When an editorial is so desperate to take a contrarian view to what everyone else is saying it starts claiming Chernobyl didn't affect the area much (linking as supposed evidence to an article whose second page is entirely devoted to observed negative effects of the radiation on the wild animal population two decades later...) it's ill-researched sensationalism itself.
I realise The Register may have published the story before the relevant Japanese authorities abandoned their face-saving pretence that there weren't going to be any further problems, but that doesn't mean this kind of denialism masquerading as scientific counterargument deserves any more credence than the doomsday prophecies spreading elsewhere. Particularly when it's written by a layman masquerading as an authority whose last article was entitled "Balanced, neutral journalism is RUBBISH and that's a FACT" :-)
It is a curious social phenomena that people often want to believe the best possible interpretation even when the evidence shows that things are not going well at all. In this case denialism is probably a strategy to avoid panic, which could have even greater negative consequences.
I realise The Register may have published the story before the relevant Japanese authorities abandoned their face-saving pretence that there weren't going to be any further problems, but that doesn't mean this kind of denialism masquerading as scientific counterargument deserves any more credence than the doomsday prophecies spreading elsewhere. Particularly when it's written by a layman masquerading as an authority whose last article was entitled "Balanced, neutral journalism is RUBBISH and that's a FACT" :-)