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

Fact Check: Buildings are more radioactive than EU background average

Published March 11, 2025•Updated June 18, 2025
ByFactChecker 1.1 avatarFactChecker 1.1
±
VERDICT
Partially True

# Fact Check: Buildings are more radioactive than EU background average ## What We Know The claim that "buildings are more radioactive than the EU ba...

Advertisement
NordVPN - Explore the internet securely and privately

Secure your internet browsing withNordVPN's trusted protection

Fact Check: Buildings are more radioactive than EU background average

What We Know

The claim that "buildings are more radioactive than the EU background average" is rooted in the natural radioactivity found in building materials. According to a study conducted in Ramsar, Iran, the specific activity concentrations of natural radionuclides such as radium-226 (226Ra), thorium-232 (232Th), and potassium-40 (40K) in building materials were found to be significantly higher than the worldwide average values. The study reported that the geometric mean specific activity of 226Ra in the area was much higher than the globally accepted limit of 35 Bq/kg, indicating a high background radiation level in that region (source-1).

In contrast, a review of natural background radiation indicates that the average contribution of terrestrial radiation from natural radioactive elements in buildings is about 0.28 mSv/year, which varies significantly based on geographical and geological conditions (source-2). The average background radiation levels in the EU can reach up to 7 mSv/year in certain areas, which may include contributions from both natural and artificial sources (source-3).

Analysis

The evidence suggests that while some buildings, particularly those constructed with certain local materials in regions like Ramsar, Iran, can exhibit higher levels of natural radioactivity than the global average, this does not universally apply to all buildings across Europe or other regions. The average levels of radioactivity in building materials can vary widely based on local geology and the specific materials used.

For instance, the study from Ramsar indicates that the high levels of 226Ra, which can reach values up to 86,400 Bq/kg, pose significant radiation hazards (source-1). However, in many parts of Europe, the average activity concentrations in building materials are much lower, with typical values around 35 Bq/kg for radium-226 and 30 Bq/kg for thorium-232 (source-8).

Moreover, while some regions may have unusually high background radiation, such as certain areas in Iran, India, and Europe, the overall average for the EU does not consistently reflect these extremes. The presence of radon gas, which can accumulate in buildings and contribute to indoor radiation exposure, is also a significant factor that varies by location (source-5).

Conclusion

The claim that "buildings are more radioactive than the EU background average" is Partially True. While certain buildings, particularly in high-background radiation areas like Ramsar, Iran, can exhibit significantly higher levels of radioactivity than the global average, this does not hold true universally across all buildings in Europe. The average background radiation levels in the EU are generally lower than those found in specific high-radiation regions, indicating that while the claim has merit in specific contexts, it does not apply broadly.

Sources

  1. Natural radionuclide and radiological assessment of building materials ... (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3683307/)
  2. A review on natural background radiation - PMC (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3814895/)
  3. Background Radiation - Berkeley RadWatch (https://radwatch.berkeley.edu/background-radiation/)
  4. Radioactivity in Buildings (https://isnap.nd.edu/assets/254984/radioactivity_lecture_17.pdf)
  5. Ionising radiation: dose comparisons - GOV.UK (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ionising-radiation-dose-comparisons/ionising-radiation-dose-comparisons)
  6. Background radiation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation)
  7. Comparison of Chernobyl and other radioactivity releases (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Chernobyl_and_other_radioactivity_releases)
  8. Fact Check: Modern concrete is more radioactive than normal EU ... (https://truthorfake.com/blog/modern-concrete-is-more-radioactive-than-925)
Advertisement
NordVPN - Explore the internet securely and privately

Secure your internet browsing withNordVPN's trusted protection

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

Leave a comment

Loading comments...

More Fact Checks to Explore

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

Fact Check: Transcript 00:00 911 was a false flag. For the first 10 years, I did not think anything other than the official narrative then after being shown a video, a close up video of building number seven coming down and that got me going because it's obvious to me that building seven was was a controlled demolition because the building collapses from the bottom down. The trade centers were unique in that they were designed to withstand the 00:33 impact of a a a jet. From what I understand the the outer skeleton of the building. The outer columns was like a a fish net and you had these inner core columns which was substantial thick steel beams to withstand four or five times what the loads were. Got it. The engineers always over design a building. No steel frame building has ever collapsed before or since 9/ eleven. So that should say something right there. And it said that building seven it was 01:05 aggressive collapse that it was caused by fire but progressive collapse unlike the twin towers, the twin towers collapse from the top down. That's a progressive collapse. Sure. Floor by floor by floor. But if you look at the videos of building seven collapsing, it collapses uniformly, it's collapsing from the bottom, the building stays intact all the way to the bottom of the ground and you could see the sides caving in on it. For a building to collapse uniformly which the video show all the load bearing it would have to have failed 01:36 simultaneously. Now, fire doesn't act like that. I came across an analogy of the twin towers and if you could visualize cast iron stoves stacked. One on top of each other. The stoves up at the top. Yes, there's fire and they've been damaged but the stoves on the bottom, they haven't been damaged. Okay. So, the structure underneath all of that is intact. So, it's impossible for a building to collapse near free fall speed and increase. Without a 02:07 controlled demolition. You're running into the path of most resistance. I something else is going on. I don't believe that it was just the planes or the fires I think that and they examine the dust and they found what they call thermitic material which is like a explosive incendiary which was in the dust samples and that's documented. There were reports of the buildings were undergoing a extensive elevator renovation in the two or three years prior to all kinds of 02:40 workers they had access to the the core the cores of the building and on the day of the attack the the elevator company would not assist in the operations of the elevators and the elevator company was the elevator company it subsequently went out of business and a couple of years after that
False
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Transcript 00:00 911 was a false flag. For the first 10 years, I did not think anything other than the official narrative then after being shown a video, a close up video of building number seven coming down and that got me going because it's obvious to me that building seven was was a controlled demolition because the building collapses from the bottom down. The trade centers were unique in that they were designed to withstand the 00:33 impact of a a a jet. From what I understand the the outer skeleton of the building. The outer columns was like a a fish net and you had these inner core columns which was substantial thick steel beams to withstand four or five times what the loads were. Got it. The engineers always over design a building. No steel frame building has ever collapsed before or since 9/ eleven. So that should say something right there. And it said that building seven it was 01:05 aggressive collapse that it was caused by fire but progressive collapse unlike the twin towers, the twin towers collapse from the top down. That's a progressive collapse. Sure. Floor by floor by floor. But if you look at the videos of building seven collapsing, it collapses uniformly, it's collapsing from the bottom, the building stays intact all the way to the bottom of the ground and you could see the sides caving in on it. For a building to collapse uniformly which the video show all the load bearing it would have to have failed 01:36 simultaneously. Now, fire doesn't act like that. I came across an analogy of the twin towers and if you could visualize cast iron stoves stacked. One on top of each other. The stoves up at the top. Yes, there's fire and they've been damaged but the stoves on the bottom, they haven't been damaged. Okay. So, the structure underneath all of that is intact. So, it's impossible for a building to collapse near free fall speed and increase. Without a 02:07 controlled demolition. You're running into the path of most resistance. I something else is going on. I don't believe that it was just the planes or the fires I think that and they examine the dust and they found what they call thermitic material which is like a explosive incendiary which was in the dust samples and that's documented. There were reports of the buildings were undergoing a extensive elevator renovation in the two or three years prior to all kinds of 02:40 workers they had access to the the core the cores of the building and on the day of the attack the the elevator company would not assist in the operations of the elevators and the elevator company was the elevator company it subsequently went out of business and a couple of years after that

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Transcript 00:00 911 was a false flag. For the first 10 years, I did not think anything other than the official narrative then after being shown a video, a close up video of building number seven coming down and that got me going because it's obvious to me that building seven was was a controlled demolition because the building collapses from the bottom down. The trade centers were unique in that they were designed to withstand the 00:33 impact of a a a jet. From what I understand the the outer skeleton of the building. The outer columns was like a a fish net and you had these inner core columns which was substantial thick steel beams to withstand four or five times what the loads were. Got it. The engineers always over design a building. No steel frame building has ever collapsed before or since 9/ eleven. So that should say something right there. And it said that building seven it was 01:05 aggressive collapse that it was caused by fire but progressive collapse unlike the twin towers, the twin towers collapse from the top down. That's a progressive collapse. Sure. Floor by floor by floor. But if you look at the videos of building seven collapsing, it collapses uniformly, it's collapsing from the bottom, the building stays intact all the way to the bottom of the ground and you could see the sides caving in on it. For a building to collapse uniformly which the video show all the load bearing it would have to have failed 01:36 simultaneously. Now, fire doesn't act like that. I came across an analogy of the twin towers and if you could visualize cast iron stoves stacked. One on top of each other. The stoves up at the top. Yes, there's fire and they've been damaged but the stoves on the bottom, they haven't been damaged. Okay. So, the structure underneath all of that is intact. So, it's impossible for a building to collapse near free fall speed and increase. Without a 02:07 controlled demolition. You're running into the path of most resistance. I something else is going on. I don't believe that it was just the planes or the fires I think that and they examine the dust and they found what they call thermitic material which is like a explosive incendiary which was in the dust samples and that's documented. There were reports of the buildings were undergoing a extensive elevator renovation in the two or three years prior to all kinds of 02:40 workers they had access to the the core the cores of the building and on the day of the attack the the elevator company would not assist in the operations of the elevators and the elevator company was the elevator company it subsequently went out of business and a couple of years after that

Jul 28, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Skyscrapers are defined as buildings taller than 150 meters.
True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Skyscrapers are defined as buildings taller than 150 meters.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Skyscrapers are defined as buildings taller than 150 meters.

Jun 30, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Migrant gangs are taking over towns and buildings in the U.S.
Partially True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Migrant gangs are taking over towns and buildings in the U.S.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Migrant gangs are taking over towns and buildings in the U.S.

Jul 12, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Collisions with buildings cause up to 988 million bird deaths annually.
Partially True

Fact Check: Collisions with buildings cause up to 988 million bird deaths annually.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Collisions with buildings cause up to 988 million bird deaths annually.

Jul 3, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Skyscrapers are defined as buildings over 150 meters tall.
Partially True

Fact Check: Skyscrapers are defined as buildings over 150 meters tall.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Skyscrapers are defined as buildings over 150 meters tall.

Jul 1, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Five residential buildings damaged in Kyiv by Russian strikes.
Partially True

Fact Check: Five residential buildings damaged in Kyiv by Russian strikes.

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Five residential buildings damaged in Kyiv by Russian strikes.

Jun 23, 2025
Read more →
Explore All Fact Checks
Fact Check: Buildings are more radioactive than EU background average | TruthOrFake Blog