> If you were correct the repeated exposure to low doses of radiation would not be cause for concern. It's not a cause for concern, no. Tons of people live and

> If you were correct the repeated exposure to low doses of radiation would not be cause for concern. It's not a cause for concern, no. Tons of people live and work at high elevations, in granite buildings, and many other places where the background ionizing radiation level is far higher than normal. You'd do well to consult this chart: <https://xkcd.com/radiation/ https://xkcd.com/radiation/>, paying particular attention to the expected radiation exposure from background sources, comparing that to the "Lowest one-year dose clearly linked to increased cancer risk" amount, and also noting that the repeated phrase "All the doses in the $COLOR chart combined". You'd also do well to clear fifteen or thirty minutes from your day and read this letter, published in 1997: <https://radiationeffects.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Rockwell-NN-1997_Whats-wrong-with-being-cautious.pdf https://radiationeffects.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Rock...>. Do take it slow and don't skim. It's an essay written to be read, rather than for SEO, so you absolutely will miss important details if you skim.