This preprint presents results from a 2-year National Toxicology Program study on the effects of cell-phone radiation in rats. On page 8 of the PDF, survival results are presented. The presentation of the results is complicated by the fact that some treatment groups experienced significantly different effects when compared to the control group, while in other groups the effect was small but not significant. However, the gist is that rats treated with phone radiation lived longer, and that the effect is stronger in male rats.
I was confused by the fact that this result is presented in the "Results" section on page 8, while the seemingly less significant finding - that treated rats had higher rates of cancer or tumors - was presented in the "Summary" section on page 4. Obviously the study was funded to address concerns we have about observed relationships between cell-phone use and cancer, but when an effect on longevity was discovered, shouldn't this have become the primary result?
The plots on page 11 (Figure 3) and 12 (Figure 4) show some more interesting relationships between the survival of the various groups. Figure 4A shows the high-dose (6W/kg) CDMA male group overtaking the control males only towards the end of the study. With the GSM males (Figure 3A), as well as the low-dose CDMA males, the control group does worse almost from the beginning.
I'm curious to know why more people haven't commented on this result in news outlets. My opinion is that controlled experiments in animals aren't perfect, but they're much better than cheap "longitudinal" studies in humans. As far as I can tell, this is the best evidence we have to date, and it says that cell phone radiation promotes longevity. So why aren't we being required to sleep with phones next to our heads?