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."
I don't think that's very surprising, given the nature of the at-risk population; which is why any theory proposing a previously unexamined mechanism should be able to account for the lack of epidemiological evidence. For ethical reasons that is the only evidence we're likely to ever have. Even when you stipulate that some studies show some effect, it is actually quite small. So then (as they attempt to do in the survey paper) you must propose the existence of a specific at-risk subpopulation which is either a) too small or b) not yet properly identified for sampling within the statistics.
That, as I see it, is the problem. Whatever the mechanism is -- if it even exists -- cannot be of general applicability to humans. As blunt an instrument as epidemiology may be for certain purposes, in large populations it is infallible. And that is the crux of why I object to the speculative statement in the last paper, which posits the likelihood of such an at-risk population. Just so. But unfortunately, that assumes what the proponents are trying to prove.