That is the same as saying the higher the levels of radiation were exposed too the safer we are. Not at all, IMHO. But I won't argue the point. This article mentions numerous times that studies show the higher the radon levels, the less the risk of cancer. http://www.forensic-applications.com/radon/radon.html#Radon And Risk Just one of many such article statements. . . "A later study 10 (referred to as the Cohen Study), which is one of the largest studies, incorporated about 33% of the counties in the U.S. and looked at the issue of the linear, no-threshold dose-risk relationship used by the EPA. In this study, a least squares linear regression of lung cancer rates vs. mean radon levels gave a negative correlation between death and exposure levels. In other words, the higher the radon level in the county, the lower the death rate from lung cancer was for the community. The result was not due to questionable interpretation of shaky statistics; each of the studies showed a negative correlation with slopes of not less than seven standard deviations (and sometimes greater than 10 standard deviations) greater than zero." (Regardless of what one may think of Caoimhin P. Connell Forensic Industrial Hygienist)