The Global Solar UV Index was developed as an easy-to-understand measure of the amount of biologically-effective ambient solar ultraviolet radiation (UVR) at different locations on the earth’s surface. Over the past few years, questions have been raised about the global applicability of the UV Index, about the evidence base for exposure risk thresholds and related protective measures, and about whether the overall impact of the UV Index could be improved with modifications. An international workshop was organized by several organizations, including the World Health Organization, to assess if current evidence was sufficiently strong to modify the UV Index and to discuss different ways it might be improved in order to influence sun-protective behavior. While some animal research suggests there may be no threshold effect, the relative importance of sub-erythemal doses of sunlight in causing skin cancer in humans remains unknown. Evidence suggests that regular use of sunscreen can prevent skin cancer and that sunglasses are an effective method of protecting the eyes from solar UVR. The UV Index as a risk communication tool continues to be useful for raising awareness and to support sun-protection behavior. Although there was agreement that guidance on the use of the UV Index could be improved, the workshop participants identified that strong health outcome-based human evidence would be needed as the basis for a revision. For the UV Index to be relevant in as many countries as possible, it should continue to be adapted to suit local conditions.

The increased use of radiofrequency (RF) fields above 6 GHz, particularly for the 5 G mobile phone network, has given rise to public concern about any possible adverse effects to human health. Public exposure to RF fields from 5 G and other sources is below the human exposure limits specified by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). This state-of-the science review examined the research into the biological and health effects of RF fields above 6 GHz at exposure levels below the ICNIRP occupational limits. The review included 107 experimental studies that investigated various bioeffects including genotoxicity, cell proliferation, gene expression, cell signalling, membrane function and other effects. Reported bioeffects were generally not independently replicated and the majority of the studies employed low quality methods of exposure assessment and control. Effects due to heating from high RF energy deposition cannot be excluded from many of the results. The review also included 31 epidemiological studies that investigated exposure to radar, which uses RF fields above 6 GHz similar to 5 G. The epidemiological studies showed little evidence of health effects including cancer at different sites, effects on reproduction and other diseases. This review showed no confirmed evidence that low-level RF fields above 6 GHz such as those used by the 5 G network are hazardous to human health. Future experimental studies should improve the experimental design with particular attention to dosimetry and temperature control. Future epidemiological studies should continue to monitor long-term health effects in the population related to wireless telecommunications.

The increasing use of Wi-Fi in schools and other places has given rise to public concern that the radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields from Wi-Fi have the potential to adversely affect children. The current study measured typical and peak RF levels from Wi-Fi and other sources in 23 schools in Australia. All of the RF measurements were much lower than the reference levels recommended by international guidelines for protection against established health effects. The typical and peak RF levels from Wi-Fi in locations occupied by children in the classroom were of the order of 10−4 and 10−2% of the exposure guidelines, respectively. Typical RF levels in the classroom were similar between Wi-Fi and radio but higher than other sources. In the schoolyard typical RF levels were higher for radio, TV and mobile phone base stations compared to Wi-Fi. The results of this study showed that the typical RF exposure of children from Wi-Fi at school is very low and comparable or lower to other sources in the environment.

ObjectivesOccupational exposure to cosmic and ultraviolet radiation may increase airline pilots’ risk of cutaneous melanoma. Meta-analyses of available data show a higher than average incidence of melanoma in airline pilots, but the most recent systematic review revealed that few contemporary data are available. Moreover, all relevant studies have been conducted in Northern Hemisphere populations. We therefore aimed to examine if Australian commercial pilots have a raised incidence of melanoma compared with the general population.MethodsWe examined all melanoma histologically diagnosed among Australian-licensed commercial pilots in the period 2011–2016 by manually reviewing de-identified data in the medical records system of the Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority. We estimated age-specific incidence rates and compared these with corresponding population rates using standardised incidence ratios (SIRs) as measures of relative risk. Expected numbers were calculated by multiplying age- and calendar period-specific person-years (PYs) with corresponding rates from the entire Australian population; 95% CI were calculated assuming a Poisson distribution of the observed cases.ResultsIn this cohort of Australian-licensed commercial pilots observed for 91 370 PYs, 114 developed a melanoma (51 invasive, 63 in situ). More than 50% of melanomas occurred on the trunk, and the predominant subtype was superficial spreading melanoma. The SIR for invasive melanoma was 1.20 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.55) and for melanoma in situ, 1.39 (95% CI 1.08 to 1.78).ConclusionAustralian-licensed commercial pilots have a modestly raised risk of in situ melanoma but no elevation of invasive melanoma compared with the general population.

No abstract