The radiation literature survey provides updates on published literature related to radiation (both ionising and non-ionising) and health.

Published literature includes articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals, scientific-body reports, conference proceedings, etc.

The updates on new radiation literature that are of high quality and of public interest will be published as they arise. For each update, a short summary and a link to the abstract or to the full document (if freely available) are provided. The update may also include a commentary from ARPANSA and links to external websites for further information. The links may be considered useful at the time of preparation of the update however ARPANSA has no control over the content or currency of information on external links. Please see the ARPANSA website disclaimer.

Explanations of the more common terms used in the updates are found in the glossary.

The radiation literature that is listed in the updates is found by searching various databases and is not exhaustive.

Find out more about how you can search for scientific literature.

The intention of the radiation literature survey is to provide an update on new literature related to radiation and health that may be of interest to the general public. ARPANSA does not take responsibility for any of the content in the scientific literature and is not able to provide copies of the papers that are listed.


Are you looking for earlier editions of the Radiation literature survey?

Visit the National Library of Australia Australian Government Web Archive to access archived information no longer available on our website.

No need to stop visiting the nail salon

Article publication date

January 2023

Authored by

Zhivagui et al

Summary

This in-vitro study examined the DNA damage in cells exposed to ultraviolet radiation (UVR) from nail polish dryers. The study exposed 10 mouse and 13 human cell cultures to UVR for 20 minutes either twice in one day or once a day for three days. Eight human and five mouse cells cultures that were unexposed and used as controls. The authors reported statistically significant DNA damage in both the exposed human and mouse cells. The study also reported that for all cell types a single 20-minute exposure resulted in 20–30% cell death, while three consecutive 20-minute exposures caused cell death in the range of 65-70%. The authors concluded that UVR emitted by UV-nail polish dryers may increase the risk of skin cancers of the hand.

Link to

DNA damage and somatic mutations in mammalian cells after irradiation with a nail polish dryer

Published in

Nature Communications

Commentary by ARPANSA

The study exposed the cells to UVR for over 20 minutes which is much longer than would be required to dry nail polish (e.g. usually 2-3 minutes). This is also longer that than the U.S. Food and Drug Administration recommendation of no more than 10 minutes per hand. Therefore, given the UVR exposure durations used in the study and that used in drying nail polish, there should not be any health concern for the later. However, if people are still concerned about the potential health risks and prefer to minimise their UVR exposure, they can wear fingerless gloves and/or apply sunscreen to protect their hands from the UVR during the drying process.

There is high quality epidemiological evidence for the increased risk of skin cancer from the use of tanning beds (Gordon et al, 2008, 2020). However, this level of evidence is not present for the risk of using UVR nail polish drying devices, and therefore, the findings of this in-vitro study may not be directly transferable to humans. Epidemiological research is therefore needed to better understand the potential health risks of these devices.

Skin cancer accounts for the largest number of cancers diagnosed in Australia each year (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2016). The major cause of skin cancer is due to the UVR exposure from the sun. However, UVR induced skin cancer is almost entirely preventable. The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency recommends that 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. The SunSmart app is also a great tool that can be used to inform people of the UV level outside a recommend the appropriate sun protective measures.

News Report Links suspected Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Cluster to Occupational Radiation Exposure in a Military Setting

Article publication date

23 January 2023

Authored by

ABC News

Summary

The ABC published a news article on a potential cluster of nine non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) cases identified in military officers who were stationed at the Malstrom Air Force Base, which is a nuclear missile base in Montana. The officers all served as missileers decades ago and their duties included being deep underground in a small operations bunker on standby to turn the missile launch keys if ordered. They were diagnosed with NHL between 1997 and 2007. The Malstrom Air Force Base had previously been investigated in 2001 when a suspected cancer cluster of 14 various types of cancer were reported amongst missileers. Two of these cases were NHL and it is unclear if these are also included in the group of nine NHL cases. However, the site was found to be environmentally safe following the investigation in 2001. In a statement to the Associated Press, an Air Force spokeswoman said “senior leaders are aware of the concerns raised about the possible association of cancer related to missile combat crew members at Malmstrom AFB. The information in this briefing has been shared with the Department of the Air Force Surgeon-General and our medical professionals are working to gather data and understand more.

Link to

Investigation underway after nine nuclear missileers develop non-Hodgkin's lymphoma

Commentary by ARPANSA

The incidence of NHL has been increasing worldwide in recent decades (Cai et al, 2021). In Australia NHL has increased from an incidence rate of 11.3 (per 100,000 persons) in 1982 to 20.4 in 2022, ranking the disease as the sixth most common cancer (AIHW, 2022). The causes of the rise in incidence are not clear and exposure to ionising radiation has been suggested as a possible factor.

As the suspected cluster reported by the ABC article occurred in the USA, we do not have specific information on the kinds of exposures occurring at the Malstrom Air Force Base. However, considering the suspected cluster occurred in a nuclear missile base, it is possible that personnel were occupationally exposed to ionising radiation. There have been a number of previous epidemiological studies that have investigated occupational exposure to ionising radiation and the risk of NHL including studies on individuals working in the nuclear industry, nuclear weapons testing programs, medical imaging or those working as airline crew; these have recently been reviewed by Harbron and Pasqual (2020). Results from the studies have generally been mixed and there are various methodological limitations that weaken the results including potential confounding and other biases. Another limitation in epidemiological studies is the uncertainty in the dose assessment. As described by Hasbron and Pasqual (2020), while most lymphomas are formed of mature lymphocytes, these cells do not necessarily represent the origin of the disease which means the appropriate organ for dose response analysis is unclear.

In Australia, ARPANSA has previously collaborated  with various universities to investigate occupational exposure to ionising radiation and NHL in a population-based case control study (Karipidis et al. 2007). The study used overseas estimates of ionising radiation exposure and found no association with NHL. In an update to the study, Karipidis et al 2009, used occupational radiation estimates from ARPANSA’s Personal Radiation Monitoring Service and again found no association with NHL.

It is ARPANSA’s goal to ensure that the highest standard of protection is made available through the implementation of the relevant Codes and Safety Guides. The Code for Radiation Protection in Planned Exposure Situations (2020), RPS C-1 (Rev.1), sets out the requirements in Australia for the protection of occupationally exposed persons, the public and the environment in planned exposure situations. All Australian jurisdictions have uniform annual limits for public and occupational exposure to ionising radiation: 1 mSv for the public and 20 mSv for workers who are occupationally exposed. Compliance with the occupational dose limit protects occupationally exposed workers from the harmful effects of ionising radiation.

Systematic review on radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure and cancer in animals finds little evidence of concern

Article publication date

January 2023

Authored by

Pinto et al.

Summary

This systematic review evaluated the evidence on exposures to radiofrequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) and increased risk of tumour (malignant and benign) incidence in laboratory animals (rodents). A total of 294 research papers were screened and 46 were included in the systematic review. This included 27 in vivo eligible studies to evaluate cancer incidence, with 23 studies used in the subsequent meta-analysis to assess the possible risk of tumours. The findings of the study demonstrated that there was no statistically significant association between exposure to RF-EMF and the risk of cancer in most of the considered animal tissues or organs; while significant associations were found for tumours in the heart, central nervous system (brain), and intestine. The quality of evidence for the significant associations were either low or very low. The study showed that there is little or inadequate evidence of an association between RF-EMF exposure and incidence of tumours.

Link to

In Vivo Studies on Radiofrequency (100 kHz–300 GHz) Electromagnetic Field Exposure and Cancer: A Systematic Review

Published in 

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

Commentary by ARPANSA

The review provides a robust evaluation of whether RF-EMF exposure is related to the incidence of tumours in laboratory animals. The studies suggesting significant associations for the heart, intestine and brain tumours (e.g., The NTP study and Falcioni et al., 2018) have a number of limitations. For example, these studies were prone to multiple testing and the reported significant associations could have occurred due to chance. An evaluation  of these studies has also been published by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation (ICNIRP) and has been commented by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA).

The overall findings of this review study are consistent with a recent review conducted by the US Food and Drug Administration on RF-EMF and Cancer. The World Health Organization is also currently conducting a systematic review on the same topic to understand whether exposure to RF-EMF is related to cancer in laboratory animals. Based on the current scientific evidence, and consistent with the findings of this review, 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.

Slovenian nationwide study finds no evidence that high voltage powerlines increase the risk of childhood cancer

Article publication date

January 2023

Authored by

Zagar et al.

Summary

This retrospective cohort study, conducted in Slovenia, investigated whether increased exposure to extremely low frequency (ELF) magnetic fields (MF) due to living in close proximity to high voltage powerlines was associated with an increased risk of childhood leukaemia, brain tumours and all childhood cancers. This study applied a new exposure modelling methodology, which used data from the high voltage powerlines registry to estimate ELF MF levels for the whole of Slovenia. These exposure estimates were then validated by a subset of measurements. The Slovenian cancer registry data was used to gather data on cases of leukaemia (aged 0–19), brain tumours (age 0–29), and all cancers (age 0–14) between 2005 and 2016. The distance of the permanent address of residence of the cancer cases to high voltage powerlines was used as the proxy indicator for ELF MF exposure. The exposure modelling found that 0.5% of children and adolescents in Slovenia were exposed to 0.1 µT or greater and only 0.09% were exposed to 0.4 µT or greater. The results of the study found no increased risk of leukaemia, brain tumours, or all cancers in children and adolescents with exposure of 0.1 µT or greater. The authors concluded that the risk of cancer for children and adolescents living near high voltage powerlines does not differ from the average risk in the general population.

Link to

Estimating exposure to extremely low frequency magnetic fields near high-voltage power lines and assessment of possible increased cancer risk among Slovenian children and adolescents

Published in

Radiology and Oncology 

Commentary by APRANSA

Although this study found no association, 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.  This study used enhanced exposure assessment methods supported by residential magnetic field measurements and the results are supported by a recent meta-analysis by Crespi et al (2019), which found ELF MF above 0.4 µT was not associated with childhood leukaemia. Overall, the scientific evidence does not establish that exposure to ELF EMF from powerlines is a hazard to human health.

Does exposure to ionizing radiation during adulthood pose a risk of developing central nervous system tumours?

Date:

December  2022

Article publication date:

September 2022

Authored by:

Lopes et al.

Summary:

This systematic review and metaanalysis reviewed current evidence on the risk of developing central nervous system (CNS)  tumours in relation to the ionising radiation (IR) exposure at low-to-moderate doses received during adulthood or adolescence. A total of 18 studies were included in the systematic review, whilst data from 12 studies were used in the meta-analysis in order to estimate the pooled excess relative risk (ERRpooled). The IR exposures considered were occupational (e.g., nuclear workers and uranium miners, military using nuclear materials, medical workers, flight attendants, Chernobyl clean-up workers) and environmental (atomic bomb exposure/background). The study found that ERRpooled at 0.1 Gray was − 0.01; 95% CI: − 0.05, 0.04). The review and meta-analysis, which mostly reviewed the studies involving IR doses of 0.1 Gray, concluded that there is no evidence of a dose–response association between IR exposure and risk of CNS tumours. The authors also acknowledged the limitations in the studies including the lack of histological information on CNS tumours, large uncertainties in IR dose assessment, and the over-representation of men in the different occupational cohorts.

Link to: 

Ionizing radiation exposure during adulthood and risk of developing central nervous system tumors: systematic review and meta-analysis

Published in:

Scientific Reports

Commentary by ARPANSA:

This study showed that low-to-moderate doses of IR exposure in adulthood is not associated with the risk of CNS tumours. The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) states at low levels (less than 0.1 Gray) IR exposure, the possible increased risk of cancer is uncertain (UNSCEAR, 2017). These findings contrast with those provided by other studies; Little et al., 2022 suggest higher risk of cancer following low to high doses (less than 0.1 Gray) of IR exposures in childhood. In particular, a large population-based Australian study has also indicated that medical radiation exposure (e.g., CT scans) during childhood and adolescence could increase cancer incidence rates in populations for all cancers, including brain tumours (Mathews et al 2013). The differences in the overall conclusion of these studies could be partly attributed to children’s higher radiosensitivity compared to that of adult humans, and study methods adopted in the different included studies. Future studies need to consider accurate IR dosimetry and collection of information on potential confounders – this would help enhance our knowledge on the effects of low-to-moderate doses of IR in adulthood/adolescence on the risk of CNS tumours.

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. This guide applies the three main principles of radiation protection: 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 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 population.

Study falls short on showing Wi-Fi affects male fertility

Article publication date:

November 2022.

Authored by:

Chu et al.

Summary:

This in-vitro experimental study examined the effects radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields (EMF) from mobile phones on sperm. The study examined sperm quality from 18 men aged 25-35.  Sperm were exposed to RF EMF for 6 hours from mobile phones using the mobile phone network (e.g., 4G or 5G) or Wi-Fi. The authors reported that RF EMF exposure from mobile phone on the 4G or 5G networks had no impact on sperm quality when compared to controls. However, they did report that sperm exposure to mobile phones connected to Wi-Fi did reduce sperm quality.

Link to: 

Effect of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation Emitted by Modern Cellphones on Sperm Motility and Viability: An In Vitro Study

Published in:

European Urology Focus

Commentary  by ARPANSA:

This study by Chu et al has various methodological limitations that are also present in previous in-vitro studies of sperm quality (Zalata et al 2015 and Kim et al 2021). One of the main limitations is the lack of objective assessment of RF-EMF exposure (dosimetry) in this study. The RF EMF exposure in this study is not characterised and hence it is not clear what level of RF EMF the sperm were exposed to. The lack of dosimetry also makes it difficult to discern whether any reported effects are due to the RF EMF exposure or other factors such as heat from the device’s battery. The authors do state that heat emanating from devices may have contributed to the reported effects, but this is understating the role of heating from devices as it would be a far greater heat source than any RF EMF exposure from Wi-Fi or a mobile phone network. The authors also failed to control for exposure to environmental RF EMF sources, such as radio, TV, and mobile phone base station emissions. 

Previous studies have examined the link between RF EMF exposure and sperm quality. Some In-vitro studies report reduced sperm quality in relation to RF EMF exposure (Yu et al 2021 and Adams et al 2014). In contrast, human studies that have evaluated the impact of RF EMF on sperm quality (often based on mobile phone usage) show no consistent impact of RF EMF exposure on sperm quality (Liu et al 2014 and Kim et al 2021).This may indicate that in real world scenarios RF EMF exposure from mobile phones is unlikely to have an impact on fertility.

The World Health Organisation has funded a systematic review on the effects RF EMF  on male fertility (Pacchierotti et al, 2021). This systematic review is currently being undertaken, and the results are likely to be published in 2023. It will produce valuable information on the impact of RF EMF on sperm quality and/or fertility.

The ARPANSA radiofrequency exposure standard RPS S-1 sets limits that protect against all known health effects of RF EMF exposure, including impacts on fertility. The limits are set many times below the level where any health effects occur. There is no substantiated evidence that RF EMF exposure at levels below the safety limits will have any impact on fertility.  

Study investigates risk of brain cancer in children and young adults after radiation exposure from CT examinations

Date:

December 2022

Article publication date:

December 2022

Authored by:

Hauptmann et al.

Summary:

This cohort study, conducted in nine European nations, assessed the risk of brain cancer in children and young adults who undertook at least one computed tomography (CT) scan. People who had had one or more CT scans under the age of 22 between 1977 and 2014 and were not diagnosed with cancer for at least 5 years after the first CT scan were eligible to participate in this study. A total of 658,752 people met the eligibility criteria and were included in the study. Incidents of brain cancer were identified through national or regional cancer registries. Ionising radiation dose to the brain  was calculated based on historical information on the CT machine settings, questionnaire data and metadata from a large sample of CT scans. The follow-up duration after 5 years from first CT scan for each participant was a median of 5.6 years (Interquartile range 2.4-10.1). This resulted in a total follow-up time of 4,536,716 person-years. In this period, there was a total of 165 cases of brain cancer, of which 121 (73%) were glioma. The average cumulative brain absorbed dose for all participants was 47.4 mGy , participants who developed brain cancer had an average cumulative dose of 76 mGy . A significant dose-response relationship was also found for all brain cancers with an excess relative risk (ERR) per 100mGy of 1.27 (95% Confidences Interval (CI) 0.51, 2.69) and for glioma separately (ERR per 100 mGy 1.11 95% CI 0.36, 2.59). The authors conclude that these findings emphasize the use of doses as low as reasonably possible and the need for careful justification of paediatric CT scans.

Link to: 

Brain cancer after radiation exposure from CT examinations of children and young adults: results from the EPI-CT cohort study

Published in:

The Lancet Oncology

Commentary by ARPANSA:

The results of this study support previous research conducted in Australia (Mathews et al.), as well as a meta- analysis conducted by Little et al. (Little et al 2002a; Little et al 2022b), which show an increased risk of cancer following early life exposure to CT scans. The Code for Radiation Protection in Medical Exposure (2019) (RPS C-5) sets out the Australian requirements for the protection of patients, including young children, relating to their exposure to ionising radiation. Most diagnostic radiology procedures pose little risk, however, it is ARPANSA’s goal to ensure that the highest standard of protection is made available through the implementation of the relevant Codes and Safety Guides. These safety materials give practitioners in diagnostic and interventional radiology a best practice approach to their day-to-day clinical work. ARPANSA advises parents concerned about their children’s exposure from radiological procedures to talk to the doctor requesting the radiological procedure. The child’s doctor and the staff at the radiology facility work together on which tests are required and evaluate the risks and benefits in each child’s individual circumstances. It is important that CT scans in young people are justified and the radiation dose is as low as reasonably achievable.

Study points to EHS being a more transient condition than previously assumed

Article publication date:

October 2022

Authored by:

Traini et al.

Summary:

This study evaluated factors associated with developing, maintaining, or discarding electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS). The study collected data over 10 years (2011-2021) from the Dutch Occupational and Environmental Health cohort study (n=892 participants, mean age 50 at baseline). The data were collected at three time points (baseline, 2-year and 10-year follow ups) on their perceived radiofrequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) exposure and risk, self-reported non-specific symptoms and sleep disturbances, and self-reported EHS status at 10-year follow up. The results showed that 12% of participants reported EHS. Self-reporting of EHS was found to be associated with perceptions of high RF-EMF exposure and risk, and sleep disturbance. Also, there was a high probability of not attributing symptoms to RF-EMF exposure anymore over time.

Link to:

Time course of health complaints attributed to RF-EMF exposure and predictors of electromagnetic hypersensitivity over 10 years in a prospective cohort of Dutch adults

Published in:

Science of the Total Environment

Commentary by ARPANSA: 

Consistent with the findings of this study, two Australian experimental studies (Verrender et al., 2018a; 2018b) also did not indicate a relationship between RF-EMF exposure and EHS. Further, they also demonstrated that the belief of being exposed to RF-EMF (rather than EMF exposure per se) contributes to triggering symptoms in healthy people. The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) provides evidence-based public health messages in relation to RF-EMF exposure and health, including EHS. Based on current scientific evidence, EHS is not caused by RF-EMF exposure at levels below the ARPANSA safety standard. This advice is consistent to the conclusion of the World Health Organisation (WHO) that EHS has no clear diagnostic criteria and there is no scientific basis to link EHS symptoms to RF-EMF exposure. Nevertheless, ARPANSA (akin to the WHO) acknowledges that the health symptoms experienced by the affected individuals differ and are real, and therefore, advise those affected to seek medical advice from a qualified medical specialist.

Built-shades in parks protect us from ultraviolet radiation

Article publication date:

August 2022

Authored by:

Dobbinson et al.

Summary:

This study assessed ultraviolet (UV) radiation exposure in public parks in Melbourne and Denver to assess the UV protection provided by built-shades located in the parks. The UV measurements were conducted as part of a randomized control trial of built-shade using a pretest-posttest controlled design. The study measured the UV levels of 144 park areas in three annual waves in each city as a pre-test; while during post-test, 108 of them remained as control and 36 had shade structures built. A total of 1,144 UV measurements were conducted in all park areas. UV exposure, in terms of Standard Erythemal Dose (SEDs), during 30-minute potential use of park areas was estimated. Further, observation of environmental conditions (e.g., clear skies, cloud present, solar elevation) was also conducted. The results showed that UV exposure levels in the parks, both during cloudy and clear sky days, tend to increase with solar elevation angle. Further, the built shades at PRAs provided a significant reduction of UV exposures. On average, the UV levels at the shaded areas of the parks were about 3 SEDs lower than the unshaded areas (5 SEDs), during times of high solar elevation (~75◦) on cloudless days. 

Link to:

Solar UV Measured under Built-Shade in Public Parks: Findings from a Randomized Trial in Denver and Melbourne

Published In:

The International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

Commentary by ARPANSA:

The study provides some key data on the extent of UV reduction after shades structures are built in public park areas. The main conclusion of the study that building shades provides considerable protection against UV exposure (by more than 50%) is consistent to previous similar investigations (e.g., Vanos et al., 2017). However, the estimated UV dose under built shades is still high and additional sun protection measures should be used (e.g., use of sunscreen, hats, clothing, sunglasses), especially on clear sky summer days to avoid sunburn during longer outdoor activities. The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) provides evidence-based public health messages in relation to UV protection measures, and provides a real time UV index and estimation of UV dose. ARPANSA recommends 1 SED per day as a safe UV exposure level for most people; and a typical spring day (e.g., 9th November) in Melbourne measured a total UV dose of 42 SEDs. Therefore, all sun protection measures are important, and hence, need to be used even when built shades are available while conducting outdoor activities. 

Commentary criticizing ICNIRP exposure limits falls flat

Article publication date:

October 2022

Authored by:

International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields

Summary:

This is a commentary paper claiming the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) has made a series of assumptions in the ICNIRP Guidelines for Limiting Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields (100 kHz to 300 GHz).  A total of 14 assumptions are listed by the authors including that the ICNIRP guidelines assume there are no mechanisms for radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF EMF) causing non-thermal DNA damage and that 5G is safe due to penetration being limited to the skin. Another claimed assumption is that ICNIRP does not consider certain studies in regard to brain cancer risk due to flaws in the methodology and biases, and because brain cancer rates have remained steady in the time that wireless communication devices have become widespread. The authors claim that these assumptions are erroneous which means they do not adequately protect the general population from RF EMF.

Link to:

Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G

Published in:

Environmental Health 

Commentary by APRANSA:

ICNIRP is an independent body of scientific experts who provide advice on the potential health hazards from non-ionising radiation, including RF EMF. The guidelines provided by ICNIRP are based on scientifically substantiated effects; more information on the principles of protection used by ICNIRP and what is considered scientifically substantiated evidence is available here. The ICNIRP guidelines are widely regarded as international best practice and are endorsed by the World Health Organization. ICNIRP’s guidelines are based on an assessment of all the available scientific evidence, including studies reporting effects at non-thermal exposure levels. It is the assessment of ARPANSA and ICNIRP that there is no substantiated scientific evidence to support any adverse health effects at levels below the exposure limits set. However, in this commentary it appears the authors ignored the majority of the scientific evidence, which is contrary to their opinion, and “cherry picked” studies that suited their narrative. In order to make an informed conclusion, it is important to review the science in its totality. This is particularly evident in the “brain cancer assumption” which largely ignored major studies including the UK Million Women Study, the Mobi-kids study, a study in the Nordic countries as well as research conducted by APANSA (Karipidis et al.) which found no association between mobile phone use and the risk of brain cancer. More information on how ICNIRP assesses scientific evidence is available here. In regard to the 5G assumption, 5G uses RF EMF with higher frequencies, also called “millimetre waves”. Although millimetre waves do not penetrate the skin, the ICNIRP guidelines consider energy absorption within the skin and provide relevant exposure limits. It is important to note that higher frequencies do not mean higher or more intense exposure. Higher frequency RF EMF are already used in many applications, such as security screening units at airports, police radar equipment to check speed, remote sensors and in medicine. These uses have been thoroughly tested and found to have no negative impacts on human health. Recently, ARPANSA published world-first reviews into 5G which concluded that no substantiated evidence that low-level RF EMF, like those used by the 5G network, are hazardous to human health, and studies that did report biological effects were generally not independently replicated. For more information on 5G, please see our factsheets on 5G and health and misinformation about Australia’s 5G network. It is the assessment of ARPANSA that there is currently no substantiated scientific evidence that exposure to RF EMF at levels below the limits set in the ARPANSA Safety Standard (RPS S-1) cause any adverse health effects. These exposure limits are aligned with the ICNIRP guidelines. 

Access to information FOI disclosure log Information public scheme