I'm not saying the arguments in the article are wrong per se, but I did stumble over the one paragraph where I looked at the referenced source: In fact, reside

I'm not saying the arguments in the article are wrong per se, but I did stumble over the one paragraph where I looked at the referenced source: In fact, residents of Colorado, where radiation is higher because of high concentrations of uranium in the ground, enjoy some of the lowest cancer rates in the U.S. It links to https://coloradosun.com/2019/02/04/colorado-skin-cancer-rates/ https://coloradosun.com/2019/02/04/colorado-skin-cancer-rate... titled Colorado has the highest per-capita rate of skin cancer, thanks to sunshine and high elevation, which does not mention Uranium at all. The article does mention a low percentage of people diagnosed with cancer, and a death rate declining faster than average. However, this gets attributed to factors like low obesity and smoking rates and above-average health care coverage. If that's accurate, the article doesn't really allow us to come to any conclusions regarding background radiation effects on cancer rates except that they are less impactful than smoking...