[Beerinkol]

They aint got 'em to send in. They had to import robots from us.
They also aint got the dough. They are runnin' in the red for the first time in decades. That is why they want to restart their reactors.

[Slonopotam845]

Conveniently, cesium 134 has a short half life(2 ish years), and undergoes beta decay. Cesium 137 has a longer half (30 ish years), and also undergoes beta decay. Though beta decay is dangerous, you would have to basically drink this stuff for years. Given the results of the survey, and the size of the contamination compared to adjacent bodies of water (the pacific ocean), I wouldn't worry too much about this. As far as environmental damage is concerned, this is almost negligible compared to that done by tar sands/shale, hydrofracking, mining for minerals containing heavy metals and the chemical processing of these minerals. It is a matter of priorities. Nuclear energy has far and away the best record of any of the viable alternative energies (coal, oil, natural gas, wind, and solar).

[softy54534]

Be that as it may (and you sound knowledgeable about this)...I'd be concerned about the why of the increase. Any thoughts on that end of it?

[Fegasderty]

He's not knowledgeable. Even very small particles of radiocesium lodged in the lung (where the body puts it, thinking it's potassium) can give you cancer and kill you. Tons of literature on the subject this guy seems to know nothing about. Ignorance is no excuse!

[9mm_fan]

Cs-137 is actually a fair bit more dangerous than some other isotopes at similar activities because it is preferentially stored in heart tissue and testicles IIRC, which actually causes other heart problems even before the more typical radiation damage.
I'm not going to take on the environmental damage claims. Nuclear does have a significantly better safety record than oil/coal/etc (in terms of deaths / energy produced), but environmental effects are a tricky issue.
Source: my thesis is basically radiochemistry, although in a nuclear engineering department.