This review is focused on the radioactive contamination in the Urals, where the consequences have been more serious in the long run than those after the Chernobyl accident. Mayak Production Association, constructed in 1948, has been the first plutonium manufacturing site in the Soviet Union. The difference between contaminations in the Urals and Chernobyl is that the latter was an accident, but the former - a radioactive contamination tolerated since 70 years with several accidents in between. The tendency to overestimate health-related risks from low-dose low-rate exposures has been noticed in Chernobylrelated studies since approximately 1990 and in the research from the Urals since 2005. Cancer-related research has been commented previously. Selected cardio-, cerebro-vascular and ophthalmological conditions are discussed here. The rate of self-reporting correlates with dose estimates and awareness about radiation-related risks, the latter being associated with the work experience at the nuclear industry or residence in contaminated areas, and hence with the accumulated dose. Individuals informed of their higher doses would more often seek medical advice and on average more thoroughly examined. As a result, lens opacities and other pathological conditions are diagnosed in exposed people earlier than in the general population. This explains the dose-effect correlations reported for the incidence of cataracts but not for the frequency of cataract surgeries. Analogously, different pathological conditions are more often detected in exposed people. Results of bioassays are generally not supportive of harmful effects of low doses with possible exception of genetically modified animals. Mechanisms of damage at low doses remain speculative and the evidence inconclusive. The harm caused by anthropogenic radiation would tend to zero with a dose rate decreasing down to the level of natural background. Admittedly, irradiation may act synergistically with other noxious factors. Therefore, the optimal approach to the radiation protection is “as low as reasonably practicable”. Excessively strict regulations would cause some industries and modern technologies relocating to countries with less legalistic traditions. The environmental movement was founded on economic prosperity and complacency. When the global peace is threatened, the attitude should change.