Agreed. There are several radiation models applied to humans. The truth is, we do not fully understand the effect radiation has on humans. Sure, huge doses which wholesale destroy genetics is understood. But lower doses are not well understood. Even the basic question of where does risk increase can't be clearly answered. Background radiation in some cities provide more than the annual "safe" levels, and these people can have lower cancer rates. Iirc, linear no threshold is the standard but is known to be extremely wrong. Yet it's the basis of those badges and whatnot. Iirc, non-linear models more accurately describe reality but exact values and scaling are problematic because it requires human testing. So everyone uses the wildly inaccurate defacto standard. Which, of course, lends no favors to these types of discussions. Been well over a decade since I last looked at this so my memory may be faulty on names. Regardless, should allow for something to research and better understand the complexity of radiation dangers in scope of the topic.