Childhood brain tumour risk and its association with wireless phones: a commentary

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 cla...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Environmental health 2011-12, Vol.10 (1), p.106-106, Article 106
Main Authors: Söderqvist, Fredrik, Carlberg, Michael, Hansson Mild, Kjell, Hardell, Lennart
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
adolescence
Adolescent
Adolescents
Age Factors
astrocytoma
Brain cancer
Brain Neoplasms - epidemiology
Brain Neoplasms - etiology
Brain Neoplasms - pathology
Brain tumors
Cancer in children
CEFALO
Cell Phone
Cellular telephones
Child
Children
cordless phone
DECT
Electromagnetic Fields - adverse effects
Environmental health
Female
Glioma
Glioma - epidemiology
Glioma - etiology
Glioma - pathology
Health aspects
Health risks
Humans
Incidence
Male
mobile phone
Multicenter Studies as Topic
Neuroma, Acoustic - epidemiology
Neuroma, Acoustic - etiology
Neuroma, Acoustic - pathology
Odds Ratio
radiofrequency electromagnetic fields
Research Design
Risk Assessment
Risk factors
Scandinavian and Nordic Countries - epidemiology
Switzerland - epidemiology
Teenagers
Tumors
Young Adult
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary: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.
ISSN:1476-069X
1476-069X
DOI:10.1186/1476-069X-10-106