I would say the primary culprit there is the natural disaster, which in turn caused the nuclear accident which made things worse. Although the contamination in the area is rather significant, from the reports published by various authors the impact on public health should be very limited if not completely null as a direct result of the doses committed by the people leaving in the area. You are right in pointing out that the health problems are caused by the stress and not by the radiation. Besides the stress caused by the effects of the earthquake and the tsunami, there was the radiation induced stress, caused by the fear of the unknown.

There was an interesting discussion over this matter on LinkedIn in the Radiation Protection and Dosimetry Group, with the topic "How much radiation is safe?" You can find it here: http://www.linkedin.com/groupItem?view=&gid=3686333&type=member&item=5801256148409540609&qid=c809192c-a0c6-47a6-bb32-4c58e6d91355&trk=groups_most_popular-0-b-cmr&goback=.gmp_3686333

The situation at the Fukushima Power Plant is the following:

The Government of Japan's Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) announced on 19 November 2013 the NRA's enhanced sea area monitoring measures in the area within a 30 kilometer radius from the Tokyo Electric Power Company's (TEPCO) Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station, as well as the initiation of a comparative analysis of the seawater monitoring data gathered by TEPCO and the NRA. The enhanced measures include additional monthly measurements (commencing 21 November 2013) and the establishment of seven additional sampling points, where radionuclides will be analysed, including Cs-134 (detection limit: 0.001Bq/L), Cs-137 (detection limit: 0.001Bq/L), Sr-90 (detection limit: 0.01Bq/L), H-3 (detection limit: 0.5Bq/L), K-40 (detection limit: 1Bq/L). The NRA had already been undertaking seawater monitoring beyond a 30 kilometer radius from TEPCO's Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station.

Following the 15 November 2013 contaminated water seepages reported earlier, the NRA provided on 19 November 2013 the results of TEPCO's daily seawater monitoring at a point near the Tank Area.

The NRA reported that the concentrations of all radionuclides (i.e., Cs-134, Cs-137, total Beta and H-3) were relatively stable from 11 to 17 November at the sampling points near the Nuclear Power Station.

At Units 1, 2 and 3 at the NPS, it had been assumed that the cooling water, injected into the reactors, was leaking from the primary containment vessels to the reactor buildings, but the specific location of the leakage had not been identified. In response, investigations have been conducted to identify the cause of the leakage. TEPCO has identified precise locations of leakages of contaminated water from the primary containment vessel of Unit 1. In its 18 November 2013 update, the Government of Japan referred to the discovery as "a significant step forward towards decommissioning, since the cause of the leakage of the contaminated water was confirmed.

Fukushima situation is surely caused by the natural disasters of Earthquake and Tsunami and although there are no direct deaths from the radiations but there is other side of the picture too. It slowed down the process of rescue, rehabilitation and rebuild due to contamination and this contamination is the problem of years as it is going to be the part of food chain and you know this is the point when things start to go wrong with the nuclear accidents. Accidents at nuclear power plants are not like the atom bomb to cause the immediate or direct deaths because there is nothing like the pressure waves. So there is only the contamination which kills (cause disabilities) slowly but fearing thing is; it continues for a much much longer period of times as compared to other natural disasters.

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scirp.org%2Fjournal%2FPaperInformation.aspx%3FpaperID%3D40157%26&h=MAQENphqn

Seems, California is seeing human health impacts as well as other marine life.

http://www.pnas.org/content/108/35/14422.short

Dear Jeff. Many thanks for the link.

I think the situation at Fukushima is a result of poor planning. Japan is an area of the ring of fire that is subject to large tsunamis because of a region of subduction just off the coast. The plant location was originally a high cliff that was graded down to have the plant closer to the water for cooling economy. The tsunami walls were inconsequential, all the reserve power was located down low, and the the spent fuel pools up so high. What were they thinking?

Don't have time to find the resources but Wikipedia reports on the victims of direct radiation and heat stress at the plant. There is also evidence that children tested in the area have affected thyroids in much higher rates than would be normally expected. I think 52 of those tested had it and only 2 would be expected in that number.

I think that Jaime has a good point. Many people died for hunger and the measures adopted and the resources allocated by the international community to eradicate hundpger are not enough and more people dude for this reason than for a Nuckear accident. Similar thing can be said in the case of wars and you plenty of them right now in different part of the world.

One thing is true the location of the support generators at the Fukushima nuclear power plant was not the appropriate one and this was one of the main cause of the disaster, but this is a human failure and not a technology failure.

does anybody on this thread know is there is a web site that is collating radation data on the US coast? Like ameteur geiger counter enthusiasts?

Jeffrey. I found this article in internet. I cannot confirm that the content of the article is true from the scientific point of view.

US government environmental monitoring agencies have either declared as safe, refused to comment on, or – say several independent researchers – vastly understated what impacts, if any, this could have for America’s western coastal population. Significant omissions in data reporting and hobbling of radioactive monitoring systems, say many, make it seem unlikely that hard government facts will be forthcoming to support evidence presented by independent researchers.

The new scientific paper, which will be published in November 1 edition of the journal Science of the Total Environment says that its research “clearly demonstrates how little dissipation [of radionuclides] occurred [between March 12 and 16] due to the nature of the rapid global air circulation system.”

The massive release of anthropogenic – or non-naturally occurring radionuclides such as cesium 137 and cesium 134 – by the meltdowns and explosions that rocked Fukushima Daiichi occurred in the five days following the beginning of the accident, the report says.

Simulations of potential dispersion of the radiation cloud conducted by Weather Online Website in the UK showed that air masses were eastwardly displaced from Fukushima after the accident, which put it on a collision course with the US West Coast.

The report goes on to say that “the Fukushima radioactive plume contaminated the entire Northern Hemisphere during a relatively short period of time” after the March 11, 2011 ten-meter tsunami emanating from a 9.0 magnitude earthquake destroyed Fukushima Daiichi’s primary and backup coolant systems.

New West Coast helicopter patrols raise alarm

News reports from the US west coast throughout August indicated that government helicopter were seen flying at low altitudes in cities such as Berkeley, Oakland, San Francisco and Seattle measuring radioactivity in the air, the San Francisco Examiner and MSNBC reported.

The choppers were contracted to measure radiation along the West Coast by the US Department of Homeland Security, which has not released any data about its findings, said the Examiner.

The department has maintained a position that radiation reaching the US West Coast after the Fukushima disaster was insignificant.

‘Tokyo levels’ of hot particles in Seattle

But nuclear physicist Arnie Gundersen, chief engineer of energy consulting company Fairewinds Associates and a former nuclear power industry executive, disagreed.

“During April, the people in Seattle could have just as easily been in Tokyo for the amount of hot particles that were there,” he told Washingtonblog, referring to microscopic pieces of airborne radioactive material.

Independent reports on radiation dispersion from the worldwide radiation sensor stations operated by the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization CTBTO, though not as dire as Gundersen’s asserting, confirm enormous and widespread releases of cesium-137, cesium-135 and iodine-131.

“Nine days after the accident, the radioactive cloud had crossed Northern America,” reported the CTBTO. “Three days later when a station in Iceland picked up radioactive materials, it was clear that the cloud had reached Europe.”

By day 15, said the CTBTO, traces from the accident in Fukushima were detectable all across the northern hemisphere.”

Other reports concur

A report from March published by the Journal Environmental Science and Technology said the Fukushima radiation plume hit California “with greatest exposure in central and southern California.”

It also noted that Southern California’s seaweed tested over 500 percent higher for radioactive iodine-131 than anywhere else in the US and Canada.

News reports from March indicate that radioactive debris is likewise finding its way to US Pacific shores.

According to Seattle oceanographer Curtis Ebbesmeyer, some 20 million tons of debris has begun to make landfall in the US Pacific Northwest, and he is concerned the debris will bring toxic or radioactive contamination from Japan.

“We are not prepared for this. Nobody is prepared. Nobody has even thought through the dimensions,” Ebbesmeyer told AFP. This is unprecedented in scientific history. “[…] There’s never been a devastation on one continent that has moved off to the other continent and actually recorded.”

Scientists in Alaska are also investigating whether local seals are being sickened by radiation from Japan, reported Reuters, noting that scores of ring seals have washed up on Alaska’s Arctic coastline since July, suffering or killed by a mysterious disease marked by bleeding lesions on the hind flippers, irritated skin around the nose and eyes and patchy hair loss on the animals’ fur coats.

“There is concern expressed by some members of the local communities that there may be some relationship to the Fukushima nuclear reactor’s damage,” John Kelley, Professor Emeritus at the Institute of Marine Science at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, said.

Radioactive migration warnings came early

Indeed, washouts of radiation from Fukushima into the sea have been well documented since March 14, 2011, when the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan and other US Navy ships off the coast of Fukushima prefecture were repositioned after the detection of a low-level radiation plume from the devastated plant.

Numerous reports had also cited that Japanese policies of burning radioactive waste from Fukushima are leading to a spike in radiation in rains along the US Pacific Coast.

Whether the reports of radioactive air, water, marine life, and weather reaching the US Pacific Coast in such significant quantities are cause for alarm are unlikely to be substantiated by government agencies.

US government environmental agencies remain mum

In the immediate aftermath of the Fukushima accident, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) refused to answer questions or to explain the exact location and number of monitors, or the levels of radiation, if any, being recorded at existing monitors in California, the San Jose Mercury News reported.

On March 21, 2011, the EPA pulled 8 of 18 air monitors in California, Oregon and Washington state that track radiation from Japan’s nuclear reactors out of service for “quality reviews.”

By April, 2011 the EPA had temporarily raised limits for radiation exposure by rewriting its Protective Action Guides (PAGs) to radically increase the allowable levels of iodine-131 by 3,000 times, a 1,000-fold hike for exposure to strontium-90, and a 25,000-fold increase in exposure limits to radioactive Nikel-63.

The EU followed suit by implementing an “emergency” order without informing the public that increased the amount of radiation in food by up to 20 times previous food standards, according to Kopp Online and Xander News. According to EU bylaws, radiation limits may be raised during a nuclear emergency to prevent food shortages.

How will longer term radiation exposure affect the US Pacific Coast?

David Brenner, a professor of radiation biophysics and the director of the Center for Radiological Research at Columbia University Medical Center wrote in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists in June that the extra individual risks of cancer from long term exposure to radionuclides from Fukushima will be small.

But he added that when the problem is examined not from a perspective of individuals at risk, but rather that of the entire population, the extra risk becomes far more significant.

“A tiny extra risk to a few people is one thing. But here we have a potential tiny extra risk to millions or even billions of people,” he wrote. “Think of buying a lottery ticket — just like the millions of other people who buy a ticket, your chances of winning are miniscule. Yet among these millions of lottery players, a few people will certainly win; we just can’t predict who they will afect.

Dear jeffry. Another article: what is the actual risk for pacific coast residents from fukushima radiation?

Dear Mr Pedraza:

I have also been seeing newstand type articles with verying senses of urgency. With this type of accident, breach of containment and meltdown into Earth, I suspect the tracers to be moving through the ocean eutrification cycle; not neccessarily atmospheric transport alone or simply 'in the seawaters.' Would be interesting to see measurements from large pelagic predators such as tuna, etc.

Perhaps, this article could be of your interest:

Tuna contaminated with Fukushima radiation found in California

Scientists amazed that bluefins swimming in Pacific five months after Japanese disaster contained tiny amounts of caesium

The Japanese government says it will look into international monitoring of fish products after low levels of radiation were found in bluefin tuna in Californian waters Link to video: Fukushima radiation found in tuna off California

Bluefin tuna contaminated with radiation believed to be from Fukushima Daiichi turned up off the coast of California just five months after the Japanese nuclear plant suffered meltdown last March, US scientists said.

Tiny amounts of caesium-137 and caesium-134 were detected in 15 bluefin caught near San Diego in August last year, according to a study published on Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal.

The levels were 10 times higher than those found in tuna in the same area in previous years, but still well below those that the Japanese and US governments consider a risk to health. Japan recently introduced a new safety limit of 100 becquerels per kilogram in food.

The timing of the discovery suggests that the fish, a prized but dangerously overfished delicacy in Japan, had carried the radioactive materials across the Pacific ocean faster than those conveyed by wind or water.

The researchers, led by Daniel Madigan at Stanford University, said they had found evidence that the fish had been contaminated at "modestly elevated" levels with caesium. The chemical was released into the ocean in the wake of the accident at Fukushima Daiichi on 11 March 2011.

Madigan told Reuters: "I wouldn't tell anyone what's safe to eat or what's not safe to eat. It's become clear that some people feel that any amount of radioactivity, in their minds, is bad and they'd like to avoid it. But compared to what's there naturally ... and what's established as safety limits, it's not a large amount at all."

The fish are thought to have been exposed to radiation for about a month before beginning their journey east across the Pacific. They were found to contain 4 becquerels per kilogram of caesium-134 and 6.3 becquerels per kilogram of caesium-137, the report said. A 2008 study of fish in the area found no evidence of caesium-134, which is produced only by nuclear power plants and weapons, and caesium-137 only at levels that naturally occur in the environment.

The results "are unequivocal. Fukushima was the source", said Ken Buesseler of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, who played no part in the research.

Japan's chief cabinet secretary, Osamu Fujimura, conceded that the findings suggested the monitoring of radiation levels in fish outside Japanese waters may have to be stepped up.

The spawning and migratory patterns of bluefin tuna indicate that the issue of contaminated fish will be confined to Pacific coastlines.

Bluefin spawn only in the western Pacific, off the coasts of Japan and the Philippines. Some juvenile or adolescent fish migrate east to the coast of California coast and remain there to fatten up.

Scientists say they do not believe contamination will linger in large fish capable of swimming farther afield, as they are able to metabolise and excrete radioactive substances.

The fish examined in the US study weighed an average of 15 pounds. They had shed some of the radionuclides during their journey but had been unable to flush them out altogether.

"We were frankly kind of startled," said Nicholas Fisher, an expert at Stony Brook University in New York who took part in the study. "That's a big ocean. To swim across it and still retain these radionuclides is pretty amazing."

The operator of the Fukushima Daiichi plant, Tokyo Electric Power, estimates that 18,000 terabecquerels of radioactive materials flowed into the Pacific after the accident, either in the form of fallout, or through mixing with water that leaked from the facility. A terabecquerel is equal to 1tn becquerels.

Technical Report Nuclear Power - Pros and cons and threats of climate change.

Earthquakes and tsunamis are natural hazards, events of nature. If they cause damage, injure or even kill people then we speak of disasters. Disasters are events of society (not of nature). People are injured, killed, properties are destroyed, infrastructure damaged, etc. It is therefore misleading to speak of "natural disasters". The disaster at

Fukushima has been caused by natural hazards. The disaster had several impacts: the destruction, injuries, deaths caused by the earthquake and subsequent tsunami. The disaster is also the contamination of the environment by radioactivity.

Fukushima was a nuclear accident as consequence of a natural disaster. The accident included a fusión of the reactor core, but the effect of this fusión was much less important than the anti-nuclear groups claimed in the past (Remember the film China Sindrome).

As a lesson-learned from the accident is that the new reactor designs, with a catch core installed under the reactor vessel, resolve the problem.