(I was posting this when we went down. I may have broken the board.)
Do I need to worry about the cousins (kinda cousins anyway, by marriage--step-cousins?) who are in Japan because the husband is a nuclear engineer in the US Navy working at Fukushima?
I'm sorry I worried you, Burrell. I meant the opposite -- that the CEOs over the nation's nuclear power plants would never visit Fukushima if it was as dangerous as the article implies. Apparently my sarcasm font was broken. If he's working there, he'll have an instrument on him that measures his exposure constantly. There are very conservative annual and lifetime limits on the amount of exposure people working with radioactive materials are allowed to receive. On the unlikely event he reaches his yearly limit, he'll be pulled out of there and not allowed to work anywhere he could be exposed.
Typo, we use the linear threshold model because it's the safest thing to do, and I'm not suggesting we stop acting as if it was true. Things like the annual and lifetime exposure limits I just mentioned are based on it. There are no reliable data, though, and what data we have leans towards the self-healing model you mention. As you've probably read, there are reputable researchers who claim a little radiation is good for you.
I remember it being listed as the most poisonous substance back when I read Guiness records for entertainment.
Plutonium's reputation as the deadliest substance on earth apparent dates back to the early days of the nuclear navy, when they we trying to make sailors treat nuclear materials seriously. Albert Stevens [link] was injected with a large amount of plutonium as part of a highly unethical experiment. He lived 20 more years.