At the Very Least, Your Days of Eating Pacific Ocean Fish Are Over

A couple of excerpts:

"* Tissue samples taken from 15 bluefin caught in August, five months after the meltdowns at Fukushima Daiichi, all 15 contained reactor byproducts cesium-134 and cesium-137.

"* The 15 fish tested were only exposed to radiation for a short time. But bluefin arriving in California now will have been exposed to the Fukushima radiation for much longer."

That seems to refer to http://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/march/bluefin-tuna-secret..., which includes the following statement:

"(Madigan stressed that the Fukushima radiation found in bluefin tuna is significantly lower than naturally occurring radioactive isotopes normally found in the fish.)"

If you are familiar with the term "journalistic credibility", check this update; it should bring a chuckle:

"It started with the graphic that I posted. It turns out, unknowingly to me, that it was an image from NOAA that showed the Tsunami wave height that had been edited to look like the Pacific Ocean Fukushima radiation path. I’m going to look for updated information and will change the graphic and accompanying information as soon as I have time to look for it..."

The author helpfully reminds us,

"The overwhelming scientific consensus is that there is no safe level of radiation..."

FLEE DENVER NOW!

Can anyone point to a good overview of the entire situation from a respectable source? This page just screams of conspiracy theory, however true (or not) it might be.

If I wanted to discredit those who sincerely worry about the long-term consequences of Fukushima, make them look like tin-hat-wearing paranoids, I could do no better than the linked article, which is not a balanced report but an editorial filled with intended and unintended inaccuracies.

Fukushima is a very serious problem, and many countries are reconsidering their commitment to nuclear power as a result, including Germany, which intends to phase out nuclear power entirely. But the linked article is absolutely counterproductive, exhibiting every irresponsible, sensationalist trait imaginable.

A counterpoint: "Fukushima fallout: Germany abandons nuclear energy" : http://www.smh.com.au/world/fukushima-fallout-germany-abando...

Considering the impact of fishing perhaps a bit of paranoia will do good for the biosphere. Still I must point out that whatever radiation is released or will be released from Fukushima, is nothing compared to what nuclear weapons testing had done in the last century:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLCF7vPanrY

so enough scaremongering.

To give you an idea about how serious this article is: the first map that is supposed to show radiation levels... actually shows wave height.