It would appear that this article is exhaggerating more than a little.
The coverage of Fukushima by the mainstream press has only gone to show just how far they are willing to stretch the truth for a headline.
Had this article been written on the basis of actual data from IAEA readings, it probably would have been more moderate.
http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/11040506-e....
Up to 200,000 - 300,000 Bq/cm^3 (200 - 300 MBq/L) of I-131, measured at the outflow screen right next to reactor unit #2. (This inside the protective "harbor" of seawalls; there's maps in the TEPCO link). The statutory limit is given there as 0.04 Bq/cm^3.
For comparison, at the ~30 km seawater sampling perimeter, the I-131 measurements don't appear to have exceeded 0.08 Bq/cm^3 (80 Bq/L):
http://www.mext.go.jp/english/radioactivity_level/detail/130...
This explains part of the confusion: they're sampling at the plant, and they're sampling tens of miles out, where the levels are diluted by 6 - 7 orders of magnitude. So wildly different numbers are being reported, but they are in fact consistent.
The data is what has been actually recorded by Tepco and others and is certainly reported in good detail without being fudged or sensationalised like the mainstream media is doing.
We know there IS radiation and we know that pretty much ANY radiation coming from any plant that has the words "disaster" "chernobyl" "meltdown" "breach" or any other range of descriptors is certainly BAD.
So, take-aways == radiation escapes, radiation bad, don't know truth == stay very far away.
The IAEA report may be giving out false data. Yet it's hard to find any other organization that is publishing their data to corroborate or falsify the IAEA findings.
The mainstream media isn't helping to clear up the issue either. My point is that they're just making it worse. Some are heinously using it to further some political bias or agenda.
All I'm saying is that reporting levels as 7.5 million times some un-stated limit isn't very good journalism.