As stated already, to this time, we do not have available objective information whether human body recognizes mobile phone radiation (at levels permitted by the current safety standards) as an external stressor and responds to it at molecular level.
This is either incorrectly translated, or it is false. The currently available data and theories at the molecular level says there is no stressor effect. That could very well be wrong, but isn't the same thing as saying we "have no information." We do. Or this:
"However, there likely exists a subpopulation of people with different sensitivity to mobile phone radiation"
This is a pure conjecture which has no place in a scientific paper that fails to offer any evidence of the assertion. I don't understand how such a statement could get past a referee. [A weaker statement, allowing the possibility of such a population might be tolerable, but likelihood is a strong implication.]
In fine and in sum: the paper does a decent job of reviewing the controversy with the epidemiological data but does not really examine the flaws in any detail, and does not examine any of the proposed (and unproved) mechanisms. I suppose for a lay audience it's OK...
I'm not sure why he wrote that. In 2008 they wrote: "This is the first study showing that molecular level changes might take place in human volunteers in response to exposure to RF-EMF."
In the 2010 paper, they cited: DNA fragmentation in human fibroblasts under extremely low frequency electromagnetic field exposure, as their fifth reference.
Maybe something is getting lost in translation as you suggested. What I found interesting was the statement in the 2010 paper that said, in effect, was that most of the studies done were in vitro.
"The majority of the evidence comes from in vitro laboratory studies and is of very limited use for determining health risk."