I drive an Electric Vehicle. This article cites peer-reviewed studies suggesting a possible cancer risk connection. Should I be concerned?

I've been driving an electric vehicle for about two years and never gave much thought to electromagnetic fields until I came across this article: medium.com/@theinvisiblelayer/do-electric-vehicles-increase-cancer-risk-the-honest-answer-is-we-dont-know-0d489499a52b

I'm not a scientist, but I tried to check the sources cited and they appear to be real peer-reviewed studies. The core argument seems to be:

- Multiple independent epidemiological studies found statistically significant associations between chronic ELF magnetic field exposure above 3–4 mG and leukaemia risk — including Feychting & Ahlbom 1993/1994 (Karolinska Institute, Sweden), Floderus et al. 1993 (National Institute of Occupational Health, Sweden), and a 1999 NIEHS federal review that concluded ELF-EMF "cannot be recognised as completely safe" due to leukaemia associations in children and adults

- The WHO/IARC classified ELF-EMF as Group 2B (possible carcinogen) in 2001, partly on this basis

- Two independent Swiss railway worker studies (Minder et al. 2001, Roesli et al. 2007) found train drivers — spending 6–8h/day in similar ELF fields — had 2.4× higher leukaemia mortality, with a 62% increase in risk per additional year exposed above 100 mG

- A 2025 German government study (BfS) measured EV cabin fields at 5–25 mG during normal driving — above the epidemiological threshold

- The ICNIRP regulatory limit is 1,000 mG — 250× above the epidemiological risk threshold from independent studies

What struck me reading through the sources is a pattern the article points out: studies funded by electricity companies or industry consistently found no association, while studies funded by government or academic institutions consistently did. The article draws a parallel to the tobacco and sugar funding patterns. I don't know enough to assess whether that's a legitimate observation.

I'm genuinely trying to understand whether this is a legitimate research gap or a case of cherry-picked studies being used to make something sound scarier than it is.