Is there any evidence of reduced "life expectancy of future generations" for radiation exposure at the levels discussed? If not, then that may be why it was not addressed.

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)."