Certainly any news and media "output" has to be taken with a grain of salt 
especially if a journalist want us to believe they know what is in the head and 
mind of an politician and being on a location for a few minute knows it "all".
VIde“an oceanographer's in-joke” maximum wave heights of the tsunami generated 
by the Japan earthquake taken for showing radiation spreading across the ocean 
from Japan:
Since lived there at the time and many years later in the surrounding area have 
to say models are one thing (easily proven wrong in one area of the model, with 
no data in other areas, etc.), actual widespread and frequent monitoring, not 
just some the dose rate (which can be a combination of so many variables), but 
specific for concentrations of various isotopes (at least I-131 and Cs-134 for 
evidence of recriticalities after 2011), and definitely Cs-137, Co-60 and 
Sr-90; perhaps also Pu-139/240 too, in water, in sediment, in plankton, in 
Tuna, etc., at least weekly and all over the Pacific and around should be and 
has been utmost importance
http://cerea.enpc.fr/en/fukushima.html http://cerea.enpc.fr/en/fukushima.html
 That's a minimum to make statements.Unfortunately some  government barely 
monitors deposition, has made no attempts to identify the hotspots, and thus 
that far more monitoring is needed not only by private organization and 
initiative(here ref .to Asian area).

Reply via email to