That paper appears to discuss how iodine is absorbed and transported within the body, but not the long-term effects of it. Similarly, your italicized Hanford quote mentions acute effects from high doses, not long-term effects from low doses.
I certainly could be wrong, but you and the others replying to me do not seem to be doing a very good job distinguishing between short term, high-dose effects (which were pretty well known) and long term, low-dose effects (which seem to have taken a lot longer to figure out).
We know about the DNA since 1954, we know that the radiation particles destruct it as soon as they hit it. There's no any known mechanism under which the long-term effects can be anything but negative.
The only ones who "benefited" are comics heroes like Spiderman. But do I have to point they don't exist? The only others who "benefit" are those who are doing the nuclear projects.
And I'm not against nuclear in general. If that's the best we can do to provide the energy we want to use, we have to do it. But effectively inventing the health "benefits" is too much.
Although that's totally the common understanding, surprisingly there's rather a lot of evidence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis) at this point that it isn't actually true; it's just a little hard to say "a little radiation might be good for you" without people writing you off as some sort of crazy person at the outset, so it's not talked about very much.
What you're describing -- and what most people who don't have a specialized education in the nuclear field commonly believe -- is something called the "linear no threshold" hypothesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model) of radiation exposure, and although it's commonly used because it's definitely the safest and most conservative way of responding to radiation exposure, it's rather controversial and probably wrong.
If you're curious and want to find out more, there's a lot of fascinating material about the subject available publicly, including some analyses of life expectancies in areas that have much-higher-than-normal background radiation (off the top of my head, Kerala, India is one such locality).
"For example, in 1953, the Public Health Service was asked to obtain milk samples in St. George, Utah, near the test site. But the service took a sample from a carton of milk purchased in a store, not from a local farm or dairy -- at a time when the majority of residents of southwest Utah obtained milk from their own cows and many others purchased milk from neighboring farms.(12)
According to Morgan S. Seal, a fallout monitor with the Public Health Service, the testing procedure was not very useful either. "In the case of milk, we even treated it with perchloric acid to get rid of all the organic residue....we knew for a fact then that those oxidating techniques completely eliminated any iodine in the material that you were treating."(13)"
This once again appears to confuse short term acute effects with long term cancer risks.
It should be pretty clear just from looking at the timeline. How are they going to discover a long term cancer risk by studying the population only eight years after exposure began?
I certainly could be wrong, but you and the others replying to me do not seem to be doing a very good job distinguishing between short term, high-dose effects (which were pretty well known) and long term, low-dose effects (which seem to have taken a lot longer to figure out).