>

Never called you any names. Don’t know wtf you are talking about.
Energy generation is always going to have unknowns and trade offs. Tritium contamination from nuclear power plants is very low on the list of potential environmental catastrophes humans have caused/are still currently causing.
Most ppl will get way more radiation from an airplane flight than swimming on that coastline. Radiation scares are often paid for by oil and gas companies because it's a direct threat to their industry >

The oil and gas lobby have been funding anti-nuclear groups for decades:

In 1970, a leader of the petroleum industry and the head of the Atlantic Richfield Co. named Robert O. Anderson contributed $200,000 to fund Friends of the Earth, an organization that is strident in its opposition to nuclear energy, citing both safety and cost issues.^1

Even the KGB saw the movement as target of opportunity^2 >

In a world where renewables are the near future dominant power generator, fossil fuel funding anti-nuclear campaigns is like abacus companies funding anti-calculator campaigns. >

Yeah, if big abacus had the world by it's short curlies, that is >

About time... It's tritium folks. Occurs naturally when sun rays interact water molecules, so there is plenty in the ocean already. Though in very very low concentration. But Pacific ocean is pretty big, so a tad more won't be noticed. >

Are you citing Tepco studies?
The same Tepco that promised the plant could survive an earthquake? >

I mean were right no ? The earthquake wasn't the issue. The tsunami was. >

Yeah who could've predicted tsunamis along the East coast of Honshu. >

The Japanese did. Fukushima was protected by a sea wall due to the risk of tsunamis. And they had not long before the 2011 tsunami, increased the height of it based on the height of the 2006 Indian Ocean tsunami. The only thing they didn't factor in was an even bigger tsunami than the 2006 one. 
In fact, the real problem wasn't so much that they built a nuclear power plant on the coast of an island prone to earthquakes. The real problem was they had positioned the backup generators for the cooling system in the basement, which left the cooling system vulnerable to flooding. 
To that end, the whole Fukushima disaster would have been avoided if they had elevated the backup generators for the colling system. >


kushima disaster would have been avoided if they had elevated the backup generators for the c

Yea this guy is right.  Having been there an been involved with the military response, (and seeing many reports/studies) the power plant survived both the earthquake and tsunami.  But it did not survive the extended site-black-out power-loss.  So had they relocated the generators from the basement to the nearby hillside, as was on their 'do list someday' a meltdown could have been prevented.  Note that the second power plant complex built a decadish later has it's generators on high ground. >

Homeopathic folks in shambles…the more they dilute the isotopes the stronger they become. >

I studied environmental science and I can tell you this is misleading because pure lab physics does not apply to the environment the way most people think it does. >

I desperately want to downvote this, but this is an educational opportunity. 
I work on nuclear reactors on a daily basis. I get more radiation from going outside for a smoke than I do from the reactor. I have literally drank primary coolant before and I am fine. Nuclear reactors are the safest form of power generation, bar hydroelectric. >

Yes but marine life is much smaller and more fragile. Do microrganisms survive radiation at the same rate as people? Do you assume marine life cannot bioaccumulate radiation and why is that? >

If it were Co-60 and Cs-137 it could be a problem. Tritium is much less of a concern, especially at these concentrations. Go buy a glow in the dark watch and drop the hands in your fish tank. You’ve just exposed your fish to more tritium than they will get from this water. >

In which water? The dumping site? Within 200m of the dumping site? What is the dilution rate and how wide of a spread before it is virtually unnoticeable?
There are dead zones along popular beeches from the zinc in sunscreen.
Again do you have a source or did you make up that figure? The only source I could find from the IAEA is behind a paywall.
Why are you avoiding facts and my real concerns base don my experience in the exact relevant field?
Again its not physics in a fish tank. Water in the ocean does not work that way. Even mixing is what happens in a lab but irl temperature and density prevent bodies of water (containing different solutes and solids) do not readily mix.
Why are you avoiding the science? >

What I am talking about is discussed in pages 11, 12 and 13 of the article you shared. Notice that the effects on organic chamistry in salt water environments is unknown and the information is considered dated according to the article's authors. So what I said is 100% true. Data for most ecosystems is unknown an untested. Varied concentrations in marine organisms can be higher than thay of the surrounding water!
It clearly says organic molecules can cause a slowdown of the dissolution rate of the tritinium hydroxide. Hot take. Also what I said.
Local concentration (aka the dumping site) is discussed on page 14.
So you called me a moron and said I did not know the science but it is right there as I said it would be and the asumptions in the paper are the same as those I explained at length. So... I was right and you were just overly rude. Thanks for proving me right.