Radiation literature survey

Article review date

7 August 2026

Article publication date

27 July 2026

ARPANSA summary

This study combined advances in anatomical modelling and data from human experiments to calculate the induced electric field in human tissues from low frequency magnetic field exposure at the threshold of perception (the level where a person can feel a slight tingling on the skin). The arms of 24 subjects were positioned into a magnetic stimulation device. Participants were in control of the level of the applied stimulation and adjusted the level themselves until it was just barely perceptible, which was marked as the threshold level.

Images captured during testing were used to combine the participants’ forearms with highly featured anatomical forearm models generated from magnetic resonance images. The matched models were then used to compute the induced electric field in the participant’s forearm at the threshold of perception. The calculated average perception threshold was at an induced electric field of 32.2 V/m, with variability between subjects of 5.2 V/m.

The anatomical modelling methodology used in this study was also compared to simpler methodologies used in prior research. The authors found that the simpler methodologies underestimate the induced electric field at the perception threshold and they subsequently used this information to develop a correction coefficient (an adjustment value) for values from earlier research. 

Published in

Bioelectromagnetics

Link to article

Evaluating Human Perception Thresholds in Magnetic Stimulation Using Experimental Measurements and Modelling

ARPANSA commentary

This study is a significant advancement in the computational methods used to determine the induced electric field in tissues at the threshold of perception in humans. In addition to increased model sophistication, a notable difference between this study and previous studies is the method used to arrive at the perception threshold. In prior research (Saritas, E. et al., 2013; Havel, W. et al., 1997), experimenters controlled the stimulus level in pre-defined steps. Allowing participants to repeatedly adjust the exposure level as in this study may lead to more accurately determined thresholds but simultaneously introduces additional psychological confounders; for example, the stimulation device would make a noise which may have made the subjects think that they perceived the exposure. A major limitation, as acknowledged by the authors, is that the forearm models used in the study did not include detailed nerve architecture, offering an avenue for further improvement in future studies.

It is important to note that exposures of the level used in this study do not occur in the everyday environment. ARPANSA has measured extremely low frequency magnetic field (ELF-EMF) exposure in Australian homes (Karipidis, K., 2014) and near electrical supply infrastructure (technical report 170). In both measurement surveys, levels were far below the limits prescribed in international guidelines and farther below the exposure used in this study. 

The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection is currently reviewing its low frequency exposure guidelines. Studies like this one will help to inform the development of these guidelines. The limits prescribed in the exposure guidelines are set conservatively, with consideration for uncertainty in the scientific evidence and are ultimately far below the level at which adverse health effects are known to occur. 

Article publication date

29 June 2026

ARPANSA review date

30 July 2026

Summary

This experimental study on human subjects examined if low doses of ultraviolet (UV) radiation produce adverse effects in skin. 58 pale-skin participants (Fitzpatrick type I-III) were exposed to UV radiation doses of 0.7 and 1.6 standard erythemal doses (SED) at 3 locations for each dose on their back. A biopsy of the exposed area was taken 15 minutes after exposure along with a biopsy of an unexposed control area. The remaining exposure sites were biopsied at 24 and 72 hours after the first exposure, with UV exposure repeating at 24 and 48 hours. Additionally, the participants were divided into two groups according to the rate at which the doses were applied, either at UV index 2.8 or UV index 8.0, to investigate whether the intensity at which a dose is applied has an impact. 

UV exposure caused an increase in DNA damage at all time points, with the higher dose group exhibiting more DNA damage than the lower dose group. Tumour supressing gene expression was increased in the biopsy taken after 24 and 72 hours, but not at 15 minutes. The higher dose group again exhibited greater increases than the lower dose group. A small non-statistically significant increase in oxidative stress was measured for each dose group. The UV index used to apply the dose did not affect any of the endpoints measured.

Published in

Photochemistry and Photobiology

Link to article

The burning question: Does exposure to low dose and low irradiance ultraviolet radiation lead to cutaneous DNA damage in people with skin types I–III?

ARPANSA summary

The study found that low doses of UV radiation cause DNA damage in humans and an increase in the amount of tumour-suppressing genes. This is because the amount of DNA damage was proportional to the UV dose, which is in agreement with other studies conducted in humans (Tewari, A. et al., 2012; Olsen, C. et al., 2017; Katiyar, S. et al., 2007). However, the short-term nature of the study means it was not designed to assess the long-term consequences of UV-induced DNA damage at low doses, including its potential effects on tumour development or growth. 

The doses used in this study were chosen to reflect doses that have been estimated to maintain adequate vitamin D when exposed four times per week (Elliot, M. et al., 2023; Neale, R. et al., 2024). This is a challenging area of sun protection as consideration must be given to balancing the risks and benefits of sun exposure. The Australian Skin and Skin Cancer Research Centre has published a joint position statement on balancing these factors. However, many Australians are routinely exposed to UV doses that far exceed those used in this experiment (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2024), a fact that is reflected in the very high incidence and mortality of skin cancer in Australians (De Pinto, G. et al., 2024).

This study showed that direct DNA damage happens even when a sunburn does not occur, underscoring the need to use all five sun protection measures whenever the UV index is over three: slip, slop, slap, seek and slide. In the context of this study where a UV index below three was used for some participants, it is important to note that DNA damage can happen at high or low UV index values, provided a person is exposed for a long enough time to accrue the same total UV dose. In relation to the above sun protection advice, this means that even when the UV index is below three, sun protection should be used if in the sun for a prolonged time period, as an unprotected person can accrue a substantial UV dose in those circumstances.

Article publication date

May 2026

ARPANSA review date

July 2026

Summary

This systematic review evaluated evidence on indoor radon exposure in, and factors influencing exposure among, school-aged children. Radon is a naturally occurring radioactive gas and is classified by the World Health Organization (WHO) as a Group 1 carcinogen[KK1] . The review focused on classrooms, daycare centres, kindergartens, and schools where children spend approximately 6–8 hours per day. The authors included 32 studies in the review. The level at which radon mitigation to the public should be put in place as recommended by ARPANSA is 200 Bq/m³[HM2] [RM3]  and the average radon concentrations in most studies were below 100 Bq/m³. However, some schools in radon-prone regions exceeded 300 Bq/m³ and there were some outliers in Finland and Israel with levels above 1000 Bq/m³ prior to the implementation of mitigation measures. The authors recommended that, in schools where concentrations exceed guideline levels, routine radon testing, installation of effective ventilation, radon-resistant building design, and soil remediation should be enacted.  

Article publication date

4 June 2026

ARPANSA review date

June 2026

Summary

This Australian cross-sectional study investigated the prevalence of skin cancer in people participating in outdoor recreational activities in Queensland and exposed to high ultraviolet radiation (UV) levels. It compared the prevalence of basal cell carcinoma (BCC), squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and melanoma (MM) among people who were  involved in aquatic  (surfing and swimming) and non-aquatic (walking, running and cycling) activities. A total of 1,403 adults (aquatic n=512, or non-aquatic n=891) attending primary care skin cancer clinic between September 2021 and August 2024 took part in the study. Each participant completed a survey on outdoor activity, sun exposure and sun-protection behaviours and underwent a full-body skin examination, with suspicious lesions confirmed by histopathology. 

The study found that those who primarily participate in aquatic activities had a significantly higher prevalence of melanoma compared with non-aquatic participants (9.4% versus 5.4%) with an increased odds ratio of 1.82 (95% confidence interval 1.20-2.75). There was no significant difference for other skin cancers. Aquatic participants reported lower lifetime outdoor time than non-aquatic participants but reported higher participation in activities during peak UV periods (84.2% versus 55.1%). Aquatic participants also reported greater sunscreen use but lower use of protective clothing. 

Published in

Peer J

Link to

ARPANSA commentary

The study found that exposure to higher UV levels and the lower use of protective clothing in people participating in aquatic activities may contribute to higher melanoma levels. However, because this is a cross-sectional study and information on exposure and outcome are occurring simultaneously, it cannot prove that the cancer outcome is due to the exposure. The results of the study are consistent with the established evidence that people exposed to higher UV levels are more likely to be diagnosed with melanoma (Wojcik et al., 2018 and Cancer Australia, 2025). Every year in Australia there are approximately 60 cases of melanoma for every 100,000 persons and it is estimated that over 63%, and maybe even up to 95%, of them are attributable to UV exposure (Olsen et al., 2015 and Armstrong and Kricker, 1993). 

The findings reinforce the importance of effective UV protection for people who spend substantial time outdoors, particularly those participating in activities without applying UV protection measures. The results also highlight the importance of regular skin surveillance among individuals with high levels of recreational UV exposure. ARPANSA recommends that people minimise UV exposure when the UV Index is 3 or above and use a combination of sun-protection measures including following the Slip, Slop, Slap, Seek and Slide protective measures. ARPANSA also provides a real time UV index and estimation of UV dose. The results also highlight the importance of regular skin surveillance among individuals with high levels of recreational UV exposure.

Article publication date

12 May 2026

ARPANSA review date

09 June 2026

Summary

This study modelled the effect of ozone depletion on the incidence and mortality of ultraviolet (UV) radiation related diseases like cataract and various types of skin cancer in both the USA and Australia. The model first calculated the influence of historical and projected emissions of ozone depleting substances on stratospheric ozone and the subsequent influence on environmental UV radiation. The model then combines this with information about populations in Australia and the USA to compute changes in the rates of relevant health effects.

Depletion of stratospheric ozone was found to have slightly increased the incidence of related health effects including 0.5% increase for cataract, 1% for melanoma and 5% increase for squamous cell carcinoma in both countries. The study estimated that Australians were exposed to 24% more biologically weighted UV radiation than the USA’s population. The difference arose from the closer proximity of Australia’s population distribution to the equator, lower stratospheric ozone at comparable latitudes and disparities in earth-sun distance in comparable seasons. However, the related incidence and mortality calculations greatly underestimated the actual difference in incidence and mortality between Australia and the USA, particularly for basal- and squamous cell carcinoma. The authors attribute this disparity to factors that are not captured by their model such as genetic susceptibility, exposure patterns and diagnosis practices.

Published in

GeoHealth 

Link to

Effects of Ozone-Depleting Substances on Ultraviolet Radiation and Skin Cancer Rates in Australia and the United States of America

ARPANSA commentary 

This study applied sophisticated methods to model ozone depletion and calculate its subsequent effect on various health endpoints. The calculated influence of ozone depletion on UV levels highlights the importance of adherence to the Montreal Protocol, the international agreement that prohibits continued use of ozone depleting substances. Without this key international intervention, stratospheric ozone would have continued to deplete and environmental UV intensity would have continued to rise in tandem. As the overwhelming majority of skin cancers can be attributed to sun exposure (Olsen et al., 2015; Armstong & Kricker, 2001), a further rise in environmental UV radiation caused by continued ozone depletion would cause a commensurate rise in the related health endpoints.

The study also highlights the large difference in the rates of skin cancer between Australia and the USA and that it is unlikely that this large difference can be wholly attributed to the difference in environmental UV radiation. As acknowledged by the authors, there are factors that contribute to the incidence and mortality of skin cancers and cataract that are not accounted for in their model. This aligns with previous research that has demonstrated that certain patterns of exposure behaviour produce a large effect on the incidence of skin cancer (Kricker et al., 2007; Veierød et al., 2010). 

Taken together, these findings underscore the importance of vigilant sun protection practices using all five sun safety measures whenever the UV index is 3 or more. ARPANSA maintains a network of UV monitoring stations across Australia that can be used to see the UV index in real time. The SunSmart Global UV app also provides information about UV intensity and recommended sun protection times for all locations. 

Article publication date

May 2026

ARPANSA review date

May 2026

Summary

This study characterised the changes in background radiofrequency electromagnetic field (RF EMF) exposure during pre- and post-rollout of 5G telecommunication services in Switzerland. RF-EMF exposure with the frequency between 80 MHz and 6 GHz was measured across 876 environments (including outdoor environments and public transports) during pre- and post 5G era. The changes in RF-EMF exposure levels between baseline (2021/22) and follow-up (2023/24) measurements in the same 342 environments were evaluated. The results show that overall total median background RF-EMF levels remained stable between 2021/22 (0.16-0.24 V/m) and 2023/24 (0.17-0.25 V/m). The study concluded that the introduction of 5G in Switzerland did not lead to an overall increase in total background RF-EMF levels from mobile telecommunication technologies.

Published in

Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology 

Link to study

Spatiotemporal trends of ambient radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) during the 5G rollout in Switzerland

Commentary by ARPANSA

This article reports one of the largest studies conducted to date, providing a comprehensive assessment of background RF-EMF exposure in Switzerland. The findings of the study confirm that background exposure is far below the ICNIRP safety limits, confirming earlier findings from other countries (Selmaoui et al., 2021; Kiouvrekis et al., 2026) including Australia (Bhatt et al., 2024) that the introduction of the 5G network had no or little effect on total RF-EMF exposure. These measurements provide reassurance that background exposure remains well below the public safety limit, even after the 5G network roll out. ARPANSA’s assessment is that there is no substantiated scientific evidence that RF-EMF exposure (including from 5G) below the limits set in the ARPANSA safety standard poses a health risk. 

Article publication date

March 2026

ARPANSA review date

May 2026

Summary

This commentary by Belenki et al. from the German Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS) provides an in-depth criticism of the  World Health Organisation (WHO) commissioned systematic review of radiofrequency electromagnetic field (RF‑EMF) exposure and cancer in laboratory animals by Mevissen et al. (2025). It includes a detailed critique and re-analysis, an overview of methodological and analytical flaws, and a comprehensive list of identified errors. 

The commentary’s main critique is that the systematic review diverged from their pre-published protocol and did not perform meta-analyses. Mevissen et al., (2025) argues that the methods and results of individual studies are too different and can’t be combined in meta-analyses. Instead, Mevissen et al., (2025) further argues that any positive outcome can be used to conclude an effect of RF-EMF on cancer, despite this method meaning much of the available evidence is ignored. This meant that the majority of conclusions of the animal systematic review were based on the results of National Toxicology Program (NTP) study which is one of the largest studies on RF-EMF and cancer in rats and mice. However, the NTP study has been heavily critiqued and many of the flaws were not considered by Mevissen et al. (2025). Belenki et al. (2026) corrected this by conducting meta-analyses and certainty of evidence evaluations for sufficiently similar studies following the originally published protocol. These meta-analyses resulted in odds ratios (OR) for both malignant glioma (OR 3.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46-23.84) and malignant cardiac schwannoma (OR 9.11, 95% CI 1.51-54.84) with very wide confidence intervals. This means that there is a lot of imprecision in the data and the true risk is hard to determine.

GRADE and OHAT provide guidance on how to interpret confidence intervals when conducting systematic reviews. Both guidance documents recommend that, when confidence intervals are as wide as observed in these results, the certainty of evidence (CoE) should be downgraded twice. Consequently, Belenki et al. downgraded CoE from high certainty to low. This is a substantially different conclusion to that reported by Mevissen et al. (2025) who claimed a high CoE. 

Mevissen et al. (2026), responded to the commentary made by Belenki et al. (2026), contending that rats of different strains could not be compared to each other in a meta-analysis. It was further argued that, if there is a positive outcome in one study and a negative outcome in another study, only positive outcomes should be considered when examining rare cancers. Mevissen et al. (2026) concedes many of the other errors pointed out by Belenki et al. (2026). 

Published in

Environment International

Link to

Commentary on the systematic review of radiofrequency field exposure and animal cancer by Mevissen et al. (2025) - Revisiting the evidence and aquantitative perspective

ARPANSA commentary

The paper by Mevissen et al. (2025) has now been critiqued by a number of national organisations including the Swiss expert group on electromagnetic fields and non-ionising radiation, BfS and ARPANSA. The general assessment is that the methods used by Mevissen et al. (2025) were flawed because they resulted in an assessment that did not consider the evidence as a whole and instead only took into account studies showing positive associations. 

Since the publication of Mevissen et al. (2025) two large studies, simultaneously but independently conducted in Korea (Kim et al., 2026) and Japan (Imaida et al., 2026), investigated whether long‑term exposure to RF-EMF can cause tumours or genetic damage in rats. The findings of these studies were remarkably consistent with each other as there were no statistically significant changes in tumour incidence in either study, in contrast to the results reported in NTP study. Any future meta-analysis on this topic would be significantly influenced by the Korean and Japanese studies, improving the CoE and providing further evidence that RF-EMF does not cause cancer in laboratory animals. 

The WHO commissioned systematic review process aimed to assess the possible implications of RF-EMF exposure on human health. The most significant evidence on the impact of RF-EMF on human health comes from studies on humans,not animals.  The WHO commissioned systematic reviews looking at observational studies in humans (Karipidis et al., 2024, Karipidis et al., 2025) did not find an association between RF-EMF and any cancer type, including brain cancer. 

The meta-analyses conducted by Belenki et al. (2026) has completed the work that the WHO commissioned animal systematic review set out to do in their protocol. Their syntheses of the evidence combined with the newly published results from the Korean and Japanese studies do not the support the association between RF-EMF exposure and cancer in animals. 

Article publication date

28 March 2026

ARPANSA review date

May 2026

Summary

This in vitro study investigated the effect of radiofrequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) exposure on oxidative stress and cell viability markers (measure of the number of living, healthy cells in a sample) in two types of brain cell models. Cells were exposed to 5G modulated 700 MHz RF-EMF at three different specific absorption rates: 0, 0.08 and 4 W/kg for either 1 or 24 hours. During exposure the cells were maintained in a carefully controlled environment such that the temperature of each sample remained steady. Cells were analysed immediately after exposure and 24 hours after exposure for mitochondrial reactive oxygen species, cell viability, apoptosis and proliferation.

For both cell types, there was no effect of RF-EMF exposure on any endpoint at either time point. A positive control sample exposed to hydrogen peroxide was also used to validate the measurement tools which showed large effects.

Published in

Scientific Reports

Link to

Biological effects of 5G-modulated 700 MHz RF-EMF exposure on neuronal and glial cell models under isothermal conditions

ARPANSA commentary

Temperature control is important for in vitro studies as the cells, as they exist in the laboratory environment, are not supported by the thermoregulatory systems that exist in vivo. Without temperature control it becomes almost impossible to distinguish between RF-EMF exposure or simple heat as the origin of an observed effect from an experiment. This difference is important when extrapolating in vitro results to a health endpoint in an animal as the temperature rise observed in vitro would be mitigated by an animal’s thermoregulatory response. Similarly, the exposure limits prescribed in the Australian radiofrequency standard RPS-S1 are based on preventing adverse thermal effects in humans so for the results to have relevance to exposures experienced by the general public, temperature must be controlled.

Thus, the temperature control used in the present study is an important mark of high quality. Conversely, the method used to evaluate mitochondrial reactive oxygen species has notable issues that can reduce the reliability of the measurement if additional validation measures are not employed (Murphy et al., 2022; Roelofs et al., 2015). These factors highlight the importance of considering the quality of a study when synthesising evidence from multiple studies. Together with other well-conducted studies (Romeo et al., 2022; Meyer et al., 2024), this study contributes to a body of evidence that demonstrates a lack of adverse effects from RF-EMF exposure. It is also notable that this is one of few studies that has used 5G signal modulation on the 700 MHz band as most studies using this type of modulation have used the more commonly employed 3500 MHz band. 

Article publication date

11 February 2026

Article review date

20 April 2026

ARPANSA summary

This epidemiological study examined the relationship between long-term exposure to extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields (ELF-EMF) from electrical supply infrastructure and mortality from neurodegenerative diseases. Adults over 30 from the Swiss National Cohort were followed between the years 2001 and 2018. Their long-term exposure to high voltage power lines (HVPL) and railway power lines was estimated based on the proximity of participant residence to the lines. Results were reported as the hazard ratio (HR) per 1 µT of exposure with a 95% confidence interval (CI) which was computed while adjusting for sociodemographic and environmental factors.

The study computed a positive association between HVPL exposure and mortality from Alzheimer’s disease (HR per 1 µT = 1.54; 95% CI: 1.23–1.92) as well as other types of dementia (HR per 1 µT = 1.31; 95% CI: 1.13–1.52). No association was found between HVPL exposure and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, multiple sclerosis or Parkinson’s disease. There was also no association between any neurodegenerative disease and railway power line exposure.

Published in

Environment International

Link to

Long-term residential magnetic field exposure and neurodegenerative disease mortality: An 18-year nationwide cohort study in Switzerland

ARPANSA commentary

This study follows on from previous work (Huss, A. et al., 2009), expanding the years followed and also considering exposure from railway power infrastructure in addition to HVPL. There was also large improvements in how exposure and environmental confounders were assessed in this study compared to how it was assessed in the previous work. Epidemiological studies investigating associations with electrical supply infrastructure and health endpoints have typically modelled exposure based on distance as a categorical variable (SCHEER, 2024). The approach taken in this article to model exposure as a continuous variable using a proximity model validated by measurements is an improvement to the accuracy of exposure assigned to participants. 

However, this change in how exposure was assessed is also reflected in how the results have been reported which is deserving of some additional clarification. Sandoval-Diez et al. have reported hazard ratios per 1 µT of exposure despite the fact that only a very small proportion of the HVPL exposed population experience an exposure close to this magnitude (Loizeau, N. et al., 2024). These hazard ratios should therefore be interpreted carefully as some nuance is required to understand their meaning as they relate to realistic exposure scenarios.

The inconsistent results between different neurodegenerative diseases and different exposure sources reported in this study is challenging to interpret or consider in the context of a plausible mechanism. Such selective effects would need to proceed through mechanisms that are highly specific to the nature of the individual disease. This is further complicated when considering that the endpoint under investigation is neurodegenerative disease mortality. For many of these diseases, including Alzheimer’s disease and other types of dementia, their relationship to a cause of death, and accurate reporting thereof, can be complex (Dobson, A. et al., 2022; Matthews, F. et al., 2018). Studies that also investigate incidence, severity or disease progression may provide more reliable information about causality or a potential mechanism.

The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection is currently reviewing their low frequency exposure guidelines. Studies like this will help to inform the guidelines and are considered in the context of the overarching scientific evidence. ARPANSA has previously measured ELF-EMF exposure in Australian homes and has published this information (Karipidis, K., 2014). This measurement survey remains the largest of its kind. Similarly, ARPANSA has measured ELF-EMF exposure near electrical supply infrastructure and have published this as technical report 170. ARPANSA advises that there is no substantiated scientific evidence that exposure to residential ELF-EMF causes adverse health effects, more information is available on our factsheet.

Article publication date

December 2025

ARPANSA review date

25/03/2026

Summary

The BERENIS report briefly presents key findings of systematic reviews (SRs), commissioned by the World Health Organisation (WHO), on the health risk of radiofrequency-electromagnetic field (RF‑EMF) exposure. It also highlights research gaps and provides future recommendations for conducting more robust studies to better support future evidence synthesis in this topic. The 12 SRs assessed health effects associated with RF-EMF exposure, such as cancer, reproductive and birth outcomes, cognitive impairment, electromagnetic hypersensitivity symptoms, and oxidative stress. 

The SRs assessing human observational studies on cancer, cognition, reproduction, and symptoms did not identify evidence of adverse health effects associated with RF‑EMF exposure. The confidence in the evidence for mobile phone use and brain tumours in particular was rated as moderate. However, the available data for most outcomes were limited and the overall confidence in the evidence was low. Animal research showed mixed findings. Some reproductive effects, such as reduced birth weight and reduced male fertility, were supported by moderate confidence though these findings were not reflected in human studies. Cancer findings in animals, mainly derived from the National Toxicological Program (NTP) and Ramazzini studies, indicated increased schwannomas and gliomas with moderate to high confidence, though these arose under whole‑body, high‑dose exposures not comparable to realistic low-level human daily exposures. Evidence synthesised from the SRs for oxidative stress was inconsistent and mostly low‑confidence. The report indicated that current evidence does not allow conclusions about whether certain individuals are more vulnerable to RF‑EMF exposure than the general population. Studies involving people with electromagnetic hypersensitivity have not clarified increased susceptibility, and most observational studies include whole populations without the ability to identify small, sensitive subgroups. It remains challenging to assess subgroup vulnerability or to generalize findings beyond the populations typically studied.

The BERENIS report notes that many RF‑EMF studies included in the SRs have significant methodological weaknesses, such as poor exposure assessment and inadequate experimental design, which reduces confidence in their findings and makes it difficult to draw firm conclusions on potential health effects. The report also identifies major knowledge gaps, including the need for higher‑quality studies, improved exposure assessment, mechanistic research on thermal and non‑thermal effects, and long‑term prospective human studies. The need for high‑quality mechanistic studies across most research areas could help better comprehend how RF‑EMF exposure interacts at the molecular levels. The BERENIS recommends maintaining Switzerland’s precautionary approach to limit exposures since these SRs do not justify changes to exposure guidelines. 

Published in

BERENIS Newsletter – Special Issue, December 2025

Link to study

Assessment of WHO-commissioned systematic reviews on health effects of RF-EMF

ARPANSA commentary 

ARPANSA has previously reviewed the WHO SRs (for example: ARPANSA 2023, 2024a, 2024b, 2024c, 2024d, 2024e, 2024f, 2025). The overall assessment of ARPANSA on these SRs is that there is no substantiated evidence that low-level RF-EMF exposure encountered by the general public or workers poses any health risks in human populations. ARPANSA also acknowledges that much of the research has significant methodological issues related to exposure assessment, experimental design or statistical analysis resulting in low confidence in in some of the results. Therefore, it recommends quality future studies on this topic.

One particular SR which investigated cancer in experimental animals (i.e., Mevissen et al., 2025) notably has several methodological flaws, including not doing an appropriate synthesis of all the evidence and giving undue weight to the NTP study (Karipidis et al., 2026). The NTP study per se was previously critiqued for methodological and analytical flaws (see ARPANSA’s commentary on the NTP study). This flawed SR has been recently revisited by the German Federal Office for Radiation Protection  (Belenki et al., 2026) and their re-analysis disagreed with the conclusions drawn in the SR regarding positive findings for brain and heart cancers in exposed rats. It was highlighted that the SR deviated from their agreed study protocol eventually resulting in flawed results. More recently, two international co-ordinated studies,  one conducted in Korea (Kim et al., 2026) and the other in Japan (Imaida et al., 2026) ruled out the risk of cancers, DNA damage or chromosomal aberrations in RF-EMF exposed rats. Therefore, these emerging findings were published post Mevissen et al.’s SR and they do not substantiate the results previously reported by the NTP study. 

The WHO-commissioned SRs on RF-EMF exposure and health risk provide an overview of the current state-of-the-art evidence on the topic and their findings reinforce ARPANSA’s advice that RF-EMF exposure below the limits recommended in the Australian Standard (RPS-S1) does not pose any health risks.