ALL THE BEST, SCIENTIFICALLY VERIFIED, INFORMATION ON FUKUSHIMA IMPACTS
1. My favorite magazine growing up, Popular Mechanics, has a very nice write up about understanding radiation counts from radiation safety expert Andrew Karam. Andrew Karam has over 30 years of experience in health physics (radiation safety), beginning with an eight-year stint as a mechanical operator and radiation safety specialist in the Navy. Since then, Karam has worked for the State of Ohio, Ohio State University, the University of Rochester and as a private consultant. Favorite Quote: “In the areas of Japan I visited, radiation dose rates were elevated to about three to four times typical natural radiation dose rates (which are about .1 mrem per hour), but nowhere near as high as natural radiation levels I’ve measured in parts of Iran.”
2. Is the west coast being fried by Fukushima radiation? Dr. Andrew Thaler, a marine biologist and chief editor of Southern Fried Science, totally dismantles Michael Snyder’s Activist post 28 Signs That The West Coast Is Being Absolutely Fried With Nuclear Radiation From Fukushima. Take Home: No and the Snyder article distorts the truth and outright lies to advocate for his position. Favorite Quote: “The article is a paranoid, poorly reasoned attempt to link the tragedy of the Fukushima disaster to just about every environmental issue facing the US west coast in the last few months.”
3. Are high radiation readings being observed on the west coast of the United States? No doubt you’ve seen the video of a man in San Francisco, California using a Geiger Counter showing high radiation readings on the beach. Enter Dan Sythe, the CEO of International Medcom Inc. that develops and produces radiation detection instruments and systems. Dan has a list of impressive credentials on everything Geiger Counter related. At the Geiger Counter Bulletin, he tests the same California sand and compares it to readings from Fukushima. Take Home: The radiation signature in the coastal sands is normal and is not the same as from Fukushima. Favorite Quote: “The radionuclides are in the NORM class of radioactive substances, not from Fukushima. NORM stands for Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material…If the sand were contaminated by radiation from Fukushima it would show Cesium 137 [it does not].” Super Favorite Bonus Quote: “The radiation level [in the sand] is elevated, but roughly equivalent to some granite counter top material from Brazil.”
4. Related to the above, Wendy Hopkins an Information Officer of the California Department of Public Health, has made a public statement. Favorite Quote: “Recent tests show that elevated levels of radiation at Half Moon Bay are due to naturally occurring materials and not radioactivity associated with the Fukushima incident. There is no public health risk at California beaches due to radioactivity related to events at Fukushima.” By the way, Dean Peterson, Director for Environmental Health Services for San Mateo County, also stated that the radiation is due to naturally occurring minerals typically found in coastal geology.
I understand why people are scared and concerned. I grew up in the age of imminent nuclear destruction (does anyone else remember doing nuclear attack drills in schools that were very similar to tornado drills?). My generation and the baby boomers before us were steeped in a pot of nuclear fear and skepticism. As Kim stated in her post, “While there are terrible things that happened around the Fukushima Power Plant in Japan; Alaska, Hawaii and the West Coast aren’t in any danger. These posts were meant to scare people (and possibly written by terrified authors). They did just that, but there is a severe lack of facts in these posts.” I caution everyone to thoroughly evaluate all claims and look at the biases and expertise of those making them.
6 MORE IMPORTANT POINTS INCLUDING
-Is radiation, in the form of Cesium, reaching the west coast?
-Are babies in the U.S. dying as a direct result of Fukushima radiation?
-Is everyone on the west coast swathed in Fukushima radiation?
: http://fukushimaupdate.com/all-the-best-scientifically-verified-information-on-fukushima-impacts/
= new reply since forum marked as read
I have a question for you. When they say normal radiation levels is that due to all the nuclear weapons test that were done in the years following WW2 or is it due to natural causes. I know we have natural uranium deposits as there is one near what I call my home place. I don't know but I suspect a lot of what is called normal background radiation is because of all the testing that was done years ago. Best I remember there were literally hundreds of test, air, water and inground of which inground in my way of thinking would be the safest.
Thanks 
Your past swings in being able to assess reality on the subject long ago removed your opinion of me from the list of things I care about. 
Here are a couple authoritative sources:
http://hps.org/documents/environmental_radiation_fact_sheet.pdf
http://www.ncrppublications.org/Reports/160
The second source is expensive, but the piece you're looking for is summarized in the USA column of the wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation
But it is a good one.
Because gravity on a globe on your desk is exactly the same as gravity of Earth. So the south pole is "down" and everything runs to it.
I feel really bad for the Emperor Penguins that live there-
I hope they aren't glowing this summer
