This article has no mention of bioaccumulation. Pacific Ocean is so large that it can dilute huge amount of radioactivity, but bioaccumulation changes the story.
Without estimates how well these leaks bioaccumulate, the whole article is useless. Humans are at the top of the food chain in the sea and overfishing and exploiting sea life close to it's maximum capacity.
In Chernobyl, most of the radioactivity fell into the forests, mostly away from human food chain (there are still recommendations to not eat too much berries, mushrooms etc. in many areas). The Pacific is 100% in human food chain.
As ChuckMcM and I point out, Pacific weapons testing released an order of magnitude more Cs-137 in the 1950's. So Fukushima's effects will merely repeat whatever that did to Pacific fishing, on a much smaller scale.
If it has an effect on overfishing then we should welcome it. Sometimes paranoia can be useful. Or there will be no more tuna left for our grandchildren.
Nature does not care so much about radiation than we do. The wildlife in Chernobyl had fared better after the accident simply of not having humans present. Some like Stewart Brand went so far as arguing for placing nuclear waste in dry cask storage into nature preserves. Just to keep them pristine.
Precisely my thought. It's a notable lapse in an otherwise well-constructed article.
And to be clear: calling out specifically how the alarmists have misrepresented radiation hazards (I've seen the wave-height map circulated misleadingly numerous times) is absolutely the right call.
In Chernobyl, most of the radioactivity fell into the forests, mostly away from human food chain (there are still recommendations to not eat too much berries, mushrooms etc. in many areas). The Pacific is 100% in human food chain.