Just for perspective, the largest nuclear bomb ever detonated above ground was 50 megatons, which is 2777 times larger than the upper limit for the yield of the bomb detonated on Hiroshima. I'm not saying that the Fukushima incident has not had an ecological impact, but blaming it for effects seen in Montana is pretty wacky given that over 100 atmospheric nuclear detonations have been conducted just two states over in Nevada since the 50's, and another 900 underground!
The increasing acidity of the ocean due to the formation of carbonic acid (resulting from increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere) is a far more plausible explanation for most of the phenomena mentioned in this article. For example, the increased levels of marine life off of the coast of California might be explained by acidification in the area. The coastal waters of California are slightly less acidic than those further out from shore [1]. If pH were reduced equally both on the coast and off the cost, the effect might be to force marine life towards the coast where pH is higher.
What's really funny is that paranoia over nuclear power, which the Fukushima incident has certainly boosted, may cause nuclear power to be used less in the near future. Alternative energy sources such as solar and wind are great, but can only form a relatively small portion of a stable power-grid because we simply don't have the technology to build electrical capacitance on the levels needed to smooth out fluctuations in supply of these power sources. On-demand power sources, such as nuclear or fossil fuels, are still very important. If nuclear power is used less out of fear, fossil fuels will pick up the slack. That means more atmospheric CO2 and more ocean acidification. The end result is that this kind of article will probably do more to harm marine life than Fukushima ever did!
Oh for the love of...
> that 400 tons of radioactive wastewater... an additional 300 metric tons of highly contaminated radioactive wastewater
Wikipedia:
> The volume of the Pacific Ocean, representing about 50.1 percent of the world's oceanic water, has been estimated at some 714 million cubic kilometers.
Are we done here?
Is the amount of radiation and heavy metals being released by Fukushima significantly more than was released by the nuclear testing (that is, blowing up islands with atomic bombs) in the Pacific in the 50s and 60s?
So 1-2 weeks ago my girlfriend forwarded me an article from some rightwing conspiracy nut journalist that covered all of the issues in this article. That article however was based on gross misreadings of the original academic articles on which it was based. Had I not read that previous article, I would have taken a lot more of the content from this article at face value. However, with the curse of knowledge and the fact that every example in this article mirrors that article, I can't help but think that this author basically rewrote that other article in a much more convincing matter and conveniently leaving out all the academic references, that upon closer inspection refute some of the claims here.
The thing that bothers me most about this article and the original article is that no causality is established and no other possible causes considered. The studies on bluefin tuna for example showed higher levels of radiation, but not dramatically higher levels and still at levels considered safe for consumption. The other primary sources I read suggested the same. Articles like this should definitely ask questions as to what else could cause so many problems, so widespread. For example, I would expect increased quantities of dissolved CO2 to be a much more likely culprit for these symptoms. Laboratory experiments with three tanks of fish, one control, one irradiated and one exposed to greater amounts of atmospheric CO2 and CO would do more to suggest the true cause that the speculation presented here.
I really wish I could find that article as evidence, because it was one that the average educated HNer would tear apart quickly, especially on closer inspection of actual data from primary sources.
It's not that they don't know maths, or even their total and utter lack of comprehension of even the simple basics. Many people have mental illness, broken brains of one sort or another are part of society.
It's the fact people can't immediately see this as crazy and vote it to the front page that really scares me.
The animated GIF that accompanies the article doesn't show an radioactive material arriving on the shores of California yet, so it hardly seems like a suitable explanation for things that are currently happening.
One might say that random pseudo-scientific crap is another unfortunate thing expelled by Fukushima.
I mean, however ridiculous the "whatever is happening, it must be radiation" crowd might be, the serious, ongoing disaster in Fukushima makes their opposites, technological panglossians, seem at least as dangerous.