An oven will damage tissue by thermal heating. Since the energies involved in cell phones, WiFi, etc. induce negligible heating, we need another plausible pathway of interaction with the tissue. If we don't have one, then it's like saying that african butterflies could cause cancer at the North Pole by an yet unidentified phenomenon of spooky action at a distance. Impossible to disprove but irrelevant.
Edit: To make matters worse, there is even a profesional disease among people with RF exposure: eye cataract, due to thermal heating of a poorly irrigated and termoregulated corneal tissue. These are guys working in close proximity to megawatt transmitters. It is not correlated to cancers.
Heating was an example to demonstrate that non-ionizing radiation still impacts tissue. It doesn't make sense to dismiss a possible link between cancer and RF emitting devices just because we don't understand all the mediating mechanisms in that relationship. A lack of understanding is not negative evidence. And the fact that I can't disprove your butterfly theory is not a reason that simpler theories (phone usage ~ cancer) are invalid.
> A lack of understanding is not negative evidence
Clearly, but anybody claiming the spooky action effect needs to accept the burden of proof and produce positive evidence. When that necessitates new ways of physical interaction unknown to science, it's a colossal burden, likely to have far reaching implications and revolutionize multiple fields; it's highly unlikely that such positive evidence was ignored for the decades the effect was claimed.
Edit: To make matters worse, there is even a profesional disease among people with RF exposure: eye cataract, due to thermal heating of a poorly irrigated and termoregulated corneal tissue. These are guys working in close proximity to megawatt transmitters. It is not correlated to cancers.