So what were the levels that said "marine biologist" detected?? This is critical information for any realistic critical thinking about possible effects. Why has not that same "marine biologist" taken a second set of data at this later date??? If he had the tools and samples two years ago, he can surely scrape together the same stuff.
MY guess. He/she HAS taken the measurements and they show no increase over the first set of data. So, just like the non-publication of race of perpetrators in black-on-white violence, the second set of data will disappear, and the first set will continue to be blasted across media of all sorts to scare the ignorant public.
I used to be employed as a marine biologist. Therefore, I know that fish are a little hard to sample because they go where they want to seasonally and with circulation patters (e.g., El Nino). I wonder why we would suppose that you could dump pollution into the ocean for the next decades or longer and never experience the ill effects of this policy. There is no stopping the flooding of nuclear waste into the ocean - it will continue unabated.
I’ve just written a post about the basis for refuting the claim that there is a safe thresh hold beneath which one can ingest radioactive waste without harm. This is why I object to small amounts of contaminants in fish.
It is surprising to me that the Wood’s Hole marine biolgists discovery of tainted fish in San Diego just 5 months after Fukushima - and that 13 of the 13 fish tested at tested positive for Fukushima contaminants - means nothing to someone supposedly viewing this information “objectively.”