Throughout 2025 ARPANSA has undertaken a thorough independent review and assessment, including public consultation, of the Australian Submarine Agency’s (ASA) licence application to construct the Controlled Industrial Facility (CIF), on Garden Island, Rockingham, WA.
ARPANSA has approved the licence application and issued a licence for this second stage of the facility licencing process.
The CIF will provide low-level waste management and maintenance services to support the Submarine Rotational Force – West program. The CIF will be constructed at the existing HMAS Stirling Navy Base, on Garden Island, Rockingham, WA.
ARPANSA’s implements a multi-layered evaluation and review process to ensure an independent and comprehensive licence assessment, including consideration of all public submissions and all technical and management information submitted by the applicant (ASA).
The ARPANSA CEO, will only grant a licence if there is confidence that stringent requirements have been met under the ARPANS Act and Regulations, that international best practice in radiological protection has been met, and that there is evidence that these requirements can continue to be met throughout the lifecycle of the facility.
For this licence application 93 public submissions were received and considered. A summary of the submission themes and ARPANSA’s response is available on the ARPANSA website.
As part of transitional arrangements associated with the establishment of Australia’s new dedicated regulator for nuclear-powered, conventionally armed submarines, this licence will be transferred to the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulator (ANNPSR) from 1 November 2025. The application for the next licence stage for this facility – for operation – will be submitted to the new regulatory authority. ARPANSA will continue to work with this new regulator to support the smooth transition of regulatory responsibility.
This research article investigated media reports of injuries from cosmetic non-ionising radiation (NIR) use like laser and intense pulsed light (IPL) treatments in Australia. Australian news media between 2008 and 2023 was searched for reports of adverse outcomes from cosmetic NIR treatments and 95 unique instances of injury were found. Laser treatments accounted for 60 of these cases and IPL treatment accounted for 29. More injuries arose in non-clinical settings (60 reports) as opposed to clinical settings (18 reports) and women comprised the overwhelming majority of reported adverse effects. Approximately twenty percent of reports involved permanent injury. In cases that described a causative factor, 93 percent indicated that operator related factors contributed to the injury.
Commentary on the regulatory environment for cosmetic NIR treatments was also provided which noted the lack of national uniformity in regulation across Australian jurisdictions. Also of note were anecdotal reports relating to the apparent absence of judicial recourse for victims and slow regulatory responses in jurisdictions where regulations exist.
Cosmetic treatments utilising NIR exposures necessarily require people undergoing treatments to experience an over-exposure for the purported effects to eventuate. As such, careful and considered use is required to manage the relatively small margin between the intended effect and an adverse outcome. ARPANSA has published advice for both consumers and treatment providers involved in laser, IPL and LED phototherapy treatments to help avoid the occurrence of adverse effects. Additional information can be found in a 2020 statement by the International Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection which provides detail on the different types of exposures and similarly concludes that there is potential for harm from cosmetic NIR devices.
A limitation of the methodology adopted by the article is the reliance on media reporting for identification of adverse events. This is unlikely to result in a complete and representative sample as only the most severe injuries gain media attention. However, absent any mandated reporting structure implemented by regulation or similar, this limitation is somewhat unavoidable. Further reporting complications are presented by the increased availability of small consumer grade ‘at-home’ cosmetic devices whose misuse is unlikely to be reported.
Currently, the existence and extent of regulation for cosmetic NIR devices in Australia varies greatly across the state jurisdictions (Karipidis, K. et al., 2019). In 2015, ARPANSA sought consultation on a regulatory impact statement detailing the potential implementation of a national regulatory framework for cosmetic NIR treatments. While support existed for the implementation of stronger regulation, ultimately there was insufficient evidence for the extent of harm within Australia to justify the impact of regulation. Further information and analysis can be found in ARPANSA technical report 177. The current article contributes evidence that may be used in future to support stronger regulatory practice.
Local and international scientists, experts and professionals are attending the annual Australasian Radiation Protection Society (ARPS) conference to be held in Melbourne from 19 – 22 October.
The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency’s (ARPANSA) Chief Radiation Health Scientist, Dr Rick Tinker, says ARPANSA has a shared interest and long history of collaboration with ARPS.
‘At the ARPS conference we are proud to showcase our work across both ionising and non-ionising radiation safety and discuss radiation protection in medicine, science, government, industry and mining,’ Dr Tinker said.
‘This is one of our key stakeholder engagement forums each year for our scientists, professionals, and regulators.
‘This year’s theme, ‘A Golden Milestone: Celebrating 50 Years of Radiation Protection and Innovation’, reflects ARPS significant legacy while paving the way for future advancements in the field.
‘The annual conference fosters knowledge sharing, improves research outcomes, and provides valuable insights into emerging trends and innovations in radiation protection,’ Dr Tinker said.
ARPANSA CEO Dr Gillian Hirth AO will present a keynote address and more than 20 staff will showcase their work through presentations, posters and workshops during the event.
ARPANSA staff will present on a range of topics including:
Emergency preparedness and response
Occupational exposure to radiation
Environmental monitoring and assessment
Building community trust
Radiotherapy audits
Radiation exposure, measurement and assessment
Holistic safety
Engagement with leading international radiation protection authorities to inform our codes, standards, guidelines and regulations.
‘ARPANSA is proud to be the premium sponsor of this year’s event,’ said Dr Tinker.
‘We look forward to sharing our latest scientific assessment, capability and research with the broader radiation protection community to advance knowledge and ensure protection of people and the environment remains robust and evidence-based into the future.’
ARPS 2025 will be held at the Amora Riverwalk Melbourne from 19-22 October.
This experimental cell (in vitro) study evaluated the effect of exposure to 5Gradiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) on oxidative stress and DNA repair in human skin cells. Cells were either given no exposure (i.e., sham exposed) or exposed at 3.5 GHz frequency to specific absorption rate levels of 0.08 W/kg and 4 W/kg; a constant temperature of 37 °C at tissue sample level was maintained throughout the exposure. Oxidate stress on the cells was evaluated by assessing production of reactive oxygen species (ROS) following 24 hours exposure; adaptive response and DNA damage repair efficiency of the exposed cells were evaluated after the cells were exposed for 20 hours and up to 48 hours, respectively. The findings of the study showed no significant effect of 5G RF-EMF exposure, either alone or in combination with a ‘positive control’ (e.g., arsenic trioxideROS inducer). Further, the RF-EMF exposure neither induced an adaptive response to oxidative stress or impaired DNA repair efficiency of the exposed cells. The study concluded that 5G RF-EMF exposure at a constant temperature (37 °C) does not affect oxidative stress levels, trigger an adaptive response, or interfere with DNA repair processes in human skin cells.
The study findings indicate that 5G RF-EMF exposure well above prescribed whole body general public limits (e.g., in the ARPANSA safety standard) of 0.08 or 4 W/kg does not result in oxidative stress, trigger adaptive response, or impair DNA repair efficiency in human skin cells. These findings are consistent to the recent conclusions of the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority and WHO commissioned review (systematic review). They reported statistically non-significant results for most of the outcomes; though some showed significant effects. Nevertheless, for all outcomes irrespective of whether or not they reported an effect, the studies were rated as very low certainty of evidence. The review also highlighted the need for future quality studies to support evidence-based emerging RF-EMF health risk assessments. Overall, ARPANSA views that there is no substantiated scientific evidence that RF-EMF exposure (including from 5G at 3.5 GHz) below the limits set in the ARPANSA safety standard, which is aligned with the international best practice ICNIRP guidelines, poses a health risk to human populations.
This study examined the Ultraviolet radiation (UVR) protection of shade cloths and natural shade present in 10 playgrounds on Australia’s Sunshine Coast. The study used UV light meters to assess the UVR levels, expressed as a UV index, in open space, underneath trees, shade cloth and shelter sheds. A 3D model of the parks was also generated to evaluate the amount of shade in the parks. The study found that the amount of shade in each park varied by a large margin from 25.9% to 77.2% and so did the ultraviolet protection factor (UPF) of the shade cloths which ranged from 5.1 (low protection) to 14.9 (moderate protection). In open spaces, the UV index was reported as between 21.5 and 26. Under the shade cloths, despite the low protection ratings, the UV index was substantially lower, ranging from 1.7 to 5. The authors concluded that the shade cloth in many of the parks needs to be updated as many of the UPF ratings were below 15, whereas ARPANSA recommends UPF ratings of 15 or above (ARPANSA, 2025). They also suggested that shade in general should be increased in parks to ensure users are provided with more protection.
This study unfortunately has a glaring problem with their UV measurements that detract from what is otherwise an interesting study. The issue is that the UV index levels they are reporting are all wildly above the levels that exist in the natural environment. The reported UV index values for the open sky of between 21.5 and 26 are far above the midsummer maximums measured in ARPANSA’s UV monitoring network for Brisbane and more extreme UV environments like Darwin. This is despite the measurements in the study being conducted in midwinter (July) where typical maximum values for Brisbane are around 4. There is therefore a clear issue with their measurement apparatus in setup or interpretation and the reported measurements are not UV index levels or erythemally weightedirradiance as the authors believe. They also used their reported UV index levels to calculate the protection factor for playground shade cloth. This means that all the UV related information they report is incorrect and cannot be used to evaluate sun safety in parks.
The study still reports on shade coverage and the methods they used for this are sound and provide usable data. The results for each park were reported individually and the authors could have done more with the data they collected which would allow for a better snapshot of shade in the parks. An interesting picture unfolds when examining the data by quartiles. We found that in the 3rd quartile there was a 53% shade coverage meaning that 75% of parks had less than 53% shade coverage. The recommendations for shade coverage of playground by the NSW Cancer Institute is 70% (Cancer Institute NSW, 2025). The requirements for Queensland are that all play equipment be fully covered (Queensland Department of Health).
Overall, despite the errors in this study, ARPANSA agrees with the sentiment of the authors that sun protection needs to be a focus when designing or upgrading parks. Australia has some of the highest rates of melanoma and overall skin cancer in the world and two-thirds of Australians will receive a skin cancer diagnosis of some type in their lifetime. One of the best ways for Australians to protect themselves from the sun is by following the Slip, Slop, Slap, Seek and Slide messaging. More information on UV protection can be found on the ARPANSA Sun Protection factsheet.
Australian media reports from 2008 to 2023 highlight cases where consumers were harmed by non-ionising radiation cosmetic procedures such as laser hair removal and intense pulsed light therapy.
PhD student Zoe Thomas, from the Monash University Accident Research Centre (MUARC), has been analysing media coverage on this topic as part of her research, which is being supervised by researchers at the university, and the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA).
‘Most reported injuries affected the face, with burns and scarring being the most common types of injury reported,’ Ms Thomas said.
‘Almost half of those injured described significant impacts on quality of life and mental health. In extreme cases, people may be housebound for weeks or months, too embarrassed or distressed to leave home.
‘Concerningly, one in five reports involved permanent effects.
‘But because injuries from these treatments often affect a small area of the body, even if there is permanent scarring, they may not meet the legal thresholds of harm for seeking compensation.’
Case studies from media reports found that one in 10 of those injured required time off from work, with injuries reportedly costing consumers thousands of dollars.
‘Our analysis also suggests that in some circumstances there are limited regulatory mechanisms for addressing poor provider practice,’ Ms Thomas said.
Regulation of cosmetic non-ionising radiation use in Australia is limited and inconsistent.
At a state level, only Tasmania, Queensland and Western Australia have regulatory controls. Though even then, it is only for certain procedures.
ARPANSA’s Associate Professor Ken Karipidis says they have been aware of these issues for more than a decade.
‘We published a report in 2015 on light-based cosmetic procedures that outlined opportunities for regulatory reform, such as national uniformity,’ A/Prof Karipidis said.
‘While there is an interest in creating nationally consistent regulations, the state and territory radiation regulators want to see further evidence on the frequency and level of harm these treatments are causing.’
‘ARPANSA has published papers reviewing this topic since 2015, and we’ll add to the evidence base through this PhD research with MUARC.
ARPANSA protects people and the environment from the harmful effects of radiation by undertaking research to support evidence-based regulations.’
This analysis was published in the peer-reviewed journal Bioethical Inquiry.
This report outlines the status of ongoing Australian National Radiation Dose Register (ANRDR) projects and provides a summary of selected data from the ANRDR covering the period 2015–2024.
ANRDR upgrade
The ANRDR is undergoing a major upgrade currently in the design phase. The planned upgrade will enable submissions from dosimetry service providers and allow online access to dose records for workers, employers, regulators, and administrators. The vendor commenced work in early 2025, and the project is scheduled for completion in early 2027.
Analysis of data
The ANRDR collects quarterly radiation dose information from multiple industries, exposure types, and dose categories. This data is used to monitor individual doses and generate annual statistics on exposure patterns. Analysis of this data informs efforts to enhance radiation protection measures for workers. Personal information collected is used to match individuals with their recorded doses and to identify personnel when dose history reports are requested.
At present, the ANRDR contains dose records for approximately 72,000 individuals, primarily from the uranium and mineral sands industries, as well as from government organisations, research institutions, and certain veterinary and medical practices.
ARPANSA notes that doses falling below minimum reporting thresholds are recorded as zero in the ANRDR, which may introduce a downward bias in statistical outcomes. Nevertheless, the applied statistical methods are consistent with those used by other national dose registers and international organisations such as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR).
Variations may exist between previously published data and the data presented for the same timeframe in this report. These differences are mainly due to periodic data cleansing by ANRDR administrators to resolve duplicate individual records—when individuals were not properly identified or linked to existing records—and to address duplicate dose records for the same period related to an individual.
There have also been cases where data was submitted or resubmitted to the ANRDR after earlier analyses had been published. These updates did not significantly change the overall dose records but aim to improve the reliability of the reported analyses.
Uranium industry data
The ANRDR includes data from all licensed Australian uranium operators, maintaining exposure records for operations since 2011. Reported doses reflect received values, and dose calculation methodologies have regulatory approval within the relevant jurisdictions.
Figure 1 (below) shows trends in average and maximum effective doses among workers in the combined ‘mining’ and ‘processing’ categories.
Figure 1: Uranium industry average and maximum effective doses and count of workers by year (2015 – 2024)
The average effective dose for these groups increased from 0.78 mSv in 2023 to 0.82 mSv in 2024, while the maximum effective dose decreased from 5.8 mSv in 2023 to 5.2 mSv in 2024.
Figure 2 (below) displays average effective doses by work category: ‘mining’, ‘processing’, and ‘other’ (the latter includes administrative and support staff).
Figure 2: Uranium industry average effective doses per work category (2015 – 2024)
For miners, the average effective dose declined slightly from 1.47 mSv in 2023 to 1.45 mSv in 2024. For process workers, the average effective dose rose from 0.43 mSv in 2023 to 0.47 mSv in 2024. The ‘other’ category followed a similar trend to process workers, with an increase from 0.33 mSv in 2023 to 0.34 mSv in 2024.
For these averages, any worker assigned to more than one work category within a year was placed in the category where their highest dose occurred.
Collective effective doses
The collective effective dose (CED) serves as a comparative tool for optimising radiation protection and is used by UNSCEAR to report exposures globally (UNSCEAR 2020). CED, measured in person-sieverts (person Sv), represents the total of individual doses within a group, distinguishing it from individual dose measures (IAEA 2007). Table 1 presents collective effective doses for uranium industry workers in ‘mining’ and ‘processing’.
Worker Category
Year
Collective Effective Dose (person Sv)
Number of Workers
Mining
2020
4.02
2,748
2021
3.75
2,669
2022
3.47
2,527
2023
4.01
2,890
2024
3.85
2,746
Processing
2020
2.01
4,064
2021
2.04
7,079
2022
2.21
4,770
2023
2.06
5,032
2024
2.08
4,856
Table 1: Collective Effective Dose for Uranium Mining and Processing Workers (2020 – 2024)
Exposure pathway assessment
An evaluation of exposure pathways, including inhalation of particulates, inhalation of radon progeny, and external gamma radiation, for both miners and processing workers highlights the primary areas requiring control by uranium mining operators.
As depicted in Figure 3 (below), the average effective dose for miners is predominantly influenced by inhalation of radon progeny and exposure to external gamma radiation.
Since 2020, these two pathways have contributed similarly to the total effective dose, while inhalation of particulates continues to account for only a minor share.
Figure 4 (below) presents the effective dose by exposure pathway for processing workers.
This assessment shows that the inhalation of radon progeny has overtaken the inhalation of particulates as the principal exposure pathway. External gamma radiation exposure to processing workers remains as the lowest contributor to their exposure.
Commonwealth licence holder data
Reported doses
Following an amendment to the ARPANS Regulations in 2017, Commonwealth organisations are required to submit dose records to the ANRDR. Consequently, data prior to 2017 is not available for analysis.
The four largest submitting organisations are the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), the Australian National University (ANU), and the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA). These organisations include scientific and university researchers, regulatory authorities, nuclear installations, and other source licence holders. For this review, the work categories ‘scientific research’, ‘university research’, ‘nuclear facilities’, and ‘miscellaneous’ have been used to group Commonwealth licence holder workers; ‘miscellaneous’ encompasses regulators and other source licence holders.
Figure 5 (below) presents the average effective dose per year for each category from 2017 to 2024.
Figure 5: Average effective dose for Commonwealth licence holders 2017 - 2024
Top 100 doses for Commonwealth organisations
Review of the top 100 doses from submitting Commonwealth organisations helps regulators to tailor their inspection regime and to facilitate discussions with their licence holders. The top 100 doses from Commonwealth organisations for the years 2021 – 2024 are provided in Figure 6 (below).
Figure 6: Dose distribution of the top 100 doses from participating Commonwealth licence holders 2024
The maximum and average doses, from the top 100 doses for each year since reporting commenced, are presented in Table 2.
2021
2022
2023
2024
Maximum (mSv)
4.29
4.68
5.86
4.35
Average (mSv)
1.40
1.39
1.47
1.30
Table 2: Dose statistics for top 100 doses from Commonwealth licence holders for 2021 – 2024
All workers
Dose distribution
The data from all organisations submitting to the ANRDR has been analysed to produce dose distribution histograms for 2024; that histogram is presented in Figure 7 (below).
Figure 7: Dose distribution for all worker records for 2024
This is an effective way to demonstrate the distribution of occupational exposures and can minimise the impact of data skewing for doses that have been reported as less than the minimum reportable dose (< MRD).
The maximum and average effective doses for all workers in the ANRDR for the year 2024 are presented in Table 3 (below).
2024
Maximum (mSv)
5.17
Average (mSv)
0.56
Table 3: Dose statistics for all workers for years 2024
Analysis of the cumulative frequency of the doses reported to the ANRDR for 2024 shows that approximately 80% of workers received a dose less than 1 mSv and 98% received a dose less than 3 mSv. These values are well below the occupational exposure limit of 20 mSv per year. No reported worker doses exceeded half of the occupational exposure limit.
Conclusion
The ANRDR maintains complete coverage of occupational radiation exposures for the uranium mining industry as well as collecting doses for a range of Commonwealth licence holders. In relation to those workers working in the uranium mining industry or for relevant Commonwealth license holders, the data shows that maximum and average occupational radiation exposures are below the annual dose limit of 20 mSv per year; furthermore, the data shows that for these workers, occupational exposure to ionising radiation in Australia is well controlled.
This article discussed the current state of knowledge on skin cancer prevention in relation to sunscreen use. The article first provides an overview of the established causative link between ultraviolet (UV) radiation exposure and skin cancer as well as the associated burden of disease. It also describes the efficacy of sunscreen use in preventing skin cancer noting significantly reduced risk for skin cancer among sunscreen users. The larger portion of the article discusses finer details of sunscreen use and clinical recommendations for health practitioners in addition to highlighting challenges.
The study highlights that outdoor workers, children under two years old, people with deeply pigmented skin or, conversely, oculocutaneous albinism and the immunocompromised require tailored sun protection advice. A lack of high-quality research investigating sunscreen use in people with diverse skin tones, particularly those with deeply pigmented skin, poses challenges when making clinical recommendations for these populations especially with respect to balancing the harms and benefits of sun exposure. The article also notes that general sun protection behaviours remain driven by warm conditions rather than objective measures like the UV index, leaving people vulnerable to UV overexposure that can easily occur on cold, overcast and cloudy days.
The conclusions of the article relating to the high efficacy of sunscreens agrees with other reviews (Sander et al., 2020), including those published by ARPANSA (Henderson et al., 2022). However, it is important to remember that, as noted in the article, sunscreen is just one of the five sun protection principles and should not be relied on exclusively for sun protection. ARPANSA recommends following all five sun protection principles whenever the UV index is over three.
The article correctly identifies limited research into all factors of sunscreen use among people with deeply pigmented skin. Although this causes associated challenges in providing sun protection advice, the Australian Skin and Skin Cancer Research Centre has recently published a position statement on balancing the harms and benefits of sun exposure which contains sun exposure recommendations that vary depending on a person’s skin type, location in Australia and the time of year. The position statement can be used in conjunction with knowledge of the UV index or the SunSmart Global UV application to make well-informed decisions on sun exposure.
The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) has published the latest national report on radiation safety incidents.
Based on 2022 incident data collected from radiation regulators across the country, ARPANSA’s chief regulatory officer Jim Scott says the latest report highlights areas to improve radiation protection for people and the environment.
‘From the 15 million diagnostic medical imaging procedures involving radiation there were 585 incidents reported in 2022,’ Mr Scott said.
‘These incidents tended to be triggered by human error – such as someone not following a procedure – but the incident can have a number of underlying causes. The benefit of this report is that it highlights the prevalence of these incidents and helps to identify what measures are effective at avoiding future incidents.’
ARPANSA manages the Australian Radiation Incident Register (ARIR). The ARIR is a national database that collates radiation incidents across all states, territories, and the Commonwealth.
This report is a summary of data submitted to the ARIR for incidents that occurred in 2022.
‘Before incidents are reported through to ARPANSA, state and territory regulators may investigate and resolve safety concerns with their licence holders, which can contribute to delays in consolidated reporting through the ARIR,’ Mr Scott said.
‘ARPANSA is working with radiation regulators to try to reduce the time it takes for all jurisdictions to provide their reports and subsequently prepare this publication.’
Key report findings:
There were a total of 718 incidents reported across jurisdictions and incident categories
Most incidents were related to medical imaging, especially computed tomography (CT), plain film X-ray, and nuclear medicine
Human error was the primary cause of most incidents, followed by equipment malfunction. For example, if there is a technical fault during the medical diagnostic treatment and the patient required another scan, this is considered an equipment malfunction.
Both the ARIR, and this summary report play an important role in ensuring the ongoing safety of Australians using or receiving medical radiation. They are also an important tool for the sector to learn from the experiences and incidents of other providers to support optimisation and safety improvement across Australia.
The Australian Government’s primary authority on radiation protection is encouraging consumers to look for sun protection labels on clothing and shade products, such as ARPANSA swing tags.
This is particularly relevant as Australia heads towards summer with the UV Index regularly at 3 or above across the country.
The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency’s (ARPANSA) ultraviolet radiation assistant director, Lydiawati Tjong, says ARPANSA swing tags provide assurance to consumers that sun protection products perform as described on the label.
‘Since launching this service in 1992, almost 95 million swing tags have been attached to clothes and shade fabrics,’ Ms Tjong said.
‘We only issue swing tags to products that meet Australian standards and have been thoroughly tested as providing sun protection in our independently accredited laboratory.
‘When purchasing a product that has our swing tag, customers can have peace of mind that they are being protected from overexposure to the sun.’
ARPANSA's ultraviolet radiation exposure assessment assistant director, Dr Stuart Henderson, says prolonged exposure to UV can lead to skin cancer, premature aging and eye damage.
‘It is important that consumers have confidence in sun protection products as they play an important role in preventing adverse health effects from UV exposure,’ Dr Henderson said.
‘Choosing products that have been tested for UV protection helps provide confidence that they will work effectively.
‘Australians need to be vigilant with their sun protection, especially from around September to April. Those in northern parts of Australia will likely need to use sun protection all year.’
When the UV index is 3 or above, ARPANSA recommends that a combination of all 5 sun protection measures is used:
slip on some sun-protective clothing that covers as much skin as possible
slop on broad spectrum, water resistant SPF50 or higher sunscreen. Put it on 20 minutes before you go outdoors and every 2 hours afterwards
slap on a hat – broad brim or legionnaire style to protect your face, head, neck and ears
seek shade as much as possible while spending time outdoors
slide on some sunglasses – make sure they meet Australian Standards.
