I found an article and some scientific studies about the oceanic distribution of Fukushima radiation. For everyone's info here are the links.
Ana in Sacramento
http://blog.safecast.org/2014/01/fukushima-across-the-pacific/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=fukushima-across-the-pacific&utm_reader=feedly
http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Meetings/PDFplus/2013/cn207/Presentations/1028-Aoyama.pdf
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/3/034004/article?v_showaffiliations=yes%C2%A0
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096706371300112X?np=y
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/03/26/1120794109.full.pdf
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6106/480.summary
My comments
from the first link, deniers,------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These scientists conclude that the the Cs137 levels in the waterborne Fukushima radiation now reaching the North American Pacific coast will peak at between about 0.004 and 0.010 Bq/L using a "model"
My own calculations show that in a 5000 x 5000 square mile area of the Pacific, the upper 200' of water (where 95% of the radioisotopes remain per real boat measurements, not models) will be 47 to 470 Bq/CF depending on how much TEPCO is lying, and that is only with releases to date, future releases which are assured, will increase this amount.
From the second link, its a Japanese guy, and in this depth chart, he is using CS134! He is showing the fast decaying Cesium! Half life of 2 years, not the CS137 with half life of 30 years! What a pimp. Nuff said.
Now we also know these science apoligist lie through their teeth, but they are reporting 25 Bq/m3, whereas the top link is modeling .004 Bq/L. There are 1000L in one M3, so they are modeling 4 Bq/m3....or missing the reported CS134 amount only by 600%
However, the CS134 fell by 50% in 2 years (half life), so the original amount was double. And the CS 137 was about 1.2 times the CS134 at the onset. So the CS134 at source was 50 Bq per M3, and the CS137 was therefore 60Bq/M3, a total of 110 Bq/M3
So the model in reference 1 is stating 4, but reality (if they are not lying low, and they always do) is 110, for a mismatch of over 2700% lie
I am become death, destroyer of oceans 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't have time to debunk all these, but you can see how easy it is.
Finally the last link is a subscription site. That is of no general use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Majia has her own take on the Pacific Contamination
http://majiasblog.blogspot.com/2014/01/will-fukushima-daiichi-kill-vast.html
_____________________________________________________________
OK the come on "nukes Alaska" it is really true.
Fukushima raised the radio nuclides in Alaska islands, the same amount as Atom bombs that were tested on Alaska (at the time those bombs were set off, not after now, decayed)
Proof here
http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2014/01/further-analysis-on-2011-alaska.html
http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2014/01/cd134-cs137-ratio-and-food-chain-in.html
