Also sun light has many beneficial effects with imo completely outweigh the mutagenic effects.
Radioactive decay has zero beneficial effects.
Discussion
Your first paragraph is quite correct, solar fusion radiation is on balance beneficial, depending on environment, latitude and your melanin level.
Terrestrial fission radiation has different tradeoffs, but the once widely studied phenomenon of radiation hormesis suggests it is not so different as your second paragraph asserts.
I am familiar with that research. Like most scientific research it was funded by the USG and large military contractors, so that's not a mark against it. What is a mark against it is that almost all of it was done during the era of widespread nuclear weapons testing. They did not know how bad the effects of all the nuclear material they were releasing into thw environment would be and were very motivated to paint a picture that "maybe it would turn out to be good"
But there is a reason no one uses radium water coolers or radiation enhanved skin care anymore: the resear was wildily wrong at best and fradulent at worst.
True.
The flip side of that same argument is that the frequently-cited anti-nuclear research was done in the same period, and for just as politicised reasons.
The linear no-threshold dose model was proven not to fit the evidence as far back as the 70s, but it is still cited as gospel today.
We have decades of population epidemiology statistics now, and many natural experiments show high background radiation levels do not lead to lower life expectancy in local populations (after controlling for SES, income, availability of medical care etc etc. as always)
Changes in environmental radiation / acute exposures do, but even then there are some paradoxical results under particular conditions.
This is nonsense.
You don't need anti-nuclear research to show that the effects of nuclear radiation are extremely destructive.
I'm not talking about any models here, just the fact of high energy particles literally destroying the molecules that make up your cells on contact.
Studies cannot change this simple fact.
That's silly - your DNA is constantly being damaged by chemical means, mostly oxygen free radicals produced in your own cells.
All DNA-based life has elaborate checking and repair mechanisms, that can be upregulated in response to an increase in the threat.
That's why Chernobyl is a beautiful wilderness with the highest level of biodiversity in Europe (but the first few weeks were very destructive).
And why residents in Guarapari have a longer life expectancy than other Brazilians, despite regularly exceeding the maximum radiation exposure the USA permits for nuclear plant workers. (Their rates of neoplasms inc solid cancers are 8% higher, but cardiovascular disease notably lower.)
Humans and other eukaryotes can and do adapt to levels of background radiation much greater than anywhere on Earth's surface in the present day. Radiation doses below this adapted threshold are negligible in their potential for net harm.
Sudden, acute exposure to ionising radiation IS harmful and DOES increase risk of cancer. It is unclear if this increase in risk is linear, but probably not.
Obviously the body is designed to repair damage, that does not mean damage is good for you.
Your argument is empty.
Google "homeostasis" and start from there.
The body is evolved to deal with particular challenges, and can actually suffer fatal malfunctions without them.
Only someone with very low self-esteem would assume another person doesn't know the term homeostasis.
I'm sorry for whatever made your life so difficult anon. Still love you. Try to stay away from radioactive material though.
You googled it! Bravo!
I won't be staying away from radioactive material, from oxygen free radicals, or from exercise-induced micro fractures in my bones.
And neither will you.
You have a very mass-media set of beliefs about health that are not supported by evidence. Read more science.