I doubt that selecting less than half a sentence from the lead paragraph of an article is a very careful approach to criticism.

This article actually looks pretty typical of Wikipedia articles on relatively obscure quackish biomedical ideas. It outlines what the "hypothesis" is, then makes clear that it is explicitly rejected by various people who have studied the matter. The subject doesn't have enough history or enough attention from skeptics to get the kind of treatment that, say, the article on homeopathy does.

There are two completely junk charts (no scale!) in the article. Yuck!

When read carefully, the article makes clear it's talking about an effect that even if it existed, would be very close to the noise threshold. It requires some statistical awareness — much more than the typical academic has, to say nothing of Wikipedians — to recognize that this is the same thing as saying "there's no reason to suspect an effect here."

The primary bias problem here isn't the article; it's that the subject matter is made of bias, at least as far as I can tell. There's only so many times an article can say "there are a few noisy experiments, but nobody who actually counts on radiation safety thinks this exists."

That said, there's one thing I was really surprised to find: the talk page doesn't seem to be full of supporters saying that their hypothesis is being persecuted by the mainstream and skeptics calling them a bunch of names. And that suggests to me that improvement shouldn't be too hard.