Radiation literature survey

Review date

17 January 2024

Article publication date

8 January 2024

Summary

This review compares the guidelines and restrictions set by various international, national and regional bodies for exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF). A total of 10 RF-EMF guideline documents are reviewed. The comparison shows very similar guidance provided by each of the peak international bodies: the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation (ICNIRP) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). Minor differences are found between these guidelines and those set by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) at particular frequencies due to differences in the assessment of RF-EMF absorption within the human body.

Further examination of guideline documents showed that ICNIRP’s limits have been adopted by a majority of countries. The authors address the more conservative limits (1-2 orders of magnitude lower than ICNIRP) adopted by a subset of countries as well as some proposed extreme limits (6 orders of magnitude lower than ICNIRP). As a part of their evaluation, the authors assert that these lower limits, particularly the extreme limits, do not have a scientific basis. Conversely, USA and Japan are identified as the only two countries with less restrictive limits than elsewhere in the world as they take their guidance from the FCC.

The authors also contextualise the limits by comparing them to measurements of RF-EMF exposure in the environment that members of the public may be exposed to from sources such as mobile telephony and Wi-Fi. This comparison demonstrates that the average RF-EMF exposure in the environment is far below the limits set by ICNIRP and is also below the more conservative limits set by other countries and bodies.

Link to

Personal exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields: A comparative analysis of international, national, and regional guidelines

Published in

Environmental Research 

ARPANSA commentary

This review clearly presents the similarities and differences between RF-EMF exposure limits set by different countries and how they compare to guidance from international bodies, similar to a 2018 report that ARPANSA has previously summarised. The report highlights that the exposure to RF-EMF experienced by the public, including by people in Australia, remains well below the limits set by safety standards. The review’s criticisms of the more conservative limits set by some countries echoes criticisms presented in similar reviews in the past (Madjar, 2016).  

In Australia, exposure to RF-EMF is limited by the ARPANSA Safety Standard which details exposure limits for the general public and for occupationally exposed people. The ARPANSA Safety Standard is congruent with the limits set by ICNIRP and with those adopted by most countries worldwide. The standard is designed to protect people of all ages and health statuses against all known adverse health effects from exposure to RF-EMF. The standard is based on current scientific research that shows the levels at which harmful effects occur and it sets limits well below these harmful levels.

Review date

December 2023

Article publication date

October 2023

Summary

This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the association between electromagnetic fields (EMF) and miscarriage or spontaneous abortion. This report included six epidemiological studies (3 case-control, 1 nested case-control and 2 cohort studies) to synthesise the evidence on the topic. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the authors reported that all included studies were of high quality. The included studies assessed both radiofrequency (RF) EMF and extremely low frequency (ELF) EMF exposure sources as a result of mobile phone use, home ELF-EMF levels, home RF-EMF levels and electricity power lines. The study reported that both EMF  exposure was significantly associated with miscarriage with a risk ratio of 1.70 (95% confidence interval: 1.12 - 2.36).

Link to:

Electromagnetic Field Exposure and Abortion in Pregnant Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Published in

Malays J Med Sci

ARPANSA commentary

Although the results from this study indicated a potential risk of miscarriage associated with EMF exposure, they are difficult to interpret and rely on due to methodological issues in the review and the limited epidemiological evidence available. First, the authors amalgamated all different types of exposure sources (i.e., ELF EMF and RF EMF). A meta-analysis is meant to be uniform in how it examines exposure and this deviation from standard scientific practice reduces the evidence value of the study overall and prevents any real conclusions from being drawn (Wong and Raabe 1996). The authors also reported a high heterogeneity of 84.55% which indicates that the included studies were all quite different. A heterogeneity this high means the overall outcome of the study could be due to random chance (Imrey, 2020).

There is also an issue with how the author assessed the quality of a study. The authors seem to have assessed the studies overall and not by assessed outcome. This could have affected the results of the review and contributed to an incorrect assessment of the level of bias. An example of this is the included study by Lee et al (2002) that reported the highest risk ratio. The study had a 50% loss to follow-up for the outcome used by this review, however, the authors still rated this part as being unlikely to introduce bias. This is incorrect and a 50% loss rate would result in selection bias. This is even stated in the study by Lee et al (2002).

The authors only assessed one outcome from each of the included studies and made no justification on how individual outcomes were selected. This could indicate that they cherry picked the results of the included studies to get the result they wanted.  

Overall, there remains limited evidence on the potential effect of miscarriage due to EMF exposure. The Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) in 2015 assessed potential health effect of EMF exposures to humans and concluded that the available evidence does not show any effect of EMF on the reproductive function in humans. A recent systematic review on animals conducted by the World Health Organization (WHO) also found that RF EMF exposure does not have a detrimental effect on fecundity of animals (Cordelli et al 2023).

Review date

November 2023

Article publication date

October 2023

Summary

This study presents the World Health Organization/International Labour Organization joint estimates of occupational exposures to ultraviolet radiation (UVR) globally and attributable non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) deaths and overall disease burden (i.e., disability-adjusted life year or DALYs) for the years 2000, 2010 and 2019. Occupational exposure to UVR was estimated using occupation as a proxy for outdoor work, involving 763 cross-sectional surveys from 96 countries/areas. Attributable NMSC burden was estimated by applying the population attributable fraction (PAFs) to WHO’s estimates of the total NMSC burden. The study reported that 1.6 billion workers (28.4 % of the working-age population) were occupationally exposed to UVR across the world in 2019. Globally, the PAFs were 29.0 % [95% uncertainty range  24.7–35.0)] for NMSC deaths, and 30.4 % (UR 29.0–31.7) for DALYs. Attributable NMSC burdens were 18,960 deaths (UR 18,180–19,740) and 0.5 million DALYs (UR 0.4–0.5). During 2000–2019, attributable deaths and DALYs almost doubled; and men and old age populations carried larger burden. The study also reports that Australia has one of the highest rates of NMSC burden and rate of death associated with occupational UVR exposure. The study concluded that UVR exposure is responsible for a considerable and growing attributable burden of NMSC; therefore, occupational outdoor UVR exposure is a significant hazard.

Link to

Global, regional and national burdens of non-melanoma skin cancer attributable to occupational exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation for 183 countries, 2000–2019: A systematic analysis from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury

Published in

Environment International - Volume 181

ARPANSA commentary

The (International Agency for Research on Cancer, IARC) classifies solar UVR as a Group 1 carcinogen (IARC, 1992). The global burden of occupational UVR exposure estimated by this study shows that occupational UVR exposure is the third largest attributable burden of cancer globally. Therefore, the estimations of NMSC deaths and DALYs associated with occupational UVR exposure are significant. A key limitation of this study is that UVR exposure estimations were done based on exposure assigned via occupation as a proxy that experts judged as always working outdoors rather than data gathered employing personal exposure measurements. This might have introduced some exposure misclassification bias, which results in under- or overestimation of the exposure and subsequent estimation of the burden/risk of disease. Notably, a recent WHO systematic review and meta-analysis (WHO, 2021) reported limited evidence for an association between occupational UVR exposure and skin cancer.

In Australia, skin cancer accounts for the largest number of cancers diagnosed each year (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2016). A study reports that 22% of workers are occupationally exposed to UVR (Carey et al., 2014) along with other known carcinogens. Therefore, the findings of this study highlight the need of adequate sun protection for outdoor workers internationally, including Australia. This is supported by both IARC and Australian national (e.g., Cancer Council Australia Sun safety | Cancer Council) recommendations for current sun protection. ARPANSA recommends that all people including workers should limit their UVR exposures, and a combination of sun protection measures (e.g., clothing and sunglasses, shade and sunscreen) should be used, wherever applicable. For more information see the ARPANSA factsheet, Sun exposure and health. 

Review date

November 2023

Article publication date

August 2023

Summary

This study compares ambient personal radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF EMF) measured across 19 Swiss cities in 2014 and 2021. Forty-nine outdoor areas (e.g., urban city centres, suburban and rural areas) were visited for undertaking RF-EMF measurements covering a range of broadcast and mobile telecommunication technologies (frequency range: 50 MHz to 6 GHz).  The RF-EMF mean exposure levels in 2014 and 2021 were estimated and compared. The results of the study show that RF-EMF levels in public places have not significantly changed between 2014 and 2021 despite an 18-fold increase in mobile data transmission during that period.

Link to

Comparison of ambient radiofrequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) levels in outdoor areas and public transport in Switzerland in 2014 and 2021

Published in

Environmental Research Volume 237

ARPANSA commentary

This study found that personal RF-EMF exposure levels measured in micro-environments during 2014-2021 remain well below international safety limits (e.g., the ICNIRP limits) and the exposure has not changed significantly over time. The exposure levels are comparable to those measured recently in Australia by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) (Henderson et al 2023). Further, the findings that overall exposure remained unchanged are consistent with those found elsewhere (Ramirez-Vazquez et al., 2023; Markussen et al., 2022; Iakovidis et al., 2022), but contrary to what was found by other studies (Eeftens et al., 2023; Urbinello et al., 2014). 

Within the framework of the Australian Government’s Electromagnetic Energy (EME) program, ARPANSA has been monitoring RF-EMF exposures in communities, including the change in RF-EMF exposure levels over the past few years. The findings (of Henderson et al 2023 and unpublished data) indicate that RF-EMF exposures in Australia remained far below the Australian public safety limits described in the safety standard which align with the ICNIRP limits. Further, overall RF-EMF exposure in Australia remained largely unchanged despite many-fold increase in mobile data traffic data between 2015-2022.

Review date

November 2023

Article publication date

October 2023

Summary

This study used data from the UK Biobank prospective cohort study to examine the effects of mobile phone use on cancer incidence. A total of 431,861 participants were included, of which 66,266 (35,401 men and 30,865 women) developed cancer after a median follow up time of 10.7 years. The study collected information on mobile phone use by self-administered questionnaires and classified the participants to be exposed if they used a mobile phone at least once per week to make a call. In males, an increase in overall cancer incidence in mobile phone users was found (hazard ratio (HR) 1.09; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06–1.12). The risk for specific cancers among males were: nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) (HR 1.08; 95%CI 1.03-1.14), urinary tract cancer (HR 1.18; 95%CI 1.05-1.32) and prostate cancer (HR 1.19; 95%CI: 1.13-1.25). In women, increased risk of overall cancers (HR 1.03; 95%CI 1.00-1.06) among mobile phone users was found. The risk for specific cancers among females were: NMSC (HR 1.07; 95%CI 1.01 1.13), and vulvar cancer (HR 1.74; 95%CI 1.00-3.02). The study also reported a linear dose-response relationship between length (years) of mobile phone use and incident of NMSC in men and women (p value =<0.05), and prostate cancer in men (p=<0.05). No association between mobile phone use and brain cancers (HR 1.01; 95% CI 0.80-1.27) was found. The authors concluded that potential association of mobile phone use with the risk of urinary tract cancer in men and vulva cancer in women needs to be further verified.

Link to

Mobile phone use and risks of overall and 25 site-specific cancers: a prospective study from the UK Biobank Study

Published in

National Library of Medicine

ARPANSA commentary

The study results indicating a slightly elevated risk of cancers among mobile phone users are not supported by other large cohort studies such as the Danish cohort study or the Million Women Study. The Danish cohort study, which investigated the entire Danish population, reported no increased risk for males or females for cancer overall, prostate cancer, bladder cancer or other skin cancers (Johansen et al 2001 and Schüz et al 2005). Skin cancers, particularly non-melanoma skin cancers have been specifically looked into by the Danish cohort study and no increased risk was found among mobile phone users (Poulsen et al 2013).The Million Women study also found no increased risk of cancer in female mobile phone users for cancer overall or bladder cancer (Benson et al 2013). Further, neither the Danish cohort study or the Million Women study reported any dose response relationship between mobile phone use and any cancer types.

Mobile phone use has not previously been identified as a risk factor for vulvar cancer by any study. Furthermore, vulvar cancer already has a well understood risk factor in human papillomavirus (HPV) infection (Bucchi et al 2022). The authors did not account HPV infection as a confounding factor when evaluating the association between mobile phone use and vulvar cancer. Therefore, these particular findings could be questionable.

The study did not have updated information on mobile phone use (i.e., after initial assessment when the participants started using a mobile phone). To overcome this, the study restricted the analysis to people less likely to change their mobile phone habits and it is not clear how the authors would have done this. Therefore, this approach itself may have introduced bias into their analysis and might have affected the results.

Overall, though the results of the study suggest little increase in cancer risk among mobile phone users, the findings are not supported-up by other cohort studies. Therefore, these results in isolation cannot be considered as establishing an association between mobile phone use and cancer. There remains no substantiated evidence of adverse health effects from exposure to RF-EMF  originating from mobile phones and other wireless devices, where the exposures are below the public exposure limits set in the ARPANSA Standard and the International Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection’s radiofrequency guidelines.

Review date

September 2023

Article publication date

August 2023

Summary

This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the current evidence on the association between radiofrequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) exposures during pregnancy and adverse reproductive health outcomes in offspring of experimental animals. Of total 88 papers included in the review, 65 were on rats, 20 in mice and 3 in other animals. The health outcomes were grouped into fecundity (i.e., litter size, embryonic/foetal losses), offspring health at birth (i.e., decrease of weight or length, congenital malformations, changes of sex ratio) and delayed effects on the offspring health (i.e., memory function, female infertility, etc.). The associations between RF-EMF exposure (i.e., whole body average Specific absorption rate, SAR)  and the health outcomes and their dose-response relationships were examined. The certainty of the evidence was also evaluated on the three levels of risk of bias (RoB): high, some or low concern.

For fecundity, a whole-body average SAR of 4.92 W/kg had no effect of exposure (means difference, MD 0.05; 95% Confidence Interval, CI - 0.21 to 0.30) on litter size. A whole-body average SAR of 20.26 W/kg, showed a significant increase of the resorbed or dead foetus in exposed animals (Odds ratio, OR 1.84; 95% CI 1.27 to 2.66).  Similar results were shown in the dose–response analysis. For offspring health at birth, a whole-body average SAR of 9.83 W/kg showed a small decrease in foetal weight among exposed animals standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.31; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.48). A whole-body average SAR of 4.55 W/kg showed a moderate decrease in foetal length at birth (SMD 0.45; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.83) in exposed animals. A whole-body average SAR of 6.75 W/kg showed a moderate increase in the proportion of foetuses with malformations (SMD - 0.45; 95% CI -0.68 to - 0.23) in exposed animals. A whole-body average SAR of 16.63 W/kg showed an increased incidence of litters with malformed foetuses (OR 3.22; 95% CI 1.9 to 5.46) in exposed animals. Similar results were shown in the dose–response analysis. For delayed effects, RF-EMF exposure was not associated with: i) detrimental effects on brain weight (SMD 0.10; 95% CI - 0.09 to 0.29, ii) learning and memory functions (SMD - 0.54; 95% CI - 1.24 to 0.17); and decrease in the size of litters conceived by the second generation female offspring (SMD 0.08; 95% CI - 0.39 to 0.55). However, the exposure was associated with a large detrimental effect on motor activity functions (SMD 0.79; 95% CI 0.21 to 1.38) and a moderate detrimental effect on motor and sensory functions (SMD - 0.66; 95% CI - 1.18 to - 0.14).

The study showed that RF-EMF exposure during pregnancy does not have an adverse effect on fecundity, likely affects offspring health at birth, probably does not affect offspring brain weight and may not decrease female offspring fertility; may have a detrimental impact on neurobehavioral functions. Most of the studies contributing to the pooled results, including reported significant associations, had either ‘high’ or ‘some’ RoB level.

Link to

Effects of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Field (RF-EMF) exposure on pregnancy and birth outcomes: A systematic review of experimental studies on non-human mammals

Published in

Environment International 

ARPANSA commentary

The review provides state-of-the art evidence on whether in utero RF-EMF exposure is related to adverse reproductive health outcomes in experimental animal offspring. Though some of the study findings show significant associations, the studies yielding those results have high or some RoB indicating limited certainty of the results. This is primarily due to poor quality of the studies in terms of their methodological limitations, including small sample size in experimental group, limited confidence in outcome assessment, lack of blinding, inadequate exposure characterisation and dosimetry, inadequate assessment of temperature rise and lack of randomisation. Similar limitations have been highlighted in an ARPANSA review (Karipidis et al., 2023) assessing impact of RF-EMF exposure in fauna and flora in the environment.

The review reported whole body average SAR levels in the included experiments, which are far above the human  safety  limits given in the Australia Standard (e.g., RPS-S1) and internationally (the ICNIRP limits) and are generally not encountered in general public environments (e.g. from telecommunications transmitters or wireless devices). Therefore, the findings of the review may have a limited relevance to current RF-EMF exposure risk assessment for humans. Based on the current scientific evidence, it is the assessment of ARPANSA that there is no substantiated evidence that RF-EMF exposures at levels below the limits set in the ARPANSA Safety Standard cause any adverse health effects, including adverse reproductive health effects, in human populations.

The review forms part of the World Health Organization’s ongoing project to assess potential health effects of RF-EMF in the general and working population and ARPANSA is supporting this process.

Review date

September 2023

Article publication date

16 August 2023

Summary

This report discusses the measurement of 5G communication signals outdoors in Bilbao, Spain. These measurements were taken at multiple locations and for multiple frequency bands. The measured values were compared to previous measurements from the previous year and to public safety limits. It was found that radiofrequency electromagnetic energy (RF-EME) levels had slightly increased when compared to the previous year, however they were greatly below international safety guidelines provided by the ICNIRP.

Link to

Measurements and analysis of 5G mobile communications signals in outdoor environments

Published in

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers 

ARPANSA commentary

This study found that 5G exposure levels in population-dense urban environments were well below public safety limits.

The finding that 5G measurements have remained well below safety limits is consistent with previous studies (Chountala et al., 2021, Celaya-Echarri et al., 2020) including a recent study conducted in Australia by ARPANSA (Henderson et al 2023). Limitations to this study include that only four locations were surveyed, and each were in relatively urban environments. Thus, whilst these measurements may be representative of exposures in population-dense cities, this may be less true for more rural environments.

Whilst there was a year-on-year increase found in RF-EME for frequencies in the 5G frequency range, this does not mean that RF-EME exposure is increasing overall. Other studies (Manassas et al., 2023) have indicated that RF-EME exposure is not continuously increasing but has increased and decreased at various points in time.

Australian public safety limits for RF-EME exposure, including 5G, are described in the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) safety standard. These limits are well below levels at which harm from RF-EME exposure may occur. These limits are in line with the international guidelines set by ICNIRP.

Review date

September 2023

Article publication date

August 2023

Summary

Australia has one of the highest incidences of melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancers worldwide. A major cause of skin cancers is excessive and unprotected exposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation, with effective sun protection behaviours making such cancers preventable. This cross-sectional study investigated changes in the sun protection behaviours of Western Australian adolescents and adults during the summers between 2015/16 and 2020/21. Over this six-year period, 1806 14-17 year olds and 1808 18-45 year olds were involved in a randomised phone survey that assessed their frequency of five sun protection behaviours – wearing protective clothing, applying sunscreen, wearing a hat, wearing sunglasses and seeking shade, as well as demographic factors such as their gender, skin type and area of residency. Sun avoidance by staying indoors was also assessed. Amongst the adolescent group, it was found that the use of hats and sunscreen remained relatively stable, seeking shade and sun avoidance increased, and wearing protective clothing and sunglasses decreased. All sun protection behaviours remained relatively stable over the six-year period in the adult group, except for wearing sunscreen, which increased. Overall, the sun protection behaviours of adults were found to be better than that of adolescents. It was noted that the findings of this study could assist in tailoring messages to shape future health promotions regarding sun exposure.

Link to

Patterns of Sun Protection Behaviours among Australian Adolescents and Adults over a Six-Year Period

Published in

Current Oncology

ARPANSA commentary

Australia experiences some of the highest levels of UV radiation in the world, with the UV index frequently reaching over 11 (extreme) in some parts of the country during the summer months. Consequently, more than two in three Australians will be diagnosed with skin cancer in their lifetime, many of which will be UV induced and preventable. Sun protection behaviours and actions are extremely important to reduce this exposure and decrease the incidence of UV induced skin cancers. Sun protection is strongly recommended when the UV index reaches 3 or higher. Real time UV index measurements that can be used to determine when sun protection is needed can be found on the ARPANSA Ultraviolet Radiation Index webpage.

Sun protection is particularly important for Australian children and adolescents. High sun exposure in the first decade of life more than doubles the risk of developing melanoma later in life. Similarly, intense, intermittent sun exposure (number of sunburns and sunbathing vacations) during each decade up to 29 years of age increases risk of melanoma by more than one-and-a-half times.

It is concerning that the study showed that the sun protection behaviours of adolescents decreased over the six-year period. Similar findings have been reported in studies completed by the Australian Cancer Council. Both studies also report that the percentages of adults and adolescents that engage in these behaviours are troublingly low. Ideally, 100% of Australians would partake in sun protection behaviours when outside and the UV index is 3 or above, but no single behaviour surpasses 61% in either study.

It is important that Australians, particularly children and adolescents, are aware of the dangers of UV exposure and are encouraged to partake in sun protection behaviours. The SunSmart Website provides advice on sun protection for families with teens. The results of this study indicate that more work needs to be done in increasing awareness and promoting sun protection behaviours. More information on UV protection can be found on the ARPANSA Sun Protection factsheet.

Review date

September 2023

Article publication date

August 2023

Summary

This multinational cohort study investigated the effect of long term low dose and low dose rate exposure to ionising radiation on cancer risk for workers included in an update to The International Nuclear Workers Study (INWORKS). INWORKS includes data from cohorts of nuclear workers with personal dosimeters in France, the UK, and the US. Overall, the study included 309 932 workers. The study found the excess relative risk  of mortality due to solid cancer with cumulative dose to be 0.52 (90% confidence interval 0.27 to 0.77) per gray (Gy). Smoking and asbestos exposure were investigated as confounders by excluding deaths from lung cancer and pleural cancer, and it was determined that they did not have a substantial effect. The results of this study show an increase in the relative rate of cancer mortality with increasing exposure to ionising radiation. The study notes that the estimated excess relative risk is even greater than estimates currently informing radiation protection.

Link to

Cancer mortality after low dose exposure to ionising radiation in workers in France, the United Kingdom, and the United States (INWORKS): cohort study

Published in

BMJ

ARPANSA commentary

The study reports evidence of an increase in the excess relative risk of solid cancer mortality with increasing cumulative exposure to ionising radiation at low dose rates. This is consistent with the current approach to radiation protection where a linear association between cumulative low dose ionising radiation and solid cancer is assumed, primarily informed by studies of atomic bombing survivor cohorts (WHO). The reported findings are also consistent with the majority of epidemiological studies investigating low dose exposure and cancer mortality (Rühm et al., 2022 and Hauptmann et al., 2020).

The INWORKS study does not have individual level data on some potentially important confounding factors, such as smoking and asbestos. The impact of these factors could only be indirectly assessed by excluding related cancers from the study. Lack of individual level data means the impact of these factors could not be measured empirically.

A cohort study (Sokolnikov et al., 2015) of workers employed at Mayak facilities for plutonium production, which has been influential in impacting estimates of excess relative risk in literature reviews due to its size and high magnitude doses, estimated an excess relative risk three to four times lower than the INWORKS study.

ARPANSA aims to ensure the highest standard of protection against the harmful effects of radiation to people and the environment, which is outlined in relevant Codes and Safety Guides. The requirements in Australia for the protection of both occupationally exposed people and members of the public for planned exposure situations are outlined in the Code for Radiation Protection in Planned Exposure Situations (2020), RPS C-1 (Rev.1). The annual exposure limits to ionising radiation, across all Australian jurisdictions, is 1 milliseiverts (mSv) for the public and 20 mSv for the occupationally exposed.

Review date

18 August 2023

Article publication date

July 2023

Summary

This ecological study evaluates the relationship between incidence and mortality trends of malignant brain tumours and  the number of mobile phone users in Taiwan. Data on brain tumour trends and mobile phone use (for the period of 2000–2019) were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Registry and the National Communications Commission, respectively. The study showed a large increase in mobile phone use over the period whilst the brain tumour and mortality rates have remained stable. The study did not show any significant association between the number of mobile phone users and brain tumour incidences and mortalities over 20 years.

Link to

Incidence and Mortality of Malignant Brain Tumors after 20 Years of Mobile Use

Published In

Cancers

ARPANSA commentary

Consistent to previous studies (Deltour et al., 2022, Elwood et al., 2022) including that conducted in Australia (Karipidis et al., 2018), this study indicates no association between increased number of mobile phone users and brain tumour incidence and/or mortality. Ecological studies despite having their benefits (e.g., low cost and useful in hypothesis generation), offer a limited level of evidence and suffer from the ecological fallacy.

The findings of this study are in line with a recent review conducted by the US Food and Drug Administration on RF-EMF and Cancer. The World Health Organization is currently assessing state-of-the-art evidence on potential human health effects (including brain tumours) of exposure to radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields (EMF) such as those associated with mobile phone use in human populations. 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 RF-EMF exposures at levels below the limits set in the ARPANSA Safety Standard cause any adverse health effects, including cancers in human populations.