I'm not saying those effects can or cannot be ignored because I'm not an expert. But I'm skeptical because the analysis does not address human reproduction.
While I don't know if there is or not, these studies of the results of the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombs[0] shows that the effects were limited to those currently pregnant, and without 1200 meters of ground zero of the blast. With no effect on the future children born to parents exposed to ionizing radiation of those levels.
[0] - http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2013/ph241/yapa2/
"The many studies that were conducted after the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki determined that some of the risks that the public perceives to be associated with radiation exposure are non-existent, while others are in fact matters of concern. The cancer risk for children who were in-utero when their mothers were exposed is higher than it would be for others without this exposure, but children who were conceived after their parents were exposed to radiation had no increased cancer risk. Similarly for both birth defects and mental retardation, it was found that in-utero exposure possibly increased the rate of incidence of these conditions, but results from all studies are inconclusive, except for the case of pregnant mothers within 1200m of the hypocenter. All of the in-utero children born to these mothers experienced mental retardation. All three of these cases found that there is no increased risk of these conditions if the parents of the child were exposed to the ionizing radiation of the atomic bomb (child was not conceived at the time of the exposure)."
The amount of radioactive material involved in the 1945 events is several orders of magnitude smaller than at Fukishima. Perhaps there are robust cross examined theories indicating that the events are comparable. I am skeptical that the events are similar enough in important ways (i.e. ways other than occurring in Japan) that a single anecdote is sufficient basis to claim support for the proposed policy.
(I'm assuming a 1-dimensional scale here, which may be a mistake)
Why would the total radiation of the event matter at all? All the radiation that an individual may receive beyond "fatal in hours" will not be relevant to their reproductive future.
(Except in the contrived scenario in which a male receives enough radiation to kill him in hours, but still conceives a child in these hours)
The scale of radioactive materials are orders of magnitude different.
[1]: http://www.world-nuclear.org/nuclear-basics/how-is-uranium-o...
[2]: Fukushima 3 where the failure occurred used MOX fuel containing Plutonium as well as Uranium.
[3]: http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-...