First of all, the article reads like a bad conspiracy novel:
If hundreds of tons of radioactive waste were being pumped into our oceans daily — so much so that it began to affect our food sources and increase our rates of mortality — then they would tell us, right? Apparently not.
While that's not really a logical point to make in response to this specific issue, it is indicative of the type of "journalism" we're dealing with--namely alarm-ism. The one source he quotes, Harvey Wasserman, identifies himself as an advocate of renewable energy, so we know where his allegiance lies.
Harvey Wasserman, a journalist and advocate for renewable energy, told RT:. . .
To be fair, Wasserman being an advocate of renewable energy doesn't itself discredit his claims, but it shows that he's biased from the outset, and he doesn't help himself by not substantiating what he's saying. The other sources the author claims to have gotten information from are sketchy at best--with the exception of NBC. Moreover, other than the Wasserman quotes, he doesn't say what information came from where.
Infant mortality has increased by over 35% following the nuclear disaster at Fukushima — according to a court statement by Dr. Sherman with independent scientist Lauren Moret, MA, PhD. A recent study published in The International Journal of Medicine claims that about 20,000 deaths in the United States can be directly linked to the radiation pouring out for the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant.
Proving the above by providing a link would have really helped his cause. I'm not saying it isn't true, as I don't have the time to look into it myself, but I get the feeling he's betting on his readers being too lazy to do their own research as to the veracity of his claims, or at least to get some context for the information given.
Finally, neither he nor his sources ever actually explain why it's so bad. That is, a scientific explanation for why these levels of radiation--if they really are as high as he says--are so dangerous--if they really are--is never given. Even some of the most blatantly alarmist articles I've read have used scientific facts, however rickety the context was. Instead, the reader is just supposed to take his (or Wasserman's) word for it, which is really the fatal flaw; he has put the burden of proof on his own shoulders, and he's collapsing under its weight. He doesn't really care, though, as I'm sure he's gotten a lot of hits.
EDIT: I should note that I don't have the credentials to scientifically debunk this, but I do fancy myself a critical thinker, so that is what I'm doing in this response.
