Your post is so wrong that it is almost trolling. Just some counterexamples. The Fukushima Mark-1 reactors are of very dangerous design, and that is well-known

Your post is so wrong that it is almost trolling. Just some counterexamples. The Fukushima Mark-1 reactors are of very dangerous design, and that is well-known. (For example their containment is perforated at key positions, by design) Ambient radioactivity is so high in central Japan that it should definitely be considered a hazard (just search on Youtube for Japanese people filming themselves walking around with Geiger counters and measuring the signal, e.g Youtube user "Chanbukimi"). Government ignores it or plays it down. Exremely radioactive "radiotrophic funghus" (see Wikipedia) is everywhere in the Fukushima area and even in Tokyo. Cancer risks by long-term low-dose radioactive exposure are even higher than estimated by the models promoted by governmental regulatory bodies. Risks are higher for children and women in particular, and simple back of the envelope calculations can show this convincingly (to me, that is). The whole food chain in Japan is messed up for the foreseeable future, and this holds for Pacific seafood as well. Young Tuna fish catched in the San Diego area are slightly radioactive, although these fish are so young that they could not have stayed in radioactive seawater near Japan for more than a couple of months, and they are still contaminated. There is much more contamination to come as the radioactivity spreads just by natural mass transfer processes (water cycle, carbon cycle). I for one am very pessimistic.