Read the linked text, don&#x27;t cherry pick. &quot;Evidence&quot; as in &quot;one single study, contrary to all other studies&quot; and as &quot;the DNA was less damaged with the lower doses.&quot;<p>It&#x27;s a long jump from &quot;the destructed DNA is in percentages better repaired at low radiation doses than at higher ones&quot; (if even that is provable, compared to simply &quot;the DNA was less hit&quot;) to any reliable proof that the low doses are actually <i>beneficial.</i><p>Again, who actually has the interest in presenting this unsupported &quot;beneficial&quot; claim as the &quot;debate&quot;?