To boot, the unquantified statements without explicit comparisons come up in a context that is the opposite than what ormondotvos appears to have sensed when speaking of propaganda and scaremongering: they say "at these levels, it is unlikely that this is going to cause measurable health consequences" and what was found "should be reduced by river and stream dilution" (not mentioning that local accumulation is also a possibility).

The key points of the story are: short-halflife Iodine-131 can be used as a marker for the spread of Fukushima fallout globally (it decays so fast that even Chernobyl or nuclear test Iodine-131 is undetectable, not to mention natural sources); and the fallout also included longer-halflife Iodine-129, which accumulated after the previous fallouts. But to me there is little that is new in this, other than the quantification for one given spot.

_{*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.}