Photon is right on with this. The fact there was a spread of radioactivity 20km outside of the plant meets the definition of a 7, that's why they changed it. Not because of any new developments or risks.
In fact, airborne readings in Yokohama (much, much, closer than France is to the plant, BTW) and Tokyo show declining background radiation very much normal.
http://www.city.yokohama.lg.jp/kankyo/saigai/
(As a funny aside, Tokyo's readings are still half of Hong Kong's normal daily readings FWIW)
The stuff is local, and it's terrible for the people around the area in Fukushima, but it's not being projected with huge velocity into the atmosphere. That's the huge, major difference between Chernobyl and Fukushima.
As for Giver99 - who has nothing at stake in this - you can simply put out your own morbid apocalyptic fantasies by claiming that somehow the magic winds from Fukushima will blow straight south and destroy Tokyo (that's what you're saying, isn't it). The site you quoted defines "eating fresh milk" and "leafy veg" as risky behavior. (Funny in itself) And then throws out numbers that are completely not even out of the ordinary, relying on people's ignorance of radiation to scare them into believing the problem is bigger than it is. If there's one thing that's happened to all of us Japanese residents over the past couple of weeks is that we've all boned up on our nuclear/radiation over the past month.
I'm also keen to hear Giver's prediction. Let er rip.