Review date
June 2023
Article published date
May 2023
Summary
This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the association between ionising and different types of non-ionising radiation exposure and childhood health conditions. The meta-analysis included 14 epidemiological studies (4 cohort, 8 case-control, 2 cross-sectional). The meta-analysis found an increase in the risk of birth defects (odd ratios (OR) 1.34; 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.17–1.52), cancer (OR 1.14; 95% CI 1.05–1.23) and developmental disorders (OR 2.10; 95% CI 1.00–3.21) in children of parents exposed to ionising and non-ionising radiations compared to those who were not. The authors concluded that there is evidence of negative health outcomes in children from parental exposure to radiation, however, they suggested that due to the poor exposure assessment of the included studies and the inherent bias of case-control/cross-sectional studies their results should be interpreted with caution.
Link to
Published in
Open medicine
ARPANSA commentary
This meta-analysis conflated radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF EMF) , ultrasound, X-rays and extremely low frequency electric and magnetic (ELF EMF) fields together when it assessed childhood health effects. This goes against the expected formulation of how to conduct a meta-analysis and is not good science. This is because all these types of radiation can affect the body in different ways and should be assessed separately.
The authors did not include many studies that would have fit their inclusion criteria. Some key articles they missed are: Malagoli et al (2012) that found no risk of birth defects from maternal exposure to ELF EMF, two studies by Auger et al (2019a, 2019b) that found no evidence that proximity to powerlines increases the risk of birth defects or cancer, and Reid et al (2011) that found parental exposure to ELF EMF had no impact on childhood acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. The authors have missed many more studies than those outlined here. However, because of the wide range of radiation types and health effects they examined it is difficult to identify them all without completely redoing their study. The large number of studies they missed is a failure in study design to effectively narrow down on a topic.
Overall, this meta-analysis adds no value to the research on the association between ionising and non-ionising radiation exposure and childhood health conditions.
It is the assessment of ARPANSA and other health authorities, including the World Health Organization (WHO) and International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), that there is no substantiated scientific evidence that RF EMF or ELF EMF exposure at levels below the Australian Electromagnetic Fields Standard cause any adverse health effect, including in children.
The WHO has published the protocol for two upcoming systematic reviews on birth outcomes resulting from RF exposure that will be completed in 2023 (Pacchierotti et al (2022) and Kenny et al (2022)). These reviews should provide a high quality assessment of the evidence on this topic.
