The only radioactive sources that someone in a pre-modern period could have been exposed to are uranium mines, which can contain significant quantities of radioactive radon gas. That working in uranium-ore holding mines was correlated with lung disease was observed in the 16th century, but it was not until the 19th century that it was understood to be cancer and not until the 20th that it was connected to the radioactivity of the radon gas. Radioactivity of course was not discovered until the 1890s so nobody would have been looking for or expecting to find it before then.

There are no other sources of radiation that a pre-modern person would be exposed to that would high-enough or individual-enough to be noticeable. People would have, of course, been exposed to natural radioactivity, but when everyone is exposed to about the same amount, it doesn't produce effects you would notice in populations. To be noticeable it either has to be something you know about ahead of time, or it has to be something that only a subset are exposed to so you can contrast their experience (like the uranium miners). The levels of radioactivity that produce radiation sickness (like at Hiroshima or Chernobyl) are the products of nuclear technology that was not available prior to the modern period. (And, before someone points it out, yes, there was a natural nuclear reactor underground in Africa two billion years ago, but that's not relevant to the human experience here...)

More details here.

Here's an answer by /u/Zoidinho on why ancient societies would probably not have noticed radiation https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/hy4yik/comment/fzb2rh3?utm_source=amp&utm_medium=&utm_content=comment_timestamp

And /u/rocketsocks on the same point: it's hard to refine naturally radioactive materials to the point where their radioactivity has noticeable effects https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/j5ngqg/are_there_records_of_people_in_medieval_times/g7vksgc