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.

This is just one study and there are baffling results if you look at the data. For example, there's no good explanation for why the middle exposure group often had ZERO cancer (just like the control), with all the problems in the high & low exposure group.

That says to me that the random variance is high enough to swamp out the signal here. This also has to be weighed against all the studies that found no link.

I strongly expect that future studies will fail to replicate these results.

That's actually the case with lead. Lead is most dangerous at low and or high doses. No one knows why. Perhaps the body starts to fight back at a high enough dose, but loses at an even higher dose?