Yes, and you totally ignored the cancers that could occur due to low levels of additional radiation in the population at large. You are simply presuming that such cancers cannot occur.

What you are doing here is demanding that the cancers actually be demonstrated, requiring that radiation be treated as innocuous until it can be conclusively shown it isn't. This is the mindset behind those ranting against the linear no threshold theory of radiation carcinogenesis.

But regulation doesn't work this way. Nuclear isn't something that must be presumed innocent until proven guilty.