How might a low hazard potentially be beneficial?

A low hazard being considered beneficial primarily because it has no impact on public health highlights its relative safety in terms of backflow risks. This means that the potential for the hazard to cause health issues or environmental damage is minimal, which is a positive trait in the context of public safety. If there are no adverse health effects associated with a low hazard, it can be managed more easily, and it requires less stringent regulatory oversight.

Other options may touch on relevant aspects of hazards but don't directly correlate with the inherent characteristics of a low hazard. For example, while low hazards could potentially be remedy-ready, that does not specifically underline a benefit of the low hazard itself in the context of public health. Similarly, increased economic activity does not directly stem from a low hazard's nature but rather from other factors like regulatory frameworks or community needs. The notion of being a resource for health-related improvements can be valid in broader contexts but does not specifically relate to the concept of low hazards being beneficial in the same straightforward manner as having no impact on public health.