Scientists at the Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Israel have found that relatively high exposure to background radiation could actually be healthy for people.
Background radiation is a kind of ionizing radiation that is a mixture of natural as well as artificial sources. Natural sources include cosmic radiation from space and radioactive materials, while artificial sources include anything from medical X-rays to radiations caused by nuclear weapon testing.
The study, published in the journal Biogerontology, examines the radiation data dating back to the 1960s from all 3,129 counties in the US. The team used the Environmental Protection Agency’s radiation dose calculator for this study.
Data reveals promising results
The team cross-checked all the data with cancer rates from the US. They also referenced life expectancy data from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. Their findings showed that people who lived in areas that experienced more background radiation experienced fewer cases of lung, colon, pancreatic, and rectal cancers.
“Here, we show that life expectancy, the most integrative index of population health, was approximately 2.5 years longer in people living in areas with a relatively high vs. low background radiation,” the team mentioned in their paper. “Exposure to a high background radiation displays clear beneficial health effects in humans,” the paper reads.
“Decades of scientific theory are potentially being disproven by the remarkable researchers at BGU,” said Doug Seserman, CEO at the university’s American Associates. “These findings might even provide a sense of relief for those who reside in areas in the U.S. with higher-than-average background radiation.”
Not all radiation is harmful
Although the team did not directly claim that background radiation is the actual cause behind the improved health effects, the team did suggest that keeping exposures to the minimum as any level of ionizing radiation is harmful should be cross-questioned.
Whether the same effects would be applicable for higher rates of background radiation from natural sources remains to be seen. “It is reasonable to suggest that a radiation threshold does exist, yet it is higher than the upper limit of the natural background radiation levels in the US,” the paper explains.
