Identifying reliable internet sources

I decided to research a different myth than the ones suggested (unless I missed something), hopefully that's OK. I chose the rather controversial myth about mobile phones causing brain cancer. Personally I hate cell-phones. Of course, fears of brain tumors are not what makes me dislike them, but all the same I will try to keep any bias out of my reports.

Here is a link to an article bursting at the seams with "evidence" that mobiles are killers, to the point where it seems ridiculous in places.
http://www.rense.com/general63/FACTS.HTM
Maybe it's true, but I don't know; I'm not a scientist. It is clear however that this article's author has a bias against mobile phones stronger than mine, so I am loath to take this article at face value.

Here's an article at the other side of the argument (more accurately, it tells it like it is).
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_1_3X_Cellular_Phones.asp

As it is from the website for the American Cancer Society, most of us would logically assume that it is a trustworthy source. But wait, didn't Mr. Philpot warn us against such "Authority worship"? Bearing that in mind and reading the article, I really don't think it's an issue. The article avoids sounding biased by stating that cell phones might present some risk (so it's not openly denying the possibility), and goes on to give reports from tests. It even states that the testing has been limited (because mobiles haven't been around long). I feel that the article really presents both sides of the controversy equally, and gives the facts. At no point does any emotion enter the text, unlike the first article, in which it is apparent that the author feels quite strongly about this subject. Her emotions perhaps cloud her judgment (I really sounded like Yoda there). Jokes aside, I will finish by saying that the credibility of articles could be determined by:
The source of the article (e.g. some average Joe's blog versus an article from an accredited scientific website, such as nasa.gov)
The feel of the article (i.e. if emotions enter the picture)
How the information is presented (if an article doesn't even talk about the other side of the argument for instance, readers should be careful before accepting it as truth)

A note about emotion in articles: With this example, a writer's feelings or emotions might very well create a bias, which can easily blind them to the truth, or at least limit what they report. However I believe that there are some topics in which writers should put emotion into their words. This particular subject is not one where that should be done, in my opinion.

I was not able to bust this myth, because I'm not a scientist. But looking at these two articles (and others) I would have to say that the risk of getting brain cancer from using cell phones is very small, but to say it is non-existent would be unwise.

Still. I hate mobile phones.