The strange thing: radiation is not necessarily harmful to health, but rather the opposite

A recent study published on Futurism’s website shows that relatively high exposure to background radiation can be beneficial to our health and reduce the risk of cancer.

Background radiation is the ionizing radiation scattered over the earth to which living things are exposed every day. It can have a natural origin (cosmic rays, certain rocks, …) or artificial (nuclear tests, medical imaging, …).

Until now, radiation was always viewed as harmful to health, and its risk only increased with increased exposure. But a team of scientists from Ben-Gurion University in Israel questioned these claims. According to their study, exposure to a relatively high threshold of background radiation is not as bad for health as it was initially thought. In fact, the opposite may be true.

Average life expectancy is 2.5 years longer

To reach these amazing conclusions that have been published in the journal biologyThe researchers analyzed EPA data on background radiation dating back to the 1960s in 3,129 counties in the United States. Then they compared the data to cancer rates and life expectancy in those areas.

What turns out? People who live in areas with higher levels of background radiation have significantly lower rates of lung, pancreatic, and colorectal cancer.

The scientists said: “The average life expectancy was about 2.5 years longer for people who live in areas with relatively high background radiation compared to people with low background radiation.” It is clear that exposure to high background radiation has beneficial effects on human health.

The dominant paradigm

According to Doug Siserman, CEO of American Associates Ben Gurion University of The Negev, citing Futurism, “decades of scientific theories may be refuted.” “These results may bring comfort to people who live in areas of the United States with above average background radiation,” he added.

So the researchers suggest that the dominant paradigms about the need to reduce exposure must be called into question. They concluded that “it is reasonable to suggest a radiation threshold, but it is higher than the upper bound of background radiation levels in the United States.”

(pound)