New study raises alarm: certain bodies of water linked to shorter life expectancy
- Replies 0
For centuries, water has shaped where people build cities, how they live, and even how long they survive.
From bustling riverfront hubs to peaceful coastal towns, Americans have long assumed proximity to water brought health, beauty, and vitality.
Yet new evidence is challenging this familiar belief, revealing that not all waterways are equal in what they offer. Where you live—by a river, a lake, or the ocean—may influence how many years you ultimately get.
A team of researchers from The Ohio State University reviewed health and life expectancy data across more than 66,000 US census regions.
They compared populations based on proximity to different types of waterways and uncovered a striking contrast.
People living in cities beside rivers and large lakes tended to have shorter lives, averaging around 78 years, while those settled near the ocean or Gulf coasts often lived a year longer or more.
The scientists said milder climates, cleaner air, and stronger economies in coastal areas likely contributed to this improved longevity.
By contrast, life near inland rivers presented a far less favorable outlook. Urban runoff, sewage overflows, and industrial waste were cited as drivers of poor water and air quality in these areas.
Researchers highlighted how cities such as Memphis, Detroit, and Cincinnati have been historically impacted by poverty, flooding risks, and limited access to safe outdoor recreation.
These combined pressures create environments that can quietly erode community health and lower life expectancy.
The findings resonate with recent pollution concerns in Chicago, a city straddling Lake Michigan and intersected by the Chicago River.
Also read: Could this city be America’s most affordable place to live?
Earlier this year, residents were confronted with hazardous air readings topping 500 on the Air Quality Index, a level typically associated with wildfires or volcanic events.
Researchers noted that fine particle pollution, which lodges deep in the lungs, ranked especially high in such “river cities.”
Public health officials warn these patterns are not isolated but reflective of systemic challenges in inland urban environments.
Lead researcher Jianyong “Jamie” Wu admitted she expected any “blue space” to yield health benefits but was startled by the sharp differences between coastal and inland water living.
Also read: Want to live to 100? This affordable snack recommended by a longevity expert could be the key!
The team suggested city planners consider preserving natural waterways, expanding waterfront access, and investing in green infrastructure to reduce pollution.
They argued that doing so could help improve health outcomes in inland cities while balancing the economic benefits of water access.
In the meantime, the findings highlight how where Americans live can influence their risks in unexpected ways.
Read next: How long will you live? This simple at-home test could offer some surprising clues
Would you consider moving closer to the ocean if it promised an extra year of life — or do the trade-offs of city living by rivers still outweigh the risks for you?
From bustling riverfront hubs to peaceful coastal towns, Americans have long assumed proximity to water brought health, beauty, and vitality.
Yet new evidence is challenging this familiar belief, revealing that not all waterways are equal in what they offer. Where you live—by a river, a lake, or the ocean—may influence how many years you ultimately get.
A team of researchers from The Ohio State University reviewed health and life expectancy data across more than 66,000 US census regions.
They compared populations based on proximity to different types of waterways and uncovered a striking contrast.
People living in cities beside rivers and large lakes tended to have shorter lives, averaging around 78 years, while those settled near the ocean or Gulf coasts often lived a year longer or more.
The scientists said milder climates, cleaner air, and stronger economies in coastal areas likely contributed to this improved longevity.
New study raises alarm: certain bodies of water linked to shorter life expectancy. Image source: Mary Ray / Unsplash
By contrast, life near inland rivers presented a far less favorable outlook. Urban runoff, sewage overflows, and industrial waste were cited as drivers of poor water and air quality in these areas.
Researchers highlighted how cities such as Memphis, Detroit, and Cincinnati have been historically impacted by poverty, flooding risks, and limited access to safe outdoor recreation.
These combined pressures create environments that can quietly erode community health and lower life expectancy.
The findings resonate with recent pollution concerns in Chicago, a city straddling Lake Michigan and intersected by the Chicago River.
Also read: Could this city be America’s most affordable place to live?
Earlier this year, residents were confronted with hazardous air readings topping 500 on the Air Quality Index, a level typically associated with wildfires or volcanic events.
Researchers noted that fine particle pollution, which lodges deep in the lungs, ranked especially high in such “river cities.”
Public health officials warn these patterns are not isolated but reflective of systemic challenges in inland urban environments.
Lead researcher Jianyong “Jamie” Wu admitted she expected any “blue space” to yield health benefits but was startled by the sharp differences between coastal and inland water living.
Also read: Want to live to 100? This affordable snack recommended by a longevity expert could be the key!
The team suggested city planners consider preserving natural waterways, expanding waterfront access, and investing in green infrastructure to reduce pollution.
They argued that doing so could help improve health outcomes in inland cities while balancing the economic benefits of water access.
In the meantime, the findings highlight how where Americans live can influence their risks in unexpected ways.
Read next: How long will you live? This simple at-home test could offer some surprising clues
