Recent years have seen a rapid increase in the use of mobile phones and other sources of microwave radiation, raising concerns about possible adverse health effects. As children have longer expected lifetime exposures to microwaves from these devices than adults, who started to use them later in life, they are a group of special interest. We performed a population-based study to assess ownership and use of mobile phones and cordless phones among children aged 7–14 years. A questionnaire comprising 24 questions was sent to 2000 persons selected from the Swedish population registry using a stratified sampling scheme. The response rate was 71.2%. Overall, 79.1% of the respondents reported mobile phone access, and 26.7% of them talked for 2 minutes or more per day. Of those who reported mobile phone access, only 5.9% reported use of hands-free equipment. Use of cordless phones was reported by 83.8% of the respondents and 38.5% of them talked for 5 minutes or more per day. Girls generally reported more frequent use than boys. This study showed that most children had access to and used mobile and cordless phones early in life and that there was a rapid increase in use with age. It also showed very low use of hands-free equipment among children with mobile phone access, and finally that girls talked significantly more minutes per day using mobile and cordless phones than boys did.

On 31 May 2011 the WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) categorised radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMFs) from mobile phones, and from other devices that emit similar non-ionising electromagnetic fields, as a Group 2B, i.e., a “possible”, human carcinogen. A causal association would be strengthened if it could be shown that the use of wireless phones has an impact on the survival of glioma patients. We analysed survival of 1678 glioma patients in our 1997–2003 and 2007–2009 case-control studies. Use of wireless phones in the >20 years latency group (time since first use) yielded an increased hazard ratio (HR) = 1.7, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.2–2.3 for glioma. For astrocytoma grade IV (glioblastoma multiforme; n = 926) mobile phone use yielded HR = 2.0, 95% CI = 1.4–2.9 and cordless phone use HR = 3.4, 95% CI = 1.04–11 in the same latency category. The hazard ratio for astrocytoma grade IV increased statistically significant per year of latency for wireless phones, HR = 1.020, 95% CI = 1.007–1.033, but not per 100 h cumulative use, HR = 1.002, 95% CI = 0.999–1.005. HR was not statistically significant increased for other types of glioma. Due to the relationship with survival the classification of IARC is strengthened and RF-EMF should be regarded as human carcinogen requiring urgent revision of current exposure guidelines.

The use of cellular and cordless telephones has increased dramatically during the last decade. There is concern of health problems such as malignant diseases due to microwave exposure during the use of these devices. The brain is the main target organ. Since the second part of the 1990's we have performed six case-control studies on this topic encompassing use of both cellular and cordless phones as well as other exposures. Three of the studies concerned brain tumours, one salivary gland tumours, one non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and one testicular cancer. Exposure was assessed by self-administered questionnaires. Regarding acoustic neuroma analogue cellular phones yielded odds ratio (OR) = 2.9, 95 % confidence interval (CI) = 2.0–4.3, digital cellular phones OR = 1.5, 95 % CI = 1.1–2.1 and cordless phones OR = 1.5, 95 % CI = 1.04–2.0. The corresponding results were for astrocytoma grade III-IV OR = 1.7, 95 % CI = 1.3–2.3; OR = 1.5, 95 % CI = 1.2–1.9 and OR = 1.5, 95 % CI = 1.1–1.9, respectively. The ORs increased with latency period with highest estimates using > 10 years time period from first use of these phone types. Lower ORs were calculated for astrocytoma grade I-II. No association was found with salivary gland tumours, NHL or testicular cancer although an association with NHL of T-cell type could not be ruled out. We found for all studied phone types an increased risk for brain tumours, mainly acoustic neuroma and malignant brain tumours. OR increased with latency period, especially for astrocytoma grade III-IV. No consistent pattern of an increased risk was found for salivary gland tumours, NHL, or testicular cancer.

To study the association between use of wireless phones and meningioma. We performed a case–control study on brain tumour cases of both genders aged 18–75 years and diagnosed during 2007–2009. One population-based control matched on gender and age was used to each case. Here we report on meningioma cases including all available controls. Exposures were assessed by a questionnaire. Unconditional logistic regression analysis was performed. In total 709 meningioma cases and 1,368 control subjects answered the questionnaire. Mobile phone use in total produced odds ratio (OR) = 1.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.7-1.4 and cordless phone use gave OR = 1.1, 95% CI = 0.8-1.5. The risk increased statistically significant per 100 h of cumulative use and highest OR was found in the fourth quartile (>2,376 hours) of cumulative use for all studied phone types. There was no statistically significant increased risk for ipsilateral mobile or cordless phone use, for meningioma in the temporal lobe or per year of latency. Tumour volume was not related to latency or cumulative use in hours of wireless phones. No conclusive evidence of an association between use of mobile and cordless phones and meningioma was found. An indication of increased risk was seen in the group with highest cumulative use but was not supported by statistically significant increasing risk with latency. Results for even longer latency periods of wireless phone use than in this study are desirable.

Case-control studies on adults point to an increased risk of brain tumours (glioma and acoustic neuroma) associated with the long-term use of mobile phones. Recently, the first study on mobile phone use and the risk of brain tumours in children and adolescents, CEFALO, was published. It has been claimed that this relatively small study yielded reassuring results of no increased risk. We do not agree. We consider that the data contain several indications of increased risk, despite low exposure, short latency period, and limitations in the study design, analyses and interpretation. The information certainly cannot be used as reassuring evidence against an association, for reasons that we discuss in this commentary.