| ARPANSA

Sun exposure in playgrounds on Australia’s Sunshine Coast

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.

Media reports show energy-based cosmetic treatment harms, gaps in regulation

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.

PhD student Zoe Thomas, from the Monash University Accident Research Centre (MUARC), has been analysing media coverage on this topic as part of her research, which is being supervised by researchers at the university, and the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA).

‘Most reported injuries affected the face, with burns and scarring being the most common types of injury reported,’ Ms Thomas said.

‘Almost half of those injured described significant impacts on quality of life and mental health. In extreme cases, people may be housebound for weeks or months, too embarrassed or distressed to leave home.

‘Concerningly, one in five reports involved permanent effects.

‘But because injuries from these treatments often affect a small area of the body, even if there is permanent scarring, they may not meet the legal thresholds of harm for seeking compensation.’

Case studies from media reports found that one in 10 of those injured required time off from work, with injuries reportedly costing consumers thousands of dollars.

‘Our analysis also suggests that in some circumstances there are limited regulatory mechanisms for addressing poor provider practice,’ Ms Thomas said.

Regulation of cosmetic non-ionising radiation use in Australia is limited and inconsistent.

At a state level, only Tasmania, Queensland and Western Australia have regulatory controls. Though even then, it is only for certain procedures.

ARPANSA’s Associate Professor Ken Karipidis says they have been aware of these issues for more than a decade.

‘We published a report in 2015 on light-based cosmetic procedures that outlined opportunities for regulatory reform, such as national uniformity,’ A/Prof Karipidis said.

‘While there is an interest in creating nationally consistent regulations, the state and territory radiation regulators want to see further evidence on the frequency and level of harm these treatments are causing.’

‘ARPANSA has published papers reviewing this topic since 2015, and we’ll add to the evidence base through this PhD research with MUARC.

ARPANSA protects people and the environment from the harmful effects of radiation by undertaking research to support evidence-based regulations.’

This analysis was published in the peer-reviewed journal Bioethical Inquiry.

You can read the full journal paper here: Burned in Pursuit of Beauty: Injuries From Cosmetic Use of Non-Ionizing Radiation and Associated Regulatory Gaps

ANRDR in Review 2024

Introduction

This report outlines the status of ongoing Australian National Radiation Dose Register (ANRDR) projects and provides a summary of selected data from the ANRDR covering the period 2015–2024.

ANRDR upgrade

The ANRDR is undergoing a major upgrade currently in the design phase. The planned upgrade will enable submissions from dosimetry service providers and allow online access to dose records for workers, employers, regulators, and administrators. The vendor commenced work in early 2025, and the project is scheduled for completion in early 2027.

Analysis of data

The ANRDR collects quarterly radiation dose information from multiple industries, exposure types, and dose categories. This data is used to monitor individual doses and generate annual statistics on exposure patterns. Analysis of this data informs efforts to enhance radiation protection measures for workers. Personal information collected is used to match individuals with their recorded doses and to identify personnel when dose history reports are requested.

At present, the ANRDR contains dose records for approximately 72,000 individuals, primarily from the uranium and mineral sands industries, as well as from government organisations, research institutions, and certain veterinary and medical practices.

ARPANSA notes that doses falling below minimum reporting thresholds are recorded as zero in the ANRDR, which may introduce a downward bias in statistical outcomes. Nevertheless, the applied statistical methods are consistent with those used by other national dose registers and international organisations such as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR).

Variations may exist between previously published data and the data presented for the same timeframe in this report. These differences are mainly due to periodic data cleansing by ANRDR administrators to resolve duplicate individual records—when individuals were not properly identified or linked to existing records—and to address duplicate dose records for the same period related to an individual.

There have also been cases where data was submitted or resubmitted to the ANRDR after earlier analyses had been published. These updates did not significantly change the overall dose records but aim to improve the reliability of the reported analyses.

Uranium industry data

The ANRDR includes data from all licensed Australian uranium operators, maintaining exposure records for operations since 2011. Reported doses reflect received values, and dose calculation methodologies have regulatory approval within the relevant jurisdictions.

Figure 1 (below) shows trends in average and maximum effective doses among workers in the combined ‘mining’ and ‘processing’ categories.

Figure 1: Uranium industry average and maximum effective doses and count of workers by year (2015 – 2024)

The average effective dose for these groups increased from 0.78 mSv in 2023 to 0.82 mSv in 2024, while the maximum effective dose decreased from 5.8 mSv in 2023 to 5.2 mSv in 2024.

Figure 2 (below) displays average effective doses by work category: ‘mining’, ‘processing’, and ‘other’ (the latter includes administrative and support staff).

Figure 2: Uranium industry average effective doses per work category (2015 – 2024)

For miners, the average effective dose declined slightly from 1.47 mSv in 2023 to 1.45 mSv in 2024. For process workers, the average effective dose rose from 0.43 mSv in 2023 to 0.47 mSv in 2024. The ‘other’ category followed a similar trend to process workers, with an increase from 0.33 mSv in 2023 to 0.34 mSv in 2024.

For these averages, any worker assigned to more than one work category within a year was placed in the category where their highest dose occurred.

Collective effective doses

The collective effective dose (CED) serves as a comparative tool for optimising radiation protection and is used by UNSCEAR to report exposures globally (UNSCEAR 2020). CED, measured in person-sieverts (person Sv), represents the total of individual doses within a group, distinguishing it from individual dose measures (IAEA 2007). Table 1 presents collective effective doses for uranium industry workers in ‘mining’ and ‘processing’.

Worker Category	Year	Collective Effective Dose (person Sv)	Number of Workers
Mining	2020	4.02	2,748
	2021	3.75	2,669
	2022	3.47	2,527
	2023	4.01	2,890
	2024	3.85	2,746
Processing	2020	2.01	4,064
	2021	2.04	7,079
	2022	2.21	4,770
	2023	2.06	5,032
	2024	2.08	4,856

Table 1: Collective Effective Dose for Uranium Mining and Processing Workers (2020 – 2024)

Exposure pathway assessment

An evaluation of exposure pathways, including inhalation of particulates, inhalation of radon progeny, and external gamma radiation, for both miners and processing workers highlights the primary areas requiring control by uranium mining operators.

As depicted in Figure 3 (below), the average effective dose for miners is predominantly influenced by inhalation of radon progeny and exposure to external gamma radiation.

Figure 3: Miner effective dose by exposure pathway (2015 – 2024)

Since 2020, these two pathways have contributed similarly to the total effective dose, while inhalation of particulates continues to account for only a minor share.

Figure 4 (below) presents the effective dose by exposure pathway for processing workers.

Figure 4: Processing Worker effective dose by exposure pathway (2014 – 2024)

This assessment shows that the inhalation of radon progeny has overtaken the inhalation of particulates as the principal exposure pathway. External gamma radiation exposure to processing workers remains as the lowest contributor to their exposure.

Commonwealth licence holder data

Reported doses

Following an amendment to the ARPANS Regulations in 2017, Commonwealth organisations are required to submit dose records to the ANRDR. Consequently, data prior to 2017 is not available for analysis.

The four largest submitting organisations are the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), the Australian National University (ANU), and the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA). These organisations include scientific and university researchers, regulatory authorities, nuclear installations, and other source licence holders. For this review, the work categories ‘scientific research’, ‘university research’, ‘nuclear facilities’, and ‘miscellaneous’ have been used to group Commonwealth licence holder workers; ‘miscellaneous’ encompasses regulators and other source licence holders.

Figure 5 (below) presents the average effective dose per year for each category from 2017 to 2024.

Figure 5: Average effective dose for Commonwealth licence holders 2017 - 2024

Top 100 doses for Commonwealth organisations

Review of the top 100 doses from submitting Commonwealth organisations helps regulators to tailor their inspection regime and to facilitate discussions with their licence holders. The top 100 doses from Commonwealth organisations for the years 2021 – 2024 are provided in Figure 6 (below).

Figure 6: Dose distribution of the top 100 doses from participating Commonwealth licence holders 2024

The maximum and average doses, from the top 100 doses for each year since reporting commenced, are presented in Table 2.

	2021	2022	2023	2024
Maximum (mSv)	4.29	4.68	5.86	4.35
Average (mSv)	1.40	1.39	1.47	1.30

Table 2: Dose statistics for top 100 doses from Commonwealth licence holders for 2021 – 2024

All workers

Dose distribution

The data from all organisations submitting to the ANRDR has been analysed to produce dose distribution histograms for 2024; that histogram is presented in Figure 7 (below).

Figure 7: Dose distribution for all worker records for 2024

This is an effective way to demonstrate the distribution of occupational exposures and can minimise the impact of data skewing for doses that have been reported as less than the minimum reportable dose (< MRD).

The maximum and average effective doses for all workers in the ANRDR for the year 2024 are presented in Table 3 (below).

	2024
Maximum (mSv)	5.17
Average (mSv)	0.56

Table 3: Dose statistics for all workers for years 2024

Analysis of the cumulative frequency of the doses reported to the ANRDR for 2024 shows that approximately 80% of workers received a dose less than 1 mSv and 98% received a dose less than 3 mSv. These values are well below the occupational exposure limit of 20 mSv per year. No reported worker doses exceeded half of the occupational exposure limit.

Conclusion

The ANRDR maintains complete coverage of occupational radiation exposures for the uranium mining industry as well as collecting doses for a range of Commonwealth licence holders. In relation to those workers working in the uranium mining industry or for relevant Commonwealth license holders, the data shows that maximum and average occupational radiation exposures are below the annual dose limit of 20 mSv per year; furthermore, the data shows that for these workers, occupational exposure to ionising radiation in Australia is well controlled.

Update on current advice for sunscreen use

Article review date

10 September 2025

Article published date

25 July 2025

Summary

This article discussed the current state of knowledge on skin cancer prevention in relation to sunscreen use. The article first provides an overview of the established causative link between ultraviolet (UV) radiation exposure and skin cancer as well as the associated burden of disease. It also describes the efficacy of sunscreen use in preventing skin cancer noting significantly reduced risk for skin cancer among sunscreen users. The larger portion of the article discusses finer details of sunscreen use and clinical recommendations for health practitioners in addition to highlighting challenges.

The study highlights that outdoor workers, children under two years old, people with deeply pigmented skin or, conversely, oculocutaneous albinism and the immunocompromised require tailored sun protection advice. A lack of high-quality research investigating sunscreen use in people with diverse skin tones, particularly those with deeply pigmented skin, poses challenges when making clinical recommendations for these populations especially with respect to balancing the harms and benefits of sun exposure. The article also notes that general sun protection behaviours remain driven by warm conditions rather than objective measures like the UV index, leaving people vulnerable to UV overexposure that can easily occur on cold, overcast and cloudy days.

Published in

British Medical Journal

Link to article

Skin cancer prevention and sunscreens

ARPANSA commentary

Skin cancer is a major public health problem in Australia with two-thirds of Australians receiving a skin cancer diagnosis in their lifetime where 95% of all melanomas are attributed to UV overexposure (Whiteman et al. 2015, Armstrong & Kricker 1993). Although advances in treatment for melanoma have aided in reducing mortality, the incidence rates in Australia remain some of the highest in the world (De Pinto et al., 2024; Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2024).

The conclusions of the article relating to the high efficacy of sunscreens agrees with other reviews (Sander et al., 2020), including those published by ARPANSA (Henderson et al., 2022). However, it is important to remember that, as noted in the article, sunscreen is just one of the five sun protection principles and should not be relied on exclusively for sun protection. ARPANSA recommends following all five sun protection principles whenever the UV index is over three.

The article correctly identifies limited research into all factors of sunscreen use among people with deeply pigmented skin. Although this causes associated challenges in providing sun protection advice, the Australian Skin and Skin Cancer Research Centre has recently published a position statement on balancing the harms and benefits of sun exposure which contains sun exposure recommendations that vary depending on a person’s skin type, location in Australia and the time of year. The position statement can be used in conjunction with knowledge of the UV index or the SunSmart Global UV application to make well-informed decisions on sun exposure.

Report analyses radiation incidents

16 September 2025

The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) has published the latest national report on radiation safety incidents.

Based on 2022 incident data collected from radiation regulators across the country, ARPANSA’s chief regulatory officer Jim Scott says the latest report highlights areas to improve radiation protection for people and the environment.

‘From the 15 million diagnostic medical imaging procedures involving radiation there were 585 incidents reported in 2022,’ Mr Scott said.

‘These incidents tended to be triggered by human error – such as someone not following a procedure – but the incident can have a number of underlying causes. The benefit of this report is that it highlights the prevalence of these incidents and helps to identify what measures are effective at avoiding future incidents.’

ARPANSA manages the Australian Radiation Incident Register (ARIR). The ARIR is a national database that collates radiation incidents across all states, territories, and the Commonwealth.

This report is a summary of data submitted to the ARIR for incidents that occurred in 2022.

‘Before incidents are reported through to ARPANSA, state and territory regulators may investigate and resolve safety concerns with their licence holders, which can contribute to delays in consolidated reporting through the ARIR,’ Mr Scott said.

‘ARPANSA is working with radiation regulators to try to reduce the time it takes for all jurisdictions to provide their reports and subsequently prepare this publication.’

Key report findings:

There were a total of 718 incidents reported across jurisdictions and incident categories
Most incidents were related to medical imaging, especially computed tomography (CT), plain film X-ray, and nuclear medicine
Human error was the primary cause of most incidents, followed by equipment malfunction. For example, if there is a technical fault during the medical diagnostic treatment and the patient required another scan, this is considered an equipment malfunction.

Both the ARIR, and this summary report play an important role in ensuring the ongoing safety of Australians using or receiving medical radiation. They are also an important tool for the sector to learn from the experiences and incidents of other providers to support optimisation and safety improvement across Australia.

You can read the full report here: https://www.arpansa.gov.au/regulation-and-licensing/safety-security-transport/australian-radiation-incidents-register/annual-summary-reports

Experts encourage consumers to check for sun protection labels

11 September 2025

The Australian Government’s primary authority on radiation protection is encouraging consumers to look for sun protection labels on clothing and shade products, such as ARPANSA swing tags.

This is particularly relevant as Australia heads towards summer with the UV Index regularly at 3 or above across the country.

The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency’s (ARPANSA) ultraviolet radiation assistant director, Lydiawati Tjong, says ARPANSA swing tags provide assurance to consumers that sun protection products perform as described on the label.

‘Since launching this service in 1992, almost 95 million swing tags have been attached to clothes and shade fabrics,’ Ms Tjong said.

‘We only issue swing tags to products that meet Australian standards and have been thoroughly tested as providing sun protection in our independently accredited laboratory.

‘When purchasing a product that has our swing tag, customers can have peace of mind that they are being protected from overexposure to the sun.’

ARPANSA's ultraviolet radiation exposure assessment assistant director, Dr Stuart Henderson, says prolonged exposure to UV can lead to skin cancer, premature aging and eye damage.

‘It is important that consumers have confidence in sun protection products as they play an important role in preventing adverse health effects from UV exposure,’ Dr Henderson said.

‘Choosing products that have been tested for UV protection helps provide confidence that they will work effectively.

‘Australians need to be vigilant with their sun protection, especially from around September to April. Those in northern parts of Australia will likely need to use sun protection all year.’

When the UV index is 3 or above, ARPANSA recommends that a combination of all 5 sun protection measures is used:

slip on some sun-protective clothing that covers as much skin as possible
slop on broad spectrum, water resistant SPF50 or higher sunscreen. Put it on 20 minutes before you go outdoors and every 2 hours afterwards
slap on a hat – broad brim or legionnaire style to protect your face, head, neck and ears
seek shade as much as possible while spending time outdoors
slide on some sunglasses – make sure they meet Australian Standards.

You can check the UV index in your city on our website or by downloading the SunSmart Global UV app: https://www.sunsmart.com.au/resources/sunsmart-app

Learn more about our ultraviolet radiation services: https://www.arpansa.gov.au/our-services/testing-and-calibration/ultraviolet-radiation-testing

Collaborating to enhance Australia’s low-risk radioactive material guidance

28 August 2025

Experts at the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) held a webinar in August to support an update of national guidance on handling low-risk radioactive material.

Assistant director for planned and existing radiation exposures, Dr Fiona Charalambous, says ARPANSA engages with the world’s eminent radiation protection authorities to apply international best practice to the Australian context.

‘As the Australian Government’s primary authority on radiation protection and nuclear safety, we play a key role in promoting consistent radiation protection and nuclear safety across Australia's jurisdictions,’ Dr Charalambous said.

‘To ensure Australia’s Radiation Protection Series is adopted consistently across states and territories, we collaborate closely with our jurisdictional regulatory counterparts in developing codes, standards and guidance that reflect their expertise and input.’

‘The webinar was the first event of its kind that ARPANSA has hosted, which was aimed at getting input from key stakeholders to ensure this guidance is fit for purpose for Australia.’

With around 130 attendees, including regulators and licence holders, the webinar discussed exemptions and clearances for low-risk radioactive material.

An exemption is granted to sources or practices where the potential radiation risk is considered negligible. While a clearance is granted for decaying sources once the radiation risk is determined to be negligible.

ARPANSA’s environmental and health services senior director, Dr Marcus Grzechnik, says the key output would be clearer guidance for licence holders.

‘One change we’re proposing is to make it clear that solid material that no longer poses a radiation risk, can be safely repurposed for a sustainable economy,’ Dr Grzechnik said.

‘Ultimately, we’re developing this document to guide licence holders in the best-practice and uniform approach to assessment and repurposing or disposal of low-risk radioactive material.’

The guidance document that is informed by this engagement will be published as part of ARPANSA’s Radiation Protection Series, which is the national collection of regulatory requirements and guidance for radiation protection and nuclear safety.

Consistent regulation of the use and production of radiation is core to the protection of Australia’s environment, workers, patients and communities.

Research improves radiotherapy accuracy and precision

21 August 2025

New research from the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) demonstrates the accuracy of modern radiotherapy techniques used to treat cancer.

The audit study helps identify when best practice is achieved, minimising harm to healthy tissues and organs and improving treatment effectiveness.

ARPANSA’s medical physics lead and study author Dr Andrew Alves says that as radiotherapy machines have improved, and science has advanced, doctors are prescribing fewer sessions with a more targeted, higher dose each treatment.

‘Higher dose treatment, known as hypofractionated radiotherapy means fewer visits to the clinic,’ Dr Alves said.

‘When the high dose radiation is on target it kills tumour cells and spares healthy organs and tissues; however, the margin for error for this approach is low.

‘That’s why we’ve developed a customised audit to validate patient dose for this treatment.

‘Using an artificial ‘patient’ (or phantom) our paper shows how Australian and New Zealand clinics are performing and when practitioners hit the target within the accepted small margins of error in position, ±2 mm, and dose ± 5%.’

Modern technology enables more precise targeting of the radiation beam to the tumor, meaning treatment is less likely to affect healthy tissue.

The study specifically looked at spine, lung, and soft tissue radiotherapy treatment accuracy.

Australian Clinical Dosimetry Service director, Rhonda Brown, had oversight of the study and emphasised its real-world application impacted long-term patient survivorship.

‘Around 90,000 patients across Australia receive radiotherapy each year.’

‘There are many benefits to using hypofractioned radiotherapy – including that clinics can treat more patients because people need fewer radiation doses with this treatment approach’ Ms Brown said.

‘As the Australian Government’s primary radiation protection authority, and lead radiotherapy audit service in the country, we want to help ensure treatments are curing patients and not causing harm.

‘This study looked at over 700 treatments and can be used not only as a benchmark in Australia but across the world.’

Access the full article in Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics.

A systematic review indicates no increased cancer risk due to ingestion of naturally occurring radionuclides through drinking water

Article publication

10 March 2025

Article review date

August 2025

Summary

This systematic review evaluated the evidence for an association between the ingestion of naturally occurring radionuclides in drinking water and cancer risk in populations. A total of 29 studies (20 ecological, 6 case-control and 3 case-cohort studies) published between 1966 and 2017 were included in the review. These studies mainly evaluated cancer risk of the bone, urinary tract, and gastrointestinal tract in relation to radium, uranium, and radon ingestion. Quality assessment of the included case-control and case-cohort studies was conducted according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS); ecological studies were considered as low quality. The review presented a narrative description of all the results from the included studies. Overall, the review indicated no elevated risk of cancer from the ingestion of drinking water containing naturally occurring radionuclides. However, some studies indicated an elevated risk of cancers in lung, kidney, breast and bone. However, due to a lack of high-quality studies the evidence from these studies was considered poor. The review concluded that the current evidence does not allow to confirm or rule out an increased risk of cancer due to the ingestion of radionuclides in water at concentrations that occur naturally.

Published in

Science of the Total Environment

Article link

Cancer risk due to ingestion of naturally occurring radionuclides through drinking water: A systematic review

ARPANSA commentary

This review provides an evaluation of whether naturally occurring concentrations of radionuclides in drinking water pose any increased risk of cancer in human populations. The findings largely indicate that there is no cancer risk due to this, however, the review also acknowledges that methodological limitations of most of the included studies challenge the certainty of risk evaluation. The limitations of the included studies were in exposure assessment and dosimetry, low statistical power, and inadequate control of confounders. Further, the included studies did not assess the association in relation to the ingestion of polonium, thorium and lead. The review did not undertake a quantitative synthesis of results such as a meta-analysis or a certainty in evidence assessment..

The Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (NHMRC, 2022) sets out a radioactivity screening level at which consumption of drinking water will not exceed the Australian national reference level dose of 1 mSv per year for exposure to ionising radiation. It has been estimated that a very low proportion (10%) of the total annual dose in Australian populations is from natural radionuclides in drinking water (NHMRC, 2022). In fact, such low radiation exposure occurring over a long period of time is unlikely to show any detectable increase in health risk (e.g., cancer) in populations (Guseva Canu et al., 2011). The Australian system for radiation protection from ionising radiation is closely aligned with international best practice as laid out in the recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. In the Australian context, exposure to ionising radiation from drinking water falls under the Guide for Radiation Protection in Existing Exposure Situations (2017).

Burden of skin cancer now and in the future

Article publication date

July 2025

ARPANSA review date

July 2025

Summary

This study evaluated the global burden of skin cancer among adults 65 years or older from 1990 to 2021 and used this information to project the global burden out to 2050. The study used data collected from the cancer registries of 204 countries and territories, including Australia, that are detailed in the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) Study 2021 database. Cancer incidence was collected for melanoma, and keratinocyte cancers (KC) including squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and basal cell carcinoma (BCC). The authors calculated the incidence rates per 100,000 people for these skin cancers.

Melanoma incidence rates in 2021 were 20 (per 100,000) and projected to fall by 40% to 12 (per 100,000) by 2050. Both KC skin cancer types are expected to rise by 2050 with a 148% increase in BCC and a 53% increase in SCC. The incidence of skin cancers was higher for men than women both in 2021 and in 2050. The study concluded that the incidence and prevalence of keratinocyte cancers skin cancer in older people is likely to increase and there is a need to enact prevention and treatment strategies for these high-risk populations.

Published in

JAMA Dermatology

Link to

Burden of Skin Cancer in Older Adults From 1990 to 2021 and Modelled Projection to 2050

ARPANSA commentary

This ecological study reported that, despite some decreases in melanoma incidence, overall skin cancer incidence is expected to rise globally between now and 2050 due to increases in SCC and BCC. There were limitations with the data as some countries do not provide data on SCC and BCC in their cancer registries. Australia also does not report on incidence of BCC and SCC as they are generally not life-threatening, often requiring only simple excision for treatment. This lack of reliable data could affect the accuracy of these forward projections, particularly for Australians.

The downward trend in melanoma incidence in Australia has been observed in a previous study (Pinto et al 2024) and is also confirmed by Cancer Council data. However, despite this positive outcome, melanoma incidence and mortality rates in Australia remain some of the highest in the world and two-thirds of Australians will receive a skin cancer diagnosis of some type in their lifetime. As such, skin cancers, including melanoma, continue to constitute a large public health burden.

This study indicates that further work is needed to improve Australians’ sun protection behaviours and improve awareness to avoid the dire predictions this study has made for skin cancer incidence in the future. There needs to be continued focus on UV index awareness in Australia and the Slip, Slop, Slap, Seek and Slide messaging to prevent future skin cancers. Awareness of current UV index levels can be improved by utilising ARPANSA’s network of monitoring stations in Australia or through the freely available SunSmart Global UV app which also carries information for international cities. More information on UV protection can be found on the ARPANSA Sun Protection factsheet.

Subscribe to