Radiation literature survey

Review date

March 2024

Article publication date

December 2023

Summary

This case-control study examined the association between extremely low frequency electric and magnetic fields (ELF EMF) and  all types of childhood leukeamia and or childhood acute lymphoblastic leukeamia. The study included 182 cases of childhood leukeamia and 726 population controls matched on sex, year of birth and residential area. Exposure to ELF EMF was assessed based on proximity to transformer station and participants were assigned to the exposed category if they lived within 15 or 25 meters of a transformer station. Distance to a substation was determined based on residential address. Potential confounders were mitigated by adjusting the results for traffic-related air quality, distance from high voltage powerlines, annual fuel supply of petrol stations within 1000 meters and urban area density or agricultural crop density within 100 meters. The authors reported no association between proximity of less than 15 meters to transformer stations and childhood leukeamia (<15 m, odd ratios (OR) 1.0; confidence interval (CI) 0.2 – 4.9) or childhood acute lymphoblastic leukeamia (<15 m: OR 1.0; CI 0.2 – 4.9). They also reported no association between proximity of less than 25 meters to transformer stations and childhood leukeamia (<25 m: OR 1.2; CI 0.4 – 3.4) or childhood acute lymphoblastic leukeamia (<25 m: OR 0.7; CI 0.2 – 2.6). The authors also found no association between proximity of less than 15 or 25 meters to transformer stations and any childhood leukeamia type when age was split by the <5 and ≥ 5 years of age. 

Published in

Environmental Research 

Link to

Residential exposure to magnetic fields from transformer stations and risk of childhood leukemia

ARPANSA commentary

The authors make statements throughout their discussion that their results provide evidence for association between residential proximity to transformer stations and childhood leukeamia. This is false for several reasons. Firstly, they do not report any statistically significant association between distance to transformer stations and any childhood leukeamia. Secondly, they make these claims based on evidence that only includes at most 5 exposed cases. Thirdly, the study assigned exposure to participants who live less than 15 or 25 meters from transformer stations, however, measurements have shown that when you are between 3-7 meters away from a transformer the associated ELF EMF will on average be <0.4 µT. When more than 10 meters away ELF EMF will usually be <0.2 µT (Kandel et al 2013). The average magnetic field in the home can range from <0.1 to 1 µT. This indicates that the proximity of participants to transformer stations may have had no effect on their ELF EMF exposure level or their likelihood to develop childhood leukeamia, unless their home was extremely close to a transformer station. Overall, the claims made by the authors are baseless and due to the methodical shortcomings of the study it provides no evidence of an association with childhood leukaemia.

Some epidemiological studies observing outcomes from exposure to ELF MF greater than 0.3 or 0.4 µT have shown an association with childhood leukaemia (SCENIHR 2015). However, this association has not been established by consistent scientific evidence. The epidemiological evidence for this association is weakened by various methodological problems such as potential selection bias, misclassification and confounding. Furthermore, it is not supported by laboratory or animal studies and no credible theoretical mechanism has been proposed on how ELF MF could cause cancer. Overall, the scientific evidence does not establish that exposure to ELF EMF in the everyday environment is a hazard to human health. 

Review date

23 February 2024

Article publication date

January 2024

Summary

This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the current evidence on the association between longer-term or repeated radiofrequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) exposure and tinnitus, migraine and non-specific symptoms among the general and working populations. A total of 13 papers (including 486, 558 participants), which reported local (e.g., brain) or whole-body RF-EMF exposure for at least 1 week were included in the review.  The associations between RF-EMF exposure to the whole-body or brain and the health outcomes were examined in terms of pooled relative risk (RR) or standardized mean difference (SMD). The synthesis of evidence was conducted according to the OHAT guidelines.

For tinnitus, the pooled RR was 1.43 (95% Confidence Interval, CI: 0.94 to 2.18) per 100 minutes of wireless phone call time per week. For migraine, the RR was 1.2 (95% CI: 1.1 to 1.3) for mobile phone subscribers compared to non-subscribers. For headache, the pooled change in SMD was 0.64 (95%CI: -2.38 to 1.10) per 100 minutes of wireless phone call time per week. For sleep disturbances, the pooled change in SMD was 1.51 (95% CI: - 2.00 to 5.03) per 1 V/m of exposure. For non-specific symptoms, the pooled change in SMD was 1.13 (95% CI: - 0.94 to 3.20) per 1 V/m of exposure. Overall, the findings of the review showed that there is no association between RF-EMF exposure and the investigated health outcomes. However, the absence of associations reported is based on very low certainty evidence. The results also indicated that RF-EMF exposure below the values defined in the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines  does not cause tinnitus, migraine or any non-specific symptoms.

Link to

The effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields exposure on tinnitus, migraine and non-specific symptoms in the general and working population: A systematic review and meta-analysis on human observational studies

ARPANSA commentary

The review provides state-of-the art evidence on whether a long-term RF-EMF exposure to whole-body or brain is related to adverse health outcomes in the general and working populations. The included studies in the review have numerous limitations, including indirectness of the exposure surrogate (e.g., self-reported number/duration of phone calls or mobile phone subscriptions resulting in near field exposure), self-reported health outcomes and the relatively short follow-up periods in longitudinal studies. Very low certainty evidence on the associations reported in the review was attributed to a limited number of studies, possible risk of bias in some studies, inconsistencies, indirectness, and imprecision. The review indicates that exposure to RF-EMF below the limits described in the ICNIRP guidelines does not cause the health effects investigated in the study. This is in line with the public health message of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) on RF-EMF exposure and health. The general public RF-EMF exposures in Australia generally are far below the human  safety  limits given in the Australian safety Standard (e.g., RPS-S1) and the ICNIRP limits. The Australian Safety Standard, developed by ARPANSA, is consistent with the ICNIRP guidelines and is based on validated international scientific evidence. Further, the findings reinforce the assessment of ARPANSA that there is no substantiated evidence that RF-EMF exposures at levels below the limits set in the Australian standard cause any adverse health effects, including those assessed in this review. The review forms a part of the World Health Organization’s ongoing project to assess potential health effects of RF-EMF in the general and working population and ARPANSA is supporting this process.

Review date

29 February 2024

Article publication date

09 February 2024

Summary

This systematic review examined if adverse health effects are evident in children born to parents who were exposed to ionising radiation prior to conception. The review evaluated 127 publications between 1988 and 2018, a companion study covers publications between 2018 and 2021. Studies were grouped by health outcomes (e.g., pregnancy outcomes, genomic anomalies, cancer, mortality rates and non-cancer diseases) and analysis was further segmented by exposure scenario (e.g., occupational, atomic bomb survivors or environmental). Pregnancy outcomes were further divided into congenital abnormalities, perinatal mortality, birth weight and other.

For almost every category, it was reported that there was inadequate evidence to conclude whether there is or isn’t an effect associated with any exposure scenario, the authors identifying inconsistencies in the conclusions and methodologies of studies within the same category. The exception to this assessment was for congenital abnormalities in occupationally exposed populations, where the evidence suggested ‘high confidence for an effect’. However, the study warned against assigning significance to this conclusion as it was based on only eight studies, including two with small populations. When these two studies were excluded, the conclusion was inadequate evidence, which was congruent with the other assessments of congenital abnormalities.  The authors note difficulties in identifying populations where there was certainty that ionising radiation exposure occurred prior to conception and that there was no exposure after conception. Further, the review suggests a need for studies to improve homogeneity in their methods and reporting of results, provide accurate dosimetry and share data to improve the statistical power of the available evidence.

Link to

A systematic review of human evidence for the intergenerational effects of exposure to ionizing radiation 

ARPANSA commentary

This review presents a synthesis of studies on the effects of preconceptual exposure to ionising radiation on health outcomes for subsequent progeny.

There are some flaws in how the reviewers have applied the systematic review protocol. Among other issues, the authors assert that they are following Cochrane’s guidelines for their statistical analysis. These guidelines state that there are limited circumstances where a complete meta-analysis and its accompanying statistical measures can be eschewed in favour of other methods. Despite many studies in this review meeting eligibility for a meta-analysis, the authors did not conduct meta-analyses of the results and instead relied on vote-counting to determine a direction of the effect. Vote-counting does not consider the statistical significance or size of the effect reported in an individual study or account for the relative scales of each study.

With these shortcomings in mind, the overall findings of the review showed inadequate evidence for health outcomes on the progeny of parents that were exposed to ionising radiation prior to conception. A finding of ‘inadequate evidence’ indicates that the evidence does not support an affirmative or negative conclusion for the existence of an effect. However, the authors rightfully infer that if there is a health effect, it is small and difficult to measure. Therefore, the study calls for increased homogeneity in both testing protocol and reporting of results, echoing other studies (Rooney et al., 2014; Walker et al., 2018).

It is worth noting that many of the population groups in the studies included in this review are the offspring of occupationally exposed persons or survivors of historic nuclear events and disasters where exposure to ionising radiation was uncontrolled.

The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) periodically reviews and publishes the latest evidence on sources, effects and risks of ionising radiation exposure (e.g., UNSCEAR 2020/2021 Report Volume I). These reports are regarded as principal sources of authoritative information on this topic. Similarly, the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) provides guidelines to protect people and the environment from the harmful effects of ionising radiation. This study contributes to a broader effort by an ICRP task group designed to review the scientific literature on the effect of ionising radiation on the offspring of exposed individuals. Reviews like this one will help to inform decisions about whether radiological protection systems require revision.

Consistent to ICRP guidelines, the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency has a set of regulations for controlling exposure to ionising radiation. These regulations ensure that the benefits of personal exposure, where exposure cannot be eliminated (e.g. X-ray radiography), are balanced against potential harm and that this harm is minimised.

Review date

17 January 2024

Article publication date

8 January 2024

Summary

This review compares the guidelines and restrictions set by various international, national and regional bodies for exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF). A total of 10 RF-EMF guideline documents are reviewed. The comparison shows very similar guidance provided by each of the peak international bodies: the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation (ICNIRP) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). Minor differences are found between these guidelines and those set by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) at particular frequencies due to differences in the assessment of RF-EMF absorption within the human body.

Further examination of guideline documents showed that ICNIRP’s limits have been adopted by a majority of countries. The authors address the more conservative limits (1-2 orders of magnitude lower than ICNIRP) adopted by a subset of countries as well as some proposed extreme limits (6 orders of magnitude lower than ICNIRP). As a part of their evaluation, the authors assert that these lower limits, particularly the extreme limits, do not have a scientific basis. Conversely, USA and Japan are identified as the only two countries with less restrictive limits than elsewhere in the world as they take their guidance from the FCC.

The authors also contextualise the limits by comparing them to measurements of RF-EMF exposure in the environment that members of the public may be exposed to from sources such as mobile telephony and Wi-Fi. This comparison demonstrates that the average RF-EMF exposure in the environment is far below the limits set by ICNIRP and is also below the more conservative limits set by other countries and bodies.

Link to

Personal exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields: A comparative analysis of international, national, and regional guidelines

Published in

Environmental Research 

ARPANSA commentary

This review clearly presents the similarities and differences between RF-EMF exposure limits set by different countries and how they compare to guidance from international bodies, similar to a 2018 report that ARPANSA has previously summarised. The report highlights that the exposure to RF-EMF experienced by the public, including by people in Australia, remains well below the limits set by safety standards. The review’s criticisms of the more conservative limits set by some countries echoes criticisms presented in similar reviews in the past (Madjar, 2016).  

In Australia, exposure to RF-EMF is limited by the ARPANSA Safety Standard which details exposure limits for the general public and for occupationally exposed people. The ARPANSA Safety Standard is congruent with the limits set by ICNIRP and with those adopted by most countries worldwide. The standard is designed to protect people of all ages and health statuses against all known adverse health effects from exposure to RF-EMF. The standard is based on current scientific research that shows the levels at which harmful effects occur and it sets limits well below these harmful levels.

Review date

December 2023

Article publication date

October 2023

Summary

This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the association between electromagnetic fields (EMF) and miscarriage or spontaneous abortion. This report included six epidemiological studies (3 case-control, 1 nested case-control and 2 cohort studies) to synthesise the evidence on the topic. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the authors reported that all included studies were of high quality. The included studies assessed both radiofrequency (RF) EMF and extremely low frequency (ELF) EMF exposure sources as a result of mobile phone use, home ELF-EMF levels, home RF-EMF levels and electricity power lines. The study reported that both EMF  exposure was significantly associated with miscarriage with a risk ratio of 1.70 (95% confidence interval: 1.12 - 2.36).

Link to:

Electromagnetic Field Exposure and Abortion in Pregnant Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Published in

Malays J Med Sci

ARPANSA commentary

Although the results from this study indicated a potential risk of miscarriage associated with EMF exposure, they are difficult to interpret and rely on due to methodological issues in the review and the limited epidemiological evidence available. First, the authors amalgamated all different types of exposure sources (i.e., ELF EMF and RF EMF). A meta-analysis is meant to be uniform in how it examines exposure and this deviation from standard scientific practice reduces the evidence value of the study overall and prevents any real conclusions from being drawn (Wong and Raabe 1996). The authors also reported a high heterogeneity of 84.55% which indicates that the included studies were all quite different. A heterogeneity this high means the overall outcome of the study could be due to random chance (Imrey, 2020).

There is also an issue with how the author assessed the quality of a study. The authors seem to have assessed the studies overall and not by assessed outcome. This could have affected the results of the review and contributed to an incorrect assessment of the level of bias. An example of this is the included study by Lee et al (2002) that reported the highest risk ratio. The study had a 50% loss to follow-up for the outcome used by this review, however, the authors still rated this part as being unlikely to introduce bias. This is incorrect and a 50% loss rate would result in selection bias. This is even stated in the study by Lee et al (2002).

The authors only assessed one outcome from each of the included studies and made no justification on how individual outcomes were selected. This could indicate that they cherry picked the results of the included studies to get the result they wanted.  

Overall, there remains limited evidence on the potential effect of miscarriage due to EMF exposure. The Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) in 2015 assessed potential health effect of EMF exposures to humans and concluded that the available evidence does not show any effect of EMF on the reproductive function in humans. A recent systematic review on animals conducted by the World Health Organization (WHO) also found that RF EMF exposure does not have a detrimental effect on fecundity of animals (Cordelli et al 2023).

Review date

November 2023

Article publication date

October 2023

Summary

This study presents the World Health Organization/International Labour Organization joint estimates of occupational exposures to ultraviolet radiation (UVR) globally and attributable non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) deaths and overall disease burden (i.e., disability-adjusted life year or DALYs) for the years 2000, 2010 and 2019. Occupational exposure to UVR was estimated using occupation as a proxy for outdoor work, involving 763 cross-sectional surveys from 96 countries/areas. Attributable NMSC burden was estimated by applying the population attributable fraction (PAFs) to WHO’s estimates of the total NMSC burden. The study reported that 1.6 billion workers (28.4 % of the working-age population) were occupationally exposed to UVR across the world in 2019. Globally, the PAFs were 29.0 % [95% uncertainty range  24.7–35.0)] for NMSC deaths, and 30.4 % (UR 29.0–31.7) for DALYs. Attributable NMSC burdens were 18,960 deaths (UR 18,180–19,740) and 0.5 million DALYs (UR 0.4–0.5). During 2000–2019, attributable deaths and DALYs almost doubled; and men and old age populations carried larger burden. The study also reports that Australia has one of the highest rates of NMSC burden and rate of death associated with occupational UVR exposure. The study concluded that UVR exposure is responsible for a considerable and growing attributable burden of NMSC; therefore, occupational outdoor UVR exposure is a significant hazard.

Link to

Global, regional and national burdens of non-melanoma skin cancer attributable to occupational exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation for 183 countries, 2000–2019: A systematic analysis from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury

Published in

Environment International - Volume 181

ARPANSA commentary

The (International Agency for Research on Cancer, IARC) classifies solar UVR as a Group 1 carcinogen (IARC, 1992). The global burden of occupational UVR exposure estimated by this study shows that occupational UVR exposure is the third largest attributable burden of cancer globally. Therefore, the estimations of NMSC deaths and DALYs associated with occupational UVR exposure are significant. A key limitation of this study is that UVR exposure estimations were done based on exposure assigned via occupation as a proxy that experts judged as always working outdoors rather than data gathered employing personal exposure measurements. This might have introduced some exposure misclassification bias, which results in under- or overestimation of the exposure and subsequent estimation of the burden/risk of disease. Notably, a recent WHO systematic review and meta-analysis (WHO, 2021) reported limited evidence for an association between occupational UVR exposure and skin cancer.

In Australia, skin cancer accounts for the largest number of cancers diagnosed each year (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2016). A study reports that 22% of workers are occupationally exposed to UVR (Carey et al., 2014) along with other known carcinogens. Therefore, the findings of this study highlight the need of adequate sun protection for outdoor workers internationally, including Australia. This is supported by both IARC and Australian national (e.g., Cancer Council Australia Sun safety | Cancer Council) recommendations for current sun protection. ARPANSA recommends that all people including workers should limit their UVR exposures, and a combination of sun protection measures (e.g., clothing and sunglasses, shade and sunscreen) should be used, wherever applicable. For more information see the ARPANSA factsheet, Sun exposure and health. 

Review date

November 2023

Article publication date

August 2023

Summary

This study compares ambient personal radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF EMF) measured across 19 Swiss cities in 2014 and 2021. Forty-nine outdoor areas (e.g., urban city centres, suburban and rural areas) were visited for undertaking RF-EMF measurements covering a range of broadcast and mobile telecommunication technologies (frequency range: 50 MHz to 6 GHz).  The RF-EMF mean exposure levels in 2014 and 2021 were estimated and compared. The results of the study show that RF-EMF levels in public places have not significantly changed between 2014 and 2021 despite an 18-fold increase in mobile data transmission during that period.

Link to

Comparison of ambient radiofrequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) levels in outdoor areas and public transport in Switzerland in 2014 and 2021

Published in

Environmental Research Volume 237

ARPANSA commentary

This study found that personal RF-EMF exposure levels measured in micro-environments during 2014-2021 remain well below international safety limits (e.g., the ICNIRP limits) and the exposure has not changed significantly over time. The exposure levels are comparable to those measured recently in Australia by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) (Henderson et al 2023). Further, the findings that overall exposure remained unchanged are consistent with those found elsewhere (Ramirez-Vazquez et al., 2023; Markussen et al., 2022; Iakovidis et al., 2022), but contrary to what was found by other studies (Eeftens et al., 2023; Urbinello et al., 2014). 

Within the framework of the Australian Government’s Electromagnetic Energy (EME) program, ARPANSA has been monitoring RF-EMF exposures in communities, including the change in RF-EMF exposure levels over the past few years. The findings (of Henderson et al 2023 and unpublished data) indicate that RF-EMF exposures in Australia remained far below the Australian public safety limits described in the safety standard which align with the ICNIRP limits. Further, overall RF-EMF exposure in Australia remained largely unchanged despite many-fold increase in mobile data traffic data between 2015-2022.

Review date

November 2023

Article publication date

October 2023

Summary

This study used data from the UK Biobank prospective cohort study to examine the effects of mobile phone use on cancer incidence. A total of 431,861 participants were included, of which 66,266 (35,401 men and 30,865 women) developed cancer after a median follow up time of 10.7 years. The study collected information on mobile phone use by self-administered questionnaires and classified the participants to be exposed if they used a mobile phone at least once per week to make a call. In males, an increase in overall cancer incidence in mobile phone users was found (hazard ratio (HR) 1.09; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06–1.12). The risk for specific cancers among males were: nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) (HR 1.08; 95%CI 1.03-1.14), urinary tract cancer (HR 1.18; 95%CI 1.05-1.32) and prostate cancer (HR 1.19; 95%CI: 1.13-1.25). In women, increased risk of overall cancers (HR 1.03; 95%CI 1.00-1.06) among mobile phone users was found. The risk for specific cancers among females were: NMSC (HR 1.07; 95%CI 1.01 1.13), and vulvar cancer (HR 1.74; 95%CI 1.00-3.02). The study also reported a linear dose-response relationship between length (years) of mobile phone use and incident of NMSC in men and women (p value =<0.05), and prostate cancer in men (p=<0.05). No association between mobile phone use and brain cancers (HR 1.01; 95% CI 0.80-1.27) was found. The authors concluded that potential association of mobile phone use with the risk of urinary tract cancer in men and vulva cancer in women needs to be further verified.

Link to

Mobile phone use and risks of overall and 25 site-specific cancers: a prospective study from the UK Biobank Study

Published in

National Library of Medicine

ARPANSA commentary

The study results indicating a slightly elevated risk of cancers among mobile phone users are not supported by other large cohort studies such as the Danish cohort study or the Million Women Study. The Danish cohort study, which investigated the entire Danish population, reported no increased risk for males or females for cancer overall, prostate cancer, bladder cancer or other skin cancers (Johansen et al 2001 and Schüz et al 2005). Skin cancers, particularly non-melanoma skin cancers have been specifically looked into by the Danish cohort study and no increased risk was found among mobile phone users (Poulsen et al 2013).The Million Women study also found no increased risk of cancer in female mobile phone users for cancer overall or bladder cancer (Benson et al 2013). Further, neither the Danish cohort study or the Million Women study reported any dose response relationship between mobile phone use and any cancer types.

Mobile phone use has not previously been identified as a risk factor for vulvar cancer by any study. Furthermore, vulvar cancer already has a well understood risk factor in human papillomavirus (HPV) infection (Bucchi et al 2022). The authors did not account HPV infection as a confounding factor when evaluating the association between mobile phone use and vulvar cancer. Therefore, these particular findings could be questionable.

The study did not have updated information on mobile phone use (i.e., after initial assessment when the participants started using a mobile phone). To overcome this, the study restricted the analysis to people less likely to change their mobile phone habits and it is not clear how the authors would have done this. Therefore, this approach itself may have introduced bias into their analysis and might have affected the results.

Overall, though the results of the study suggest little increase in cancer risk among mobile phone users, the findings are not supported-up by other cohort studies. Therefore, these results in isolation cannot be considered as establishing an association between mobile phone use and cancer. There remains no substantiated evidence of adverse health effects from exposure to RF-EMF  originating from mobile phones and other wireless devices, where the exposures are below the public exposure limits set in the ARPANSA Standard and the International Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection’s radiofrequency guidelines.

Review date

September 2023

Article publication date

August 2023

Summary

This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the current evidence on the association between radiofrequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) exposures during pregnancy and adverse reproductive health outcomes in offspring of experimental animals. Of total 88 papers included in the review, 65 were on rats, 20 in mice and 3 in other animals. The health outcomes were grouped into fecundity (i.e., litter size, embryonic/foetal losses), offspring health at birth (i.e., decrease of weight or length, congenital malformations, changes of sex ratio) and delayed effects on the offspring health (i.e., memory function, female infertility, etc.). The associations between RF-EMF exposure (i.e., whole body average Specific absorption rate, SAR)  and the health outcomes and their dose-response relationships were examined. The certainty of the evidence was also evaluated on the three levels of risk of bias (RoB): high, some or low concern.

For fecundity, a whole-body average SAR of 4.92 W/kg had no effect of exposure (means difference, MD 0.05; 95% Confidence Interval, CI - 0.21 to 0.30) on litter size. A whole-body average SAR of 20.26 W/kg, showed a significant increase of the resorbed or dead foetus in exposed animals (Odds ratio, OR 1.84; 95% CI 1.27 to 2.66).  Similar results were shown in the dose–response analysis. For offspring health at birth, a whole-body average SAR of 9.83 W/kg showed a small decrease in foetal weight among exposed animals standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.31; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.48). A whole-body average SAR of 4.55 W/kg showed a moderate decrease in foetal length at birth (SMD 0.45; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.83) in exposed animals. A whole-body average SAR of 6.75 W/kg showed a moderate increase in the proportion of foetuses with malformations (SMD - 0.45; 95% CI -0.68 to - 0.23) in exposed animals. A whole-body average SAR of 16.63 W/kg showed an increased incidence of litters with malformed foetuses (OR 3.22; 95% CI 1.9 to 5.46) in exposed animals. Similar results were shown in the dose–response analysis. For delayed effects, RF-EMF exposure was not associated with: i) detrimental effects on brain weight (SMD 0.10; 95% CI - 0.09 to 0.29, ii) learning and memory functions (SMD - 0.54; 95% CI - 1.24 to 0.17); and decrease in the size of litters conceived by the second generation female offspring (SMD 0.08; 95% CI - 0.39 to 0.55). However, the exposure was associated with a large detrimental effect on motor activity functions (SMD 0.79; 95% CI 0.21 to 1.38) and a moderate detrimental effect on motor and sensory functions (SMD - 0.66; 95% CI - 1.18 to - 0.14).

The study showed that RF-EMF exposure during pregnancy does not have an adverse effect on fecundity, likely affects offspring health at birth, probably does not affect offspring brain weight and may not decrease female offspring fertility; may have a detrimental impact on neurobehavioral functions. Most of the studies contributing to the pooled results, including reported significant associations, had either ‘high’ or ‘some’ RoB level.

Link to

Effects of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Field (RF-EMF) exposure on pregnancy and birth outcomes: A systematic review of experimental studies on non-human mammals

Published in

Environment International 

ARPANSA commentary

The review provides state-of-the art evidence on whether in utero RF-EMF exposure is related to adverse reproductive health outcomes in experimental animal offspring. Though some of the study findings show significant associations, the studies yielding those results have high or some RoB indicating limited certainty of the results. This is primarily due to poor quality of the studies in terms of their methodological limitations, including small sample size in experimental group, limited confidence in outcome assessment, lack of blinding, inadequate exposure characterisation and dosimetry, inadequate assessment of temperature rise and lack of randomisation. Similar limitations have been highlighted in an ARPANSA review (Karipidis et al., 2023) assessing impact of RF-EMF exposure in fauna and flora in the environment.

The review reported whole body average SAR levels in the included experiments, which are far above the human  safety  limits given in the Australia Standard (e.g., RPS-S1) and internationally (the ICNIRP limits) and are generally not encountered in general public environments (e.g. from telecommunications transmitters or wireless devices). Therefore, the findings of the review may have a limited relevance to current RF-EMF exposure risk assessment for humans. Based on the current scientific evidence, it is the assessment of ARPANSA that there is no substantiated evidence that RF-EMF exposures at levels below the limits set in the ARPANSA Safety Standard cause any adverse health effects, including adverse reproductive health effects, in human populations.

The review forms part of the World Health Organization’s ongoing project to assess potential health effects of RF-EMF in the general and working population and ARPANSA is supporting this process.

Review date

September 2023

Article publication date

16 August 2023

Summary

This report discusses the measurement of 5G communication signals outdoors in Bilbao, Spain. These measurements were taken at multiple locations and for multiple frequency bands. The measured values were compared to previous measurements from the previous year and to public safety limits. It was found that radiofrequency electromagnetic energy (RF-EME) levels had slightly increased when compared to the previous year, however they were greatly below international safety guidelines provided by the ICNIRP.

Link to

Measurements and analysis of 5G mobile communications signals in outdoor environments

Published in

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers 

ARPANSA commentary

This study found that 5G exposure levels in population-dense urban environments were well below public safety limits.

The finding that 5G measurements have remained well below safety limits is consistent with previous studies (Chountala et al., 2021, Celaya-Echarri et al., 2020) including a recent study conducted in Australia by ARPANSA (Henderson et al 2023). Limitations to this study include that only four locations were surveyed, and each were in relatively urban environments. Thus, whilst these measurements may be representative of exposures in population-dense cities, this may be less true for more rural environments.

Whilst there was a year-on-year increase found in RF-EME for frequencies in the 5G frequency range, this does not mean that RF-EME exposure is increasing overall. Other studies (Manassas et al., 2023) have indicated that RF-EME exposure is not continuously increasing but has increased and decreased at various points in time.

Australian public safety limits for RF-EME exposure, including 5G, are described in the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) safety standard. These limits are well below levels at which harm from RF-EME exposure may occur. These limits are in line with the international guidelines set by ICNIRP.