TF
TruthOrFake
Fact Check: Buildings are more radioactive than EU background average

Fact Check: Buildings are more radioactive than EU background average

March 11, 2025•by TruthOrFake
±
VERDICT
Partially True

# Are Buildings More Radioactive Than the EU Background Average? ## Introduction The claim that "buildings are more radioactive than the EU backgrou...

Are Buildings More Radioactive Than the EU Background Average?

Introduction

The claim that "buildings are more radioactive than the EU background average" raises important questions about the sources and levels of radiation exposure in our living environments. As urbanization continues to expand, understanding the radiation levels associated with building materials and their implications for human health becomes increasingly relevant. This article will explore the claim, analyze the evidence, and provide a comprehensive overview of the radiation levels found in buildings compared to the European Union (EU) background average.

Background

Radiation exposure comes from various sources, both natural and artificial. Natural sources include cosmic radiation, terrestrial radiation from the Earth's crust, and radon gas, which can accumulate in buildings. According to the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), the average annual effective dose of radiation from natural sources worldwide is approximately 2.4 mSv/year, with significant variations based on geographical location and building materials used in construction [1][2].

In Europe, the average background radiation levels can vary widely. For instance, the average effective dose from natural background radiation in Europe is estimated to be around 0.50 mSv/year, which is similar to the global average [8]. However, certain areas, particularly those with high natural background radiation (HNBR), can experience significantly higher levels, sometimes exceeding 20 mSv/year [2][3].

Analysis

To evaluate the claim that buildings are more radioactive than the EU background average, we must consider the sources of radiation within buildings, particularly from building materials. Natural radionuclides such as radium (226Ra), thorium (232Th), and potassium (40K) are commonly found in construction materials. A study investigating the radioactivity of building materials in a historical building found that the average annual effective dose due to building materials was 0.53 mSv/year, which is below the regulatory limit of 1 mSv/year but contributes to a gamma dose that exceeds the recommended threshold of 0.3 mSv/year [1].

Moreover, the presence of radon gas, a decay product of uranium found in soil and building materials, poses a significant risk. In Europe, the percentage of houses with radon levels exceeding 400 Bq/m³ varies from 0% to over 10%, depending on the country [2]. This variability indicates that while some buildings may indeed have higher radiation levels than the EU average, this is not universally applicable.

Evidence

  1. Building Materials and Radiation Levels: A study on building materials indicated that the average total activity concentration in certain building materials exceeded the world average value, with specific activity concentrations measured at 7.32 Bq/kg for 226Ra, 40.05 Bq/kg for 232Th, and 546.64 Bq/kg for 40K [1]. The average annual effective dose from these materials was found to be 0.53 mSv/year, which, while not exceeding the regulatory limit, does contribute to overall radiation exposure.

  2. Radon Exposure: The presence of radon in buildings significantly impacts indoor radiation levels. In some European countries, radon levels can lead to effective doses exceeding 7 mSv/year, particularly in radon-prone areas [2][5]. This suggests that certain buildings may indeed have radiation levels that exceed the EU background average.

  3. Regional Variations: The EU's background radiation levels are not uniform. For example, areas with high natural radiation, such as Ramsar in Iran, have reported annual effective doses ranging from 0.7 to 131 mSv, primarily due to the use of naturally radioactive materials in construction [3][6]. This indicates that while some buildings in Europe may be more radioactive than the average, others may not be.

  4. Comparative Studies: Comparative studies of indoor radon levels in dwellings and workplaces have shown that certain building types and locations can have distinct distributions of radon levels, further complicating the generalization of radiation exposure in buildings [7].

Conclusion

The claim that "buildings are more radioactive than the EU background average" is partially true. While certain buildings, particularly those constructed with specific materials or located in radon-prone areas, may exhibit higher radiation levels than the EU average, this is not universally applicable across all buildings. The average effective dose from building materials is generally below regulatory limits, yet it contributes to overall radiation exposure, which can vary significantly based on geographical and material factors.

Understanding the nuances of radiation exposure in buildings is crucial for public health and safety. Continued research and monitoring of indoor radiation levels, particularly from radon and building materials, are essential to ensure that exposure remains within safe limits.

References

  1. Estokova, A., Singovszka, E., & Vertal, M. (2022). Investigation of Building Materials’ Radioactivity in a Historical Building—A Case Study. PMC. Retrieved from https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9570568/
  2. Hendry, J. H., Simon, S. L., Wojcik, A., Sohrabi, M., Burkart, W., Cardis, E., Laurier, D., Tirmarche, M., & Hayata, I. (2009). Human exposure to high natural background radiation: what can it teach us about radiation risks? PMC. Retrieved from https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4030667/
  3. Berkeley RadWatch. Background Radiation. Retrieved from https://radwatch.berkeley.edu/background-radiation/
  4. Tchorz-Trzeciakiewicz, D. E. (2019). Radiation in different types of building, human health. ScienceDirect. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969719308514
  5. Wikipedia. Background Radiation. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation
  6. Eurdep | Säteilyturvakeskus STUK. Radiation in Europe. Retrieved from https://stuk.fi/en/radiation-in-europe
  7. Trevisi, R. (2022). Radon levels in dwellings and workplaces: a comparison. Radon Journal. Retrieved from https://radonjournal.net/index.php/radon/article/view/7581
  8. JRC. Chapter 9 – Annual effective dose from natural sources. Retrieved from https://remon.jrc.ec.europa.eu/media/f610b762-8ff0-4ba1-8cc7-53b517a7a25c/CDAqtw/Atlas/PDF%20Files/JRC_EANR_Chapter_09.pdf

Have a claim you want to verify? It's 100% Free!

Our AI-powered fact-checker analyzes claims against thousands of reliable sources and provides evidence-based verdicts in seconds. Completely free with no registration required.

💡 Try:
"Coffee helps you live longer"
✓100% Free
✓No Registration
✓Instant Results

Comments

Comments

Leave a comment

Loading comments...

More Fact Checks to Explore

Discover similar claims and stay informed with these related fact-checks

🔍
Partially True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: By quarterbacking Israel’s attack on Iran, Trump brought an end to a particularly demoralizing era in U.S. history The main reason Israel’s massive attack on Iranian leadership, nuclear facilities, and other targets came as a surprise is that no one believes American presidents when they talk about protecting Americans and advancing our interests—especially when they’re talking about the Islamic Republic of Iran. Ever since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, U.S. presidents have wanted an accommodation with Iran—not revenge for holding 52 Americans captive for 444 days, but comity. Ronald Reagan told Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, but when the Iranians’ Lebanese ally Hezbollah killed 17 Americans at the U.S. embassy in Beirut and 241 at the Marine barracks in 1983, he flinched. Bill Clinton wanted a deal with Iran so badly, he helped hide the Iranians’ sponsorship of the group that killed 19 airmen at Khobar Towers in 1996. George W. Bush turned a blind eye to Tehran’s depredations as Shia militias backed by Iran killed hundreds of U.S. troops in Iraq, while Iran’s Syrian ally Bashar al-Assad chartered buses to transport Sunni fighters from the Damascus airport to the Iraqi border, where they joined the hunt for Americans. Barack Obama’s signature foreign policy initiative was the Iran nuclear deal—designed not, as he promised, to stop Tehran’s nuclear weapons program, but to legalize it and protect it under the umbrella of an international agreement, backed by the United States. That all changed with Donald Trump. At last, an American president kept his word. He was very clear about it even before his second term started: Iran can’t have a bomb. Trump wanted it to go peacefully, but he warned that if the Iranians didn’t agree to dismantle their program entirely, they’d be bombed. Maybe Israel would do it, maybe the United States, maybe both, but in any case, they’d be bombed. Trump gave them 60 days to decide, and on day 61, Israel unleashed Operation Rising Lion. Until this morning, when Trump posted on Truth Social to take credit for the raid, there was some confusion about the administration’s involvement. As the operation began, Secretary of State Marco Rubio released a statement claiming that it was solely an Israeli show without any American participation. But even if details about intelligence sharing and other aspects of Israeli-U.S. coordination were hazy, the statement was obviously misleading: The entire operation was keyed to Trump. Without him, the attack wouldn’t have happened as it did, or maybe not at all. Trump spent two months neutralizing the Iranians without them realizing he was drawing them into the briar patch. Iranian diplomats pride themselves on their negotiating skills. Generations of U.S. diplomats have marveled at the Iranians’ ability to wipe the floor with them: It’s a cultural thing—ever try to bargain with a carpet merchant in Tehran? And Trump also praised them repeatedly for their talents—very good negotiators! The Iranians were in their sweet spot and must have imagined they could negotiate until Trump gave in to their demands or left office. But Trump was the trickster. He tied them down for two months, time that he gave to the Israelis to make sure they had everything in order. There’s already lots of talk about Trump’s deception campaign, and in the days and weeks to come, we’ll have more insight into which statements were real and which were faked and which journalists were used, without them knowing it, to print fake news to ensure the operation’s success. One Tablet colleague says it’s the most impressive operational feint since the Normandy invasion. Maybe even more impressive. A few weeks ago, a colleague told me of a brief conversation with a very senior Israeli official who said that Jerusalem and Washington see eye to eye on Gaza and left it at that. As my colleague saw it, and was meant to see it, this was not good news insofar as it suggested a big gap between the two powers on Iran. The deception campaign was so tight, it meant misleading friends casually. It’s now clear that the insanely dense communications environment—including foreign actors like the Iranians themselves, anti-Bibi Israeli journalists, the Gulf states, and the Europeans—served the purpose of the deception campaign. But most significant was the domestic component. Did the Iranians believe reports that the pro-Israel camp was losing influence with Trump and that the “restraintists” were on the rise? Did Iran lobbyist Trita Parsi tell officials in Tehran that his colleagues from the Quincy Institute and other Koch-funded policy experts who were working in the administration had it in the bag? Don’t worry about the neocons—my guys are steering things in a good way. It seems that, like the Iranians, the Koch network got caught in its own echo chamber. Will Rising Lion really split MAGA, as some MAGA influencers are warning? Polls say no. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 84 percent of likely voters believe Iran cannot have a bomb. Only 9 percent disagree. More Americans think it’s OK for men to play in women’s sports, 21 percent, than those who think Iran should have a bomb. According to the Rasmussen poll, 57 percent favor military action to stop Iran from getting nukes—which means there are Kamala Harris voters, 50 percent of them, along with 73 percent of Trump’s base, who are fine with bombing Iran to stop the mullahs’ nuclear weapons program. A Harvard/Harris poll shows 60 percent support for Israel “to take out Iran’s nuclear weapons program,” with 78 percent support among Republicans. Who thinks it’s reasonable for Iran to have a bomb? In a lengthy X post attacking Mark Levin and others who think an Iranian bomb is bad for America, Tucker Carlson made the case for the Iranian bomb. Iran, he wrote, “knows it’s unwise to give up its weapons program entirely. Muammar Gaddafi tried that and wound up sodomized with a bayonet. As soon as Gaddafi disarmed, NATO killed him. Iran’s leaders saw that happen. They learned the obvious lesson.” The Iranians definitely want a bomb to defend themselves against the United States—NATO, if you prefer—but that’s hardly America First. The threat that an Iranian bomb poses to the United States isn’t really that the Iranians will launch missiles at U.S. cities—not yet, anyway—but that it gives the regime a nuclear shield. It’s bad for America if a nuclear Iran closes down the Straits of Hormuz to set the price for global energy markets. It’s bad for America if a nuclear Iran wages terror attacks on American soil, as it has plotted to kill Trump. An Iranian bomb forces American policymakers, including Trump, to reconfigure policies and priorities to suit the interests of a terror state. It’s fair to argue that your country shouldn’t attack Iran to prevent it from getting a bomb, but reasoning that a terror state that has been killing Americans for nearly half a century needs the bomb to protect itself from the country you live in is nuts. Maybe some Trump supporters are angry and confused because Trump was advertised as the peace candidate. But “no new wars” is a slogan, not a policy. The purpose of U.S. policy is to advance America’s peace and prosperity, and Trump was chosen to change the course of American leadership habituated to confusing U.S. interests with everyone else’s. For years now, the U.S. political establishment has congratulated itself for helping to lift half a billion Chinese peasants out of poverty—in exchange for the impoverishment of the American middle class. George W. Bush wasted young American lives trying to make Iraq and Afghanistan function like America. Obama committed the United States to climate agreements that were designed to make Americans poorer. He legalized Iran’s bomb. So has Operation Rising Lion enhanced America’s peace? If it ends Iran’s nuclear weapons programs, the answer is absolutely yes. Further, when American partners advance U.S. interests, it adds luster to American glory. For instance, in 1982, in what is now popularly known as the Bekaa Valley Turkey Shoot, Israeli pilots shot down more than 80 Soviet-made Syrian jets and destroyed dozens of Soviet-built surface-to-air missile systems. It was a crucial Cold War exhibition that showed U.S. arms and allies were superior to what Moscow could put in the field. Israel’s attacks on Iran have not only disabled a Russian and Chinese partner but also demonstrated American superiority to those watching in Moscow and Beijing. Plus, virtually all of Iran’s oil exports go to China. With the attack last night, Trump brought an end to a particularly demoralizing and dispiriting era in U.S. history, which began nearly 50 years ago with the hostage crisis. In that time, U.S. leadership has routinely appeased a terror regime sustained only by maniacal hatred of America, while U.S. elites from the worlds of policy and academia, media and culture, have adopted the style and language of perfumed third-world obscurantists. All it took was for an American president to keep his word.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: By quarterbacking Israel’s attack on Iran, Trump brought an end to a particularly demoralizing era in U.S. history The main reason Israel’s massive attack on Iranian leadership, nuclear facilities, and other targets came as a surprise is that no one believes American presidents when they talk about protecting Americans and advancing our interests—especially when they’re talking about the Islamic Republic of Iran. Ever since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, U.S. presidents have wanted an accommodation with Iran—not revenge for holding 52 Americans captive for 444 days, but comity. Ronald Reagan told Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, but when the Iranians’ Lebanese ally Hezbollah killed 17 Americans at the U.S. embassy in Beirut and 241 at the Marine barracks in 1983, he flinched. Bill Clinton wanted a deal with Iran so badly, he helped hide the Iranians’ sponsorship of the group that killed 19 airmen at Khobar Towers in 1996. George W. Bush turned a blind eye to Tehran’s depredations as Shia militias backed by Iran killed hundreds of U.S. troops in Iraq, while Iran’s Syrian ally Bashar al-Assad chartered buses to transport Sunni fighters from the Damascus airport to the Iraqi border, where they joined the hunt for Americans. Barack Obama’s signature foreign policy initiative was the Iran nuclear deal—designed not, as he promised, to stop Tehran’s nuclear weapons program, but to legalize it and protect it under the umbrella of an international agreement, backed by the United States. That all changed with Donald Trump. At last, an American president kept his word. He was very clear about it even before his second term started: Iran can’t have a bomb. Trump wanted it to go peacefully, but he warned that if the Iranians didn’t agree to dismantle their program entirely, they’d be bombed. Maybe Israel would do it, maybe the United States, maybe both, but in any case, they’d be bombed. Trump gave them 60 days to decide, and on day 61, Israel unleashed Operation Rising Lion. Until this morning, when Trump posted on Truth Social to take credit for the raid, there was some confusion about the administration’s involvement. As the operation began, Secretary of State Marco Rubio released a statement claiming that it was solely an Israeli show without any American participation. But even if details about intelligence sharing and other aspects of Israeli-U.S. coordination were hazy, the statement was obviously misleading: The entire operation was keyed to Trump. Without him, the attack wouldn’t have happened as it did, or maybe not at all. Trump spent two months neutralizing the Iranians without them realizing he was drawing them into the briar patch. Iranian diplomats pride themselves on their negotiating skills. Generations of U.S. diplomats have marveled at the Iranians’ ability to wipe the floor with them: It’s a cultural thing—ever try to bargain with a carpet merchant in Tehran? And Trump also praised them repeatedly for their talents—very good negotiators! The Iranians were in their sweet spot and must have imagined they could negotiate until Trump gave in to their demands or left office. But Trump was the trickster. He tied them down for two months, time that he gave to the Israelis to make sure they had everything in order. There’s already lots of talk about Trump’s deception campaign, and in the days and weeks to come, we’ll have more insight into which statements were real and which were faked and which journalists were used, without them knowing it, to print fake news to ensure the operation’s success. One Tablet colleague says it’s the most impressive operational feint since the Normandy invasion. Maybe even more impressive. A few weeks ago, a colleague told me of a brief conversation with a very senior Israeli official who said that Jerusalem and Washington see eye to eye on Gaza and left it at that. As my colleague saw it, and was meant to see it, this was not good news insofar as it suggested a big gap between the two powers on Iran. The deception campaign was so tight, it meant misleading friends casually. It’s now clear that the insanely dense communications environment—including foreign actors like the Iranians themselves, anti-Bibi Israeli journalists, the Gulf states, and the Europeans—served the purpose of the deception campaign. But most significant was the domestic component. Did the Iranians believe reports that the pro-Israel camp was losing influence with Trump and that the “restraintists” were on the rise? Did Iran lobbyist Trita Parsi tell officials in Tehran that his colleagues from the Quincy Institute and other Koch-funded policy experts who were working in the administration had it in the bag? Don’t worry about the neocons—my guys are steering things in a good way. It seems that, like the Iranians, the Koch network got caught in its own echo chamber. Will Rising Lion really split MAGA, as some MAGA influencers are warning? Polls say no. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 84 percent of likely voters believe Iran cannot have a bomb. Only 9 percent disagree. More Americans think it’s OK for men to play in women’s sports, 21 percent, than those who think Iran should have a bomb. According to the Rasmussen poll, 57 percent favor military action to stop Iran from getting nukes—which means there are Kamala Harris voters, 50 percent of them, along with 73 percent of Trump’s base, who are fine with bombing Iran to stop the mullahs’ nuclear weapons program. A Harvard/Harris poll shows 60 percent support for Israel “to take out Iran’s nuclear weapons program,” with 78 percent support among Republicans. Who thinks it’s reasonable for Iran to have a bomb? In a lengthy X post attacking Mark Levin and others who think an Iranian bomb is bad for America, Tucker Carlson made the case for the Iranian bomb. Iran, he wrote, “knows it’s unwise to give up its weapons program entirely. Muammar Gaddafi tried that and wound up sodomized with a bayonet. As soon as Gaddafi disarmed, NATO killed him. Iran’s leaders saw that happen. They learned the obvious lesson.” The Iranians definitely want a bomb to defend themselves against the United States—NATO, if you prefer—but that’s hardly America First. The threat that an Iranian bomb poses to the United States isn’t really that the Iranians will launch missiles at U.S. cities—not yet, anyway—but that it gives the regime a nuclear shield. It’s bad for America if a nuclear Iran closes down the Straits of Hormuz to set the price for global energy markets. It’s bad for America if a nuclear Iran wages terror attacks on American soil, as it has plotted to kill Trump. An Iranian bomb forces American policymakers, including Trump, to reconfigure policies and priorities to suit the interests of a terror state. It’s fair to argue that your country shouldn’t attack Iran to prevent it from getting a bomb, but reasoning that a terror state that has been killing Americans for nearly half a century needs the bomb to protect itself from the country you live in is nuts. Maybe some Trump supporters are angry and confused because Trump was advertised as the peace candidate. But “no new wars” is a slogan, not a policy. The purpose of U.S. policy is to advance America’s peace and prosperity, and Trump was chosen to change the course of American leadership habituated to confusing U.S. interests with everyone else’s. For years now, the U.S. political establishment has congratulated itself for helping to lift half a billion Chinese peasants out of poverty—in exchange for the impoverishment of the American middle class. George W. Bush wasted young American lives trying to make Iraq and Afghanistan function like America. Obama committed the United States to climate agreements that were designed to make Americans poorer. He legalized Iran’s bomb. So has Operation Rising Lion enhanced America’s peace? If it ends Iran’s nuclear weapons programs, the answer is absolutely yes. Further, when American partners advance U.S. interests, it adds luster to American glory. For instance, in 1982, in what is now popularly known as the Bekaa Valley Turkey Shoot, Israeli pilots shot down more than 80 Soviet-made Syrian jets and destroyed dozens of Soviet-built surface-to-air missile systems. It was a crucial Cold War exhibition that showed U.S. arms and allies were superior to what Moscow could put in the field. Israel’s attacks on Iran have not only disabled a Russian and Chinese partner but also demonstrated American superiority to those watching in Moscow and Beijing. Plus, virtually all of Iran’s oil exports go to China. With the attack last night, Trump brought an end to a particularly demoralizing and dispiriting era in U.S. history, which began nearly 50 years ago with the hostage crisis. In that time, U.S. leadership has routinely appeased a terror regime sustained only by maniacal hatred of America, while U.S. elites from the worlds of policy and academia, media and culture, have adopted the style and language of perfumed third-world obscurantists. All it took was for an American president to keep his word.

Jun 15, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Fairbanks experienced more than a hundred hours of visibility-reducing smoke for three consecutive years, marking the first time this has occurred, according to Rich Thoman.
Partially True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Fairbanks experienced more than a hundred hours of visibility-reducing smoke for three consecutive years, marking the first time this has occurred, according to Rich Thoman.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Fairbanks experienced more than a hundred hours of visibility-reducing smoke for three consecutive years, marking the first time this has occurred, according to Rich Thoman.

Jun 15, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: As of June 2025, ICE was holding more than 56,000 individuals in detention facilities throughout the United States, which is a record high.
False
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: As of June 2025, ICE was holding more than 56,000 individuals in detention facilities throughout the United States, which is a record high.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: As of June 2025, ICE was holding more than 56,000 individuals in detention facilities throughout the United States, which is a record high.

Jun 16, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Iran's ambassador to the United Nations reported that 78 people had been killed and more than 320 wounded due to the conflict with Israel as of June 10, 2023.
True

Fact Check: Iran's ambassador to the United Nations reported that 78 people had been killed and more than 320 wounded due to the conflict with Israel as of June 10, 2023.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Iran's ambassador to the United Nations reported that 78 people had been killed and more than 320 wounded due to the conflict with Israel as of June 10, 2023.

Jun 16, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Christian Tein, who is indigenous Kanak, was charged with instigating violence during the riots in New Caledonia that left more than a dozen dead in May 2024.
True

Fact Check: Christian Tein, who is indigenous Kanak, was charged with instigating violence during the riots in New Caledonia that left more than a dozen dead in May 2024.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Christian Tein, who is indigenous Kanak, was charged with instigating violence during the riots in New Caledonia that left more than a dozen dead in May 2024.

Jun 15, 2025
Read more →
🔍
True

Fact Check: Judge Ian Pringle KC described the gold toilet heist as a 'bold and brazen' crime that took 'no more than five-and-a-half minutes to complete' during the sentencing at Oxford Crown Court.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Judge Ian Pringle KC described the gold toilet heist as a 'bold and brazen' crime that took 'no more than five-and-a-half minutes to complete' during the sentencing at Oxford Crown Court.

Jun 15, 2025
Read more →
Explore All Fact Checks
Fact Check: Buildings are more radioactive than EU background average | TruthOrFake Blog