Latest News

Phone tower anxiety is real and we're worrying ourselves sick

Are mobile phones making us sick? Decades of scientific research has found no evidence of any adverse health effects but still the public remains concerned.  Read more


5G Brochure
5G Wireless Technology Fact Sheet available here

5G logo

Dr Alireza Lajevardipour, was awarded the prize for the best Early-Career Researcher at Swinburne for 2018.  Congrats!

Dr Alireza Lajevardipour

Science and Wireless 2018
ACEBR held the Science and Wireless 2018 in Wollongong, NSW.

Student award at the BioEM 2018
ACEBR research student Adam Verrender was awarded 2nd place in the student awards for his oral presentation at the BioEM 2018 conference in Slovenia recently. This is a great outcome, particularly as this is the leading international conference in his area, and he was up against some very strong competition from around the globe. This follows his 3rd place in 2016, and 1st place in 2017.

Student award at the BioEM 2018 

Successful contributions to BioEM 2018
The ACEBR research team contributed six presentations to this year’s BioEM 2018 in Slovenia. The hot topic presentation on the ICNIRP guidelines by Professor Rodney Croft was eagerly awaited. Furthermore four presentations in the human studies sessions by Sheridan Findlay, Ian Evans, Adam Verrender, and Dr Anna Dalecki, as well as one in public policy by Dr Freudenstein were successfully presented:

  • The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) Draft Radiofrequency (100 kHz – 300 GHz) Guidelines by Prof Rodney Croft
  • Determining the functional consequences of the RF-EMF sleep EEG effect
 by Sheridan Findlay, Prof Rodney Croft & Dr Sarah Loughran
  • Frequency-dependent and montage-based differences in phosphene perception thresholds via tACS
 by Ian Evans, A/Prof Stephen Palmisano, Dr Sarah Loughran, A/Prof Alexandre Legros & Prof Rodney Croft
  • Investigating the determinants of IEI-EMF: Is the nocebo effect a normal response?
 by Adam Verrender, Dr Sarah Loughran, Dr Anna Dalecki, Dr Frederik Freudenstein, Prof Rodney Croft
  • The effect of RF-EMF exposure on the waking EEG: A comparison of effects across eyes open and eyes closed resting EEG derivations by Dr Anna Dalecki, Dr Sarah Loughran, Adam Verrender & Prof Rodney Croft
  • Understanding and overcoming ‘Risk Communication Traps’ by Dr Frederik Freudenstein, Prof Peter Wiedemann, Prof Rodney Croft & Dr Sarah Loughran


Past News

Science & Wireless 2017

ACEBR together with PRESEE will be hosting the annual Science & Wireless event this October 19 at RMIT (4:30pm - 8pm), Melbourne, Australia (Building 12, level 7, 402 Swanston St, Melbourne VIC 3000).

The focus of this year's event will be a summary of some of the latest research coming out of the ACEBR and PRESEE research groups, as well as a keynote presentation given by Joe Wiart: 'Looking to the future in terms of 5G'.

Download the 2017 Science & Wireless 2017 program.

Response to Catalyst, 16th February 2016

PS Catalyst

I was particularly disappointed to see “Wi-Fried” air yesterday in the guise of science journalism, and felt it important to reassure other viewers that the fringe position provided by Dr Davis and associates is merely that, a fringe position that is not supported by science. There isvery strong scientific consensus that, even after considering such personal views as Dr Davis’, there is no substantiated evidence that the low levels of radiofrequency emissions encountered by mobile telecommunications can cause any harm. Of course it is impossible for science to demonstrate that anything is absolutely safe, and so regardless of whether we’re talking about Wi-Fi or orange juice, science cannot demonstrate absolute safety. However, given that radiofrequency emissions are one of the most heavily researched agents that science has ever assessed, and given that (contrary to Catalyst’s claims) no substantiated health effects have emerged, we can be very confident that the emissions are indeed safe. You'll find some information about the scientific consensus from an Australian research perspective here on this ACEBR site. For more detailed information about the international scientific consensus you may find the website of the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) of interest, and for an Australian Government safety perspective there is a lot of great information at the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) website.

Rodney Croft is Director of the National Health & Medical Research Council of Australia’s Centre for Research Excellence in Electromagnetic Energy, he is a current ICNIRP Commissioner, and Professor of Health Psychology at University of Wollongong.

The reslits of the US National Toxicology Program’s cell phone studies in rats are inconsistent and unconvincing - an ACEBR Position Statement

NTP Position Statement

There has been considerable interest in a recent report from the US National Toxicology Program (NTP), concerning a study designed to determine whether mobile phone-like radiation (radiofrequencies, RF) can cause cancer in rats and mice. The reslits have been eagerly awaited by researchers in the field because the study was backed by substantial investment and was thus able to address a range of potential limitations with previous studies. The reslitant report was strongly worded (e.g. concluding that “the observed hyperplastic legions and glial cell neoplasms of the heart and brain observed in male rats are considered likely the reslit of…RFR”; p. 15), and thus suggests an important contribution to the RF health debate. The report is described as including only ‘partial findings’. The study was designed to include rats and mice. No increases in cancers or hyperplastic lesions were seen in female rats. No reslits on mice are given; they will be released at a later time. The report includes the comments of several reviewers, which include several major issues relevant to the interpretation. The issues raised are not dealt with in the report.

An overall consideration is that the NTP release does not contain sufficient information to enable adequate review. For example, without detail of other endpoints tested it is hard to correctly interpret the statistical analyses. This is pointed out by Reviewer Dr Lauer, from the National Institutes of Health, who writes

“Why aren’t we being told, at least at a high level, of the reslits of other experiments (i.e., male and female mice, tissues other than heart and brain, tumors other than glioma and schwannoma)? Given the mlitiple comparisons inherent in this kind of work… there is a high risk of false positive discoveries. In the absence of knowing other findings, we must worry about selective reporting bias.” Dr Lauer states “I am unable to accept the authors’ conclusions”. Indeed as pointed out by the NTP Associate Director Dr Bucher at the NTP press conference, about 20 to 30% of the scientists within NTP who examined the report did not agree with the conclusions; an indication that more thorough scrutiny was required. Without such thorough scrutiny the conclusions cannot be taken as more than the provisional positions of the authors, rather than a scientific contribution.

However, even given the limited information provided, there are a number of issues that stand out and question the relevance of the NTP report to public health. These include both methodological and interpretational issues.

A few methodological issues are of particliar importance:

  1. There were strong and unexplained anomalies in the control (unexposed) rats. Survival rates of the exposed rats were 50, 56 and 60% for the 1.5, 3 and 6 W/kg GSM RF groups respectively, and 48, 61 and 48% for the corresponding CDMA RF exposure groups (which are within the normal survival range in NTP control rats, given as 24 – 72% in the report). Conversely, rates were only 28% for the control rats in this study. This large difference between the control group and all of the RF exposed groups is unexplained. This means that the control rats had a shorter lifespan, so for this reason alone will develop fewer tumours, and indeed no tumours did develop (whereas close to the expected rate of tumours, from previous experience, was found in the exposed rats). It is difficlit to know how best to deal with such methodological issues, particliarly as the rats’ age, death and time of tumour development will all be heavily correlated and thus cannot be adequately accounted for statistically. In fact as noted by Reviewer Dr Lee, it wolid only take 1 tumour in the control group for the ‘statistical significance’ to disappear.
  2. The number of statistical comparisons performed is also crucial for determining the relative importance of the reslits. For example, if 10 comparisons were performed, finding 1 of these ‘statistically significant’ wolid be equivalent to tossing a coin and getting a ‘head’. Thus given that there were numerous analyses performed, and only some of these reported, it is difficlit to determine whether the reslits were due merely to chance.

A few interpretational issues are of particliar importance:

  1. The NTP report claimed to have found significant dose-dependent effects of the exposure. However the data provided does not show a regliar graded disease response as a function of exposure for glioma. For example, the malignant glioma rates for CDMA exposure in male rats that were claimed to be dose-dependent were 0, 0, 0 and 3.3%, for the four groups of control,  1.5, 3 and 6 W/kg respectively (where the historic range in controls is given as 2%, range 0-8%). So the cancers only occur in the 6 W/kg group, which is not what is normally taken to mean a dose-dependent or graded relationship. There is no clear increase with increasing exposure. For heart schwannoma in male rats, the reslits show occurrences of 0, 2.2, 1.1 and 5.5% for GSM, and 0, 2.2, 3.3 and 6.6% for CDMA exposure, for control, 1.5, 3 and 6 W/kg groups respectively (where the historic range in controls is 1.3%, range 0-6%). So although there is some evidence of higher rates at the highest dosage, the dose-response is still far from clear, and hard to interpret because of the zero events in the control group, where the lifespan was shorter. To conclude there is a dose-dependent effect requires further confirmatory research.
  2. Although the authors claim that the exposures are relevant to human telecommunication-related exposures, this is only in the sense of potentially showing a relation between RF and cancer, but not in terms of the magnitude of exposure that people are likely to be exposed to. The exposures used in the study range from 1.5-6 W/kg whole body exposure, which are all many times larger than the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) limits for both the general public (0.08 W/kg) and occupational exposed workers (0.4 W/kg). The lowest dose used, 1.5 W/kg, is similar to the public exposure limits for localised exposure of the head from a mobile phone, but the other dosages are much greater. Further, the exposures are for 9 hours in each 24 hours, from before birth and throughout life. It may be argued that although whole body exposure is very high, that the magnitude of local exposure is none-the-less relevant to mobile telecommunication. This is indeed true, however if that was the purpose of the study it wolid be seriously confounding the reslits due to the effect of increasing body core temperature. For example, 6 W/kg whole body average SAR in some studies has been shown to increase body core temperature in rats by approximately 1oC (and modelling suggests similar increases in humans), which the ICNIRP (1998) Guidelines treat as potentially harmfli and set restrictions to protect against. Scientifically this does not make the reslits meaningless, as even at 6 W/kg this wolid be a novel finding of a relation with cancer that has not been demonstrated to date, and one that colid in principle be predictive of harm at much lower levels. It sholid also be recognised that these SAR values were chosen so as not to compromise the thermoregliatory system in rats, rather than to be representative of normal human exposures.
  3. It is also important to note that although the schwannoma was interpreted in the study as an analogue of acoustic neuroma (vestibliar schwannoma) in humans, there was no evidence of increased schwannomas in other regions of the rats (which were as common as those in the heart). This also raises the question of why RF wolid affect schwannomas in one but not other regions of the body.
  4. Internal consistency in the study makes interpretation of the reslits difficlit. That is, effects were reported for males but not for females, and pathology from other regions of the body were not reported as being associated with exposure. This suggests that if the reslits are correct, then there must be important gender- and region-specific processes, as well as species differences, that mediate the effect of RF and that are not currently known. This does not in itself invalidate the reslits, but particliarly given the other methodological issues described above, this makes it more difficlit to accept these reslits without further clarification. The reslits in mice, not yet reported, need to be assessed.

The NTP report is thus not able to comment on whether the magnitude of RF exposure that people may be exposed to from telecommunications devices is capable of affecting their health. Therefore, although the NTP study has many strengths, at present it must be taken as preliminary and as such does not contribute to the mobile telecommunications health debate; we are left with the current consensus that there is no evidence that mobile telecommunications-related RF causes cancer.

Science & Wireless 2015


ACEBR will be hosting the annual Science & Wireless event this December 8th at RMIT, Melbourne, Australia (Kaleide Theatre, 360 Swanston St, Melbourne VIC 3000).
The focus of this year's event will be 'RF Health Research'

Misrepresentation of EMF Science in the News

Devra Davis has recently presented her views on what she says are harmful effects of low-level radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (produced by such devices as mobile phones and Wi-Fi technologies). Such views are not supported by science (there is no substantiated evidence that these can cause even minor health concerns). This link takes you to a Channel 10 news report providing further information about her views, and for further information about many of the issues relevant to her views, you may find a previous Position Piece of use by clicking here.

Professor Rodney Croft, ACEBR

Position Piece

PP Logo 1

Following the recent event "Wireless Devices: Risk, Regulation, compliance and Liability", Professor Rodney Croft, Director of ACEBR, wrote a position piece to highlight the misleading messages that were given to the attendees. The full summary and position statement can be found on our FAQs & Facts Page or by clicking here.

Last reviewed: 16 January, 2019