Radiation literature survey

Review date

June 2024

Article publication date

June 2024

Summary 

This systematic review evaluated the evidence on exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic energy (RF EME) and the long-term impacts on cognition in epidemiological studies. The review screened 3945 research papers and of these 5 prospective cohort studies were included in the final analysis. These studies were conducted between 2006 and 2017 and included 4639 participants consisting of 2808 adults and 1831 children across three countries (Australia, Singapore and Switzerland). The main source of RF EME was mobile phone use which was measured by the self-reported number of calls per week or minutes per day. Of the included studies only two, that investigated the effects of RF EME on cognition in children, were similar enough to be included in a meta-analysis (Bhatt et al. 2017 and Thomas et al. 2017). 

The meta-analysis found little to no effect of RF EME on learning and memory, executive function and complex attention in children with low or very low certainty of evidence. The review also assessed the effects of RF EME in elderly people and also found no evidence of an effect in any of the examined cognitive domains with very low certainty of evidence. An exposure–response relationship was not identified for any of the cognitive outcomes. The authors concluded that further studies are needed to address all types of populations, exposures and cognitive outcomes. 

Link to

The effects of radiofrequency exposure on cognition: A systematic review and meta-analysis of human observational studies

Published in

Environment International

Commentary by ARPANSA

The review found no consistent evidence of an effect of RF EME on cognition. However, there were limitations in the available evidence. One issue with the available literature is that the majority of the previous studies are cross-sectional studies, and these were not included in the systematic review. This is because they are unable to assess the long-term impact of exposure as they assess exposure and effect simultaneously by design. While the number of included studies was reduced, inclusion of cross-sectional studies would not have increased the certainty of the evidence. Previous narrative reviews that included cross-sectional studies reported inconsistent associations, with some finding improved cognition (Ishihara et al, 2020; ARPANSA, 2014).

There were several other limitations in the evidence including the fact that the effects of RF EME on cognition could not be separated from the effects of mobile phone use on cognition. This includes the impact that behaviours such as texting, gaming and social media use have on cognition. Another limitation in the evidence is exposure assessment being based on self-reported mobile phone use which can result in recall bias. 

Another major issue is that all of the studies used different tests to examine cognition. One of the main recommendations of this systematic review is that in future studies a consistent set of cognitive function tests for evaluation of each cognitive domain should be used. 

Overall, while there is no consistent evidence of an effect of RF-EMF exposure on cognition more long-term observational studies are needed to address important knowledge gaps.

The effect of RF EME on cognition has been reviewed by the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) in their 2020 guidelines and they concluded there is no substantiated experimental or epidemiological evidence that exposure to RF EME affects cognition.  Overall, there remains no consistent scientific evidence that exposure to RF EME below the limits set in ARPANSA safety standard which is aligned with the ICNIRP guidelines is a hazard to human cognition or any other health effects. 

This review is part of the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) ongoing project assessing the health effects of RF-EMF. ARPANSA is supporting this WHO review process. One of the ongoing WHO systematic reviews will be examining cognitive impairment in human experimental studies (Pophof et al, 2021). This review will include an examination of the acute effects that RF EME has on cognition. 

Review date

June 2024

Article publication date

June 2024

Summary

This review included experts from Africa, America, Asia, Australia, and Europe and aims to create comprehensive global advice on practical steps to be taken to reduce the toll of skin cancer. The review evaluated the information on when to avoid sun exposure, what types of materials are most effective at blocking sun exposure, and the dangers of using solariums. The human health impacts of absorbance of sunscreen into the body were also assessed in the review. It was reported that there is currently no evidence that long-term use (and absorbance) of sunscreen has an impact on human health. The authors recommend that people should use a combination of protective measures including seeking shade, physical protection (clothing, hat, sunglasses) and apply broad-spectrum SPF 30+ sunscreen to prevent skin cancer incidence. Further, it also recommends that these protective measures are more important for fair skinned people, especially children. 

Link to

2024:06 - Skin cancers are the most frequent cancers in fair-skinned populations, but we can prevent them

Published In

National Library of Medicine

ARPANSA commentary

The review made a number of recommendations on steps that individuals should take to protect themselves from sun exposure and that could be promoted by national organisations to help improve the health of their citizens. These recommendations are very similar to those promoted by  Australian Cancer Council and ARPANSA. The Australian messaging from these two organisations is that all Australians when spending time outdoors in the sun should slip on a hat, slop on sunscreen, slap on a hat, seek shade and slide on sunglasses (Slip, Slop, Slap, Seek and Slide). However, even when using these protective measures, sun exposure in the middle of the day when ultraviolet radiation (UVR) from the sun is at its peak should be avoided. 

In Australia  two-thirds of Australians receiving a skin cancer diagnosis of some type in their lifetime. For melanoma specifically, it is estimated that 1 in 21 Australian women and 1 in 14 Australian men will be diagnosed with melanoma by the time they reach the age of 85 (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2023).  

ARPANSA UVR monitors that provide real time data on UVR levels for cities across Australia. This forms the ARPANSA’s UV monitoring Network system, which provides  the daily UV index data (ARPANSA Ultraviolet Radiation Index webpage). This UV data are shared by news organisations and can be found on the Cancer Council website. The UV index helps Australians know when UV exposure is high, and they should avoid sun exposure or practice other sun protection measures. More information on UV protection can be found on the ARPANSA Sun Protection factsheet. 

Review date

June 2024

Article publication date

December 2023

Summary

This cohort study examined the association between residential radon exposure and risk of skin cancer (melanoma and squamous cell carcinoma) incidence. The study included 1.3 million adults (aged 20 years and more) from the Swiss National Cohort followed from the year 2000 to (up to) 2011. The data on individual exposures to residential radon (Bq/m³) were estimated by geographic location. Skin cancer incidence data during the same period were collected from regional cancer registries. The association between residential radon exposure and malignant melanoma or squamous cell carcinoma incidence was estimated in terms of the hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) per 100 Bq/m³, adjusting for solar ultraviolet (UV) radiation. A total of 4,937 incidences of melanoma were diagnosed during follow-up (average follow-up of nearly nine years). The mean radon exposure was 76.4 Bq/m³. No association was found for melanoma/squamous cell carcinoma incidence [HR (95% CI): 1.03 (0.94-1.13)] across all age groups. However, an association was reported for melanoma incidence [1.68 (1.29-2.19)] in the 20–29 years old age group. The results showed that residential radon exposure was largely not associated with the risk of developing skin cancers.

Link to

Volume 243, 15 February 2024, 117822, A cohort analysis of residential radon exposure and melanoma incidence in Switzerland

Published In

Environmental Research

ARPANSA commentary

The overall conclusion of the study is that there is little association between long-term exposure to residential radon and skin cancer incidence. This conclusion is inconsistent to the evidence from previous Swiss studies (Vienneau et al., 2017; Boz et al., 2022). The association between melanoma and radon exposure in young adults was based on only a small number (2.2%) of all melanoma cases. It is difficult to compare these findings in the Australian context due to a lack of similar evidence for Australia. In fact, according to the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) led nationwide survey of more than 3300 Australian homes, the average radon exposure level in Australian homes is ~ 10 Bq/m³, which is four times lower than the global average (40 Bq m⁻³) and 7.5 times lower than the mean radon level reported in this study. Consequently, residential radon exposure is not expected to be a significant contributor to skin cancer incidence in Australia. On the other hand, ambient UV levels in Australia are much higher compared to those reported in this study. 

A major strength of this study is that it used a robust study design, covering most Swiss regions with high geographic variability of radon levels. Contrarily, the relatively small number of melanoma cases is a key limitation, which limits the statistical power of the study. Other limitations include: radon exposure was not directly measured (but estimated); information on the amount of time spent indoors and ventilation practices at home was not available; exposure to ambient UV radiation, which was adjusted in the analysis, was obtained conservatively (i.e. a spatial resolution of 1 × 1 km across the geographic locations). All these contribute to exposure misclassification to some extent, however, this potential misclassification is unlikely to have altered the overall findings of the study. 

ARPANSA has a fact sheet on ionising radiation and health including dose levels from natural sources of ionising radiation, including radon. The International Commission on Radiological Protection has published guidance on radiological protection against radon exposure.

Review date

4 June 2024

Article publication date

6 May 2024

Summary

This study conducted  computer simulations comparing the specific absorption rate (SAR) of radiofrequency electromagnetic energy (RF-EME) at the male reproductive system from different mobile telecommunication frequencies. The study explored frequencies between 0.69 GHz and 4.9 GHz. The primary benefit of computing SAR instead of  considering incident power density (S_inc) is that it allows for more accurate comparison between exposures from electromagnetic fields of different frequencies. The study also performed calculations for exposure scenarios in three postures (standing, sitting and sleeping).

While maintaining an equal level of exposure across frequencies, the calculations showed that a higher frequency resulted in lower SAR at the reproductive system. Both a sitting and sleeping posture resulted in less exposure than a standing posture. When calculations were repeated for incident power densities at the exposure limits prescribed in the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) guidelines the corresponding SAR values for each frequency band were highest at 2.2 GHz and decreased at higher or lower frequency bands. The same relationship between dose and posture was observed for exposures at the limit.

Link to

Absorption of 5G sub-6 GHz electromagnetic radiation from base station to male reproduction system

Published in

International Journal of Radiation Biology

ARPANSA commentary

There is a growing volume of longitudinal studies (e.g. Ramirez-Vazquez et al., 2023; Markussen et al., 2022; Iakovidis et al., 2022), including those published by ARPANSA (Bhatt et al., 2024),  showing that public exposures to RF-EME have remained largely the same throughout the introduction of new communication technologies despite an overwhelming increase in the total usage of wireless telecommunication infrastructure by the public. The conclusions of this study provide similar reassurance by indicating that exposures to higher frequency RF-EME, like those used in newer communication technologies, contribute less SAR than an equivalent exposure from a lower frequency band. 

The calculations at exposure limits in this study were performed according to exposure limit guidance prepared by the IEEE. These guidelines, while similar to those in the Australian standard RPS-S1, are slightly less restrictive. The Australian standard is based on guidelines by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), which are considered international best practice. More information on these differences can be found in a previous radiation literature survey. Notably, the study demonstrated the suitability of using power density limits (termed reference levels) which are easier to quantify for complying with SAR limits (termed basic restrictions) which are more difficult to quantify.

Review date

May 2024

Article publication date

March 2024

Summary

This review report published on behalf of the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority (SSM) aims to inform health risk assessment of exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF). It included different study types (in vitro, animal, human and epidemiological) published in the year 2021 related to several EMF exposure types (static, low frequency or extremely low frequency, intermediate and radio frequency fields). A variety of outcomes (DNA damage, oxidate stress, animal behaviour, animal physiology, human cancer, reproduction, etc.) associated with EMF exposure were assessed. This report did not identify any new established causal relationships between EMF exposure and health risk. For example, epidemiological studies on static EMFs (e.g., from MRI) are limited and hence underlying mechanisms for rarely observed associations due to effect of static fields are unclear. The recent studies on extremely low frequency (ELF) magnetic field exposure do not provide any evidence whether the consistently observed association between ELF and childhood leukaemia is causal or not. Similarly, no definite conclusions can be drawn from a recent study on intermediate EMF exposure and human health effects. Several new studies on brain tumours and mobile phone use largely continue to provide no indication of health risk.

Link to

2024: 05 Recent Research on EMF and Health Risk, Seventeenth report from SSM’s Scientific Council on Electromagnetic Fields, 2022

Published In

Swedish Radiation Safety Authority

ARPANSA commentary

The overall conclusion of the report is similar to the conclusions provided in the previous years’ reports from the SSM. The strength of this report is that it was reviewed by a multidisciplinary team of experts evaluating a range of EMF exposure types and health-related endpoints, reviewing various types of evidence. Therefore, it consolidates all emerging evidence generated in the year 2021 while presenting its review findings. 

The findings of the report are consistent with the health risk advice from the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA), and other national and international organisations. For example, the health advice of ARPANSA on ELF-MF and radiofrequency field exposure, and the health risk assessment of radiofrequency fields by the US Food and Drug Administration on RF-EMF and Cancer, are in line with the findings from the report. The World Health Organization is currently assessing available evidence on potential human health effects of radiofrequency field exposure, including that associated with mobile phone use. ARPANSA is supporting this process to inform evidence-based health risk assessment of EMF exposures.

Review date

April 2024

Article publication date

March 2024

Summary

This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the results of 41 human experimental studies on self-reported symptoms associated with  radiofrequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) exposure in the general population and people who self-identify as having idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to EMF (IEI-EMF), commonly referred to as electromagnetic hypersensitivity. The symptoms were grouped into headache, sleep disturbances and composite symptoms, and then further divided by exposure type (localised head or whole body) as well as by participant group, general population or IEI-EMF individuals. Results were reported as the standardised mean difference (SMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Evidence of a dose-response relationship and  data relating to RF-EMF exposure perception were also assessed.

For each of the health outcomes investigated, the SMD was very small, and the 95% confidence interval encompassed zero, indicating that there is no effect. For example: Headache for the general population was reported as SMD 0.08 (95% CI -0.07 to 0.22) from head exposure and SMD 0.09 (95% CI -0.35 to 0.54) from whole body exposure. For IEI-EMF individuals, headache was reported as SMD 0.16 (95% CI -0.38 to 0.06) for head exposure and SMD 0.11 (95% CI -0.29 to 0.52) for whole body exposure. The report did not find evidence of any dose-response relationship. Certainty of evidence assessments for each outcome were rated high to moderate except for sleeping disturbance from whole body exposure which was rated as low and composite symptoms from head exposure for both IEI-EMF individuals and the general population which was rated as very low. The main contributor to alterations in the certainty of evidence assessments were the risk of bias (ROB) classifications. The ROB assessments were performed according to OHAT guidelines and the most common sources of bias identified were from a lack of exposure randomisation and how the outcomes were assessed. Inconsistency and indirectness were secondary contributors to downgrades in the certainty of evidence.

The review further analysed data relating to EMF perception. The available evidence showed that study participants were not able to perceive RF-EMF exposure beyond what is expected by pure chance and that there was no difference in RF-EMF perception between IEI-EMF individuals and the general population. Interestingly, the authors noted that in open provocation studies, where the subjects are informed of their exposure, more symptoms are reported indicating that symptoms are associated with the perception of exposure and not the physiological reality. The authors further suggested that these results indicate that acute affects attributed to everyday RF-EMF are more likely to be a result of the nocebo effect.

Link to

The effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields exposure on human self-reported symptoms: A systematic review of human experimental studies

Published In

Environmental International 

ARPANSA commentary

This review provides high quality evidence on the acute effects of RF-EMF exposure on self-reported symptoms. The overall conclusion of the review showed that RF-EMF exposure to the head or whole body does not cause headache, sleep disturbances or composite symptoms. A WHO review assessing similar symptoms in human observational studies (Röösli, et al., 2024) that ARPANSA has previously summarised also showed similar results. The lack of any significant difference between results from the general population and IEI-EMF persons aligns with the assertion of ARPANSA and the World Health Organization (WHO) that exposure to the low levels of electromagnetic radiation experienced by the public is not the cause of symptoms experienced by IEI-EMF individuals. A limitation of the study is that it only examined acute effects from RF-EMF exposure, due to the nature of the human experimental studies. However, findings from human observational studies indicate similar results.

It should be noted that the RF-EMF exposure levels in the included studies are below the exposure limits for the general public given in the ARPANSA safety standard and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines. The conclusions of this review therefore further reiterate the assessment of ARPANSA that exposure to RF-EMF fields at levels below those prescribed in the standard does not cause adverse health effects. This review is part of the World Health Organisation’s ongoing project assessing the health effects of RF-EMF (SR8 – Symptoms (human experimental studies)). ARPANSA is supporting this WHO review process. 

Review date

17 April 2024

Article publication date

March 2024

Summary

This systematic review evaluated the evidence on exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic energy (RF-EME) and male fertility both in-vivo and in-vitro. The review included studies on rats, mice, guineapigs, hamsters, rabbits (n=117 animal studies) and human sperm (n=10 studies). The studies employed a wide range of RF-EMF frequencies (800-2400 megahertz, MHz, the in-vitro studies;  100 MHz – 10 gigahertz, GHz,  for most of the animal studies). The specific absorption rate (SAR) exposure levels ranged from 0.00003 to 27.5 W/kg (for human studies); and 0.000012-184 W/kg (for animal studies). The review examined the included studies based on the GRADE approach which assesses the certainty of evidence. For human studies, a small detrimental effect of RF-EME exposure on sperm vitality (standardized mean differences (SMD) −1.37 (95 % confidence interval (CI) −2.46 to −0.28)), and no-effect on DNA/chromatin alterations (SMD −0.17 (95 % CI −0.48 to 0.13)) were reported. However, these results showed very low certainty of evidence. For the animal studies, a reduction in pregnancy rate (odds ratio (OR) 2.39 (95 % CI 1.52 to 3.74) and no-effect on litter size (SMD 0.04 (95 % CI −0.15 to 0.23)) were observed. These animal endpoints showed moderate certainty of evidence; whilst the other animal endpoints showed very low or low certainty of evidence. 

Link to

Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) exposure on male fertility: A systematic review of experimental studies on non-human mammals and human sperm in vitro

Published In

Environmental International 

ARPANSA commentary

The review concluded that no conclusions could be made on the effect of RF-EME on male human fertility based on the evidence. However, it is important to note that the RF EME exposure levels reported by the systematic review for a reduction in pregnancy rate, which is the only negative effects outcome with a moderate level of certainty in the evidence, had an average exposure across the studies of 23.87 W/kg. This average exposure  which is over 28,000 times the public limit for whole body average exposure set in the ARPANSA safety standard (RPS S-1) and theICNIRP RF guidelines. Further, the authors reported that 75-80% investigating human fertility exposed human sperm RF EME levels above the safety limits. There are a number of other limitations identified in the review including issues with blinding, experimental procedures not following the recommended guidelines, use of inappropriate exposure levels and sources of bias not being considered. 

The effect of RF-EME on fertility has been reviewed by ICNIRP in their 2020 guidelines and they concluded that RF-EME has no adverse effects on human fertility, reproduction, or development. Overall, there remains no consistent scientific evidence that exposure to RF EME below the limits set in ARPANSA safety standard or the ICNIRP RF guidelines are a hazard to human fertility.

Review date

March 2024

Article publication date

March 2024

Summary

This prospective cohort study on Mobile Phones and Health (COSMOS), examined association between long-term mobile phone use and risk of brain tumours. The study recruited 264,574 adult participants in Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK during 2007–2012. Data on brain tumour (glioma, meningioma or acoustic neuroma) occurrence in the participants was obtained through cohort linkage to respective national cancer registries. Data on the participants’ mobile phone use (number of years since start of regular mobile phone use or cumulative hours of mobile phone call-time) were collected from the participants at baseline (i.e., at the beginning of the study). A total of 149 participants were diagnosed with glioma, 89 with meningioma, and 29 with acoustic neuroma during follow-up (median follow-up of 7.1 years). The risk estimate per 100 cumulative hours of mobile phone call-time was 1.00 (95% CI: 0.98–1.02) for glioma, 1.01 (95% CI: 0.96–1.06) for meningioma, and 1.02 (95% CI: 0.99–1.06) for acoustic neuroma. Over 15 years of mobile phone use was not associated with an increased tumour risk. These results showed that the cumulative amount of mobile phone use is not associated with the risk of developing glioma, meningioma, or acoustic neuroma.

Published in

Environmental International

Link to

Mobile phone use and brain tumour risk – COSMOS, a prospective cohort study

ARPANSA commentary

The conclusion of the study demonstrate that long-term mobile phone use is not associated with the risk of developing glioma, meningioma, or acoustic neuroma. The overall conclusion of this study is consistent with the findings of previous prospective cohort studies (Schuz et al., 2022; Schuz et al., 2011; Frei et al., 2011), the Interphone case-control study  (Interphone Study Group, 2010), a recent review by the US Food and Drug Administration on RF-EMF and Cancer, and studies investigating trends in brain tumour incidence rates over time (Elwood et al., 2022; Deltour et al., 2022), including an Australia study (Karipidis et al., 2018). 

The current study has a major strength over previous studies that it is the largest multinational prospective cohort study. The study adopted a robust approach for collecting detailed data on the participants’ mobile phone usage to overcome the limitation of recall bias, exposure measurement error and exposure misclassification to a large extent, which otherwise would have biased the risk estimates. Notable limitations of the study include the collection of mobile phone use data only at baseline, and inclusion of relatively small numbers of meningioma and acoustic neuroma cases, which limits the statistical power of the study.

Based on the current scientific evidence, and consistent with the findings of this study, it is the assessment of ARPANSA that there is no substantiated evidence that mobile phone use (resulting in RF-EMF exposures at levels below the limits set in the ARPANSA Safety Standard) cause any adverse health effects, including brain tumours in humans populations. The World Health Organization is currently assessing available evidence on potential human health effects (including brain tumours) of radiofrequency electromagnetic field (RF EMF) exposure, including that associated with mobile phone use. The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) is supporting this process.

Review date

March 2024

Article publication date

February 2024

Summary

The study analysed historic incidence and mortality data related to cutaneous malignant melanoma between 1980 and 2020. Data analysis was performed for each eligible country and was further divided by gender and age group, one age group between 20-44 years and another age group between 45-64 years. 

Globally, from the 2005-2009 period to the 2015-2019 period it was found that mortality has generally declined in both age groups except for a few countries that displayed an increase in mortality rates. Global incidence was either static or trending upwards. The authors primarily attribute recent notable declines in mortality to advances made in melanoma treatments since approximately 2010. 

Incidence in Australia was found to be declining in the 20-44 age bracket and stable in the 45-64 age bracket. The comparatively promising incidence trends in Australia were attributed to prevention programs, effective control of UV exposure and an increased use in high-quality sunscreens. It was further shown that the mortality rate in Australia has declined by 41.7% among men and 47.9% among women in the 20-44 age bracket and in the 45-64 age bracket the mortality rate has also declined by 22.9% among men and 25.5% among women.

The study also identifies a gender difference, with women globally recording higher incidence rates but lower mortality rates than their male counterparts. The authors suggested greater health care awareness in female patients as a potential reason. The unreliable distinction between melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer on death certificates in most countries was highlighted as a source of bias for older populations.

Published in

Melanoma Research

Link to

Global trends in cutaneous malignant melanoma incidence and mortality

ARPANSA commentary

This study collated data on melanoma incidence and mortality rates in a variety of countries and highlighted a recent downward trend in melanoma mortality rates in many countries including Australia. This downward mortality trend is also seen in data provided by the Cancer Council. While the study details favourable trends for Australia, including a falling incidence rate where many other countries are reporting a rising incidence rate, it should be noted that the actual values of melanoma incidence and mortality rates in Australia remain some of the highest in the world, exceeding the rates found in some other countries by multiple times. 

Skin cancers, including melanoma, are one of the largest public health concerns in Australia with two-thirds of Australians receiving a skin cancer diagnosis of some type in their lifetime. For melanoma specifically, it is estimated that 1 in 21 Australian women and 1 in 14 Australian men will be diagnosed with melanoma by the time they reach the age of 85 (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2023). The largest risk factor for melanoma is overexposure to ultraviolet radiation (UVR) from the sun, with as many as 95% of all melanomas being attributed to UVR overexposure (Whiteman et al. 2015,  Armstrong & Kricker 1993).

ARPANSA recommends following the five sun protection principles when the UV-index is over three. ARPANSA administers and maintains UVR monitoring stations across Australia that can be used to see the UVR index in real time across Australia and make informed decisions about sun protection. More information about the risks of sun exposure and methods of sun protection can be found from: The World Health Organization, The Cancer Council of Australia and SunSmart websites.

Review date

March 2024

Article publication date

11 January 2024

Summary

This prospective cohort study examined the association between primary central nervous system (CNS) tumours and chronic external occupational exposure to gamma radiation. The study included 22,377 workers from Mayak Production Association that had been hired to work at a facility with reactors, radiochemical production or plutonium production plants between 1948 and 1982. Radiation exposure was estimated based on ‘Mayak Worker Dosimetry System—2013’ (MWDS 2013). A total of 43 workers who were acutely exposed to radiation and developed acute radiation syndrome as well as 717 workers with missing medical records were excluded from the analysis. The authors examined the excess relative risk of all CNS, glioma and meningioma per Gray (Gy) of external gamma dose. They reported ERR per 1 Gy of external gamma brain dose was 0.05 (95% confidence interval (CI) −0.30 to 0.70) for all CNS tumours, −0.18 (95% CI 0 to 0.44) for gliomas, and 0.38 (95% CI −0.32 to 2.08) for meningiomas. The study concluded no statistically significant association between ionising radiation (IR) exposure and incidence of any CNS cancer type among the workers.  

Published in

Radiation and Environmental Biophysics 

Link to

Risk of central nervous system tumour incidence in a cohort of workers chronically exposed to ionising radiation

ARPANSA commentary

The study found no association between low chronic external exposure to gamma radiation and CNS cancers. This is similar to a study by Kitahara et al (2017), which showed absence of association  between low to moderate cumulative occupational radiation exposure and CNS cancers in radiation technologists (ERR per 100 mGy: 0.1; 95% CI: −0.30 to 1.50). Another study (Boice et al 2022) of medical radiation workers in the United States also found no significant association between cumulative absorbed doses of radiation ( 18.9 mGy - 1.08 Gy) and brain cancers (ERR at 100 mGy = 0.20; 95% CI: − 0.30 to 0.71). The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) states that at low levels (less than 0.1 Gray) IR exposure, the possible increased risk of cancer is uncertain. However, it remains important to track doses of occupational radiation in workplaces as the doses of 100-1000 millisieverts can increase the risk of cancer. 

ARPANSA publishes a series of evidence-based documents to guide Australian radiation protection principles and practices for radiation workers and the general public. For example,The Code for Radiation Protection in Planned Exposure Situations (2020)established a framework in Australia for the protection of occupationally exposed persons, the public and the environment in planned IR exposure situations. A planned exposure situation, is an exposure arising from the planned operation of a radiation source or facility that causes exposure to a radiation source is called a ‘planned exposure’ and in these planned exposure situations, some level of exposure can be expected to occur. The guideline applies the three main principles of radiation protection for planned exposure situations: i) justification (that any activity involving IR exposure should do more good than harm), ii) optimisation (that actual IR exposure, likelihood of exposures and number of exposed persons should be as low as reasonably achievable taking into account economic and societal factors), and iii) dose limits (levels of radiation dose that must not, under normal circumstances, be exceeded). ARPANSA will continue to update the latest science on human radiation protection, including cancer risk associated with IR exposure, in order to protect Australian general public and occupational populations.