You admitted that the research was performmed by a mobile operator.
Of course they say it's not dangerous.
I would prefer to listen to independent researches performed without financial support by companies involved in telecom businnes.

There are actually contradicting researches on this topic published on nature, as far as I remember. They deal with gene defects generated by resonance effects of the EM radiation.

From what is known so far, the EM radiation is not intense enough to effect the human genes. The aforesaid resonance effect is the only possible danger, although not proven experimentally yet.

Besides, if you step out your house next time, remember, EM radiation from the sun is actually dangerous.

near an motocross circuit were i go for fun, there is a large radio antenna which radiated power is 1.5 MW http://www.panoramio.com/photo/36534581 the powerfull on south east europe

this antenna was installed in 1949 and villagers complain about not powerfull enough to drive a washing machine from tv antenna. they diy antennas for 100 W incandescent bulb and some of them never pay for light. fluorescent enlight only if tubes stuck in the ground

if they don't die from this power for shure they don't complain about phone sar

What about their children? Regular count of limbs, fingers and toes and no abnormal hair growth patterns? Any local folklore about supernatural creatures or paranormal events?

every country have scandal magazine. I certainly have heard . they are usual hardworking rednecks when they are not drunk.
there are more chances to get cancer from food chemicals or die in car accident than use a phone with exception of SMS-ing under heavy weight object lifted by a broken cable crane.

.sar levels is like euro x car emissions levels. no practical difference between euro 3 and euro 5 and above euro 4 ... nothing change. but euro 6 car will sell better. and any commercials will point to that .. loudly

Most of the medical tests about cellular phone radiation has been done concerning head and brains during the phone calls.

Situation has changed with smart phones, which have semi-active data connection 24/7 and people keep them in their trousers's pockets 8-10 hours a day. I would not be surprised if there some day comes alarming news that this kind of exposure is harmful for testicles, prostate and ovaries.

I used to consume 400 mAh (3.7V battery) with Nokia 8110 in two days ~10 yers ago. Nowadays I consume ~2400 mAh (3.7V battery) every day, so 12 times more. Surely more than 12x the outbound radiation has increased and my body has to cope all that usually just 1 inch away from the radiation source.

all that power turn into gsm signal ? you have a device with more powerfull cpu , gpu , bluetooth-pu, wifi- pu , ... , [et c.]-pu............ and don' t think so while gsm specifications have not change over time

I use relatively and absolutely more data over the air than 10 years ago, and it has increased every year and probably will.

Of course there is more powerful hardware, but also hardware does more with less energy. Proportionally I estimate (out of the hat) the ratio of battery consumption between internal processing vs outbound sent radiation has been about same.

put more data on a channel don't lead necessarily increase energy needed for this transmission as a first thought. in fact is mandatory to decrease energy need for this.
take for example
1 ) cpu . ten year old cpu vs actual. the last one run at higher frequencies at low voltages
2 ) fsb bus move more data at approximately same old bus frequencies 266 MHz quad pumped --> traditional 1066 MHz
3 ) 64 QAM vs. 256 QAM
................

more intelligence included into a data channel =>> more data in the channel without increased power on the channel but more processing power needed . thinking at mp3 on 8086 cpu ! not enough processing power.
another example : old modems 300 baud , 600 . .... 33600 baud . near Shannon limit on 1w limited power 3,3kHz limited bandwidth phone line ( ten times data frequency !!!! )

x ) draft n wireless link . i don't remember it need more emission power proportional with data quantity

I see your points, but still I use and spend 12x times energy than 10 years ago. I do not think my phone produces much more heat though than then, I still keep it in my pocket as I did then, so I'd assume much of the extra energy must go out with intentional radiation (GPRS, UMTS, WLAN, BT)

If all the extra energy consumption would be because higher data processing, there would be more heat produced.