Radiation literature survey

Article publication date

May 2025

ARPANSA review date

October 2025

Summary

This Australian human experimental study examined if radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF EMF) misinformation could impact the release of the stress hormone cortisol and electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) symptoms. The study included 144 participants who were randomly assigned to watch either an alarmist video about the harm of RF EMF or an unrelated control video before being either exposed or not exposed to RF EMF in an open label trial. The study tested for participants’ reported non-specific symptoms of exposure, salivary cortisol levels and their belief that RF EMF exposure could cause harm before and after watching the alarmist video. The study found that watching an alarmist video did not increase the rate that participants experience symptoms or increase cortisol levels. The authors concluded that awareness and belief of exposure play a more important role in symptom perception than a physiological release of a stress hormone. 

Published in

Health and wellbeing 

Link to study

What is the effect of alarmist media and radiofrequency electromagnetic field (RF‐EMF) exposure on salivary cortisol and non‐specific symptoms? - PMC

Commentary by ARPANSA

The results are consistent with previous studies reporting that knowledge or awareness of being exposed to RF‐EMF increases symptoms (Eltiti et al 2007, Verrender et al, 2018).. Furthermore, studies have shown that people who report to have EHS cannot detect the presence of RF EMF better than those who don’t report to have EHS (Van Moorselar et al. 2016; Verrender et al. 2018). 

One limitation of the study is that the anticipation of the RF EMF exposure, or an increased stress level from being in a new environment, may have already increased the participants cortisol levels (Barthel et al 2025). A habituation period and retesting of the cortisol levels are not mentioned within the study protocol. If cortisol levels remained high throughout the testing period, this may have prevented the testing from being able to show an impact of the alarmist video on cortisol (Nejtek 2002, Barthel et al 2025). 

A recent World Health Organization commissioned systematic review (Bosch-Capblanch  et al., 2024) concluded that EHS symptoms self-attributed to everyday RF-EMF are more likely to be a result of the nocebo effect. The systematic review also aligns with the advice by ARPANSA and the World Health Organization (WHO) that exposure to the low levels of RF EMF experienced by the public is not the cause of non-specific symptoms experienced by some individuals. 

Article publication date

August 2025

ARPANSA review date

September 2025

Summary

This experimental cell (in vitro) study evaluated the effect of exposure to 5G radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) on oxidative stress and DNA repair in human skin cells. Cells were either given no exposure (i.e., sham exposed) or exposed at 3.5 GHz frequency to specific absorption rate levels of 0.08 W/kg and 4 W/kg; a constant temperature of 37 °C at tissue sample level was maintained throughout the exposure. Oxidate stress on the cells was evaluated by assessing production of reactive oxygen species (ROS) following 24 hours exposure; adaptive response and DNA damage repair efficiency of the exposed cells were evaluated after the cells were exposed for 20 hours and up to 48 hours, respectively. The findings of the study showed no significant effect of 5G RF-EMF exposure, either alone or in combination with a ‘positive control’ (e.g., arsenic trioxide ROS inducer). Further, the RF-EMF exposure neither induced an adaptive response to oxidative stress or impaired DNA repair efficiency of the exposed cells. The study concluded that 5G RF-EMF exposure at a constant temperature (37 °C) does not affect oxidative stress levels, trigger an adaptive response, or interfere with DNA repair processes in human skin cells.

Published in

Scientific Reports 

Link to study

Impact of in vitro exposure to 5G-modulated 3.5 GHz fields on oxidative stress and DNA repair in skin cells | Scientific Reports

Commentary by ARPANSA 

The study findings indicate that 5G RF-EMF exposure well above prescribed whole body general public limits (e.g., in the ARPANSA safety standard) of 0.08 or 4 W/kg does not result in oxidative stress, trigger adaptive response, or impair DNA repair efficiency in human skin cells. These findings are consistent to the recent conclusions of the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority and WHO commissioned review  (systematic review). They reported  statistically non-significant results for most of the outcomes; though some showed significant effects. Nevertheless, for all outcomes irrespective of whether or not they reported an effect, the studies were rated as very low certainty of evidence.  The review also highlighted the need for future quality studies to support evidence-based emerging RF-EMF health risk assessments. Overall, ARPANSA views that there is no substantiated scientific evidence that RF-EMF exposure (including from 5G at 3.5 GHz) below the limits set in the ARPANSA safety standard, which is aligned with the international best practice ICNIRP guidelines, poses a  health risk to human populations. 

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. 

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. 

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).

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. 

Article publication date

13 May 2025

ARPANSA review date

25 July 2025

Summary

This systematic review examined the scientific body of evidence for the effect of extremely low frequency electric and magnetic fields (ELF-EMF) exposure on carcinogenesis and co-carcinogenesis in laboratory animals. The review included 13 studies on carcinogenesis and 41 studies on co-carcinogenesis. The review did not conduct a quantitative synthesis of evidence due to large differences in experimental design between studies. Instead, the review provided a narrative overview of the included literature. Included studies were also assessed for their risk of bias (RoB) according to OHAT.

The review found that there is broadly no evidence for a carcinogenic effect from ELF-EMF exposure alone. Results from co-carcinogenesis studies were varied with some reporting statistically significant effects and others reporting none, however, the authors assess that the total weight of evidence is inadequate to make definitive conclusions. It was noted that most studies reporting statistically significant effects utilised exposure magnitudes within the range of 100 to 999 µT. Forty of the included studies were evaluated to be at low RoB and it was noted that studies with higher RoB were more likely to report statistically significant effects. Clear indications of publication bias were also found in the review. 

Published in

Environmental Research

Link to study

Carcinogenicity of extremely low-frequency magnetic fields: A systematic review of animal studies 

ARPANSA commentary

This review considered cancer endpoints in laboratory animals resulting from ELF-EMF exposure. While the review did not pursue a meta-analysis and thus lacks quantitative results, it does collate a large amount of evidence and provide descriptive statistics which can be used to generate hypotheses. The major shortcoming of this approach is that the review has a notable focus on effect versus no-effect, which has no consideration for effect size or study precision. It is especially important to acknowledge this limitation given that the authors found clear evidence of publication bias among the included studies. This type of bias can have a large impact in binary evidence synthesis methods where statistical significance is the key differentiator between two groups as publication bias can result in an over-representation of statistically significant results in the literature (Thornton, A. & Lee, P., 2000).

The overall conclusion of the review is consistent with the World Health Organization’s assessment of in vivo studies (WHO, 2007) as well as prior reviews (McCann et al., 2000). 

ELF-EMF exposure in the general environment arises primarily from electrical supply infrastructure like powerlines, substations, home electrical appliances and wiring. However, it should be noted that the levels encountered in the environment are far below the levels used in most of the studies included by the review and far below the range specified in the review where included studies reported the highest proportion of co-carcinogenic effects. ARPANSA has measured ELF-EMF exposures present in Australian homes and in close proximity to powerlines and substations (Karipidis, K. 2015; Urban, D. et al., 2014). The exposures measured are all far below the international guideline values described by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. ARPANSA continues to monitor and review scientific literature related to ELF-EMF exposure and various health endpoints, including cancer. For more information see the ARPANSA factsheet Electricity and Health. 

Article publication date

May 2025

ARPANSA review date

June 2025

Summary

This article provides experts’ critical perspectives on the scientific evidence on electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) being caused by exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF). Self-reported prevalence of EHS in populations varies between countries, for example, 1.5% (Hillert et al., 2002) - up to 3.2% (Hagström et al., 2012) during 1997-2007 in Sweden; 2.0%-3.5% during 1994-2008 in Austria (Schröttne et al., 2008); 13% (2007) and 4% (2012) in Taiwan (Meg Tseng et al., 2011). Further, EHS tends to be a relatively transient self-reported condition, and no specific symptom clusters related to EMF exposure sources have been identified. A recent World Health Organization commissioned  systematic review (Bosch-Capblanch  et al., 2024) concluded that people suffering from IEI-EMF cannot identify exposures better than by chance under blinded conditions nor were their reported symptoms different from control populations, or from the general population. Therefore, there is no robust scientific evidence to support EMF as the causal agent for EHS, although the condition may be experienced by some people. Randomized provocation trials are considered as the most appropriate research method to investigate a possible association between EMF exposure and EHS; however, these studies have notable limitations. They typically only capture short-term effects on self-perceived health, and their finding may be diluted or masked due the inclusion of participants who are either not genuinely affected by EHS or experience symptoms to a lesser degree. Additionally, many studies rely on a single exposure condition in terms of frequency and intensity, and no objective biomarkers have been identified to support a link between EMF exposure below regulatory limits and EHS. In view of this, the authors suggest that future studies should either consider single-case repeated design or observational studies relying on long-term EMF exposure focussing on the whole population rather than on self-perceived EHS population.

Published in

Frontiers in Public Health

Link to study

Electrohypersensitivity: what is belief and what is known?

ARPANSA commentary

The article provides a state-of-the art viewpoint on self-reported EHS associated to EMF exposure. The conclusions drawn in the article are consistent with the findings of the recent WHO systematic review and two Australian experimental studies (Verrender et al., 2018a; 2018b), which indicated no relationship between EMF exposure and EHS. Properly conducted scientific studies have consistently demonstrated that the belief of being exposed to EMF (rather than EMF exposure itself) contributes to triggering symptoms in healthy people. The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) provides evidence-based public health messages in relation to EMF exposure and health, including EHS. Based on current scientific evidence, EHS is not caused by EMF exposure at levels below the ARPANSA safety standard. Nevertheless, ARPANSA acknowledges that the health symptoms experienced by the affected individuals are real and can be a disabling problem and advise those affected to seek medical advice from a qualified medical specialist.

Article publication date

May 2025

ARPANSA review date

27 May 2025

Summary

This study measured trend of radiofrequency-electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) exposures associated with 5G mobile networks (i.e., 3.6 GHz frequency band) across Greece's five largest cities. A continuous monitoring of RF-EMF exposure from mobile networks with frequencies of 800 MHz, 900 MHz, 1800 MHz, 2100 MHz, 2600 MHz and 3.5 GHz (5G) was conducted over the period of two years (August 2022–October 2024). The trend of exposure over the period was assessed based on median and maximum exposure as well as the ratio of weekly maximum-to-median exposure. The study found that median and maximum 5G RF-EMF exposure recorded were 0.17 volts per metre (V/m) and 4.48 V/m, respectively, which corresponded to 0.3% and 7.3% of the safety limits set by the International Commission on non‐Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), respectively. The median exposure for the 5G frequencies remained the lowest among all mobile phone networks. However, the maximum exposure and the weekly maximum-to-median exposure ratio for the 5G frequency were the highest compared to all other measured mobile phone frequencies. 

Published in

Bioelectromagnetics

Link to study

5G EMF Exposure at 3.6 GHz in Greece Using Data From Frequency-Selective Monitoring Sensors

ARPANSA commentary

This study provides some important data on long-term term trend of RF-EMF exposure related to 3.5 GHz 5G network and compares it with the other mobile network frequency in Greece. The exposure levels (median and maximum) reported in the study are well within the limits recommended by the International Commission on non‐Ionizing Radiation Protection guidelines (ICNIRP, 2020). A larger variation in RF-EMF exposure (e.g., maximum compared to median) for 5G frequency band can be attributed to its network characteristics such as, beamforming, beam‐steering, network traffic variation as well as wider bandwidth. The strength of the study is that it investigated relatively long-term trend of RF-EMF exposure for the 5G network utilising the data collected from different cities in Greece. Comparison of the findings from this study with those from other studies study (Bhatt et al., 2024; Loizeau et al., 2022), including an Australian indicated that 5G RF-EMF exposures are comparable to other mobile network exposures (3G or 4G) and remain far below the ICNIRP general public safety limits. 
 

In Australia, RF-EMF exposure levels from radio antennas are below the safety limits set by Australian Safety Standard (RPS-S1) developed by ARPANSA and in line with the 2020 ICNIRP guidelines. It is the assessment of ARPANSA that mobile phone network related RF-EMF exposures, including from the 5G network in Australia, remain very low (Bhatt et al., 2024; Henderson et al., 2023) and therefore pose no health risk for populations. 
 

Article publication date

May 2025

ARPANSA review date

May 2025

Summary

This ecological study investigated trends in brain cancer incidence to evaluate the potential impact of increased mobile phone use in Spain since the early 2000s. It analysed brain cancer incidence data from 12 Spanish cancer registries, covering the period from 1985 to 2015. The analysis was stratified by age group, with separate evaluations for adults (aged 15 years and older) and children (aged 0 to 14 years). The dataset included 20,325 adult and 2,372 childhood brain cancer cases. Among adults, there was a slight annual increase in incidence of 1.7% until 1996, followed by a non-statistically significant decline of 0.1% per year up to 2015. In children, incidence rose by 7.6% annually until 1991, then declined by 1.0% per year through to 2015. The authors suggested that the increases observed in the 1980s and early 1990s could be attributed to improvements in diagnostic practices, particularly the adoption of advanced imaging techniques during that period. Overall, the study reported that the brain cancer incidence data in both adults and children does not support an association between mobile phone use and brain cancer. 

Published in

Clinical and Translational Oncology

Link to study

Trends in the incidence of brain cancer and the use of mobile phones: analysis of the Spanish Network of Cancer Registries (REDECAN) - PubMed

Commentary by ARPANSA

The study reported no increase in the incidence of brain cancer in Spain during the 2000s, a period marked by rapid growth in mobile phone use in the country. While ecological studies are limited in their ability to establish causal relationships between risk factors and disease, they are valuable for quickly testing hypotheses using existing datasets.

One major limitation of this study is that it does not provide specific data on mobile phone subscription rates in Spain. Moreover, the mobile phone data referenced from the Spanish Ministry of Economic Affairs and Digital Transformation only dates back to the 2000s, limiting the ability to assess long-term trends. Despite this limitation,the conclusions are also consistent with similar studies that investigated trends in brain tumour incidence rates over time (Elwood et al, 2022; Deltour et al, 2022), including an Australia study (Karipidis et al., 2018) that have consistently found no increase in the rates of brain tumours related to an increase in mobile phone use. The conclusions are also in alignment with epidemiological evidence from a recent systematic review showing no association between radiofrequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) exposure from mobile phones and brain cancer (Karipidis et al., 2024).

The conclusions are in line with ARPANSA’s assessment, that at exposure levels below those prescribed in the Australian radiofrequency standard RPS-S1,  there is no substantiated evidence of an association between RF-EMF and brain cancer or any other health effect.