statistician in the family, I can assure you that you need to be very careful about drawing an inference from a small excess seen in one subgroup of a population.
Hence the WHO's classification should not be read as an indication that there is an identified danger. Instead it is purely a statement that they have not got conclusive proof that there is no risk, and so they are covering themselves by not making a stronger statement than they can be absolutely certain of.
It's worth noting that there is also no proposed mechanism for RF fields to cause cell damage other than by direct heating, which is why you have SAR limits which are set well below the level at which significant tissue heating could occur.
