I chalk stuff like this up to sensationalism in the media. They want a story, they go find one. They want it (or the reporter) to sound more important than it really is, so you get all kinds of open speculation with descriptions that are based on only a few (if any) facts. ("Today, Johnny broke his toe. Are you at risk? Film at eleven.")

Things like this have to be taken with a grain of salt, I think. Just like the sometimes alarming studies about driving habits. Often I will see these in an American paper, when the study was conducted in a different country (with drivers from a different culture, different rules of the road, different demographics, etc.) and yet the reporting agency will blatantly extrapolate from this data and apply it to people who are completely unlike the ones the study is about.

In this case, I would sure like to know how these guys hear their phones, holding them so far from their ear. And four hours a day? When did they start making batteries that good? The more scarce the data, the more skeptical I get.