These statements are good for guide lines, but there are materials which are long lasting and highly radioactive. When you don't introduce these things as guide lines people will show you the examples where it isn't true (as seen here).
> Almost everything dangerous had since decayed.
This is where I take issue with your comment. Frankly because long lasting isotopes still can be dangerous, even if their levels are low. Excluding the effects of radiation, most of these are heavy metals. With the difficulty of the subject matter I think it is easy for people to pick apart generalizations. The subject matter is just really convoluted and required a high degree of knowledge to even feel like you can understand what scientists are talking about. Plus combine all the fear associated with nuclear.
I think you could reword it as
> Most of the material with high activity has decayed and we're mostly left with long living isotopes that tend to be less dangerous.
Also, for data I like this map:
https://jciv.iidj.net/map/