The effect of an electron beam induced dehydrogenation of MgH2 in the transmission electron microscope (TEM) is largely underestimated by Nogita et al., and led the authors to a misinterpretation of their TEM observations. Firstly, the selected area diffraction (SAD) pattern is falsely interpreted. A re-evaluation of the SAD pattern reveals that no MgH2 is present in the sample, but that it rather consists of Mg and MgO only. Secondly, the transformation of the sample upon in-situ heating in the TEM cannot be ascribed to dehydrogenation, but is rather to be explained by the (nanoscale) Kirkendall effect, which leads to the formation of hollow MgO shells without any metallic Mg in their cores. Hence, the conclusions drawn from the TEM investigation are invalid, as the authors apparently have never studied MgH2.