Yes, if they took until age 66 to die of their radiation, they were not seriously radioactive. Of course at the time, little detail was known of what was and wasn’t safe, other than it could be fatal - eventually. I see the lead coffin lining as better safe than sorry. (did they even know the lead lining was sufficiently sheilding?) Note the article about the notebooks mentions that they were put in lead boxes, but now that we understand things a bit better, they are simply “use precautions when handling, just in case… do not lick.”
The Curies did not die directly of severe radiation poisoning. As the article mentions, they devloped cancer (aplastic anemia) from years of cumulative damage to their cells. This is also why nuclear workers are most concerned about cumulative doses. If you receive a dangerous dose in a matter of minutes or hours, then something is seriously wrong. The Chernobyl victims, however, received sufficiently lethal doses in a matter of days or hours (or minutes). That radiation did far more damage to all parts of their body. But standing near them in the hospital afterwards (once they’ve been washed off) does not rise to that level of danger.
And as gnoitall mentions, the type of radiation matters too.
But as has been repeated, being blasted (or receiving trickles) of radiation does not create a collection of radioactive materials out of one’s body chemicals the way a working reactor contaminates the lining of the container. It breaks the complex biochemicals, causing damage - especially if long term, to DNA - that causes further problems. If you actually ingest and inhale particles, then yes you will some radioactivity in your lungs or gut (or embedded shrapnel, etc.) But usually if there is sufficient time, this too shall pass out of the body - or it may become embedded in the body chemistry. It just may be too late. And as it passes out, it may be a risk. But the same applies, if the amount being excreted is so risky that nobody should even stand near the person days later (or handle their bedpans?) then the person was actually toast.
Certain elements in the body’s tissues can be radioactivated by neutron flux, but if the victim is otherwise uncontaminated this is not going to be very dangerous to bystanders; it will be rather useful for estimating the total dose from gamma rays and neutrons.
Purely speculation, but if the tips or edges of the claw used a hardened steel alloy for wear resistance , that would frequently contain cobalt, which is readily activated by a neutron flux.
Point of order: although Marie Curie died indeed of aplastic anemia in her 60s (undoubtedly due to exposure to radioactive materials), Pierre Curie died in a traffic accident (being crushed by a heavy cart).
Although there is little doubt that, had he not died then and there, he would have ended dying of radiation-related illnesses as did Marie and both their daughter Irene and their son-in-law Fréderic.
And just to be clear on my own opinion about nukes.
I’m slightly in favor, and more research is needed. I grew up aprox. 10 miles from a double reactor. After Three Mile Island we got packs of Iodine tablets and a receiver box with an alarm sent to our house, since we were considered (among thousands others) to be in the immediate risk zone. When Sweden held a referendum in 1980 about continuation of nuclear power, I voted Yes. I think the risks and panic are greatly exaggerated.
However, I do not think that nukes are going to be a viable option to a fossil free world in the short term. In fact, I wrote a rather lengthy post about it some time ago some of what I wrote there is repeated here.
In 2006 BBC aired an episode of Horizon - their prestigious popular science documentary - called Nuclear Nightmares. It was an epiphany to me. It says - among a lot of other really interesting stuff - that radiophobia is doing a lot more harm than radiation it self. And from my understanding, the HBO show played heavily into that radiophobia.