Testing in Alaska?

The author, above, claims that "Clyde Pearce..." ""said"... that Alaska didn't receive any detectable dose of radiation". I am responding because I am the Clyde Pearce referred to who works for the Alaska Division of Public Health, and I did not say what has been attributed to me. That would never be correct, scientifically, since radiation is present everywhere in the world, including within my own body, and it is detectable. He may have taken a comment out of context, or paraphrased, or misunderstood, and there was a period early on following the events in Japan when we did not see any changes in our monitoring attributable to those events. At a later time 2 picocuries of activity were "detected" in Dutch Harbor, which is not a significant threat to health and not even detectable by ordinary instruments. To put this into perspective, Tc-99m is routinely used all around the world for bone scanning in nuclear medicine. The typical amount administered, in terms of RADIOACTIVITY, is twenty millicuries (20 mCi). 20 mCi = 20,000 microcuries, which is 20,000,000 nanocuries, which is 20,000,000,000 picocuries. So in terms of radioactivity (number of atoms disintregrating per second) a patient in a hospital receives during a routine bone scan in nuclear medicine an amount that is ten trillion times what was detected at Dutch Harbor as being attributed to the Japan event. It was DETECTED, but did not constitute a threat to human health. To this date we still do not detect an amount that indicates there is any threat to human health in Alaska.
If you go to the EPA and look at air filter montoring reports you would see that Alaska has been conducting this monitoring for years prior to the Japan event, and continues to send filters twice a week to the EPA. These clearly show radioactivity is normally present (detected). They also clearly show there has been no significant change since March of 2011. In fact, the filters from Anchorage show beta levels to be much lower than many other U.S. locations where background radioacivity is not considered to be at dangerous levels. (View beta reports for Des Moines, Wichita, Spokane, Kearney (NE), Idaho Falls and other locations for comparison.)
I did not see the Faribanks News Miner so don't know if his misinformation originated there. I did see articles in the Anchorge Daily News which demonstrated clearly that sensationalism was a higher priority than factual reporting there.
OR, to put it another way. Astonomers can see (detect) light from a sun many times larger than our own that is several thousand light years away from our solar system. The fact that their sensitive instruments can "see" that star should never suggest that we need to slather on sunscreen to protect ourselves from all that heat and light.

Contacted reporter on this contradiction in his paper here's the response I received .Tdm

"It's a good question — thanks for raising it. Let me do some checking and see what the people keeping track of this have to say.

Jeff