10 September 2026

The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) has published the latest national report on radiation safety incidents. 

ARPANSA's chief regulatory officer, Jim Scott, says the agency maintains the report on behalf of all the state and territory radiation regulators. 

‘These reports are useful in identifying opportunities for radiation operators and regulators to improve safety,’ Mr Scott said.

'Radiation is used safely millions of times across Australia each year, but incidents can still occur.  

‘To bring those 905 incidents to life from 2023, the report contains case studies that provide universal lessons such as the need to have robust checks, appropriate storage for radiation sources, and the importance of communication.

‘We are committed to working with state and territory regulators to improve the timeliness and completeness of these reports to support radiation protection and nuclear safety in Australia.’  

Most incidents in 2023 were related to medical imaging, especially computed tomography (CT), plain film X-ray, and nuclear medicine. The estimated doses received by patients or workers because of these incidents was categorised as ‘very low’ in 89% of incidents. ‘Very low’ is considered below 10 mSv.

You can read the report here. 

1 September 2026

CEO of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) Dr Gillian Hirth AO welcomed new members to the organisation’s peak external advisory council at a meeting held in Melbourne in July. 

The Radiation Health and Safety Advisory Council (RHSAC) is one of ARPANSA’s three external statutory advisory bodies. Members provide guidance and advice to the CEO of ARPANSA on strategic and emerging issues, as well as matters of public concern relating to radiation protection and nuclear safety. 

Dr Gillian Hirth AO says expert advice is key to staying ahead of emerging radiation protection and nuclear safety issues.

‘Council has brought important topics to our agenda,’ Dr Hirth AO said.

‘Council also advances key work such as introducing a National Workforce Competency Framework for the Safe use of Radiation Sources.

‘I look forward to the contributions that these new members will make to radiation protection and nuclear safety in Australia.’

Dr Hirth AO welcomed Pamela Naidoo-Ameglio, Ben Blyth and Michaela Orsmond at the recent council meeting.  

Pamela Naidoo-Ameglio is the Director of Exige and former ANSTO Group Executive. She brings extensive leadership experience in reactor operations, nuclear waste management, and nuclear medicine production to the role.

Associate Professor Benjamin Blyth is Head of Models of Cancer Translational Research Centre at Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre. His work spans radiation cancer research in Australia and Japan, with a focus on advancing cancer treatment and clinical trials.

Michaela Orsmond is the Client Director for Defence at Mott MacDonald Australia, and a practising lawyer as an Air Force reservist. She provides executive and program management expertise, specialising in Defence, Commercial Law, International Law and Business Development.

Appointment terms are for three years.

View the full Radiation Health and Safety Advisory Council membership: https://www.arpansa.gov.au/about-us/advisory-council-and-committees/radiation-health-and-safety-advisory-council

Article publication date

April 2026

ARPANSA review date

24 August 2026

Summary

This paper describes the development of a public education leaflet with an aim to improve the effectiveness and dissemination of ultraviolet radiation (UVR) protection messages. Recognising that skin cancer incidence remains high and continues to increase in many fair-skinned populations despite longstanding public awareness campaigns, the authors sought to create a clear, scientifically accurate, and internationally adaptable communication resource. The leaflet was developed according to health promotion and public education guidelines and underwent multiple rounds of expert and stakeholder review, including input from patient and non-government organisations as well as specialists in dermato-oncology, epidemiology and public health. The final resource promotes avoiding intentional sun exposure and tanning while positioning the use of shade and protective clothing as highest priority for sun protection. It also includes advice on childhood sun protection, the risks associated with tanning beds, early detection of skin cancer, vitamin D considerations, and sunscreen safety. The article concludes that educational interventions should be complemented by policy and environmental measures, such as increased provision of public shade and regulation of tanning facilities. The article recommends that the leaflet is made available in multiple languages and distributed via professional and online channels. 

Published in

Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology

Link to article:

Messages for ultraviolet-radiation protection to fair-skinned populations

ARPANSA commentary

The article reinforces the importance of sustained, evidence-based communication strategies for UVR protection. Australia provides a strong example of the potential impact of such efforts, with decades of public education and awareness campaigns contributing to the stabilisation and reduction of skin cancer incidence rates in some populations (De Pinto et al., 2024) despite the country continuing to experience one of the highest UV exposure levels globally. Over the past four decades, a number of stakeholders including Cancer Council Australia, the Skin Cancer College Australasia, and Melanoma Institute Australia have led extensive public education and awareness campaigns promoting sun protection behaviours to reduce harmful UV exposure. The findings of this paper should therefore be considered within the context of Australia's well-established skin cancer prevention framework. The paper highlights that sun protection measures should commence when the UV Index is 3 or above, which aligns with ARPANSA’s advice. ARPANSA advises the use of all five sun protection measures to minimise personal UVR exposure: Slip, Slop, Slap, Seek and Slide. ARPANSA also provides real-time UV Index information and estimates of UVR dose to help inform the public on daily UVR exposure and support them in making informed decisions regarding their sun protection. This is important as Australia faces a significant public health burden from UVR-related skin cancer. 

The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) is looking for two suitably qualified people to join our Audit and Risk Committee as independent members. 

The committee provides independent advice to ARPANSA’s Chief Executive Officer on the agency’s financial and performance reporting, risk management and internal controls.

Convening five times a year, there is some preparation and engagement required between meetings. Members are appointed for a three-year term.

We’d like to hear from people with expertise in financial, audit and assurance, cybersecurity and digital governance, APS and Commonwealth governance, legal, compliance and integrity, or risk and internal control.

You’ll bring sound judgement, strategic thinking and an independent perspective, as well as the confidence to ask constructive questions and provide practical advice. Experience in Australian Government or a similarly regulated environment would be an advantage.

Applications close Thursday 17 September at 11:59PM.

More information about the appointment is available here: Membership of the Audit and Risk Committee

To apply, please send your CV and a cover letter addressing the key selection criteria to the ARC Secretariat at auditandrisk@arpansa.gov.au.
 

Article publication date

20 March 2026

ARPANSA review date

August 2026

Summary

This review discusses the potential impact on pregnancy outcomes of radiofrequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) exposure from mobile phone use during pregnancy. The authors report conducting a literature review of studies published between 2015 and 2024, including human epidemiological, animal, in vitro and review articles. The results of the literature search were not presented. Similarly, although the authors stated that study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and SYRCLE Risk of Bias tool, the outcomes of these assessments were not reported. The authors discuss approximately 22 studies and conclude that the evidence remains limited and inconclusive. However, they further stated that precautionary measures to reduce mobile phone exposure during pregnancy may be warranted. 

Link to article

Impact of mobile phone use during pregnancy on fetal development and birth defects: a review

Published in

Annals of Clinical and Analytical Medicine

ARPANSA commentary

This is a poor narrative review of the evidence into RF-EMF and pregnancy outcomes. Although the authors mention that a systematic search and study quality assessment were conducted, the results of these are not presented. Further, the authors only assessed papers published after 2015, unless papers were highly cited (mentioned in other papers) and there is no justification for the selection of this timeframe nor defined criteria for high citation. Despite the wide inclusion criteria, only 22 studies are cited and discussed in the article. Repeating just one search term on one search engine already returns far more articles that meet the review’s inclusion criteria than are acknowledged in the paper. Also, there are studies cited in an inconsistent referencing format that do not appear in the reference list at all which means it is not possible to evaluate the source of the information the review uses to form its conclusions.

The review places substantial weight on a disparate mixture of animal and in vitro studies while giving limited consideration to the consistency and quality of the human epidemiological evidence. The articles that are cited, are done so in support of statements that are unrelated to the content of the cited article. For example, an article on ionising radiation exposure (Mainprize et al., 2023) is cited in relation to congenital abnormalities and maternal mobile phone use despite mobile phone use never being mentioned by Mainprize et al. 

The evidence on the effects of RF-EMF exposure on pregnancy outcomes has recently been evaluated in World Health Organization-supported systematic reviews and meta-analyses, including one assessing adverse pregnancy outcomes in human epidemiological studies (Johnson et al., 2024) and a second assessing experimental animal study (Cordelli et al., 2023). These reviews applied state-of-the-art systematic review methods to evaluate whether maternal RF-EMF exposure is associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes. The review of human studies concluded that, in both the general and occupational populations, the available evidence generally does not support an association between RF-EMF exposure and adverse pregnancy outcomes; however, the evidence is very uncertain due to variability in the results and methodological limitations. Similarly, the animal systematic review did not identify consistent evidence that RF-EMF exposure adversely affects pregnancy outcomes. It is difficult to understand why one of these reviews was cited in the article but not the other. 

The scientific evidence is in line with the public health messaging of ARPANSA that exposure to RF-EMF below the limits in the ARPANSA RF Standard (RPS-S1) does not impact people’s health.

11 August 2026

The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) is currently seeking new members for its external Radiation Health Committee and the Nuclear Safety Committee. 

The committees provide advice to ARPANSA’s CEO on radiation protection and nuclear safety matters.

Nominations are sought from suitably qualified people with relevant knowledge or expertise in radiation and nuclear issues, particularly people from high-hazard industries who can bring broader safety, risk or regulatory experience without necessarily having radiation or nuclear knowledge. Current membership is comprised of experts from a range of fields relevant to radiation protection including medicine, mining, regulation, and health research. ARPANSA is also seeking a general member to represent the interests of the public, for whom there are no specific qualification requirements.

All appointees are required to attend committee meetings, usually three times per year, and nominations are now open for the 2027 – 2029 period.

If you are interested in joining one of these committees, you are encouraged to learn more about the functions and current membership:

• Radiation Health Committee
• Nuclear Safety Committee

If you have experience and knowledge of radiation protection and nuclear issues, we encourage you to submit your nomination as soon as possible.

Nominations close Friday 28 August 2026. 

Learn how to apply: https://www.arpansa.gov.au/about-us/advisory-council-and-committees/membership-arpansa-advisory-committees

Appointments are for up to three years starting 1 January 2027. 

ARPANSA’s CEO will also appoint a chairperson for each committee. Applicants with significant experience, qualifications or expertise relevant to a committee's functions are encouraged to nominate for consideration as chair.

Committee membership is part-time. Members contribute through committee meetings and working groups, with meetings typically held three times a year in major Australian cities. Membership is open to residents of all Australian states and territories.

ARPANSA pays sitting fees, travel and accommodation expenses in accordance with the Australian Government Remuneration Tribunal. 

Article publication date

February 2026

ARPANSA review date

August 2026

Summary

This study provides the first terrestrial gamma-radiation map of Sydney city and establishes baseline natural background radiation levels across the region. The study, conducted in 2025, measured terrestrial and cosmic gamma radiation levels across the land and sea. The study primarily used a low-cost portable gamma detector. Soil samples were also collected from 26 locations (mostly public parks) in Sydney. The soil samples were used to estimate (using high purity Germanium detectors) the activity concentration (Bq/kg) of naturally occurring radionuclides (Uranium-238 (²³⁸U), Thorium-232 (²³²Th) and Potassium-40 (⁴⁰K). Finally, annual effective doses(mSv/year) from outdoor natural background radiation were estimated. Average terrestrial and cosmic gamma doses were found to be 0.24 mSv/year and 0.17 mSv/year, respectively. The mean soil activities reported were: 29 Bq∕kg (²³²Th), 19 Bq∕kg (²³⁸U), and 179 Bq∕kg (⁴⁰K). Geological composition, such as lithology and radionuclide content, of the soil/rock in the region was identified as the primary factor influencing the spatial distribution of background radiation and reported doses across the city. This study confirms that the radionuclides in soil/rock and background radiation doses in Sydney are consistent and within the range of typical global values. 

Article published in

Journal of Environmental Radioactivity

Link to study

Sydney’s first terrestrial gamma-radiation map

ARPANSA commentary

This study offers a valuable means of communicating that ionising radiation is a natural part of our everyday environment, occurring as background radiation and presenting no significant risk to the public. The activity concentrations of the radionuclides in this study are well correlated with local geology; ²³⁸U and ⁴⁰K concentrations in particular, which are slightly lower than the previously reported Australian or global average values  (UNSCEAR, 2024 p. 77). The lower concentration of naturally occurring radionuclides explains the lower reported year-long terrestrial outdoor dose rate (0.24 mSv/y) when compared to the global average (0.3 mSv/y) (UNSCEAR 2024). The reported year-long outdoor cosmic dose (0.17 mSv/y) is nearly half the global average (0.33 mSv/y) and that reported for Australia in a previous study (0.35 mSv/y) (Tate et al., 2021). This discrepancy is likely due to the sensitivity of the detector to cosmic radiation.  The total average annual dose, combining terrestrial and cosmic components, has been estimated to be 3 mSv globally (UNSCEAR, 2024). Of this, total external terrestrial radiation dose is 0.4 mSv and total inhalation dose is 1.8 mSv. The later dose is mainly constituted by radon (²²²Rn) and decay products originating from ²³⁸U decay. Notably, the current study did not report on internal radiation doses resulting from the inhalation and ingestion of radionuclides (e.g., radon), which generally constitute a major contribution to the total public dose from natural radiation sources. 

The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency’s Environmental Radiation Monitoring System maintains a network of automated ambient gamma detectors in Lucas Heights (NSW), Yallambie (VIC), Darwin (NT) and Joondalup (WA) to continuously monitor background radiation and evaluate exposure trends. Over the past four decades, Geoscience Australia and the State and Northern Territory Geological Surveys have collected gamma-ray spectrometric data (through airborne surveys using low flying aeroplanes/helicopters) across the majority of Australia. Collectively, the Australian public is provided relevant information about the levels of naturally occurring radionuclides and expected radiation exposure in our environment. In Australia, the Code for Radiation Protection in Existing Exposure Situations  sets out the requirements for the protection of the public and the environment in existing exposure situations.  

Article review date

7 August 2026

Article publication date

27 July 2026

ARPANSA summary

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

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

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

Published in

Bioelectromagnetics

Link to article

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

ARPANSA commentary

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

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

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

Article publication date

May 2026

ARPANSA review date

July 2026

Summary

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

Article publication date

29 June 2026

ARPANSA review date

30 July 2026

Summary

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

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

Published in

Photochemistry and Photobiology

Link to article

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

ARPANSA summary

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

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

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