My view is that an examination of the data on outer space radiation and the science of radiation health and disease would not be a fruitful road for prohoax types to travel down. It seems to me that the yield in terms of proving a hoax based on this approach would be exceedingly low.
Indeed, it's much more profitable for hoax enthusiasts to go look at pictures and say, "Well, that doesn't look like the Moon to me." Much more rigorous.
That's the problem with hoax arguments -- they never want closure. They want to run around in endless circles of second-guessing and question-begging, so that they can write the same things over and over again and call it "ongoing research." The radiation argument -- while treated ignorantly by some hoax theorists -- actually has sound scientific principles and well-documented engineering solutions.
Since we know that you have no actual scientific skills, as evidenced by your long-standing failure to provide any sort of rigor and your colossal and comical blunders when trying to deal with scientific topics, this would be a dangerous road to pursue. Sooner or later you'd be expected to show some actual rigor, and you know you cannot.