Article publication date

February 2026

ARPANSA review date

August 2026

Summary

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

Article published in

Journal of Environmental Radioactivity

Link to study

Sydney’s first terrestrial gamma-radiation map

ARPANSA commentary

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

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

Article review date

7 August 2026

Article publication date

27 July 2026

ARPANSA summary

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

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

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

Published in

Bioelectromagnetics

Link to article

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

ARPANSA commentary

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

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

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

Article publication date

May 2026

ARPANSA review date

July 2026

Summary

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

Article publication date

29 June 2026

ARPANSA review date

30 July 2026

Summary

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

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

Published in

Photochemistry and Photobiology

Link to article

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

ARPANSA summary

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

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

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

27 July 2026

Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998

Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Regulations 2018

Notice of intention to make a decision on a facility licence application

As required by subsection 48(2) of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Regulations 2018, the CEO of ARPANSA hereby gives notice of her intention to make a decision under section 32 of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 regarding the following application for a facility licence:

Application No. A01197 by Department of Home Affairs for a sitting and construction licence for a prescribed radiation facility, specifically a mobile linear accelerator to be used by the Australian Border Force at Melbourne Container Examination Facility (CEF).

A mobile linear accelerator is an X-ray machine that uses electricity to generate the X-ray beams to image materials and equipment.

27 July 2026

Buzz Lightyear, the galaxy’s favourite hero and the best partner a sheriff could ask for, facing foes armed with his glow in the dark suit and wrist laser blaster, he’s the toy every child dreams of.  We asked one of our senior regulatory officers, Dr Chris Brzozek, if Buzz was a real toy, would his features be safe.

Dr Brzozek, is radium used to make Buzz glow in the dark?

Painting materials with the highly radioactive metal, radium, was discontinued long before Buzz first landed in cinemas, so it's unlikely he would pose a radium risk. These days most toys glow in the dark using phosphors such as zinc sulfide and strontium aluminate which absorb natural light and then release it. 

Radium was used from the 1910s to 1960s to make objects, mostly watches and clocks, glow in the dark. As radium decays, it reacts with other particles in the paint to cause a glow. Radium loses its radioactivity over time, causing that glow to fade. While it may not still glow in the dark, the radioactivity may still be there. 

A quick test to see if there is radium in your watch or any other object is to wrap it in aluminum foil and place it inside a light-sealed box or drawer for a few days. Then, look at it in complete darkness to see if it glows. If it glows on its own without being exposed to any natural or UV light, it is radioactive. 

Is Buzz’s wrist laser blaster safe?

In the movies it’s established that Buzz’s wrist laser blaster or pointer is just a light, but there are some toys that do include lasers. In Australia, devices that include lasers must have a radiant power output of 1mW or less to be legally purchased. Laser pointers above a power output of 1mW are technically considered prohibited weapons and are illegal to possess without a permit. Lasers below this power level are safe because the body’s aversion response or ‘blink reflex’ protects the eye from any damage. If you’ve got a toy that has a laser only shine it at other toys. Do not point lasers, even those with 1mW or less, at your eyes, other people’s eyes, people who are operating vehicles or animals’ eyes. Not only could it be harmful and cause blindness, but it’s also just not very nice! 

What would be your message to parents looking to buy a toy like Buzz for their children?

This is a cliché statement, but it’s a truism for a reason, make sure to check the label. If the power output is not labelled on the toy or laser pointer, it should be returned to the police as it’s potentially harmful. You can also contact the ACCC as you may be able to get a refund if the product isn’t labeled correctly. Make sure children playing with toys that contain lasers are supervised. 

Further information:

• We have a fact sheet on our website about laser pointers and safety: https://www.arpansa.gov.au/understanding-radiation/radiation-sources/more-radiation-sources/lasers
• We have a Q&A about ionising radiation in consumer products on our website: https://www.arpansa.gov.au/understanding-radiation/radiation-sources/more-radiation-sources/ionising-radiation-and-health/frequently-asked-questions
• The German Federal Office of Radiation Protection (BfS) has this fact sheet about luminous paints in watches: https://www.bfs.de/EN/topics/ion/daily-life/watches/watches_node.html

23 July 2026

ARPANSA's s Director Primary Standards Dosimetry Laboratory, Duncan Butler has contributed to international research recognised with the Galileo Galilei Award 2025 for Best Publication by the European Federation of Organisations for Medical Physics (EFOMP).

 The award-winning paper brought together researchers from 23 countries to develop a practical method for measuring cone beam CT (CBCT) imaging doses in radiotherapy centres using equipment that is commonly available around the world, such as Farmer ionisation chambers and water-equivalent slab phantoms used for routine radiotherapy quality assurance.

The approach helps clinics optimise imaging doses and strengthen patient safety, even where specialised dosimetry equipment for the precise measurement, calculation and assessment of radiation dose is not available. Dosimetry helps ensure patients receive accurate radiation doses during medical treatment.

As part of the project, Duncan provided technical expertise from ARPANSA's Primary Standards Dosimetry Laboratory (PSDL), including calibration data and advice on radiation detectors used in medical imaging. The laboratory's measurements helped researchers develop correction factors that enable accurate dose assessments across a wide range of clinical settings. 

 The contribution reflects the important role of ARPANSA's PSDL, Australia's primary authority for radiation dose measurement standards. The laboratory provides accredited calibration services for radiotherapy dosimeters used by cancer treatment providers to ensure equipment such as linear accelerators and kilovoltage X-ray systems are accurate. The PSDL's services help inform national standards and support safe, consistent and effective radiotherapy across Australia. 

This international recognition highlights how ARPANSA's measurement science expertise supports advances in radiation safety and patient care, both in Australia and around the world.

Find out more about PSDL calibration services: https://www.arpansa.gov.au/our-services/testing-and-calibration/calibra…

17 July 2026

Experts from Australia and New Zealand have published a commentary paper in the New Zealand Medical Journal that evaluates the latest evidence on radiofrequency electromagnetic energy (EME) exposure.

The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency’s (ARPANSA) Associate Professor Ken Karipidis was an author on the paper.

He says that when you consider all the available science, there is no substantiated evidence that exposure to EME from wireless technologies like mobile phones causes any health effects.

‘In the last few years there has been a lot of research activity in this space,’ A/Prof Karipidis said.

‘In part that is due to the World Health Organization’s commissioned systematic reviews on the potential adverse health effects from EME exposure, which were all recently published.

‘Generally speaking, most of the systematic reviews found no association with adverse health effects and exposure to EME. But the evidence is limited in some areas.

‘Most importantly the systematic review investigating human observational studies and cancer found no association between using a mobile phone and brain or other cancers.

‘A systematic review investigating experimental animals and cancer did report associations with some cancers, but the methods in that systematic review were flawed and have been widely criticised in the field. 

‘As such, science in this space must continue so that we can reassure policy makers and the public that new and emerging technologies that expose users to radio frequency electromagnetic energy are safe.’

A/Prof Karipidis was an author on the paper with New Zealand expert Professor Mark Elwood.

‘Findings in New Zealand are consistent with what we have found in Australian studies, which is that despite the massive increase in mobile phone use in the last 40 years there has not been a correlating increase in brain cancers.’

As the Australian Government’s primary authority on radiation protection and nuclear safety, ARPANSA will continue to monitor and lead research on the potential adverse health effects from exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic energy. 

You can read the paper in the New Zealand Medical Journal here: https://nzmj.org.nz/journal/vol-139-no-1638/health-risks-of-radiofrequency-electromagnetic-fields-and-the-world-health-organization-s-programme 

Article publication date

4 June 2026

ARPANSA review date

June 2026

Summary

This Australian cross-sectional study investigated the prevalence of skin cancer in people participating in outdoor recreational activities in Queensland and exposed to high ultraviolet radiation (UV) levels. It compared the prevalence of basal cell carcinoma (BCC), squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and melanoma (MM) among people who were  involved in aquatic  (surfing and swimming) and non-aquatic (walking, running and cycling) activities. A total of 1,403 adults (aquatic n=512, or non-aquatic n=891) attending primary care skin cancer clinic between September 2021 and August 2024 took part in the study. Each participant completed a survey on outdoor activity, sun exposure and sun-protection behaviours and underwent a full-body skin examination, with suspicious lesions confirmed by histopathology. 

The study found that those who primarily participate in aquatic activities had a significantly higher prevalence of melanoma compared with non-aquatic participants (9.4% versus 5.4%) with an increased odds ratio of 1.82 (95% confidence interval 1.20-2.75). There was no significant difference for other skin cancers. Aquatic participants reported lower lifetime outdoor time than non-aquatic participants but reported higher participation in activities during peak UV periods (84.2% versus 55.1%). Aquatic participants also reported greater sunscreen use but lower use of protective clothing. 

Published in

Peer J

Link to

ARPANSA commentary

The study found that exposure to higher UV levels and the lower use of protective clothing in people participating in aquatic activities may contribute to higher melanoma levels. However, because this is a cross-sectional study and information on exposure and outcome are occurring simultaneously, it cannot prove that the cancer outcome is due to the exposure. The results of the study are consistent with the established evidence that people exposed to higher UV levels are more likely to be diagnosed with melanoma (Wojcik et al., 2018 and Cancer Australia, 2025). Every year in Australia there are approximately 60 cases of melanoma for every 100,000 persons and it is estimated that over 63%, and maybe even up to 95%, of them are attributable to UV exposure (Olsen et al., 2015 and Armstrong and Kricker, 1993). 

The findings reinforce the importance of effective UV protection for people who spend substantial time outdoors, particularly those participating in activities without applying UV protection measures. The results also highlight the importance of regular skin surveillance among individuals with high levels of recreational UV exposure. ARPANSA recommends that people minimise UV exposure when the UV Index is 3 or above and use a combination of sun-protection measures including following the Slip, Slop, Slap, Seek and Slide protective measures. ARPANSA also provides a real time UV index and estimation of UV dose. The results also highlight the importance of regular skin surveillance among individuals with high levels of recreational UV exposure.

22 June 2026

Local and international scientists and professionals are attending the annual BioEM conference in Cairns from 21 – 26 June. 

This is the largest and most significant international conference in the field of bioelectromagnetics - an area of science that evaluates the human health effects from electromagnetic energy (EME).  

The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency’s (ARPANSA) Chief Radiation Health Scientist, Dr Rick Tinker, says BioEM is one of the key scientific forums for ARPANSA’s scientists, professionals, and regulators in the field of radiofrequency EME safety.    

‘At the BioEM conference we are proud to showcase our world-leading research, risk communication and safety standards,’ Dr Tinker said.  

‘The annual conference fosters knowledge sharing, improves research outcomes, and provides valuable insights into emerging trends and innovations in EME protection.’ 

ARPANSA staff will present and facilitate workshops on a range of topics including:     

• Health impact assessments on EME exposure 
• Risk communication 
• EME measurement 
• EME guidlines.  

Engagement with leading international experts and authorities in this field informs our safety standard, research and public health advice on EME protection.  

‘We look forward to sharing our latest research with the broader bioelectromagnetic community to advance knowledge and ensure protection of people and the environment from EME remains robust and evidence-based into the future,’ Dr Tinker said.  

BioEM 2026 will be held at the Cairns Convention Centre from 21 – 26 June.  

Find out more: https://bioem.org/bioem2026/home/