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.

15 January 2026

Cancer Council and the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) are highlighting concerning new data that shows only one in six of all Australians have a strong understanding of the UV Index.

New data from YouGov found that 63% Australians are concerned about developing or redeveloping skin cancer in their lifetime but only one in six people (16%, the equivalent of just 3.4 million people) know how to interpret the UV Index and how to act accordingly. 

A crucial tool in our sun protection routines, the UV Index measures ultraviolet (UV) radiation, which is known to cause most skin cancers. The higher the number, the higher the hazard. When the UV Index reaches 3 or above, it’s time to ‘Slip, Slop, Slap, Seek and Slide.’ 

In Australia the UV Index is at its most damaging in January when average values are forecast to be 11 or more across most of the country on clear sky days. 

Despite the known risk, the survey results showed nearly two-thirds (63%) of Australians are concerned about developing or redeveloping skin cancer in their lifetime. This highlights the need for Australians to understand and use the UV Index to reduce their UV exposure, protect their skin and prevent future skin cancers. 

Two in three Australians will be diagnosed with skin cancer in their lifetime and 2,000 Australians die of skin cancer every year. 

Sally Blane, Chair of Cancer Council’s National Skin Cancer Committee, says, ‘UV radiation is an invisible killer. Yet only about a third of those surveyed (37%) admit only having a basic understanding of what the UV Index measures, and a further one in ten people (12%, the equivalent of 2.6 million people), admit they have limited or no knowledge about it.

‘Cancer Council is encouraging all Australians to get familiar with the UV Index and make checking it a part of their daily sun protection routine. The UV Index always peaks in the middle of the day, and unprotected skin can be damaged in as little as 15 minutes at this time of year. The key takeaway is to use all five forms of sun protection when heading outside and the UV Index is 3 or above.  

‘Australia has some of the highest levels of UV radiation in the world, with overexposure to UV radiation linked to up to 95% of melanomas. That’s why it’s essential that we all Slip on sun protective clothing, Slop on SPF50 or SPF50+ sunscreen, Slap on a broad brimmed hat, Seek shade and Slide on sunglasses whenever the UV is 3 or above.’

Sean Hewson, UV Research Scientist at ARPANSA says ‘At ARPANSA, we maintain a network of UV detectors to monitor ultraviolet radiation across Australia and its potential to harm our skin. Australians can easily access live UV Index measurements on our website to check UV intensity in real time. Our live measurements account for geographic location, altitude, time of day, time of year and cloud cover which is important as levels are higher in some parts of Australia than others.

‘The UV Index should be used every day even on cool or overcast days as UV radiation can still be high in these conditions, and clear skies or high temperatures cannot be relied on to determine when sun protection is needed.’

Use the free SunSmart Global UV app or the ARPANSA website to see what the UV Index is near you. 

Whenever the UV is 3 or above use all 5 forms of sun protection:

• Slip on sun protective clothing
• Slop on SPF50 or SPF50+ sunscreen
• Slap on a broad brimmed hat
• Seek shade
• Slide on sunglasses. 

Article publication date

December 2025

ARPANSA review date

December 2025

Summary

This Swiss cohort study evaluated the association between different occupational exposures, including radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields, extremely low frequency magnetic fields, ionising radiation and ultra-violet (UV) radiation, and the incidence of melanoma and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). The study population was identified from the Swiss national census (an estimated coverage of 98.6% of the population in 2000), which collected data on occupation, migration, and demographics. The census data was linked to cancer registries data from six Swiss regions. The study included 1,077,487 adults aged 20 to 65 years. Occupational exposure of the subjects was assessed using the Canadian Job Exposure Matrix (CANJEM). 

The study found a statistically significant association between UV and melanoma (hazard ratio (HR): 1.23, 95% confidence interval (CI):1.02-1.50). No association was observed between UV exposure and SCC (HR: 1.08, 95% CI: 0.84-1.40). RF, magnetic fields and ionising radiation were not associated with melanoma or SCC. 

Published in

The Science of the Total Environment

Link to study

Occupational exposures and skin cancer incidence in six Swiss cantons

ARPANSA commentary 

The study reports that occupational exposure to UV was associated with melanoma, which aligns with the findings of the WHO systematic review and meta-analysis. However, the WHO systematic review also found an association with non-melanoma skin cancers (NMSC), which would include SCCs. The current study did not find an association between UV exposure and SCC, inconsistent with results from the WHO systematic review. 

The absence of an association between ionising radiation and melanoma or SCC is consistent with previous research, including the recent review by Caramenti et al (2024). Similarly, the study found no association between RF or magnetic fields and either melanoma or SCC. Evidence on these exposures remains limited and generally of low quality. For example, the UK Biobank study reported no association between RF exposure and melanoma but observed a small association with NMSC. In contrast, a Danish cohort study by Poulsen et al (2013) found no link between RF exposure and SCC, and Khan et al (2021) reported no overall increased risk of skin cancer associated with magnetic field exposure among individuals living near power transformers. Overall, the evidence suggests that associations between RF or magnetic fields and skin cancer are weak, and no plausible biological mechanism has been identified to explain such an association.

Article publication date

5 November, 2025

ARPANSA review date

17 December, 2025

Summary

This case-control study is a partial replication of the international MOBI-kids study (Castano-Vinyals, G. et al., 2022) and investigates the association between mobile phone use and brain tumour incidence in Japanese youth aged between 10 and 29 years. The study examined 120 brain tumour patients (cases) and 360 controls. The analysis examined potential associations with both the duration and intensity (cumulative number of calls and call time) of mobile phone use while adjusting for age and sex. Exposure was also adjusted based on the variant output power of different generations of mobile phone technology and their historical prevalence in Japan. 

An odds ratio and 95% confidence interval was computed for each exposure classification; based on either regular use [0.92 (0.48-1.77)], years of use [0.94 (0.30-2.92)], cumulative number of calls [0.80 (0.32-2.01)] or cumulative call time [0.58 (0.22-1.52)]. In each case there was no association between mobile phone use and brain tumours. These same categories also did not show an association when the exposure was adjusted for mobile phone generation.

Link to

Brain Tumor and Mobile Phone Risk Among Young People: Analysis of Japanese People Using the MOBI-Kids International Case-Control Study

Published in

Bioelectromagnetics

ARPANSA commentary

The original international MOBI-kids study assessed the association between brain tumour incidence and mobile phone use among children from fourteen different countries and it did not find any association. The current study expands on the Japanese subset of that study with key differences being study size, matching of controls and the adjustment of exposure characterisation by mobile phone generation. The adjustment of exposure for mobile phone generation represents an improvement in exposure characterisation as modern mobile phone technology has lower exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, especially compared to the older 2G networks (Iyare, R. et al., 2021; van Wel, L. et al., 2021).

In addition to confirming results from the international MOBI-kids study, this study is in agreement with a systematic review of all the evidence that shows no association between mobile phone use and brain tumours (Karipidis, K. et al., 2024). In Australia, emissions from mobile phones must comply with the limits prescribed in the radiofrequency standard RPS-S1. This study supports ARPANSA’s assessment that there is no substantiated scientific evidence of adverse health effects at levels below those prescribed in the standard. 

Article publication date

November 2025

ARPANSA review date

December 2025

Summary

This case-control study examined the association between mobile phone use and screen time and invasive breast cancer. The study included 226 women (77 cases, 97 controls and 52 unconfirmed cases) recruited from diagnostic, mammography, and radiotherapy centres across Iran. Mobile phone and screen use was assessed by structured questionnaires asking about mobile phone call duration, screen time, and phone placement. The study reported that women who spent more than 60 min per day in mobile phone conversations had higher odds of confirmed breast cancer (odds ratio (OR): 3.49, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.02–11.97). 

Published in

Journal of Research in Medical Sciences

Link to study

Journal of Research in Medical Sciences

Commentary by ARPANSA

The study contains a significant error. In Table 2, the reported mobile phone use for cases and controls shows 94 cases and 77 controls; the number of cases and controls is inconsistent for other characteristics listed in Table 2 as well. However, the authors state elsewhere in the paper that they have 77 cases and 97 controls. It is unclear whether this discrepancy indicates that the case-control status of participants has been misclassified in the analysis or if this is a typological error. This may invalidate the results of the study.  

All mobile phone use in the case-control study was self-reported, introducing recall bias as a source of uncontrolled error. This bias is possible, as cases may remember their phone use differently than controls following diagnosis. Additionally, selection bias may be present, as the authors provide no information regarding loss of subjects or participant exclusion, this means we are unable to assess how attrition may have influenced the outcome of the study.

One of the most comprehensive studies examining the association between mobile phone use and breast cancer is the UK Million Women Study (Benson et al 2013). This prospective cohort study collected data on mobile phone use from 489,769 women and found no evidence of an association between mobile phone use and breast cancer risk. Similarly, a recent systematic review commissioned by the World Health Organization (Karipidis et al., 2025) which evaluated all epidemiological evidence from 1988 to 2019 on mobile phones and cancer, also concluded that there is no association with breast cancer. Therefore, ARPANSA’s assessment is that the scientific evidence in its totality does not support an association between mobile phone use and breast cancer.

Article publication date

October 2025

ARPANSA review date

December 2025

Summary

This prospective cohort study assessed the association between light exposure (day and night) and incidence of cardiovascular diseases in human populations. A total of 88,905 individuals (mean age, 62 years) were included in the study. The data on light exposure from the participants (nearly 13 million hours) were collected from using wrist-worn light sensors. The information on the incidence of cardiovascular diseases (e.g., coronary artery disease, myocardial infarction, heart failure, etc. after light tracking) were gathered from UK National Health Service records. The strength of the association was reported in hazard ratios (HRs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) adjusting for potential confounders (e.g., sociodemographic and lifestyle, sleep, physical activity, diet and genetic susceptibility). The results [HR (95% CI)] showed that exposure to brighter light at night was associated with higher risks of coronary artery disease [1.3 (1.2-1.5)], myocardial infarction [1.5 (1.3-1.7)], heart failure [1.6 (1.3-1.8], atrial fibrillation [1.3 (1.2-1.5)], and stroke [1.3 (1.1-1.5)]. The study indicated that light at night exposure is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease in adults over 40 years old.

Published in

JAMA Network Open

Link to study

Light Exposure at Night and Cardiovascular Disease Incidence

ARPANSA commentary

The study reports that brighter night light is related to up to nearly 60% higher risk of cardiovascular disease among the people aged 40 years and older. These risk estimates are comparable to those reported in previous smaller studies (e.g., Obayashi et al., 2015; Kim et al., 2023). The strength of the current the study lies in rigorous adjustment for confounding variables and the inclusion of personal light exposure data. Notably, this was the first study on light exposure to account for key cardiovascular risk factors (BMI, sleep, diet, hypertension, cholesterol, and diabetes) thereby disentangling the effects of these factors from those of light exposure.

One of the key limitations of the study is that it predominantly included white (97%) populations and people with higher education levels, higher income, women (57%), and healthier individuals. This eventually flags the study findings while generalising them for other human populations. However, the findings suggest that limiting overexposure of night light is another factor that could help reduce cardiovascular disease risk associated with it. There are some publications which provide useful recommendations for visible light exposure, such as from light emitting diodes, and potential health effects (e.g. ANSES, 2019; Brown et al., 2022). Similarly, the International Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) has published a statement on short wavelength light (SWL) exposure from indoor artificial sources and human health acknowledging no scientific consensus on whether night light per se causes health effects. ARPANSA currently does not have specific health advice regarding night light exposure and health. However, it will continue to scrutinise emerging evidence on health risk associated with night light exposure.

Article publication date

September 2025

ARPANSA review date

21 November 2025

Summary

This study updates previous estimates of the proportion of cutaneous melanoma incidence attributable to ultraviolet radiation (UVR) by examining data from 2022. Data on national estimates of cutaneous melanoma cases from 154 countries were extracted from the World Health Organization’s GLOBOCAN 2022 database. Population attributable fractions (PAFs) related to UVR exposure were calculated by sex, age, and country using a minimally exposed Nordic 1930 birth cohort reference population for comparison.The estimates were adjusted for acral lentiginous melanoma, which is not associated with UVR exposure and accounts for about half the cutaneous melanoma cases in dark-skinned populations. The study showed that most of the global cutaneous melanoma burden in 2022 (n=267,353 cases; 57% of them in males) was UVR-attributable. The PAF estimates increased with age; 76% among people aged 30–49 versus 86% among people aged 70 or more years. In Australia/New Zealand, Northern Europe, and North America, more than 95% of cutaneous melanoma cases attributable to UVR exposure. The highest attributable age-standardized rates (per 100,000) were found in regions with populations of lighter skin colour: Australia/New Zealand (76), North Europe (37), and North America (34). The study concluded that excess UVR exposure accounts for more than four-fifths of the global cutaneous melanoma incidence.

Published in

International Journal of Cancer

Link to study

Global burden of cutaneous melanoma incidence attributable to ultraviolet radiation in 2022

ARPANSA commentary

This study provides an updated global estimate of cutaneous melanoma burden for countries and regions categorized by sex and age. Further, the study also improved the earlier methods of estimating PAFs of UVR (Arnold et al., 2018) by adjusting cutaneous melanoma rates to the relative proportion of acral lentiginous melanoma for darker-skinned populations. Regional trends of cutaneous melanoma rates remain similar to earlier estimations (Arnold et al., 2018).  Very high rates in Australia and New Zealand are attributable to high ambient levels of UVR exposure (Xiang et al., 2014; Olsen et al., 2010). As highlighted in the study, most of the global cutaneous melanoma burden is UVR-attributable and hence the role of sun protection remains important in reducing cutaneous melanoma burden. 

The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) measures the UV index in various locations in Australia and publishes this data in real-time. In view of preventing skin cancer occurrences, Australia promotes the world leading SunSmart program, which recommends people to adopt a combination of five sun protection measures whenever the UV index is 3 or above. The sun protection measure includes Slip (on clothing), Slop (on SPF30 or higher), Slap (on a hat), Seek (a shade), Slide (on sunglasses). ARPANSA also provides evidence-based public health messages in relation to UV protection measures, including sun protection factsheets. The SunSmart Global UV app provides real time sun protection advice for Australian and major international cities to inform people about sun protection measures.