> possibly

Except that's not possible, even for a Chernobyl-level release of radioactive material. You might as well suggest that Chernobyl made all food from Britain to Afghanistan inedible. We can detect material from Fukushima in the Pacific, but only because we have the technology to detect radiation in infinitesimal amounts.

You do know, that even now, there are wild boars (hunted for sport in Germany) that cannot be eaten due to too-high levels of radioactivity, right?

see http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2011/0401/R...

And I have suggested nothing of the sort about Chernobyl rendering all food inedible... the type of accident, the fact it is water-borne rather than wind-borne, and that there is nearly 10 times the amount of nuclear material at Fukushima (1600 tons) vs Chernobyl (180 tons) make for a very different situation.

(I am not even including the spent fuel rods which Reuters amongst other news sources, claims are very dangerous if not handled properly: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/13/fukushima-nuclear-p... )

Besides, it has been more than 2 years and no covering of Fukushima has been done, whereas in Chernobyl they erected a cover over the reactor within 6 months.

What we do know as part of the historical record, is that the operator, TEPCO, has been lying or at least, shading the truth, about the severity of the situation all along.

> Fukushima possibly contaminating the entire Pacific, making any seafood from there not able to be eaten ...

This false view has been partly inflamed by an "environmental" website that posted an alarming picture of Fukushima radiation spreading across the Pacific -- except the posted picture was actually of the tsunami wave's height, not radiation, spreading across the Pacific.

Fukushima isn't going to release nearly enough radiation to poison the Pacific Ocean. Maybe it will release just enough radiation to force changes in the nuclear power industry. Nothing else has worked.

You are making a straw man argument, conflating a bad map with supposed bad science...

Japan's own testing showed contamination even in 2011, by cesium isotopes, some 2000km out to sea from Fukushima.

The answer is, that you don't know.

> You are making a straw man argument, conflating a bad map with supposed bad science...

The map was bad, and the science was worse, but there's no meaningful connection between them, certainly not in my presentation.

> Japan's own testing showed contamination even in 2011, by cesium isotopes, some 2000km out to sea from Fukushima.

Yes, measurable with specialized equipment, but not significantly above the natural background radiation level.

This is not to diminish the seriousness of Fukushima -- it is very serious -- but it's not going to render the Pacific's fish unsafe. That's a fantasy.

> The answer is, that you don't know.

The figures are easy to collect and easy to interpret, and they have been. The claim that the Pacific's fish will become inedible is not connected to reality.

http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=83397&tid=3622&cid=94989

Quote: "By the time tuna are caught in the eastern Pacific, cesium levels in their flesh are 10-20 times lower than when they were off Fukushima. Moreover, the dose from Fukushima cesium is considered insignificant relative to the dose from naturally occurring polonium-210, which was 1000 times higher in fish samples studied, and both of these are much lower relative to other, more common sources, such as dental x-rays."

> The answer is, that you don't know.

You're the one who doesn't know, even though the information is easily accessed.

Neither you, nor I, have any idea as to the ultimate fate of the cores that have melted, the other (spent or not) fuel rods, any other radioactive materials on site.

We do know, that they are not contained as of today.

We also know that some unknown amount of radioactive material of unknown composition (Iodine-131, Strontium-90, Cesium-137 - but in what ratio?) enters the atmosphere or the Pacific.

TEPCO does not know the numbers or the amount; and in fact, they hope but do not know for certain that the melted core is still on top of the 7 meter thick concrete slab which is under the pressure vessel that used to hold the core, but which was breached.

Really, your response is arrogant.

The argument was that the fish in the Pacific aren't safe to eat. That argument is false.

Because of Fukushima, Germany has decided to abandon nuclear power entirely. The German's aren't stupid --- they recognize what Fukushima means, i.e. nuclear power is incredibly difficult to make safe, and to an increasing number of people, simply not worth the risk. As a result, Germany is becoming a pioneer in alternative energy sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Germany

Quote: "Germany is the world's top photovoltaics (PV) installer, with a solar PV capacity of 34.499 gigawatts (GW) at the end of July 2013.[2] The German new solar PV installations increased by about 7.6 GW in 2012, and solar PV provided 18 TWh (billion kilowatt-hours) of electricity in 2011, about 3% of total electricity.[3] Some market analysts expect this could reach 25 percent by 2050.[4] Germany has a goal of producing 35% of electricity from renewable sources by 2020 and 100% by 2050."

We in the U.S. are far behind countries like Germany, and we have no excuse.

> Really, your response is arrogant.

Translation: "I know better than to argue using facts, so I will argue using opinions." Sadly noted.

What facts do you have? More than TEPCO or the Japanese government, who are now admitting that they don't know anything and don't know when they will have the radiation leaks controlled? Are you reading what I actually wrote?

I linked to the facts. You posted opinions. You do know the word "science", yes? And that modern times are steered by evidence, not opinion?

> Are you reading what I actually wrote?

Are you reading what I have linked to? Are you prepared to challenge your own fantasies?

Your view seems to be that Fukushima is an event that occurred and is now past, with measurable or predictable results.

I disagree with that view, and view Fukushima as an event that is ongoing, and will continue to be ongoing until radiation from all sources is no longer entering the environment.

Fukushima contaminated seafood to a very minor degree. The studies I read about determined that a standard serving size of affected tuna (an apex predator) was 1/20th of the BED [1]

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_equivalent_dose

Fukushima hasn't released anywhere near enough radioactivity (in quantity or kind) to worry about making all seafood in the Pacific inedible.

It didn't even make the seafood off the coast of Japan inedible.

"Today only 16 types of fish are considered safe to catch here, compared with 150 types they caught before the disaster. " (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57599433/japanese-fish...)

South Korea has banned importation of all Japanese fish from 8 prefectures in the areas near Fukushima.

Considered by whom, based on what evidence?

Actually this contamination might be a good thing for the Pacific. It won't be enough to seriously harm the critters (in terms of populations), but it might significantly reduce fishing, allowing the whole ecosystem to recover.