I have searched around for an ongoing discussion here, or signs of discussion, about the confirmation of meltdowns at Fukushima this week, but found nothing later than March, when it was classed as a level 4 (now 7) emergency (as per Chernobyl) every 'expert' and newsreader was largely regurgitating the PR of TEPCO and the authorties, and those of us who saw deeper concerns were generally dismissed.
This week saw admissions from TEPCO that at least one of their six reactor units at Fukushima Daichii had suffered a meltdown, possibly three units, way back in March (14-17), the period when four units experienced dramatic explosions. The Japanese government says they relied on reading websites (i.e. including blogs) to find out what was happening in the first weeks.
Careful analysis of data and pictures by independent experts, whistleblowers and amateurs established within those first two weeks hypotheses supporting the current reality of this crisis, but are only now beginning to find this evidence they expected from TEPCO, IAEA, NISA, NRC etc...one suspects there are more admissions and revelations to come.
In the weeks between those meltdowns/explosions, and now, despite signs (and data) that the fallout (air, land, sea) from the incidents was indeed serious and finding it's way across the Pacific, Northern Americas, and Atlantic, the vast majority of info on air monitoring was restructured (e.g. EPA went to a three month rather than daily reporting), and throughout, despite evidence that Plutonium and Uranium were confirmed components of at least one of the explosive events, (even began registering in Hawaii), nearly all PR/data about fallout omits mention of those more 'difficult' and hazardous radioactive substances, and now report shutdowns.
The previous discussions here said don't worry, it's a 4 not a 7, it's not a Chernobyl, there haven't been fires/explosions, the pumps all restarted, the cooling all restarted, it's too far away, the radioactive/harmful isotopes emitted have short half-lives, there haven't/won't be criticalities....that has now all been established as incorrect. There's more, but let's get on.
So given what's being revealed (and how), doesn't anybody else feel it may be worth discussing where you want your school's fish to come from, your green tea, your Californian tomatoes or pacific tuna? What of foods that omit place of origin on their packaging (e.g. some frozen or processed foods)?
Whether we ought to pressure our governments for more honest and prompt admissions and reactions. Pressure on Japanese government over things like how they decided they'd change the acceptable level of radiation for infants to those of nuclear reactor employees, despite the differences in cell regeneration rates etc...Connotations for domestic nuclear safety, preventing another one, etc?
You guys are powerful, you can do something.