Reply #9: How can you call for a citation... when one was already given?

[FBaggins]

I was accepting flamingdem's source (UC Berkeley). They're not associated with Japan... or TEPCO... or anyone else. It's just a university performing independent measurements.

They report both the detected levels AND the amount that you would have to drink at that level in order to get the same dose as a dental x-ray.

The numbers have been ridiculously low. It's like I told you on the other thread... if you don't like certain sources than pick some that you do trust. You won't find ANY reputable source producing numbers in the U.S. that even come CLOSE to a concern.

If you are basing it solely on the data that was referenced in this thread, that would indicate to me that you have advanced knowledge of nuclear physics to make any sense of these numbers

Yep.

Your contributions in debates in this area would lead me to believe otherwise.

Only because you yourself lack the background to judge and prefer to listen to scaremongers.

so I want to know:

1.) Are you a physicist?
2.) Are you a nuclear physicist?


I don't earn a living as a nuclear physicist, but I did major in the subject and spent more than a day or two in the engineering spaces of a couple submarine classes a couple decades back. You can decide for yourself whether that makes a "yes" or a "no".

As for the OP... as you can see from the text, even the author doesn't have a clue what it means. So allow me to translate it. There is no plutonium detected that can be attributed to Fukushima in the U.S. - This should not be a surprise, since (until they get readings back from the sea floor), they haven't been able to detect that much even right next to the reactors.