That is not what relative privation fallacy is. The topic at hand is repeated exposure to low radiation does, I gave examples or negligible to high dosages. Disagreement does not make something a fallacy.

Twofold response:

1. It was not directly part of my claim, but yes releasing "toxins" as a binary concept has to be okay because the world, nature and ourselves naturally releases toxins. Irresponsible, excessive or unnecessary release is what matters.

2. In the airline case, it is not the airline releasing anything. It is cosmic rays and solar flares, which you went closer to. The airline should give a heads up in case this information evaded you, but it's the sun you'd need to sue. You'll have to get in line behind all the skin cancer lawsuits it's dealing with though.

A beach body guard has a massively increased risk of skin cancer compared to an office worker. You can, at most, ask for a shade for your watch tower or complimentary sunscreen.

Even for coal and oil powerplants for example, the right thing to focus on is getting rid of it, not extracting ongoing damages. Wind, nuclear, sun.

For flying, in either come up with a viable way and of radiation shielding passenger planes so it can be pushed for policy, or don't fly. Also don't go to very high altitude locations also carry increased risk.

As for contamination zones, that's specifically something the one to blame will have to keep paying to manage and clean up. Their fault, their bill. But even with all that it still ends up being what takes the fewest lives, due to just how much work for society that one plant did vs. any alternative.