9 May 2024

Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998 
Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Regulations 2018

As required by subsection 48(2) of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Regulations 2018, the CEO of ARPANSA gives notice that she intends 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 A0346 by the Australian Submarine Agency to prepare a site for a prescribed radiation facility (namely a low level waste management and maintenance facility) to be known as the ‘Controlled Industrial Facility’ at the existing HMAS Stirling site, at Garden Island, Rockingham in Western Australia. 

ARPANSA regulates Commonwealth entities that use or produce radiation and is responsible for regulation of relevant activities undertaken by the Australian Submarine Agency until a dedicated naval nuclear power safety regulator is established. 

An overview of this licence application is now available for public comment through our Consultation Hub. Submissions close at 11:59pm on 7 June 2024. 

Have your say by completing the online survey or visit the ARPANSA Consultation Hub for more information. 

2 May 2024

The Australian Government hosted an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) workshop on nuclear security and how it contributes to peaceful uses of nuclear and radiological technology in Melbourne last week.

The Integrated Nuclear Security Sustainability Plan (INSSP) workshop focused on strengthening nuclear and radiological security in the Asia Pacific.  

The Australian Safeguards and Non-Proliferation Office (ASNO), with support from the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA), hosted this IAEA workshop which included 40 participants and presenters from 20 countries.  

ARPANSA’s Chief Executive Officer, Dr Gillian Hirth, said the workshop identified actions required to ensure a nation’s nuclear and radiological security regime is effective and sustainable.

‘As the Australian Government’s primary authority on radiation protection and nuclear safety, we support international efforts to coordinate nuclear safety and security,’ Dr Hirth said.

‘It was a pleasure to welcome participants to tour our laboratories and learn more about ARPANSA’s role in protecting people and the environment from the harmful effects of radiation.  

‘ARPANSA works closely with ASNO and the IAEA to promote national and international policies and practices that support nuclear and radiological security in our region and more broadly.’

ASNO Director General Dr Geoffrey Shaw said, strengthening nuclear security within Australia and the region is a core pillar of ASNO’s work. 

‘As the government agency responsible for implementing Australia’s nuclear and chemical non-proliferation treaty obligations, we work with multiple international partners to strengthen nuclear and radiological security culture in Australia, the Indo-Pacific region, and the globe.  And this has never been more important,’ Dr Shaw said. 

‘This week, alongside the IAEA, we were able to bring together people from 20 countries who graciously shared their diverse experiences and perspectives, current approaches, and strong commitment to nuclear security.  

'This means we are all in a better place to navigate the challenges and uncertainties that could impact nuclear security.  

'It means we are all better prepared for today and the future.’

The workshop is a key component of the IAEA nuclear security program, which supports global efforts for safe and responsible use of radiation. 

Australia will continue to work with the IAEA and its other member states to promote the safe use of radiation and align our activities and regulations with international best practice. 

30 April 2024

ARPANSA’s emergency management experts have coordinated Australia’s participation in an international nuclear emergency recovery exercise that concludes today.

Organised by the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) as part of its International Nuclear Exercise Series (INEX), the multi-module exercise focuses on the long-term recovery phase following a nuclear or radiological incident.

‘The recovery phase of nuclear or radiological emergency management involves both short and long-term actions to ensure impacted communities are supported and restored,’ said Dr Marcus Grzechnik, ARPANSA’s Director of Modelling, Assessment and Emergency Preparedness.

Using NEA guidelines to lead Australia’s involvement in the exercise, ARPANSA brought together over 20 agencies across all areas of government and emergency services to complete initial modules in Tasmania earlier this month. 

The Australian contingent joined participants from 26 countries to share knowledge and provide recommendations to improve nuclear emergency management worldwide. 

The exercise concludes today with the final modules held virtually. 

‘This exercise is unique as it focuses on the recovery phase of emergency management rather than immediate emergency response,’ said Dr Grzechnik.

'As communities have experienced from the aftermath of fire and flood emergencies, recovery can be long and complex.’

Long-term recovery challenges following a nuclear or radiological incident are generally associated with health and wellbeing impacts, food safety, remediation and decontamination, as well as radioactive waste management.

ARPANSA maintains specialised radiation monitoring and modelling capability to determine the extent of contamination and undertake the assessment of radiation impacts in the event of a nuclear or radiological incident.

‘The exercise has allowed Australia to both learn and share our emergency preparedness and recovery approaches to improve nuclear emergency management nationally and globally. We are particularly grateful to the state of Tasmania for hosting this exercise which also enabled the testing of cross-jurisdictional arrangements’, said Dr Grzechnik. 

To learn more about the NEA exercise, visit: https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_70595/inex-6 

To learn more about ARPANSA’s Emergency Preparedness and Response team, visit https://www.arpansa.gov.au/research/radiation-emergency-preparedness-and-response   
 

Review date

17 April 2024

Article publication date

March 2024

Summary

This systematic review evaluated the evidence on exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic energy (RF-EME) and male fertility both in-vivo and in-vitro. The review included studies on rats, mice, guineapigs, hamsters, rabbits (n=117 animal studies) and human sperm (n=10 studies). The studies employed a wide range of RF-EMF frequencies (800-2400 megahertz, MHz, the in-vitro studies;  100 MHz – 10 gigahertz, GHz,  for most of the animal studies). The specific absorption rate (SAR) exposure levels ranged from 0.00003 to 27.5 W/kg (for human studies); and 0.000012-184 W/kg (for animal studies). The review examined the included studies based on the GRADE approach which assesses the certainty of evidence. For human studies, a small detrimental effect of RF-EME exposure on sperm vitality (standardized mean differences (SMD) −1.37 (95 % confidence interval (CI) −2.46 to −0.28)), and no-effect on DNA/chromatin alterations (SMD −0.17 (95 % CI −0.48 to 0.13)) were reported. However, these results showed very low certainty of evidence. For the animal studies, a reduction in pregnancy rate (odds ratio (OR) 2.39 (95 % CI 1.52 to 3.74) and no-effect on litter size (SMD 0.04 (95 % CI −0.15 to 0.23)) were observed. These animal endpoints showed moderate certainty of evidence; whilst the other animal endpoints showed very low or low certainty of evidence. 

Link to

Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) exposure on male fertility: A systematic review of experimental studies on non-human mammals and human sperm in vitro

Published In

Environmental International 

ARPANSA commentary

The review concluded that no conclusions could be made on the effect of RF-EME on male human fertility based on the evidence. However, it is important to note that the RF EME exposure levels reported by the systematic review for a reduction in pregnancy rate, which is the only negative effects outcome with a moderate level of certainty in the evidence, had an average exposure across the studies of 23.87 W/kg. This average exposure  which is over 28,000 times the public limit for whole body average exposure set in the ARPANSA safety standard (RPS S-1) and theICNIRP RF guidelines. Further, the authors reported that 75-80% investigating human fertility exposed human sperm RF EME levels above the safety limits. There are a number of other limitations identified in the review including issues with blinding, experimental procedures not following the recommended guidelines, use of inappropriate exposure levels and sources of bias not being considered. 

The effect of RF-EME on fertility has been reviewed by ICNIRP in their 2020 guidelines and they concluded that RF-EME has no adverse effects on human fertility, reproduction, or development. Overall, there remains no consistent scientific evidence that exposure to RF EME below the limits set in ARPANSA safety standard or the ICNIRP RF guidelines are a hazard to human fertility.

Review date

April 2024

Article publication date

March 2024

Summary

This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the results of 41 human experimental studies on self-reported symptoms associated with  radiofrequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) exposure in the general population and people who self-identify as having idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to EMF (IEI-EMF), commonly referred to as electromagnetic hypersensitivity. The symptoms were grouped into headache, sleep disturbances and composite symptoms, and then further divided by exposure type (localised head or whole body) as well as by participant group, general population or IEI-EMF individuals. Results were reported as the standardised mean difference (SMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Evidence of a dose-response relationship and  data relating to RF-EMF exposure perception were also assessed.

For each of the health outcomes investigated, the SMD was very small, and the 95% confidence interval encompassed zero, indicating that there is no effect. For example: Headache for the general population was reported as SMD 0.08 (95% CI -0.07 to 0.22) from head exposure and SMD 0.09 (95% CI -0.35 to 0.54) from whole body exposure. For IEI-EMF individuals, headache was reported as SMD 0.16 (95% CI -0.38 to 0.06) for head exposure and SMD 0.11 (95% CI -0.29 to 0.52) for whole body exposure. The report did not find evidence of any dose-response relationship. Certainty of evidence assessments for each outcome were rated high to moderate except for sleeping disturbance from whole body exposure which was rated as low and composite symptoms from head exposure for both IEI-EMF individuals and the general population which was rated as very low. The main contributor to alterations in the certainty of evidence assessments were the risk of bias (ROB) classifications. The ROB assessments were performed according to OHAT guidelines and the most common sources of bias identified were from a lack of exposure randomisation and how the outcomes were assessed. Inconsistency and indirectness were secondary contributors to downgrades in the certainty of evidence.

The review further analysed data relating to EMF perception. The available evidence showed that study participants were not able to perceive RF-EMF exposure beyond what is expected by pure chance and that there was no difference in RF-EMF perception between IEI-EMF individuals and the general population. Interestingly, the authors noted that in open provocation studies, where the subjects are informed of their exposure, more symptoms are reported indicating that symptoms are associated with the perception of exposure and not the physiological reality. The authors further suggested that these results indicate that acute affects attributed to everyday RF-EMF are more likely to be a result of the nocebo effect.

Link to

The effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields exposure on human self-reported symptoms: A systematic review of human experimental studies

Published In

Environmental International 

ARPANSA commentary

This review provides high quality evidence on the acute effects of RF-EMF exposure on self-reported symptoms. The overall conclusion of the review showed that RF-EMF exposure to the head or whole body does not cause headache, sleep disturbances or composite symptoms. A WHO review assessing similar symptoms in human observational studies (Röösli, et al., 2024) that ARPANSA has previously summarised also showed similar results. The lack of any significant difference between results from the general population and IEI-EMF persons aligns with the assertion of ARPANSA and the World Health Organization (WHO) that exposure to the low levels of electromagnetic radiation experienced by the public is not the cause of symptoms experienced by IEI-EMF individuals. A limitation of the study is that it only examined acute effects from RF-EMF exposure, due to the nature of the human experimental studies. However, findings from human observational studies indicate similar results.

It should be noted that the RF-EMF exposure levels in the included studies are below the exposure limits for the general public given in the ARPANSA safety standard and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines. The conclusions of this review therefore further reiterate the assessment of ARPANSA that exposure to RF-EMF fields at levels below those prescribed in the standard does not cause adverse health effects. This review is part of the World Health Organisation’s ongoing project assessing the health effects of RF-EMF (SR8 – Symptoms (human experimental studies)). ARPANSA is supporting this WHO review process. 

16 April 2024

Environmental exposure to radio waves from wireless technology has not changed significantly in Melbourne over the last decade, a study led by scientists at the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) finds.  

ARPANSA science officer and lead author, Dr Chhavi Bhatt, says the study was the first of its kind in Australia. 

‘We placed a radio wave dosimeter in a bag which we wore around our waist to collect radio wave exposure measurements as we walked around the city,’ Dr Bhatt said.  

‘The measurements we collect through body-worn detectors help us understand what a person’s exposure is as they go about their day. 

‘We collected measurements in 2015, and then retraced our steps at the same 18 walking paths in 2022 to assess if personal exposure had changed,’ he said.   

Environmental exposure remained well below 1% of the safety limits in the ARPANSA radio wave exposure standard with median exposure 0.19% of the limit in 2015 and 0.24% in 2022. 

In the period between the baseline and the follow-up data collection, Australia’s Bureau of Statistics recorded an increase in Melbourne’s population of about 500,000 people. There was also growth in telecommunications services with the introduction of the 5G network and expansion of the 4G network.   

ARPANSA’s electromagnetic radiation exposure assessment assistant director and study co-author, Dr Stuart Henderson, says that the public’s exposure to radio waves has been shown to be well below the safety limit in a range of studies.  

‘We receive some calls through our Talk to a Scientist service from people who are concerned about radio wave exposure,’ Dr Henderson said. 

‘What this study shows the community is that even with more devices, transferring more data, exposures have not changed much over time. 

'While this study was conducted in Melbourne, we expect the results to be similar in other major Australian capital cities. 

‘As Australia’s primary authority on radiation protection, ARPANSA will continue to study radio wave exposure from wireless technologies to evaluate exposure and protect the community,’ Dr Henderson said. 

ARPANSA has published a range of radiation exposure surveys and studies on its website: https://www.arpansa.gov.au/research-and-expertise/surveys  

The full study can be accessed here: Micro-environmental personal radio-frequency electromagnetic field exposures in Melbourne: A longitudinal trend analysis. 

4 April 2024

Evidence that blue light from devices like mobile phones causes sleep disturbance is still unclear, with more research needed says the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). 

Experts from the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) contributed to ICNIRP’s latest statement on short wave light exposure from indoor artificial sources and its effect on human health.  

Short wave light, which is also called blue light, is from the visible light part of the electromagnetic energy spectrum and it is detectable by the eye.  

ARPANSA’s Radiation Research and Advice Director, Associate Professor Sarah Loughran, is a sleep expert.  

She says the worrying trend of increased screen time at the cost of essential behaviours such as sleep should not be ignored.  

‘Delaying sleep onset by being on your phone and engaging in activities on screens that might keep you awake will affect alertness and sleepiness,’ A/Prof Loughran says.   

‘What is less clear is whether blue light from mobile devices is affecting sleep, so until we know more, ARPANSA recommends putting your phone away when you should be sleeping.’ 

In the past couple of decades, the use of mobile devices such as smart phones, laptops and tablets has increased exponentially resulting in more light entering our pupils at night, which is a time when our bodies want to rest. 

More than 1.6 billion computers, TVs and mobile phones are sold globally each year, which indicates a large proportion of the global population is spending time in front of artificial light-emitting devices. 

ARPANSA’s Health Impact Assessment Assistant Director, Associate Professor Ken Karipidis, is the ICNIRP Vice-Chair elect. He says it's important to know more about the impact of artificial light exposure on sleep as poor sleep negatively affects health.  

‘ICNIRP’s latest statement shows that there is conflicting evidence on whether short wave light exposure affects sleep quality and alertness – some studies show an affect, while others don’t,’ A/Prof Karipidis said.  

‘We need more research before we can determine what exposure guidelines may be necessary to protect people from blue light exposure.’  

‘Among other things, ICNIRP’s statement has suggested that the measurement of light exposure needs to improve in future studies to understand its effect on human health.’   

As Australia’s primary radiation protection authority, ARPANSA works with leading international health authorities like ICNIRP to develop evidence-based guidelines and statements that protect people and the environment from radiation.  

While there is not a clear scientific consensus on the possible impacts of blue light, there are known benefits to sleep hygiene from reducing on-screen distractions.

‘Whether it’s blue light, streaming a gripping drama or receiving constant social media notifications that's keeping you up at night, reducing your screen time before bed may help you get a good night’s sleep,’ said A/Prof Loughran.  

Review date

March 2024

Article publication date

February 2024

Summary

The study analysed historic incidence and mortality data related to cutaneous malignant melanoma between 1980 and 2020. Data analysis was performed for each eligible country and was further divided by gender and age group, one age group between 20-44 years and another age group between 45-64 years. 

Globally, from the 2005-2009 period to the 2015-2019 period it was found that mortality has generally declined in both age groups except for a few countries that displayed an increase in mortality rates. Global incidence was either static or trending upwards. The authors primarily attribute recent notable declines in mortality to advances made in melanoma treatments since approximately 2010. 

Incidence in Australia was found to be declining in the 20-44 age bracket and stable in the 45-64 age bracket. The comparatively promising incidence trends in Australia were attributed to prevention programs, effective control of UV exposure and an increased use in high-quality sunscreens. It was further shown that the mortality rate in Australia has declined by 41.7% among men and 47.9% among women in the 20-44 age bracket and in the 45-64 age bracket the mortality rate has also declined by 22.9% among men and 25.5% among women.

The study also identifies a gender difference, with women globally recording higher incidence rates but lower mortality rates than their male counterparts. The authors suggested greater health care awareness in female patients as a potential reason. The unreliable distinction between melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer on death certificates in most countries was highlighted as a source of bias for older populations.

Published in

Melanoma Research

Link to

Global trends in cutaneous malignant melanoma incidence and mortality

ARPANSA commentary

This study collated data on melanoma incidence and mortality rates in a variety of countries and highlighted a recent downward trend in melanoma mortality rates in many countries including Australia. This downward mortality trend is also seen in data provided by the Cancer Council. While the study details favourable trends for Australia, including a falling incidence rate where many other countries are reporting a rising incidence rate, it should be noted that the actual values of melanoma incidence and mortality rates in Australia remain some of the highest in the world, exceeding the rates found in some other countries by multiple times. 

Skin cancers, including melanoma, are one of the largest public health concerns in Australia with two-thirds of Australians receiving a skin cancer diagnosis of some type in their lifetime. For melanoma specifically, it is estimated that 1 in 21 Australian women and 1 in 14 Australian men will be diagnosed with melanoma by the time they reach the age of 85 (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2023). The largest risk factor for melanoma is overexposure to ultraviolet radiation (UVR) from the sun, with as many as 95% of all melanomas being attributed to UVR overexposure (Whiteman et al. 2015,  Armstrong & Kricker 1993).

ARPANSA recommends following the five sun protection principles when the UV-index is over three. ARPANSA administers and maintains UVR monitoring stations across Australia that can be used to see the UVR index in real time across Australia and make informed decisions about sun protection. More information about the risks of sun exposure and methods of sun protection can be found from: The World Health Organization, The Cancer Council of Australia and SunSmart websites.

Review date

March 2024

Article publication date

March 2024

Summary

This prospective cohort study on Mobile Phones and Health (COSMOS), examined association between long-term mobile phone use and risk of brain tumours. The study recruited 264,574 adult participants in Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK during 2007–2012. Data on brain tumour (glioma, meningioma or acoustic neuroma) occurrence in the participants was obtained through cohort linkage to respective national cancer registries. Data on the participants’ mobile phone use (number of years since start of regular mobile phone use or cumulative hours of mobile phone call-time) were collected from the participants at baseline (i.e., at the beginning of the study). A total of 149 participants were diagnosed with glioma, 89 with meningioma, and 29 with acoustic neuroma during follow-up (median follow-up of 7.1 years). The risk estimate per 100 cumulative hours of mobile phone call-time was 1.00 (95% CI: 0.98–1.02) for glioma, 1.01 (95% CI: 0.96–1.06) for meningioma, and 1.02 (95% CI: 0.99–1.06) for acoustic neuroma. Over 15 years of mobile phone use was not associated with an increased tumour risk. These results showed that the cumulative amount of mobile phone use is not associated with the risk of developing glioma, meningioma, or acoustic neuroma.

Published in

Environmental International

Link to

Mobile phone use and brain tumour risk – COSMOS, a prospective cohort study

ARPANSA commentary

The conclusion of the study demonstrate that long-term mobile phone use is not associated with the risk of developing glioma, meningioma, or acoustic neuroma. The overall conclusion of this study is consistent with the findings of previous prospective cohort studies (Schuz et al., 2022; Schuz et al., 2011; Frei et al., 2011), the Interphone case-control study  (Interphone Study Group, 2010), a recent review by the US Food and Drug Administration on RF-EMF and Cancer, and studies investigating trends in brain tumour incidence rates over time (Elwood et al., 2022; Deltour et al., 2022), including an Australia study (Karipidis et al., 2018). 

The current study has a major strength over previous studies that it is the largest multinational prospective cohort study. The study adopted a robust approach for collecting detailed data on the participants’ mobile phone usage to overcome the limitation of recall bias, exposure measurement error and exposure misclassification to a large extent, which otherwise would have biased the risk estimates. Notable limitations of the study include the collection of mobile phone use data only at baseline, and inclusion of relatively small numbers of meningioma and acoustic neuroma cases, which limits the statistical power of the study.

Based on the current scientific evidence, and consistent with the findings of this study, it is the assessment of ARPANSA that there is no substantiated evidence that mobile phone use (resulting in RF-EMF exposures at levels below the limits set in the ARPANSA Safety Standard) cause any adverse health effects, including brain tumours in humans populations. The World Health Organization is currently assessing available evidence on potential human health effects (including brain tumours) of radiofrequency electromagnetic field (RF EMF) exposure, including that associated with mobile phone use. The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) is supporting this process.

Review date

March 2024

Article publication date

11 January 2024

Summary

This prospective cohort study examined the association between primary central nervous system (CNS) tumours and chronic external occupational exposure to gamma radiation. The study included 22,377 workers from Mayak Production Association that had been hired to work at a facility with reactors, radiochemical production or plutonium production plants between 1948 and 1982. Radiation exposure was estimated based on ‘Mayak Worker Dosimetry System—2013’ (MWDS 2013). A total of 43 workers who were acutely exposed to radiation and developed acute radiation syndrome as well as 717 workers with missing medical records were excluded from the analysis. The authors examined the excess relative risk of all CNS, glioma and meningioma per Gray (Gy) of external gamma dose. They reported ERR per 1 Gy of external gamma brain dose was 0.05 (95% confidence interval (CI) −0.30 to 0.70) for all CNS tumours, −0.18 (95% CI 0 to 0.44) for gliomas, and 0.38 (95% CI −0.32 to 2.08) for meningiomas. The study concluded no statistically significant association between ionising radiation (IR) exposure and incidence of any CNS cancer type among the workers.  

Published in

Radiation and Environmental Biophysics 

Link to

Risk of central nervous system tumour incidence in a cohort of workers chronically exposed to ionising radiation

ARPANSA commentary

The study found no association between low chronic external exposure to gamma radiation and CNS cancers. This is similar to a study by Kitahara et al (2017), which showed absence of association  between low to moderate cumulative occupational radiation exposure and CNS cancers in radiation technologists (ERR per 100 mGy: 0.1; 95% CI: −0.30 to 1.50). Another study (Boice et al 2022) of medical radiation workers in the United States also found no significant association between cumulative absorbed doses of radiation ( 18.9 mGy - 1.08 Gy) and brain cancers (ERR at 100 mGy = 0.20; 95% CI: − 0.30 to 0.71). The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) states that at low levels (less than 0.1 Gray) IR exposure, the possible increased risk of cancer is uncertain. However, it remains important to track doses of occupational radiation in workplaces as the doses of 100-1000 millisieverts can increase the risk of cancer. 

ARPANSA publishes a series of evidence-based documents to guide Australian radiation protection principles and practices for radiation workers and the general public. For example,The Code for Radiation Protection in Planned Exposure Situations (2020)established a framework in Australia for the protection of occupationally exposed persons, the public and the environment in planned IR exposure situations. A planned exposure situation, is an exposure arising from the planned operation of a radiation source or facility that causes exposure to a radiation source is called a ‘planned exposure’ and in these planned exposure situations, some level of exposure can be expected to occur. The guideline applies the three main principles of radiation protection for planned exposure situations: i) justification (that any activity involving IR exposure should do more good than harm), ii) optimisation (that actual IR exposure, likelihood of exposures and number of exposed persons should be as low as reasonably achievable taking into account economic and societal factors), and iii) dose limits (levels of radiation dose that must not, under normal circumstances, be exceeded). ARPANSA will continue to update the latest science on human radiation protection, including cancer risk associated with IR exposure, in order to protect Australian general public and occupational populations.