There is a &quot;debate&quot; like in all areas where there are big money interests. How much of scientists are on &quot;there&#x27;s nothing&quot; and how much are on the &quot;there&#x27;s a debate&quot; side?<p>Linearity in the observed statistics is absolutely not the same as &quot;beneficial.&quot; Even if the statistics gets &quot;fuzzy&quot; for low enough doses who can actually claim the real benefits?<p>Also: the actual dosages matter. The low enough dosages are something where we simply don&#x27;t have anything to compare to as &quot;full absence&quot;. We get some level of radiation all the time. Even eating a banana gets you a little of the radioactive stuff. And we (as animals) get cancer all the time.<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.livescience.com&#x2F;9680-cancer-kills-wild-animals.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.livescience.com&#x2F;9680-cancer-kills-wild-animals.ht...</a>