The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) at WHO evaluation of the 
carcinogenic effect of RF-EMF on humans took place during a 24-31 May 2011 
meeting at Lyon in France. The Working Group consisted of 30 scientists and 
categorised the radiofrequency electromagnetic fields from mobile phones, and 
from other devices that emit similar non-ionising electromagnetic fields 
(RF-EMF), as Group 2B, i.e., a 'possible', human carcinogen. The decision on 
mobile phones was based mainly on the Hardell group of studies from Sweden and 
the IARC Interphone study. We give an overview of current epidemiological 
evidence for an increased risk for brain tumours including a meta-analysis of 
the Hardell group and Interphone results for mobile phone use. Results for 
cordless phones are lacking in Interphone. The meta-analysis gave for glioma in 
the most exposed part of the brain, the temporal lobe, odds ratio (OR)=1.71, 95% 
confidence interval (CI)=1.04-2.81 in the ≥10 years (>10 years in the Hardell 
group) latency group. Ipsilateral mobile phone use ≥1640h in total gave OR=2.29, 
95% CI=1.56-3.37. The results for meningioma were OR=1.25, 95% CI=0.31-4.98 and 
OR=1.35, 95% CI=0.81-2.23, respectively. Regarding acoustic neuroma ipsilateral 
mobile phone use in the latency group ≥10 years gave OR=1.81, 95% CI=0.73-4.45. 
For ipsilateral cumulative use ≥1640h OR=2.55, 95% CI=1.50-4.40 was obtained. 
Also use of cordless phones increased the risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma 
in the Hardell group studies. Survival of patients with glioma was analysed in 
the Hardell group studies yielding in the >10 years latency period hazard ratio 
(HR)=1.2, 95% CI=1.002-1.5 for use of wireless phones. This increased HR was 
based on results for astrocytoma WHO grade IV (glioblastoma multiforme). 
Decreased HR was found for low-grade astrocytoma, WHO grades I-II, which might 
be caused by RF-EMF exposure leading to tumour-associated symptoms and earlier 
detection and surgery with better prognosis. Some studies show increasing 
incidence of brain tumours whereas other studies do not. It is concluded that 
one should be careful using incidence data to dismiss results in analytical 
epidemiology. The IARC carcinogenic classification does not seem to have had any 
significant impact on governments' perceptions of their responsibilities to 
protect public health from this widespread source of radiation.