Really there are two things in this article: First that the folks trying to scare people about radiation lie alot and use misleading graphics to create fear, and two the ocean is a really big place and the source of radiation (primarily Cesium-137 and Cesium-134) are not harmful in the quantities detected.
She missed pointing out the hundreds of nuclear bombs that were detonated in the sea water around bikini Atoll in the 50's and 60's which didn't kill the west coast.
But none of that really matters. It is an emotional fear not a rational fear that the exploiters play on. No amount of reasoning will get through that.
"She missed pointing out the hundreds of nuclear bombs that were detonated in the sea water around bikini Atoll in the 50's and 60's which didn't kill the west coast."
Specifically: nuclear testing released about 30 times more Cs-137 (in particular) than Fukushima, also mostly into the Pacific. An estimated 25 MCi [0] = 925 PBq, vs. 23-50 PBq [1].
I don't think Fukushima released much strontium (do you have a source otherwise)? The atmospheric release concentrated elements with high vapor pressures, in particular iodine and cesium.
edit: Here's a paper [0] which measured Sr-89 and Sr-90 in seawater near Japan: they found a ratio of about 0.026 of Sr-90 : Cs-137 -- relatively little strontium. Their estimate for total Sr-90 released is 90-900 TBq, corresponding to Cs-137 release estimates of 3.5 - 35 PBq. The figures for Chernobyl [1] are 10 PBq and 85 PBq respectively -- that is, Chernobyl released 10-100 times more Sr-90 than Fukushima. The Sr-90 : Cs-137 ratio was even higher (0.63) for atmospheric weapons tests: 600 PBq Sr-90, 900 PBq Cs-137 [2].
However, Strontium-90 which gets into bones and was released into the atmosphere by those bombs, was detected everywhere in USA, in the teeth of children (baby teeth), see for instance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_Tooth_Survey
Aside: until Fukushima is well and truly contained, the possibility of something catastrophic happening is still present.
You're conflating possible with probable. Many things are possible with a probability approaching infinitely improbable. Something catastrophic and highly improbable already has happened, and three years later still approximately 0 (zero) deaths from radiation. Probability theory suggests the chances of another catastrophic event occurring at the same site are much smaller than the first set of events.
I don't want to nitpick but probability theory doesn't care that the event already happened at the site. So presumably the risk of another tsunami coming in or a major earthquake is pretty much unaffected by the fact this specific site already had seen a major disaster... I guess the site itself has changed and that means something in the terms of the probability curve, e.g. it can't get much worse or something along those lines...
Earthquakes are caused by two continental plates releasing tension as they slip past each other. Earthquakes (and therefore tsunamis) are not independent events, and strong quakes are unlikely to occur in close succession.
As someone who lives in an earthquake zone I think this theory isn't consensus by any means (that earthquakes release tension and reduce the probability of a followup earthquake). That is no one actually knows if having a strong or a weak earthquake increases or decreases the probability of having another one. Once we can dissect the earth and model accurately what's going on in there it will become physics, until then it's more like geology... Tsunamis can also be triggered by earthquakes in different locations.
I'll agree with the part that earthquakes aren't independent events...
EDIT: "The opposite occurred in Turkey along the great North Anatolian fault. A large quake in 1939 sent stresses farther down the fault, triggering a 60-year series of quakes whose latest installment was the deadly Izmit earthquake of 1999. The stresses have risen in the crust near the city of Istanbul, and a quake there is now considered more likely. " - http://geology.about.com/library/weekly/aa022303a.htm
I think you are confused. The earthquake and reactor accident happened.
That the reactors are not contained, is not a separate event. It is cleanup that has not yet occurred.
You wouldn't say, "Well, I fell off my bike at 25mph on pavement, landing precisely on both kneecaps, which was highly improbable" and then say "the probability that my knee is bleeding is therefore lessened", would you?
She missed pointing out the hundreds of nuclear bombs that were detonated in the sea water around bikini Atoll in the 50's and 60's which didn't kill the west coast.
But none of that really matters. It is an emotional fear not a rational fear that the exploiters play on. No amount of reasoning will get through that.