Instead of Protecting People, Governments Cover Up by Raising "Safe" Radiation Levels

American and Canadian authorities have virtually stopped monitoring airborne radiation. Neither American nor Canadian authorities are testing fish for radioactivity. Does that mean that we don't have to worry about radiation from Fukushima? It is a little hard to know, given that what is deemed a "safe level" of radiation is determined by politics ... rather  than science.  For example, current safety standards are based on the ridiculous assumption that everyone  exposed is a healthy man in his 20s – and that radioactive particles  ingested into the body cause no more damage than radiation hitting the  outside of the body. And one of the main advisors to the Japanese government on Fukushima announced:
If you smile, the radiation will not affect you.
(Here's the video.) In the real world, however, even low doses of radiation  can cause cancer.  Moreover, small particles of radiation – called  “internal emitters” – which get inside the body are much more dangerous  than general exposures to radiation. See this and this.   And radiation affects small children much more than full-grown adults. Indeed, instead of doing much to try to protect their citizens from Fukushima, Japan, the U.S. and the EU all just raised the radiation levels they deem "safe". Nuclear expert Arnie Gundersen says that high-level friends in the State Department told him that Hillary Clinton  signed a pact with her counterpart in Japan agreeing that the U.S. will continue buying seafood from Japan, despite that food not being tested for radioactive materials. And the Department of Energy is trying to replace the scientifically accepted model of the dangers of low dose radiation based on voodoo science.   Specifically, DOE's Lawrence Berkeley Labs used a mutant line of human cells in a petri dish which was able to repair damage from low doses of radiation, and extrapolated to the unsupported conclusion that everyone is immune to low doses of radiation:
In reality, not only is there overwhelming evidence that low doses of radiation can cause cancer, but there is some evidence that low doses can - in certain circumstances cause more damage than higher doses. As I pointed out in April:

The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists reported  that one of the best-known scientists of the 20th century – Dr. John  Gofman – also believed that chronic low level radiation is more  dangerous than acute exposure to high doses. Gofman was a doctor  of nuclear and physical chemistry and a medical doctor who worked on  the Manhattan Project, co-discovered uranium-232 and -233 and other  radioactive isotopes and proved their fissionability, helped discover  how to extract plutonium, led the team that discovered and characterized  lipoproteins in the causation of heart disease, served as a Professor  Emeritus of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California  Berkeley, served as Associate Director of the Livermore National  Laboratory, was asked by the  Atomic Energy Commission to undertake a series of long range studies on  potential dangers that might arise from the “peaceful uses of the atom”, and wrote four scholarly books on radiation health effects.

And see this, this and this.