By comparison, I found this map via a quick Google search: http://world-nuclear.org/uploadedImages/org/info/NaturalbackgroundradiationEurope.gif http://world-n

By comparison, I found this map via a quick Google search: http://world-nuclear.org/uploadedImages/org/info/NaturalbackgroundradiationEurope.gif http://world-nuclear.org/uploadedImages/org/info/Naturalback... 0.484µSv/hour ~ 4.2mSv/year, so according to that map a large chunk of Europe gets higher readings anyway. Basically anywhere with significant amounts of granite will naturally have a lot of background radiation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granite#Natural_radiation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granite#Natural_radiation And that's not to mention things areas near coal power plants whose own radiation levels absolutely dwarf the normal output of nuclear reactors: http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/1018/do-coal-plants-release-more-radiation-than-nuclear-power-plants http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/1018/do-coal-pla... Which is not to say this news isn't concerning! But it's concerning for other reasons (i.e. a predictor of future issues with containment and contamination in the area) rather than an immediate health risk to those attending the Olympics, which is how the headline might be interpreted.