Whilst there are valid points made, the lip service paid in the...

Whilst there are valid points made, the lip service paid in the last paragraph to complex issues makes the whole report pointless. It is EXACTLY those complex issues which are the crux of the matter. The general background radiation level is not the argument here. There would be places within VERY close walking distance of the Fukushima plant that would be very hospitable whilst other spots much further away would have ridiculously high concentrations.

So now I'm drinking water and eating seafood or livestock from this 'safe' area. How do I know what my cow ate or where my fish swam before it came to my table. In addition is there a contaminated hotspot right under my kids school yard sandpit that noone knows. It's a logistical nightmare.
How do I know some of the worst elements havnt just been blown up my nose?

So the whole zone has to be quarantined off.

And as for comparing to atom bombs being dropped. Apples and oranges. You are talking about two bombs that caused a reaction in about two pounds of uranium high up in the atmosphere thus spreading out on very small concentrations.
A power plant meltdown is TONS of fuel at ground level and creating terrible isotopes in the process as well.

I'm all for seeing PEN sp go higher... But please... There are rose-tinted glasses, there are optimists, and then is pure misinformed and irrelevant rubbish.

For the record. I live in JP. Every year for the next 25yrs and extra 2.5percent gets tacked onto my tax due amount to go towards cleaning up that disaster (the radiation and to an even bigger extent the tsunami wipeout)