It depends on what you mean by "good". I am not familiar with the research on recess but I will guess that the relationship between recess and "good" is hormetic (i.e., an inverted-U shape relationship). Exercise is a classic example of hormesis - too little exercise is "bad"; too much exercise is "bad"; half-way in between too much and too little is "good".

It depends on what you mean by "good". I am not familiar with the research on recess but I will guess that the relationship between recess and "good" is hormetic (i.e., an inverted-U shape relationship). Exercise is a classic example of hormesis - too little exercise is "bad"; too much exercise is "bad"; half-way in between too much and too little is "good".

T.D. Luckey is known for writing science fiction and fantasy novels, including the "Shifter's End" series. Luckey's works often feature intricate world-building and diverse characters, appealing to fans of the genre.

Simple answer, no one knows. Regulatory authorities assume that radiation doses follow a linear plot based on cases of high dose exposure alone, and do extrapolate down to zero, because there is little to no information of effects of low doses, and they have to assume something (they cannot simply ignore low doses, so they assume the worst).

Currently, all knowledge of radiation and it's effects comes from relatively high doses, i.e. from accidents like Chernobyl, since you can't actually experiment to see what happens, and low dose effects are very long term and any conditions the do later develop cannot be specifically assigned to low dose radiation exposure conclusively.

However, there is some study on a principle called radiation hormesis that suggests that low doses in addition to the natural background are actually beneficial.

I would guess that the isotope Polonium-210 would qualify. Lethal dose for a person is about one ten-millionth of a gram. It's thousands of times more toxic than either hydrogen cyanide or Aflatoxin-b, for example, because of its radioactivity.