A single cross-country flight is a 40usv exposure; flight attendants make the equivalent of 20 of those flights on average every month. An hour maximally exposed to the highest recorded level of outdoor radiation 50km away from the plant is roughly equivalent to two round trips between LA and New York.
If you want to call this "Russian Roulette", that's fine, as long as you're also never going to get into a car, never going to eat red meat, and never going to ride a bike down a city street. All three of those things are demonstrably more dangerous than standing at the gates of the Fukushima plant.
I want to point out that we are talking about you misunderstanding risks at two different points:
(1) You appear to perceive a spot outdoor measurement of 170usv as a significant amount of radiological exposure, when it is in fact a very minor exposure, equivalent to an amount of air travel common in western culture --- and this, despite a concomitant spent fuel pond fire at a nuclear reactor.
(2) You appear to perceive a cumulative 100msv (note unit) exposure as a significant carcinogenic risk, when it is in fact the lowest level of exposure you can endure at which there is any measurable impact on cancer; the behaviors (such as eating red meat) that I am hammering you with produce what appear to be much higher levels of carcinogenesis.