So who actually tries to make this a &quot;debate&quot;? The world effectively agrees (from your link):<p>&quot;Reports by the United States National Research Council and the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) argue[16] that there is no evidence for hormesis in humans and in the case of the National Research Council, that hormesis is outright rejected as a possibility despite population and scientific evidence.[17] Therefore, estimating Linear no-threshold model (LNT) continues to be the model generally used by regulatory agencies for human radiation exposure.&quot;<p>There&#x27;s no even any logical proof that the radiation, that even in the lowest dosages destructs the DNA whenever it hits it, can make beneficial mutations instead of simply producing a cancer. That the &quot;chemical agents&quot; can be beneficial in low dosages isn&#x27;t the issue as the radiation isn&#x27;t a chemical agent but a DNA destruction agent.<p>Note: &quot;Radiation hormesis is the hypothesis that low doses of ionizing radiation (within the region of and just above natural background levels) are <i>beneficial</i>.&quot;<p>No proof of that.