Could “Junk DNA” like repetitive and viral inserts or the structural DNA components be important in protecting us from UV and other damage?

The assignment instructions are in the word attached and the instructions from the professor are below: Googling “junk DNA” and “UV damage” together (https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=392315896b6345ed&rlz=1C1AVFC_enUS1069US1069&sxsrf=AHTn8zqa3VOREP0jKBXXfa8uJYPXGoCsow:1738788641966&q=uv+damage+%22junk%22+dna&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwif59-6tK2LAxVEFlkFHc_LEl0Q5t4CegQIRBAB&biw=1920&bih=953&dpr=1
to try to answer ii gets several potentially good pages and corrects the use of the term junk DNA to “non-coding DNA” or even more scientifically accurate terms like “transposable elements”. The AI response is an okay start, but an AI amalgamation is not a scientific source, so I’m looking down the page more. A page like https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26281766/ is written by scientists to review the topic, a page like https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/dna-damage-repair-mechanisms-for-maintaining-dna-344/ does include a lot of interesting points about DNA repair but does not actually talk about Junk DNA. https://kaw.wallenberg.org/en/research/ultraviolet-light-lab-yields-new-findings-skin-cancer is from a foundation about cancer, they seem excited about hypotheses regarding UV and non-coding regions.
A quote from the first or third of those pages, a description of the article or abstract, a linked citation, and a judgment call on their argument would be plenty for the assignment. All above are written by scientists, so an answer like “there are hypotheses that state…” would be great.Further down a page, I get pages from Reddit, https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/ctjym/researchers_discover_how_key_enzyme_repairs/ the discussion there is primarily run by commenters, so it doesn’t really fit the assignment. Then we get one from one from ICR, the Institute for Creation Research, I won’t even link to because creationism is a non-scientific discipline that keyed into a scientist stating that ‘junk DNA” is no longer referred to as such as some argument against scientists. Some of the .gov and .edu sites past that point could still be good, but it is best to be skeptical in picking out a resource.