Discussing the scientific controversy surrounding the Linear No-Threshold (LNT) model of radiation protection, which posits that any amount of radiation exposure, no matter how small, increases cancer risk. Critically, several articles present evidence supporting the radiation hormesis hypothesis, a contrasting model suggesting that low doses of radiation, often comparable to or slightly exceeding natural background levels, can actually be beneficial or protective, demonstrating a biphasic dose-response relationship. This evidence is drawn from epidemiological studies in high natural background radiation areas (e.g., Ramsar, Iran, and Kerala, India), which frequently show no significant increase in cancer or mortality, and sometimes suggest a decrease. Furthermore, experimental data from both cell lines and murine studies show that low-dose radiation can protect normal cells from oxidative stress via ATM signaling and stimulate immune function, leading to reduced tumor growth and increased survival in animal models. The refusal of regulatory bodies to abandon the LNT model, despite this biological evidence favoring hormesis, is characterized as a policy and economic issue driven by the precautionary principle, leading to what some sources describe as an irrational fear of low-dose radiation.