Radiation literature survey

Review date

18 July 2023

Article publication date

June 2023

Summary

This cross-sectional study assessed sun protection behaviours and associated covariates (e.g.,  sex and job-related characteristics) among German outdoor workers. Data on their use of sun protection measures, job-related characteristics, socio-demographic, and skin type were collected (through interview) during October-December 2021 from 486 outdoor workers (aged 16-65 years). The study found that the main sun protection measures used were ‘taking a lunch break in the shade’ (~83%), ‘wearing a shirt that covers shoulders’ (~77%), and ‘long trousers’ (62%). About one third always or often wore headgear, sunglasses, and work gloves. Sunscreen was more often or always used on the face (38.4%) compared with the rest of the body (25.4%). Use of sunscreen (with Sun Protection Factor 50/50+) on the face or the body was only observed in less than one third of the workers. Compared with participants with low formal education, outdoor workers with high education were more likely to use sunscreen on their faces, and wear sunglasses. Further, females were more likely to use sunscreen, while males were more likely to wear sun protective clothes and headgear. The use of sun protection measures among female workers did not differ by participants’ individual and job-related characteristics; whilst it differed for male workers widely. Use of sun protection measures was not associated with skin type. Occupation type was associated with wearing a shoulder-covering shirt (e.g., police/security service/military, post, parcel, or delivery service workers) or wearing headgear (e.g., horticulture, agriculture/animal husbandry/forestry workers). The authors concluded that German outdoor workers had inadequate sun protection measures and this needs due attention by health authorities.  

Link to

Sun Protection in German Outdoor Workers: Differences by Sex and Job-Related Characteristics

Published in

Annals of Work Exposures and Health

ARPANSA commentary

This study puts light on the inadequacy of sun protection measures among outdoor workers in Germany. The findings of this study are consistent with those of previous studies conducted in Germany (Schneider et al., 2018) and elsewhere (e.g., Grandahl et al., 2018; Modenese et al., 2020; Rydz et al., 2021). Limitations of this study include likely inaccuracies associated with the reporting of sun protection measures,  particularly related to social desirability bias and recall bias. Though comparable data from Australia are limited (Tabbakh et al., 2019; Haynes et al., 2020), use of sun protection measures for Australian outdoor workers has always been highly recommended during all months or seasons due to considerable UV exposure and potential health risk. Further, Australia’s world leading SunSmart program recommends outdoor workers to implement a combination of five measures, namely; Slip (on clothing), Slop (on SPF30 or higher), Slap (on a hat), Seek (a shade), Slide (on sunglasses). The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency provides evidence-based public health messages in relation to UV protection measures, including information on a real time UV index, estimation of UV dose and sun protection factsheets.

Review date

18 July 2023

Article publication date

February 2023

Summary

This retrospective cohort study evaluated the association between occupational radiofrequency-electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) exposure and incidence of cancer among military personnel. All military personnel serving in aerial defence units (with RADAR systems) exposed to RF-EMF exposures (n=11,049) and active-duty soldiers (with no occupational RF-EMF exposures, n=3,825) serving between 2009 and 2018 were included and were followed-up for on average of 4.6 (exposed group) and 4.8 (non-exposed group) years.  A total of 41 cases (13 in exposed group; 28 in non-exposed group) were diagnosed with cancer during the follow-up period. Information on RF-EMF exposure history (e.g., start year of exposure) and socio-demographics of the participants were collected from the Israel Defense Forces Medical Corps database, while cancer incidence data were collected from the Israeli National Cancer Registry. The results showed that there was no statistically significant association between occupational RF-EMF exposure and incidence of cancer (Odds ratio = 1.38 [95% Confidence Interval: 0.67-2.82]. The study concluded that RF-EMF exposure did not increase the risk for cancer in young adults.

Link to

Occupational Exposure to Nonionizing Radiation and Risk for Malignancy in Young Adults

Published in

Military Medicine

ARPANSA commentary

Overall, this study showed that occupational RF-EMF exposure in military personnel is not associated with short-term cancer incidence. This finding is largely consistent to a previous study conducted among veterans of the Korean War (Groves et al., 2002), but in contrast to other studies reporting increased risk of hematolymphatic cancers among Polish military personnel (Szmigielski, 1996)  and neurologic cancers (Grayson, 1996) among the US Air Force personnel. However, a meta-analysis (Variani et al., 2019) did not show any association between occupational RF-EMF exposure to radar and cancer incidence or mortality rate.  The study limitations include lack of objective data on personal RF-EMF exposure, small number of cancer cases and short follow-up time (e.g., a median of 4.4 years in the exposed group), and it did not adjust for potential confounders such as smoking status, alcohol consumption, dietary, lifestyle habits and other occupational exposures. It is the assessment of ARPANSA and international organisations such as the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation (ICNIRP) that there is no established scientific evidence to support that RF-EMF exposure increases the risk for cancer. In line with international guidelines from ICNIRP, the ARPANSA safety standard Radiation Protection Series S-1 (Rev. 1) | ARPANSA sets out the sets limits of exposure to RF-EMF for the public and workers. 

Review date

17 July 2023

Article published date

December 2022

Summary

This systematic scoping review analysed and summarised the available data (1980 - 2021) on the mortality burden of lung cancer due to radon. A total of 24 eligible studies from 14 different countries providing radon exposure and radon attributable mortality data were evaluated. Radon attributable mortality was estimated as population attributable fraction (PAF in %) and was given as a function of the radon geometric mean concentration in the area of study. Thirteen studies used risk models based on miners’ cohorts, eight used risks from residential radon case-control studies and three used both risk models. The reported radon concentration geometric mean was 11-83 Bq m^-3; whereas the PAF was 0.2-26%. Of the radon PAF for lung cancer mortality reported in the included high-quality studies, residential risk sources and miner risk sources had PAFs of 3-12% and 7-25%, respectively. Overall, the study found that PAF for lung cancer due to radon exposure varies widely between countries (0.2–26%), which is partly due to the different radon exposure levels and risk source types.

Link to

Lung cancer mortality attributable to residential radon: a systematic scoping review

Published in

Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology

ARPANSA commentary

The study provides a pooled estimation of the burden of lung cancer mortality associated with radon exposure and indicates that PAF for lung cancer varies widely. The reported higher PAF for lung cancer among radon-exposed miners is consistent with existing literature reporting an increased lung cancer incidence among miners (e.g., Lane et al., 2019; Zablotska et al., 2022).Though comparable data (including that on radon exposure related PAF for lung cancer) from Australia are limited, an Australian study (Peters et al., 2013) has shown an elevated risk of lung cancer among underground mining workers.

According to the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency led nationwide survey of more than 3300 Australian homes, the average radon exposure level in Australian homes is much lower (~10 Bq m⁻³) compared to the global average (40 Bq m⁻³). Similarly, radon exposure among Australian miners (e.g., uranium mining and milling industry) also remains low and is regulated to minimise cancer risk. The Code for Radiation Protection in Planned Exposure Situations sets out the requirements for the protection of occupationally exposed persons in uranium mines. Though an additional risk of lung cancer incidence related to radon exposure has been established, the risk is much smaller compared to that from tobacco smoking (ICRP, 2010). Therefore, avoiding tobacco smoking ultimately reduces the total lung cancer risk, including that from radon exposure. This would translate to the reduction in PAF for radon exposure related lung cancer.

Review date

June 2023

Article published date

May 2023

Summary

This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the association between ionising and different types of non-ionising radiation exposure and childhood health conditions. The meta-analysis included 14 epidemiological studies (4 cohort, 8 case-control, 2 cross-sectional). The meta-analysis found an increase in the risk of birth defects (odd ratios (OR) 1.34; 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.17–1.52), cancer (OR 1.14; 95% CI 1.05–1.23) and developmental disorders (OR 2.10; 95% CI 1.00–3.21) in children of parents exposed to ionising and non-ionising radiations compared to those who were not. The authors concluded that there is evidence of negative health outcomes in children from parental exposure to radiation, however, they suggested that due to the poor exposure assessment of the included studies and the inherent bias of case-control/cross-sectional studies their results should be interpreted with caution.

Link to

Electromagnetic fields exposure on fetal and childhood abnormalities: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Published in

Open medicine

ARPANSA commentary

This meta-analysis conflated radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF EMF) , ultrasound, X-rays and extremely low frequency electric and magnetic (ELF EMF) fields together when it assessed childhood health effects. This goes against the expected formulation of how to conduct a meta-analysis and is not good science. This is because all these types of radiation can affect the body in different ways and should be assessed separately.

The authors did not include many studies that would have fit their inclusion criteria. Some key articles they missed are: Malagoli et al (2012) that found no risk of birth defects from maternal exposure to ELF EMF, two studies by Auger et al (2019a, 2019b) that found no evidence that proximity to powerlines increases the risk of birth defects or cancer, and Reid et al (2011) that found parental exposure to ELF EMF had no impact on childhood acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. The authors have missed many more studies than those outlined here. However, because of the wide range of radiation types and health effects they examined it is difficult to identify them all without completely redoing their study. The large number of studies they missed is a failure in study design to effectively narrow down on a topic.

Overall, this meta-analysis adds no value to the research on the association between ionising and non-ionising radiation exposure and childhood health conditions.

It is the assessment of ARPANSA and other health authorities, including the World Health Organization (WHO) and International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), that there is no substantiated scientific evidence that RF EMF or ELF EMF exposure at levels below the Australian Electromagnetic Fields Standard cause any adverse health effect, including in children.

The WHO has published the protocol for two upcoming systematic reviews on birth outcomes resulting from RF exposure that will be completed in 2023 (Pacchierotti et al (2022) and Kenny et al (2022)). These reviews should provide a high quality assessment of the evidence on this topic.

Review date

June 2023

Article publication date

April 2023

Summary

This cross-sectional study investigated associations between short-term mobile phone use and the subsequent radiofrequency electromagnetic energy (RF EME) exposure with cognitive performance, stress and sleep quality. This study recruited 121 adults (aged 18 – 70) from Basel, Switzerland and Besancon, France who regularly used a smartphone and had a laptop/computer with internet access. Participants were required to complete 10 daily assessments over a 2-week period (no assessments on weekends). Exposure was assessed in these daily assessments via a questionnaire which gathered data on participants mobile phone call time and their total mobile phone screen time which served as a proxy for RF EME exposure. Cognitive performance was also assessed daily by a cognitive test battery available via laptop or computer, while sleep quality was assessed using a Fitbit Inspire activity tracker and stress via the questionnaire. The study found no consistent association with mobile phone use and cognitive function despite some sporadic results which were likely chance findings. Sleep quality was also not associated with mobile phone use, however, there was a significant association between stress and mobile phone screen time with stress increasing in relation to a 10-min increase in mobile phone screen time. The authors suggest that due to the low amount of RF EME exposure caused during mobile phone screen time that is unlikely that the increase in stress is due to RF EME exposure but instead due to a non-biophysical mechanism.

Link to

The association between real-life markers of phone use and cognitive performance, health-related quality of life and sleep

Published in

Environmental Research

ARPANSA commentary

The results for cognitive performance and sleep are consistent with other studies (Cabre’-Riera et al. Verrender et al. Eggert et al.) which found no association with RF EME exposure. The association found between stress and mobile phone screen time is likely due to behavioural factors associated with increased mobile phone use as suggested by the authors. The results of this study provide further evidence that the limits set within the ARPANSA RF Safety Standard (RPS S-1) are appropriate for protecting people from the known harmful effects of exposure to RF EME. It is the assessment of ARPANSA and other health authorities, including the World Health Organization and International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, that there is no substantiated scientific evidence that mobile phones cause any adverse health effect.

Review date

April 2023

Article publication date

March 2023

Summary

This nested case–control study evaluated risk of skin melanoma associated with occupational exposure to cosmic (ionising) radiation and solar ultraviolet (UV) radiation among military pilots. The study included 199 male cases (10 of which had ever worked as a pilot) of skin melanoma diagnosed between 1990 and 2003, and 1,126 male cancer-free controls identified from a large Danish military population. The Danish National Cancer Registry provided data on the male cases for skin melanoma; whilst data on all participants’ work history in military service and other jobs, socioeconomic and lifestyle characteristics (e.g., leisure-time sun exposure habits) were obtained from a self-reported questionnaire. The study found a positive association between work onboard aircraft and skin melanoma (Odds Ratio (OR)=2.30, 95% Confidence Intervals (CI): 1.06–4.97) and the risk was indicated only to be increased in pilots (OR=7.08, 95% CI: 2.51–19.93). Similarly, a positive association between longer duration of employment as a pilot and skin melanoma was also found (OR _{per year} =1.07, 95% CI:1.01–1.14).

Link to

Incident skin melanoma in Danish male military pilots: a nested case-control study

Published in

Occupational Environmental Medicine

Commentary by ARPANSA

The overall conclusion of the study indicates that occupational exposure to cosmic and solar UV radiation among male pilots increases risk of skin melanoma, and the risk increases with longer duration of the employment. These findings are consistent with the findings of previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses  ( Sanlorenzo et al., 2015; Miura et al., 2019). A cohort study (Olsen et al., 2019) conducted among Australian-licensed commercial pilots showed a modestly raised risk of in situ melanoma, but no increased risk of invasive melanoma compared with the general population. Limitations of this study include likely inaccuracies in the assessment of cosmic and UV exposure levels, and recall bias in the exposure reporting. Further, a modest participation rate of male cases and controls may have also instigated selection bias, which partly could be a reason for relatively high risk estimates for skin melanoma among pilots compared with previous findings. The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency’s (ARPANSA) Guide for Radiation Protection in Existing Exposure Situations Radiation Protection Series G-2 provides framework for managing existing exposure situations, including exposure of aircrew due to cosmic radiation. Similarly, ARPANSA’s Radiation Protection Standard for Occupational Exposure to Ultraviolet Radiation (2006) sets fundamental requirements for safety in relation to occupational UV radiation exposure. Though an elevated risk of skin melanoma among commercial pilots has been indicated by recent epidemiological studies, generally, there is no increase in health risk from exposure to cosmic or UV radiation for casual flyers. However, some of the frequent flyers (critical population groups e.g., pregnant women and children) may exceed reference levels of cosmic radiation (Tate et al., 2021), and hence additional awareness or protection may be considered.

Review date

April 2023

Article publication date

February 2023

Summary

This cross-sectional study evaluated the association between sunlight exposure, changes in vitamin D levels and sleep quality. The study included 1,709 people from Brazil and was conducted between October and December 2020 during the Covid-19 pandemic. The study assessed sunlight exposure over one week and sleep quality using a questionnaire. Vitamin D levels were measured with a blood test. The authors reported that vitamin D levels were not associated with poor sleep quality (odds ratio (OR) 0.85; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43–1.72) among the people who received adequate sunlight exposure. However, vitamin D deficiency was associated with poor sleep quality (OR 2.02; 95% CI 1.10–3.71) among individuals with insufficient sunlight. They further reported that each 1-ng/mL increase in vitamin D levels reduced the chance of poor sleep quality by 4.2% (OR, 0.96; 95% CI 0.92–0.99). The study concluded that deficiency in vitamin D resulted in poor sleep quality among those who had insufficient exposure to sunlight.

Link to

Influence of sunlight on the association between 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels and sleep quality in Brazilian adults: A population-based study

Published in

Nutrition

Commentary by ARPANSA

The study has limitations that should be acknowledged, including the subjective nature of self-reported sleep quality and sun exposure, which may result in overestimation or underestimation of the findings. Previous studies have also concluded that sunlight and vitamin D can impact sleep quality. Studies by Boubekri et al (2014) and Mirzaei-Azandaryani et al (2022) reported that sunlight exposure and vitamin D supplementation could improve sleep quality in office workers. However, the relationship between sunlight, vitamin D, and sleep is complex and may be influenced by factors such as time of day, environment, and behaviour (Choi et al, 2020). Further research is needed to better understand this relationship.

The Cancer Council Australia mentions that most  people reach adequate vitamin D levels through incidental sun exposure. When the UV index is above 3, adequate vitamin D levels can be maintained just by spending a few minutes outdoors. When the UV index is below 3, the Cancer Council Australia suggests adequate vitamin D levels can be still be reached by incidental exposure during outdoor physical activity or gardening. Despite Australia’s high solar UV, one in four Australians are estimated to be vitamin D deficient (Cancer Council Australia). The Cancer Council and the Endocrine Society of Australia recommend that people who may be at risk of vitamin D deficiency discuss their vitamin D requirements with their medical practitioner rather than seeking sun exposure.

Date:
March 2023

Article publication date:
December 2022

Authored by:
Ishai et al
 
Summary

This narrative review provides an overview of the potential harm caused by radiofrequency electromagnetic energy (RF EME) based on a variety of studies, including epidemiological, in vivo, in vitro, and mechanistic. The authors claim that there is a causal relationship between RF EME and various health outcomes such as cancer, developmental issues, and reduced fertility. They attribute these negative health outcomes to the build-up of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and the activation of voltage gated calcium channels (VGCC) in cells. The review also discusses the findings of large studies, such as the 2018 U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) study and the 2018 Ramazzini Institute study, which both exposed rats and mice to high levels of RF EME and reported on cancer outcomes . The authors conclude that there is an established link between RF EME and adverse health outcomes and call for increased funding and research on RF EME and health, as well as an immediate moratorium on 5G mobile telecommunications.

Link to

Problems in evaluating the health impacts of radio frequency radiation

Published in

Environmental Research

Commentary by ARPANSA

This review claims many health outcomes and relies on criticized research to draw its conclusions, particularly the NTP study, the Ramazzini Institute study, and the epidemiological studies and reviews conducted by the Hardell group.

The NTP and Ramazzini Institute studies have been criticized by many researchers, including both ARPANSA and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation (ICNIRP), the peak international organization providing science-based advice on limiting exposure to non-ionizing radiation. Both organizations reported that neither study provides consistent, reliable evidence that RF EME at levels below the ARPANSA RF health standard can cause health effects in humans. This conclusion was based on methodological and statistical failures in both studies, such as high levels of exposure, failure to use appropriate statistical analysis, and inconsistencies in the health outcomes of the animals. For more information, please see the ARPANSA analysis of the NTP study and the analysis of both studies by ICNIRP.

When the authors reviewed the evidence of the association between RF EME from mobile phones and glioma, they relied heavily on the conclusions previously made by the Hardell group. The authors did not examine evidence from recent major studies, such as Karipidis et al. (2018), Villeneuve et al. 2021, Elwood et al. 2022, Little et al. 2012, Deltour et al. 2022 and Choi et al 2021, which reported no change in brain cancer incidence since the introduction of mobile phones in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, America, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden and Korea.

The review reports that there are two mechanisms by which RF EME could cause various health issues: production of ROS and activation of VGCC. However, the review's discussion of how RF EME could cause ROS production is limited and fails to address any evidence from experimental studies that actually measured ROS production from RF EME exposure. It relies on evidence from the criticized NTP study (Smith-roe et al 2020), which again did not actually measure ROS production and previous review articles. For more information on the Smith-roe et al (2020) paper see the analysis by Vijayalaxmi et al, (2020). The authors also miss evidence provided by Wood and Karipidis (2020) that reviewed the literature from the last 50 years of how RF EME could activate VGCC, and the authors report that the experimental studies have not validated that RF affects calcium transport into or out of cells.

The review claims to use the Bradford Hill criteria to establish causation for RF EME and cancer, but the authors do not apply the criteria themselves and only report on opinions presented in a previous review by Carlberg and Hardell (2017).

Overall, this review appears to be strongly influenced by confirmation bias with the authors relying heavily on other reviews that supported their conclusions rather than assessing the evidence themselves. There are higher quality reviews of RF EME and health available that have reviewed the evidence, such as the reviews by Karipidis et al (2021) and Wood et al (2021), and reviews by large organizations such as Public Health England and The Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR). The World Health Organization is also currently conducting systematic reviews on many different topics related to RF EME and health (link to report).

Article publication date

January 2023

Authored by

Yamazaki et al.

Summary

This measurement study aimed to assess personal radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure in Japanese children living in the Hokkaido Prefecture and compare the exposure levels to European countries. The study also investigated a possible association between RF EMF exposure and behavioural issues, such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms, and internet addiction. There were 107 children and their parents agreeing to participate. In the study, personal exposure to RF EMF was measured in 101 children over three days and the children also completed a questionnaire which gathered information on mobile phone, wireless communication device and internet use. The parents completed the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire, which assessed behaviour and mental health problems among the children. The RF EMF exposure from mobile phone base stations was found to be the most significant contributor to total exposure, while those who lived in an urban setting had consistently higher exposure. Overall, the exposure to Japanese children was found to be lower than similar studies conducted in Europe. The study did not find an association between RF EMF exposure and internet addiction or most of the behavioural outcomes. However, an association was found between Wi-Fi exposure at night and inattention/hyperactivity. The authors concluded that this may be due to children who could not limit their use of wireless electronic devices (mobile phones, gaming devices, etc.) at night-time.

Link to

Measurement of personal radio frequency exposure in Japan: The Hokkaido Study on the Environment and Children's health

Published in

Environmental Research

Commentary by ARPANSA

Although this study found children living in urban environments were exposed to consistently higher levels of RF EMF exposure, these levels were still well below the exposure limits set in the International Commission for Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). Further, the reported RF-EMF exposures in Japan are comparable to those measured in Australia. The exposure limits in the ARPANSA safety Standard are based on current scientific knowledge and are closely aligned with international guidelines prepared by ICNIRP. The ARPANSA safety Standard is designed to provide protection to people of all ages and health statuses against the known short- and long-term effects of exposure to RF EMF. The association found between Wi-Fi exposure at night and inattention/hyperactivity is likely due to confounding from behavioural factors such as hyperactivity/inattention as the authors concluded.

ARPANSA has conducted RF measurement studies and published the results on the ARPANSA website. Additionally in 2017, ARPANSA published a study assessing the RF exposure level due to Wi-Fi in Australian schools. Exposure levels in these measurement studies from RF sources were found to be much lower than the public exposure limits in the Australian safety Standard. There remains no substantiated scientific evidence that exposure to RF EMF below the limits in the Australian Standard causes any adverse health effects.

Article publication date

February 2023

Authored by

Freudenstein et al.

Summary

This study assessed the effects of generalisation descriptions on risk perception of radiofrequency electromagnetic field (RF EMF) sources. The study tested 629 participants, who were randomly allocated into three groups. Group G1 received an excerpt of an original press release from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) implying that all RF EMF sources are possibly carcinogenic to humans (i.e., strong generalization); Group G2 received the original press release and an additional explanatory text module informing that the IARC risk assessment refers only to mobile phones (i.e., weak generalization); and Group G3 received rewritten text using the phrase ‘RF EMF from mobile phones’ whenever ‘RF EMF’ was mentioned in the IARC press release (i.e., weak generalisation). Participants’ risk perceptions regarding mobile phones and other sources of EMF were measured before and after the reading of the text. Further, the degree to which the participants generalised mobile phone-related EMF to other RF EMF exposures was evaluated to determine whether this was predictive of their post-text risk perceptions.

The study found that all three groups showed an increased risk perception for EMF sources after reading the presented texts. Respondents reporting a strong risk generalisation belief showed significantly higher risk perceptions for all tested EMF sources (except mobile phones) than subjects with a weak risk generalisation belief. The higher the general risk perception, the more people are inclined to generalise the cancer risk across all EMF sources.

Link to

Effects of generalization descriptions on risk perception

Published in

Environmental Research

Commentary by ARPANSA

This study demonstrates that risk generalisation belief affects the risk perception of RF EMF exposure sources, which is consistent with what has been previously reported (Pradhan et al., 2022). The overall conclusion of the study is that a weak risk generalisation belief (i.e., that the IARC’s RF EMF exposure risk specifically relates to mobile phones) reduces risk perception overall. Consistent with the findings of this study, a previous study conducted in Australia (Zeleke et al., 2019) showed that risk perception for RF EMF exposure was not different among three groups of people who received different levels of information about RF EMF exposure. (Zeleke et al., 2019) also showed that the people who received their personal RF EMF exposure data indicating very low level of exposure (compared to the limits set by the ARPANSA Safety Standard) were more confident about protecting themselves from RF EMF exposure.

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 cancers in human populations. The World Health Organization is also currently conducting an overall health risk assessment for exposures to RF EMFs in the general and working populations.