This letter to the editor critiques a comprehensive study on the epidemiology of glioma in adults, specifically addressing the section on nonionizing radiation from cellular phones. The author, L. Lloyd Morgan, points out several issues with the cited studies, including: 1. **Incidence Time Trend Studies**: These studies suffer from late ascertainment and poor histological concordance, leading to underestimation of incidence rates. The study by Deltour et al. (2008) reported stable glioma rates among 40-59-year-olds from 1979 to 2008, while the Ostrom study failed to report a significant increase in glioma incidence rates. The study's funding from cellphone companies and the low prevalence of cellphones during the early years of the study period (1979-1994) are also criticized. 2. **Cohort Studies**: The Ostrom study cites two cohort studies that found reduced risks for various cancers, which are insufficient to determine risks for rare diseases like glioma. 3. **Case Control Study**: A single case control study cited by the Ostrom study noted elevated odds ratios for all categories of use, but other significant findings from the Hardell team and other studies are not cited. 4. **Un cited Case Control Studies**: Studies such as the Hardell team's (2013) and the CERENAT study (2014) provide strong evidence that wireless phone use is associated with an increased risk of brain cancer, with higher risks for longer cumulative hours of use, longer time since first use, higher radiated power, and ipsilateral risk. In conclusion, the author argues that the statement in the Ostrom study that "evidence published since the IARC monograph in 2011 does not support an association between cellular phone use and the risk of glioma in adults" should be revised.This letter to the editor critiques a comprehensive study on the epidemiology of glioma in adults, specifically addressing the section on nonionizing radiation from cellular phones. The author, L. Lloyd Morgan, points out several issues with the cited studies, including: 1. **Incidence Time Trend Studies**: These studies suffer from late ascertainment and poor histological concordance, leading to underestimation of incidence rates. The study by Deltour et al. (2008) reported stable glioma rates among 40-59-year-olds from 1979 to 2008, while the Ostrom study failed to report a significant increase in glioma incidence rates. The study's funding from cellphone companies and the low prevalence of cellphones during the early years of the study period (1979-1994) are also criticized. 2. **Cohort Studies**: The Ostrom study cites two cohort studies that found reduced risks for various cancers, which are insufficient to determine risks for rare diseases like glioma. 3. **Case Control Study**: A single case control study cited by the Ostrom study noted elevated odds ratios for all categories of use, but other significant findings from the Hardell team and other studies are not cited. 4. **Un cited Case Control Studies**: Studies such as the Hardell team's (2013) and the CERENAT study (2014) provide strong evidence that wireless phone use is associated with an increased risk of brain cancer, with higher risks for longer cumulative hours of use, longer time since first use, higher radiated power, and ipsilateral risk. In conclusion, the author argues that the statement in the Ostrom study that "evidence published since the IARC monograph in 2011 does not support an association between cellular phone use and the risk of glioma in adults" should be revised.