They do, lots of them, from lots of different places. This hardly gives the whole picture.
For the whole picture you have to look at levels in the sea, the soil, the air, tapwater, etc, from a load of different places. We also need a better indication of how much stuff is continuing to escape from the plant right now, as the seawater escape route is the only one getting a lot of attention right now.
Im not sure quite what you are looking for in order to be able to judge the problem. There isnt a single number that will tell you much really. And questions that a lot of people seem to ask, such as 'is it worse than Chernobyl?', or gloomy reactions to words such as plutonium and meltdown dont really enlighten that much either.
More generally I dont think humans overall are setup to get a proper sense of risk and stuff when it comes to events that pose some osrt of health risk. We are use to seeing statistics, and of making a meal of stats in order to 'prove' a point. We dont tend to spend long talking about the full risk picture for things like coal powered stations, so its not surprising that this is also the case for nuclear, whether under normal operating conditions or during an emergency.