I think both "sides" aren't looking great here. On one side you have someone quoting the article with a fact that doesn't mean what they think it means (the level of radiation reported is safe; the person in question is being sent for medical attention more for process's sake and an overabundance of caution), and the other side is being incredibly uncharitable and rude when it comes to calling people out for being ignorant of how this stuff works.
If we're talking broader "sides" the mistaken one does look pretty bad. Fantasising doom based on facts someone doesn't understand while having those facts clarified is a bad look. It'd be like me going through a thread politely hyperventilating about trace dihydrogen monoxide contamination the man was exposed to after this event was all over. One hand there is no reason to be rude about that sort of mistake, but on the other it is kind of a ... why the comment based on a very terse paragraph that they have to know they don't understand? When there are a lot of comments pointing out that there is no evidence to believe this report is a problem.
The paragraph says 300 CPM and the dude took a non-emergency trip to a medical centre. If someone doesn't know what 300 CPM means or what a non-emergency trip to a medical centre from an industrial site implies, the best message to be given is "don't comment or form an opinion, leave it to the people who are happy to look up CPM on Wikipedia before deciding to panic, people who've worked on industrial sites or maybe even experts". Not encouraging them to talk more.
