BEIR made a lot of claims regarding the mortality of low level exposure to radiation that haven’t been validated.
Ever study ever cited in attempts to “prove” low dose radiation is good for health has approx 10% of the validity of the BEIR so I’ll go with the decades of large scale state-of-the-art testing compared with “Bob-has-a-pet-theory” science.
Radiation dose accumulates so claiming low dose is harmless is flawed on it’s face.
THe nuclear energy industry would like people like me to “shut up and eat your radiation!” but they have no idea what dose I’ve already accummulated (medical or other exposures I never consented to - there used to be an online video where a car is driving around an urban area with radiation monitoring device and finds a “hot” spot in the back of a big rig. They follow it around and note that the radioactive load is located nearest the driver and he’s just tooling around town, unaware of what he’s hauling)
One of the lessons of Chernobyl is that in an exposed population, approx 10-15% are more sensitive to radiation and suffer greater harm, the largest 70% are Moderately sensitive and suffer harm at lesser numbers (harm but less) and the lowest 10-15% on the chart are much less sensitive to radiation. So that meant that in the early days of the Chernobyl disaster, some people succumbed quickly, some never succumbed at all, and the mid response was mixed. The guy chiefly responsible for the disaster was exposed to shockingly high doses (radioactive dust blew on him) and he lived to old age yet the men next to him, also exposed at the same levels died grisly deaths in a matter of days. It matters who you are, how well you can tolerate depressed immune response, how well your body heals, your age, your gender etc. and I think it’s pointless to imply that “low dose radiation is harmless and may be beneficial” when people have no idea what their immune system is already protecting them from and what their sensitivity to radiation is, what their accumulated dose is etc.
I note that the standard to which proponents of hormesis adhere are nothing compared with national long term longitudinal state-of-the-art science. By this I mean, the same people who critique BEIR will accept “medicine man” levels of fake science when it comes to hormesis - particularly those in the nuclear industry. Decades of information gleaned from Chernobyl and now accumulating in Japan will be ignored in favor of backward high hopes (hormesis). In fact, hormesis has a long way to go before the same population of scientists who critique the BEIR will even deign to critique hormesis wishcraft.