Article publication date

December 2025

ARPANSA review date

25/03/2026

Summary

The BERENIS report briefly presents key findings of systematic reviews (SRs), commissioned by the World Health Organisation (WHO), on the health risk of radiofrequency-electromagnetic field (RF‑EMF) exposure. It also highlights research gaps and provides future recommendations for conducting more robust studies to better support future evidence synthesis in this topic. The 12 SRs assessed health effects associated with RF-EMF exposure, such as cancer, reproductive and birth outcomes, cognitive impairment, electromagnetic hypersensitivity symptoms, and oxidative stress. 

The SRs assessing human observational studies on cancer, cognition, reproduction, and symptoms did not identify evidence of adverse health effects associated with RF‑EMF exposure. The confidence in the evidence for mobile phone use and brain tumours in particular was rated as moderate. However, the available data for most outcomes were limited and the overall confidence in the evidence was low. Animal research showed mixed findings. Some reproductive effects, such as reduced birth weight and reduced male fertility, were supported by moderate confidence though these findings were not reflected in human studies. Cancer findings in animals, mainly derived from the National Toxicological Program (NTP) and Ramazzini studies, indicated increased schwannomas and gliomas with moderate to high confidence, though these arose under whole‑body, high‑dose exposures not comparable to realistic low-level human daily exposures. Evidence synthesised from the SRs for oxidative stress was inconsistent and mostly low‑confidence. The report indicated that current evidence does not allow conclusions about whether certain individuals are more vulnerable to RF‑EMF exposure than the general population. Studies involving people with electromagnetic hypersensitivity have not clarified increased susceptibility, and most observational studies include whole populations without the ability to identify small, sensitive subgroups. It remains challenging to assess subgroup vulnerability or to generalize findings beyond the populations typically studied.

The BERENIS report notes that many RF‑EMF studies included in the SRs have significant methodological weaknesses, such as poor exposure assessment and inadequate experimental design, which reduces confidence in their findings and makes it difficult to draw firm conclusions on potential health effects. The report also identifies major knowledge gaps, including the need for higher‑quality studies, improved exposure assessment, mechanistic research on thermal and non‑thermal effects, and long‑term prospective human studies. The need for high‑quality mechanistic studies across most research areas could help better comprehend how RF‑EMF exposure interacts at the molecular levels. The BERENIS recommends maintaining Switzerland’s precautionary approach to limit exposures since these SRs do not justify changes to exposure guidelines. 

Published in

BERENIS Newsletter – Special Issue, December 2025

Link to study

Assessment of WHO-commissioned systematic reviews on health effects of RF-EMF

ARPANSA commentary 

ARPANSA has previously reviewed the WHO SRs (for example: ARPANSA 2023, 2024a, 2024b, 2024c, 2024d, 2024e, 2024f, 2025). The overall assessment of ARPANSA on these SRs is that there is no substantiated evidence that low-level RF-EMF exposure encountered by the general public or workers poses any health risks in human populations. ARPANSA also acknowledges that much of the research has significant methodological issues related to exposure assessment, experimental design or statistical analysis resulting in low confidence in in some of the results. Therefore, it recommends quality future studies on this topic.

One particular SR which investigated cancer in experimental animals (i.e., Mevissen et al., 2025) notably has several methodological flaws, including not doing an appropriate synthesis of all the evidence and giving undue weight to the NTP study (Karipidis et al., 2026). The NTP study per se was previously critiqued for methodological and analytical flaws (see ARPANSA’s commentary on the NTP study). This flawed SR has been recently revisited by the German Federal Office for Radiation Protection  (Belenki et al., 2026) and their re-analysis disagreed with the conclusions drawn in the SR regarding positive findings for brain and heart cancers in exposed rats. It was highlighted that the SR deviated from their agreed study protocol eventually resulting in flawed results. More recently, two international co-ordinated studies,  one conducted in Korea (Kim et al., 2026) and the other in Japan (Imaida et al., 2026) ruled out the risk of cancers, DNA damage or chromosomal aberrations in RF-EMF exposed rats. Therefore, these emerging findings were published post Mevissen et al.’s SR and they do not substantiate the results previously reported by the NTP study. 

The WHO-commissioned SRs on RF-EMF exposure and health risk provide an overview of the current state-of-the-art evidence on the topic and their findings reinforce ARPANSA’s advice that RF-EMF exposure below the limits recommended in the Australian Standard (RPS-S1) does not pose any health risks.

2 April 2026

Easter treats like hot cross buns and chocolate eggs contain small amounts of natural radiation. But that poses no risk to our health or enjoyment, says an expert from the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency. 

Laboratory measurement director, Dr Megan Cook, says that the radiation present in food and beverages is extremely small. 

‘In 2019, we published a report that showed how much radiation was in popular staples from the average Australian diet,’ Dr Cook says. 

‘Favourite foods like BBQ meats, and many desserts all contain small amounts of radiation. This largely comes from the ingredients that absorb natural radioactive isotopes in soil. 

‘We regularly monitor food and drinks to make sure radiation is at low levels.

‘Our laboratory uses highly sensitive equipment to measure radioactive isotopes like potassium-40, radium-226, and thorium-232 because they are so low they are almost undetectable in what we consume.’

The report found trace amounts of radiation in a variety of foods and drinks including cereal, meat pies, baked beans, prawns, sausages, tomato sauce, milk, beer, and wine.

Like everything, food and drink are made up of atoms. Some atoms are naturally unstable.  When these unstable atoms, known as radioactive isotopes, break down, they release radiation as they become more stable. This process is called radioactive decay.

‘Food and drink commercially available in Australia pose an insignificant radiation risk. Even foods that naturally contain slightly higher radioactive isotopes than other foods like Brazil nuts, which contain radium, poses a minimal risk,’ Dr Cook said. 

‘As Australia’s primary authority on radiation protection and nuclear safety, we provide up to date information to government and the community on radiation exposure and safety including from natural sources like food.’ 

Radiation is part of everyday life. People are exposed to small amounts of ionising radiation from natural sources like rocks, soil, air and food, and artificial sources like medical treatments and diagnostic images. 

We’ve updated an FAQ on our website that answers some of the common queries about radiation in food we’ve received through our enquiry service: 

https://www.arpansa.gov.au/understanding-radiation/radiation-sources/more-radiation-sources/ionising-radiation-and-health/frequently-asked-questions

25 March 2026

Article publication date

January 2026

ARPANSA review date

25 February 2026

Summary

These two large studies, simultaneously but independently conducted in Korea (Kim et al., 2026) and Japan (Imaida et al., 2026), investigated whether long‑term exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) can cause tumours or genetic damage in rats. These studies were particularly designed to substantiate earlier findings from the U.S. National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) study, which had reported increased rates of rare tumours, particularly brain gliomas and heart schwannomas, in male rats exposed to RF-EMF at very high exposures (given as the specific absorption rate (SAR)). To test whether these results could be reproduced and validated, both countries used the same protocol, rat strain, exposure system and RF-EMF signal (900 MHz, CDMA) at a whole‑body SAR level of 4 W/kg. Both studies followed strict Good Laboratory Practice and OECD guidelines (e.g., TG451). Exposure began before birth and continued for two years, with rats receiving RF-EMF exposure for 18 hours and 20 minutes per day in 10 minute on/off cycles. The study included three groups of rats of 70 animals each, one group being those exposed to RF-EMF, one sham exposed and one group of cage controls. The incidence of tumours was assessed by histopathology which underwent international peer review. 

The findings of these studies were remarkably consistent and in contrast to the NTP study as there were no statistically significant changes in tumour incidence in either study. In the Japanese study, the RF-EMF exposed group lived longer than the sham exposed group, although still within normal variation. This was attributed to slightly lower food consumption and weight in the exposed group and was accounted for statistically. Similarly, the studies reported no evidence of DNA damage or chromosomal aberrations in exposed rats. The results of this Japan–Korea collaborative research do not substantiate the results previously reported by the NTP study. 

Published in

Toxicological Sciences

Link to study

Link to Korean and Japanese studies

Commentary by ARPANSA

These two studies are among the largest to investigate tumour outcomes in rats exposed to RF‑EMF, with each including 210 animals. Both studies followed a high standard of methodological rigour, including adequate blinding during exposure and analysis, good exposure characterisation and appropriate statistical methods. Together, these features minimise the potential for bias and position these two studies to have a significant influence on the over-arching scientific literature in this domain and any future meta-analyses. The concerted effort by an international research collaboration to simultaneously and independently conduct two large, long-term animal studies is also commendable and highlights the importance of these results. 

These partial replication studies used a single exposure level of 4 W/kg, compared to the original NTP study that had groups of animals that were exposed at either 1.5 W/kg, 3 W/kg or 6 W/kg. The maximum exposure level of 6 W/kg has been the subject of criticism by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), the German federal office for radiation protection (BfS) and ARPANSA. These criticisms argue that a core temperature rise at this exposure magnitude would exceed 1°C and the methodology used to evaluate body temperature in the NTP pilot study likely underestimated temperature rise. Where the NTP pilot study measured subcutaneous temperature only after exposure ended, contemporary core temperature monitoring studies have used superior surgically implanted monitors that continuously record core temperature throughout exposure (Bala et al., 2025). The rationale for using high doses is that such doses enhance the experiment’s sensitivity to small or rare outcomes  (Haseman & Lockhart, 1994). Without careful control, this can risk tumours occurring  secondary to other  harms caused by exposure (Bucher, 2000). That adds to the challenge of interpreting the results in relation to humans as the cause of any observed effect becomes unclear. It is therefore justified for the Japanese and Korean replications to use 4 W/kg. This is also the putative level for health effects that the whole body SAR restriction is conservatively based off in the ICNIRP guidelines (2020) and the Australian radiofrequency standard RPS-S1 (2021). 

Neither the Korean or Japanese study reported an increased incidence of tumours. These findings align with a recent systematic review and meta-analysis by Pinto et al., (2023), which concluded that evidence for any association between RF‑EMF exposure and tumour development is low or inadequate. In contrast, a systematic review and narrative synthesis by Mevissen et al., (2025) reported high‑certainty evidence for an increased incidence of brain tumours (gliomas) and heart tumours (malignant schwannomas) following RF‑EMF exposure, along with moderate evidence for several other tumour types in rats. ARPANSA has previously provided commentary on this review as well as other national health bodies (BfS, Swedish Radiation Safety Authority). 

The differing conclusions between these reviews originates from their approaches to evaluating the evidence. Mevissen et al. placed substantial weight on the outcomes of two chronic cancer bioassays, particularly the National Toxicology Program (NTP) rat study (NTP,  2018), without fully accounting for its limitations or integrating the findings of other relevant studies. The authors of the Mevissen review justify this methodology by stating that the available research was not similar enough to enable an encompassing synthesis of the evidence. Although the validity of this justification is poor, such reasoning can never be applied to these two new chronic cancer bioassays from Japan and Korea.  As such, even if the critically flawed methodology of the Mevissen et al. review were followed, the conclusions would have to yield to accommodate the findings of this new research. Similarly, the findings reported by Pinto et al. would be further strengthened as the data offered by the two new studies is in alignment with their conclusions. The genotoxicity results are also consistent with a recent systematic review (Romeo et al., 2024) and the results likewise strengthen those conclusions.

Another important issue that should be considered when interpreting these and the results of the NTP studies is the proportion of rats that survived to the end of the experiment. Longer survival rates increase the likelihood of tumour development. In the NTP study, survival among exposed male rats was substantially higher (50–62%) than in the control group (28%). A similar pattern was observed in the Japanese study, although the difference was less pronounced, with 65% survival in exposed rats compared with 43% in sham controls. In contrast, the Korean study reported no meaningful difference in survival rates between exposed and control animals. When exposed animals live significantly longer than controls, as seen in the NTP and Japanese studies, any increase in tumour detection may simply reflect extended lifespan rather than an effect of RF‑EMF. The Japanese study accounted for these differences in mortality through their statistical methods.

For some health endpoints, there is limited relevance of rat cancer studies for extrapolation to human cancer risk. Notably for glioma, some of the molecular features seen in human glioma are not seen in rat glioma, indicating  a fundamental biological difference (Sahu et al., 2022). These types of fundamental differences between human and animal biology speak to the importance of the hierarchy of scientific evidence where the most significant evidence comes from studies on humans. This is because studies on humans can provide more direct and relevant information about human health and disease. Human evidence of the association between RF-EMF on cancer has recently been reviewed in the WHO commissioned systematic reviews looking at observational studies in humans (Karipidis et al., 2024, Karipidis et al., 2025). These studies did not find an association between RF-EMF and any cancer type, including glioma. 

Although the OECD Test Guideline 116 recommends approximately 50 rats per group, and these studies used 70 animals per group, such numbers may still be insufficient to reliably detect rare cancers. This is particularly relevant given that the background incidence of glioma in NTP control groups is typically only 0–4% (NTP, 2025), meaning that these may still have limited power to identify small increases in rare cancers like glioma.

In Australia, devices that emit RF-EMF must comply with the limits prescribed in the radiofrequency standard RPS-S1. It is important to note that under this standard, the maximum permissible whole body SAR for the general public is 0.08 W/kg, one fiftieth of the exposure level used in these animal carcinogenesis studies. Overall, these new animal studies provide further evidence that RF-EMF is not associated with cancer in animals, supporting previous safety assessments (ICNIRP, 2020; SCHEER, 2022). It is similarly supportive of ARPANSA’s assessment that there is no substantiated scientific evidence of adverse health effects from RF-EMF exposure at levels below those prescribed in the standard.

Article publication date

September 2025 

ARPANSA review date

March 2026

Summary

This Spanish case-control study investigated the association between indoor radon and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). The study included 178 cases and 178 controls that were matched by age and sex. Residential radon levels were measured using passive detectors for three months in each subject’s home. The study investigated if higher residential radon exposure was associated with a high incidence of IBD and whether it increased the incidence of IBD disease flares (followed for one year) among the cases. The study found no association between increased rates of IBD and high indoor radon, even in the highest exposure category of >299 Bq/m³ (odds radio (OR) 0.5, 95% confidence interval, CI, 0.3-0.9). The study also found no association between increased occurrences of flares and the highest category of indoor radon levels (OR 1.5, 95% CI 0.5–4.5). Overall, the authors concluded that higher residential radon exposure was not associated with IBD. 

Published in

Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology

Link to study

Indoor radon concentration and risk and severity of inflammatory bowel diseases: a case-control study - PubMed

Commentary by ARPANSA

This study contributes to the emerging evidence on residential radon exposure and IBD. A previous ecological study in Spain also found no association between higher indoor radon and Crohn's disease or other types of IBD (Mauriz-Barreiro et al 2022). Previous studies of radon exposure have mostly focused on the association between radon and lung cancer. However, a recent systematic review and meta-analysis of 129 studies (Henyoh et al 2024) investigated the association between radon and diseases other than lung cancer, and found no association between radon and these outcomes.

Radon is a naturally occurring radioactive gas that can build up in poorly ventilated areas, particularly in caves and mines, however, it can also build up in home that do not have airflow. Homes that are well ventilated, made of timber or built on stumps have lower radon levels compared to homes on concrete slabs with brick walls. More information can be found on our factsheet Radon exposure and health | ARPANSA. An Australian Radon measurement survey of more than 3300 Australian homes found that that the average concentration of radon is much lower (10 Bq/m³) than global average (40 Bq/m³) (Radon in homes survey and indoor radon map | ARPANSA). This low residential radon level is unlikely to pose any health risk as it’s far below the recommended reference action limit of 200 Bq/m³. 

2 March 2026

25 February 2026

Scientists at the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) have contributed to a new international report that finds natural sources continue to make up the majority of the global population’s exposure to ionising radiation. 

The findings are published in the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) latest scientific annex, ‘Evaluation of public exposure to ionizing radiation’, providing the most comprehensive global assessment to date of radiation doses received by the public from natural and artificial sources. 

One of the lead writers was ARPANSA’s public and occupational exposures assistant director Dr Cameron Lawrence.

He says the new report estimates that the worldwide average annual effective dose from natural sources is approximately 3.0 millisieverts (mSv). 

‘In Australia our background radiation is much lower than the international average, at about 1.7 mSv per year,’ Dr Lawrence said. 

Dr Lawrence’s colleague, Brendan Tate, contributed to the UNSCEAR report as a member of one of the task groups.

‘Inhalation of radon, thoron, and their decay products remain the major contributors to human exposure,’ Mr Tate said. 

‘With the exception of medical exposure, exposure from other artificial sources, such as the nuclear fuel cycle, global fallout and consumer products are minor.' 

The increase from the previously reported global average of 2.4 mSv by UNSCEAR in 2008 reflects more data being available and better calculation methods than an actual rise in radiation levels.

Australia is one of 27 United Nations Member States that participate in UNSCEAR’s work.

As the Australian Government’s primary authority on radiation protection, ARPANSA supports international scientific collaboration to enhance protection of people and the environment.

To see what makes up Australia’s natural background radiation, go to this website: Ionising radiation and health.

17 February 2026

Article publication date

February 2026

ARPANSA review date

10 February 2026

Summary

This population-based case-control study examined the association between occupational exposure to extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields (ELF-EMF) and postmenopausal breast cancer among women in Canada. The study included 663 breast cancer cases occurring in women aged between 47 and 75 years and 592 controls in the same age cohort. Information on breast cancer cases was gathered from histopathological reports. Occupational ELF-EMF exposure was estimated by using a job exposure matrix (JEM). Overall, the study indicated no elevated risk of breast cancers as a result of workplace ELF-EMF exposure. 

Published in

Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine

Link to study

Canadian study indicates no association between occupational ELF-EMF exposure and postmenopausal breast cancer risk

Commentary by ARPANSA

The study found no overall risk of postmenopausal breast cancer and occupational ELF-EMF exposure. Similar findings have been consistently reported previously (e.g., Koeman et al., 2014; Labrèche et al., 2003). The present study advances the evidence base for assessing breast cancer risks associated with occupational ELF‑EMF exposure. However, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, the JEM inherently assigned exposure solely based on job title without considering within‑job variability in exposure levels. This results in non-differential misclassification of exposure biasing association towards null. Second, the study had a relatively low and differential response rate (54% among cases and 41% among controls), which may have introduced selection bias. Third, potential co‑exposures to other occupational carcinogens, such as chemical agents or ionizing radiation, were not assessed. It is ARPANSA’s assessment that there is no substantiated scientific evidence that  ELF-EMF exposure below the limits recommended by international guidelines (e.g., ICNIRP) poses a health risk. More information about exposure to ELF-EMF can be found on the ARPANSA factsheet Electricity and health | ARPANSA.

Article publication date

October 2025

ARPANSA review date

January 2026

Summary

The French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety (ANSES) has updated its appraisal of the carcinogenicity of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF). This was a large undertaking that involved collating and synthesising information from a wide variety of evidence streams into a cohesive assessment for each organ or physiological system. The evidence assessed in the report was published between 2013 and 2024, building on previous ANSES expert appraisals published in 2013 and 2016.  ANSES used a hierarchical assessment where both the type and strength of evidence were used to determine the overall level of evidence. Their structure follows the generalised hierarchy of evidence where epidemiological studies on humans are valued above studies on animals which are, in turn, valued more than studies on cell lines or mechanisms.

For the brain, central nervous system, blood, plasma, immune system, cardiovascular system, liver and the reproductive system ANSES assessed that it was not possible to conclude from the available evidence whether RF-EMF was carcinogenic. This is the lowest possible classification of risk in ANSES’ classification structure. For all other biological systems there was insufficient information to form substantial lines of evidence.

Commentary by ARPANSA

The formulation of ANSES’ conclusory statements arising from the lowest classification of risk in their classification structure can give the impression that there are large uncertainties remaining in the scientific evidence, regardless of the size and quality of the evidence used to arrive at that classification. While some uncertainties remain for less studied cancers, for well-studied cancers their statements do not provide an accurate accounting of the state of the scientific evidence. This can be problematic for readers without further understanding of the underlying scientific evidence, as it is challenging to interpret the meaning of their conclusions accurately without this knowledge. Better formulated conclusory statements that include consideration for both the certainty and direction of effect, such as those employed in GRADE assessments, could provide clarity to an uninitiated reader.

This assessment was requested by the French Director General of Health in response to preliminary reports from the National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) study into the effect of RF-EMF on cancer incidence in laboratory animals (NTP, 2018a, 2018b). These preliminary reports and subsequent full publications indicated a potential effect of RF-EMF on specific cancers at very high exposure levels. However, numerous issues with the NTP studies have been documented by a variety of public health agencies (ARPANSA, ICNIRP, FDA) and so the approach of ANSES to consider those results in the context of the entire scientific body of evidence, including using a hierarchical approach, is justified. ARPANSA similarly uses a hierarchical approach to evaluating evidence which is detailed on the corresponding ARPANSA webpage. ANSES collated all the appropriate research that existed during their assessment however, there have also been notable recent publications that partially replicate the NTP study (Kim, H. et al., 2026;  Imaida, K. et al., 2026). These studies do not confirm the findings of the original study and conclude that there is no carcinogenic effect of RF-EMF.

With regard to the epidemiological evidence, the organ that has been researched the most is the brain due to the assumption of comparatively high near field exposures from mobile phone use. The most comprehensive assessment of this line of evidence to date (Karipidis, K. et al., 2024) did not show an association between RF-EMF exposure and brain cancers and that has been shown further since in high quality prospective cohort studies (Feychting, M. et al., 2024). Other organs have been studied much less in epidemiological studies but still show no association between RF-EMF exposure and cancer (Karipidis, K. et al., 2025). As this type of evidence is the highest in the hierarchy of evidence for long-term health effects such as cancer, it is appropriate that ANSES’ assessment of corresponding organs arrived at their lowest classification of risk.

A similar effort has been undertaken by the World Health Organization in a project to assess the relationship between RF-EMF exposure and a variety of health endpoints, including cancer. This project involved commissioning a series of systematic reviews and will ultimately result in the publication of an environmental health criterion monograph for RF-EMF. Each of the systematic reviews have been published and the evidence is broadly in agreement with ANSES’ conclusions.