I&#x27;m not cherry-picking anything; these are quotes from the published opinion. And both leave space for doubt, because the science is not conclusive. As I said, I support their decision; it&#x27;s definitely a &quot;better safe than sorry&quot; situation.<p>And why does there have to be an agenda, as opposed to simply being an unresolved scientific point of contention? We don&#x27;t know if there&#x27;s life on Europa either, and I&#x27;m sure there&#x27;s scientists on both sides. But I wouldn&#x27;t say any of them have an agenda except for making the best educated guess they can, lacking any solid evidence one way or another.<p>EDIT: Also, to reply to an earlier point:<p>&gt; 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.<p>It can also just kill the cell. If it kills problematic or pre-problematic cells more proportionately than healthy cells, then the net effect could be positive. Such disproportionate effects are the very basis of otherwise indiscriminate treatments like chemotherapy [0].<p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Chemotherapy#Mechanism_of_action" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Chemotherapy#Mechanism_of_acti...</a>