3 November 2025

31 October 2025

6 November 2025

New annual data from the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) confirms Australian workers’ ionising radiation exposure remains well below the exposure limit.  

ARPANSA maintains the Australian National Radiation Dose Register (ANRDR), which contains dose records for approximately 72,000 workers. 

Occupational exposure to radiation is primarily from the uranium and mineral sands industries, as well as from some government organisations, research institutions, dental, veterinary and medical practices. 

The ANRDR monitors occupational radiation exposures nationally to ensure workers in these sectors are receiving below the 20 mSv annual limit.   

ARPANSA’s public and occupational exposures assistant director, Dr Cameron Lawrence, leads the ANRDR.  

He says the latest review analyses dose records from 2015 to 2024.  

‘Our 2023 and 2024 annual reports are almost identical, which shows that ionising radiation exposure in these workplaces is well controlled and remains at safe levels,’ Dr Lawrence said.  

‘In this 2024 report, 80% of workers received a dose less than 1 mSv and 98% received a dose less than 3 mSv. No reported dose exceeded 10 mSv, half the occupational exposure limit. This was the same in 2023. 

‘This data helps us monitor individual doses across careers, even when workers change employers. This means we can make sure that people’s exposure to radiation over their working life is well managed to support long term health and safety.’   

‘As shown in our latest report, current workplace exposures are very low and comparable with the risks of exposure from background and medical radiation exposure.  

‘Background radiation exposure is about 1.7 mSv per year, and a chest CT scan is 5 mSv.’ 

ARPANSA is the regulator of Commonwealth entities that use or produce radiation and works with state and territory regulators and industry to protect workers, communities and the environment.   

24 October 2025

The 2024–25 Annual Report of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) has been tabled in Parliament and is now available to read on our website and the Federal Government’s Transparency Portal.

The report covers the activities of ARPANSA and its supporting committees, as well as the agency’s performance against key activities and financial objectives. 

ARPANSA’s Chief Executive Officer Dr Gillian Hirth AO reflected on a year that brought new challenges and opportunities along with an expansion of the agency’s role.

‘This year ARPANSA has embraced new responsibilities in national emergency preparedness, alongside our ongoing commitment to delivering best practice regulation, trusted advice and valued services to protect people and the environment,’ said Dr Hirth.

‘I’m incredibly proud of how our agency has met the elevated demands of a changing nuclear landscape, while continuing to uphold our core mission of radiation protection through science, regulatory oversight and partnerships.’

Key highlights from 2024–25 include:

• ARPANSA’s formal appointment as the lead agency for radiological and nuclear incidents under the Australian Government’s Crisis Management Framework.
• Significant regulatory activities and ongoing support in preparation for the establishment of the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulator.
• Continued high quality service to workers, medical facilities and industry, reflected in a quality service rating of more than 90% from customers.
• International engagement to support best practice protection and regulation and develop fit for purpose systems to protect people and the environment.
• Launch of ARPANSA’s first Reconciliation Action Plan, endorsed by Reconciliation Australia, to strengthen relationships with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and embed reconciliation across the agency’s operations.

Read the full ARPANSA Annual Report 2024–25 on the Australian Government Transparency Portal.

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.

Date of publication

24 September 2025

Article review date

09 October 2025

Summary

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. 

Published in

Journal of Bioethical Inquiry

Link to article

Burned in Pursuit of Beauty: Injuries From Cosmetic Use of Non-Ionizing Radiation and Associated Regulatory Gaps

ARPANSA commentary

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.

Article publication date

August 2025

ARPANSA review date

September 2025

Summary

This experimental cell (in vitro) study evaluated the effect of exposure to 5G radiofrequency 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 trioxide ROS 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.

Published in

Scientific Reports 

Link to study

Impact of in vitro exposure to 5G-modulated 3.5 GHz fields on oxidative stress and DNA repair in skin cells | Scientific Reports

Commentary by ARPANSA 

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. 

Article publication date

March 2025

ARPANSA review date

September 2025

Summary

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. 

Published in

Carvolth & Tavares
Journal of Urban Design

Link to study

Full article: Ultraviolet radiation (UVR) exposure in playgrounds: an Australian case study

Commentary by ARPANSA

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 weighted irradiance 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 3^rd 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. 

1 October 2025

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.