Anything that is less than double-blind is essentially a well documented hunch. In some situations this enough to merit action. This study is interesting enough to merit more science to build stronger evidence.
Merits of this study:
* It was large, twelve years and over 200,000 participants.
* The impact was dose responsive. People that reported talking longer on the phone had greater chances of hypertension.
* The impact is large enough to cause concern.
* In the published article, a mechanism of action was purposed (RF-EMF), and other studies related to this mechanism were cited.
* It fits the expected amount of 'controlling for' third variables you would expect, even if we cannot control for everything.
Weaknesses of this study:
* Mobile usage was self reported. Using empirical data such as cellphone bills or data from cellphone would have been much more accurate. There could be a bias where those with higher blood pressure perceive themselves as talking on mobile more frequently.
* There was no determination of the nature of the calls. Personally, my blood pressure feels very different when I talk to family for 30 minutes than if I'm talking to Comcast for 30 minutes.
* About 3/5 of the study participants dropped out. We'd expect lots of dropouts to occur with such a long study, but it could skew the data if dropouts had some statistical significance on measured values and weren't random. Dropouts are almost never random.
* The article admits those with mobile phone usage seem to be at a higher natural disposition for hypertension. More likely to smoke, many other high variables. It seems plausible that some other risk factors were associated with that cluster that did not get accounted for.
* No direct measurement of the purposed mechanism of action was performed.