… And now, “What if exposing yourself to radiation is actually good for you?”

you are using a guilt by association argument. yes the claim challenges what is currently percieved to be a appropriate model for nuclear damage (lnt).

I have no comments about your 2nd para. i partly agree. presenting your argument as it was done in video feels wrong.

but, what about the example studies. the town in iran, recieveing roughly 10-40 times radiation of currently considered safe limit.

Treating radioactive material and radiation produced by a reactor with extreme caution is the best practice regardless

I have written that very thing in other comments as well. idea is not to drop safety protocols. just change the fear of things by saying - you have not recieved a unsafe dosage.

here is an example of a very similar thing - consider vaccines which use weaker/incapable strains of virus. or consider the very first vaccine, where they used the “pus” from a cow, to effectively use the cow virus to develop immunity in humans. if you think about it, example kinda matches well - in very low amounts virus is not that deadly. in very large amounts, it caused a pandemic. does that mean that it also follows a linear model (no, afaik, it has more of a network effects thing, so it is sigmoidal).

I am repeating what i have said in other comments - “do not drop safety limits, spread awreness that it is not that bad”

Furthermore, your dismissal of other forms of green energy is outdated

I have completed my bachelors this year. I am by no means a expert, but i think i know enough to say that i am not 20-30 years behind. i am 5-10 behind at best (roughly the time studies take to actually be taught in courses). (yes i have studied energy).

I am very willing to actually listen things i said which are very out dated, but i would like to hear them, instead of a blanket - my information is outdated.