It's good that people know these facts. But it's also obvious that additions to the burden of "background radiation" cause increased likelihood of resultant cancers (and other, more ignorable mutations in fauna and flora). (This is much the same discussion we had about petrochemical toxins after "Silent Spring".)
Yes, but how alarmed we are about some things, and how tolerant we are of others is largely irrational.
For example, living near Denver for a year will expose you to more radiation than living next to Fukushima during the accident would. This is because there's high radon in the Denver area geography.
But I'd bet if you asked all of the couple million people if they're safer from cancer in Denver or Fukushima all but a handful of nutbars and nuclear industry folks would answer Denver.
I don't mean to just be an apologist here: we should care a lot about toxic releases of all forms. But right now the discussion is entirely dominated by alarmism and there's little accurate information. This is disastrous because it means we direct too many resources toward lessor risks, and the media and population as a whole ignores larger risks.
