Radiation Increases Breast Cancer Rates

Researchers recently found a direct positive connection between girls receiving more radiation for cancer and developing breast cancer later in life. A positive correlation meaning the more radiation they received, the more likely they were to develop a tumor later, not, of course, that this is any type of positive thing.

When looking at information such as this, it's important to note that the effects of radiation are not solely harmful to girls being treated for cancer as children, nor is radiation given to people with cancer the only form of radiation that humans are exposed to.

Most people are exposed regularly to radiation with x-rays, mammograms, wireless internet, and cell phones. Exposure to radiation in our society is common and its effects are underestimated by both medical doctors, who often dole it out, and mainstream consumers.

Part of the problem is that science likes to extrapolate downward.

Science, by its nature, isolates variables and attempts to show direct linear relationships, if it's possible. Sometimes, however, direct linear relationships aren't possible to show due to multi-factorial variables that are common in life, yet impossible to replicate in a controlled setting.

But the real problem comes into play because there is a decided lack of extrapolating upward from what is known and what is found in this manner.

For example, regardless of the fact that countless studies have shown direct connections with various poisons in the body and problems of the body, someone in a position of authority might say "you can't prove" that a person eating specific pesticides will definitely get cancer. Or that people exposed to other known toxic chemicals will definitely get another very specific disease. Therefore, many dangerous chemicals are allowed in our food supply and into human bodies on a mass scale.

Science, however, clearly tells us that these chemicals are toxic and do cause problems. But the fact that they are known toxins, apparently isn't enough to make concerted efforts to keep them out of the food supply and out of human bodies.

These are the kinds of conclusions we'd draw if we were prone to extrapolating upward from direct linear relationships that have been shown in controlled settings.

Extrapolating upwards is just understanding the far reaching variables of what has been determined, in contrast to understanding merely the limited effects of what specifically has been studied.

The overweight might want to pay particular attention to the connection between increased radiation exposure and cancer rates. Just a few weeks ago doctors admitted they were using as much as forty times more radiation for overweight and obese patients than for normal weight patients to get accurate x-rays.

Perhaps the fact that doctors are giving overweight and obese patients considerably higher doses of radiation might also be part of the reason that obese patients are being killed more often by the swine flu. Because, not only does radiation exposure have a strong connection with cancer, it also does disastrous things to our immune systems.

These are precisely the kinds of things we'd start thinking about if we, and mainstream health care providers, were prone to extrapolating upwards. By extrapolating upwards, we can understand the problems, and potential problems, immediately - instead of waiting half our lives for researchers to determine that what we're doing is killing us.

Truly, our society doesn't need to be blindsided by all of these health problems. The answers are quite simple, but to understand them, we need to start looking at the variables from a different angle. And to solve them, we definitely need to start doing things a little differently. -naturalnews