I'm not following several different aspects of your comment here. First of all, the paper is in Nature, not Science. Second, the first and second paragraphs do contain some relevant words, but nothing quantitative - literally the only quantitative number (not nomenclature number) in the entire first 2 paragraphs is CHIP being defined as >2% of something. Furthermore the reference to baseline genetic variation you mention is verbatim as follows: "Considering baseline genetic and extrinsic variability, the development of tools that permit the assessment of individual genetic susceptibility would improve risk stratification and long-term clinical management."

And I would argue that the article (not paper) does _not_ convey the qualitative conclusion of elevated rates of nonstandard mutations, because it doesn't reference the baseline at all! It doesn't even present it as a comparison, like "We found MORE mutations in astronauts than would be expected of non-astronauts" - it literally just phrases it as "We found mutations in astronauts", which, considering that non-astronauts are exposed to radiation and get cancer + epigenetic mutations as well, doesn't differentiate it from the normal expected observation.