It also shows "the male rats exposed to cell-phone radiation actually lived longer than the control group". I'm not quite sure how to take such jarring results.
If they did not properly account for longevity then it's easy to see how (live longer -> higher chance of cancer)
Exactly. So—assuming all results are statistically significant—where's the causal relationship? Radiation-> Cancer? Radiation->Lives longer? Lives longer->Cancer? and if there are two results that are related independently of this study (lives longer/gets more cancer), then how can we presume one of the other results is more "valid" than another (as broadcast in the headlines)
There were 6 times as many test groups as control groups (3 intensities * 2 modulations). It would have been good to have more control groups to reduce statistical effects.