[ClumsyPilot]

It absolutely is the relevant measure, as anything can be diluted: at Fukushima Tepco is not allowed to relase tritium water into the ocean because its technically radioactive. It would dilute in the oceans and make no actual difference. If they released it, there would be public outcry.

They are instead storing giant amounts of it on site.

Meanwhile coal powerplants throw radiation into air all day and noone raises an eyebrow.

[Tepix]

> It would dilute in the oceans and make no actual difference.

Before it got diluted, would it lead to unwanted contamination of fish in the area?

[ClumsyPilot]

Are we talking about a competent proffeshional, or someone who escaped the asylum?

You don't just dump it all at once at the local beach, you take it out to sea and do the diluting over several months.

You can even release it in the abbysal zone, where hardly anything lives.

Half-life of tritium is 12 years, so it would be mostly gone fairly quickly.

[pvaldes]

We definitely need a name for this. I will suggest "nuclear terraplanism".

Nuclear terraplanism is defined as refusing to understand basic biology and scientific knowledge known since much before to put men in the moon to promote a nuclear agenda, so the risks remain hidden or are deliberately left out of the master plan.

I'm talking about concepts that each biologist understand like vertical migration or bioaccumulation, or physical properties of water (Warm water ascends to surface... duh, who would suspect that?)

[LargoLasskhyfv]

Just fill some old ultra large crude oil carriers [1] which aren't needed anymore with that stuff. Strip them of anything reusable, tow them to the Marianas Trench or some other abyss, hang some weights onto them, maybe giant bags of contaminated topsoil.

Sink.

Kanpai!

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_tanker#Size_categories

[pvaldes]

This is an incredibly irresponsible plan. Give me real solutions or stop this shit. WILL-NOT-WORK.

With this 60's mentality YOU-WILL-END-KILLING-SOMEONE

Can people, in the age if internet, learn a single thing about abyssal ecosystems? Do you know where most (if not all) abyssal fishes born? ALL ARE SURFACE FISHES. All are linked directly with fisheries.

We could achieve the same, just much cheaper, dumping it directly in the New York port.

[LargoLasskhyfv]

Nothing lasts forever, even stars die, and in the end the universe itself.

Stop crying. Enjoy your time. The 60ies and 70ies mostly had "the right stuff". What remains now are mostly disturbed head-cases, and way too many of them.

[ClumsyPilot]

Surely all issues you outlined apply to radioactive particles released by coal power-plants even more?

Example of "warm water rises" is silly - global ocean is not a teapot, water on the abyssal plain is not heated from the bottom.

[pvaldes]

> Example of "warm water rises" is silly - global ocean is not a teapot

You understand that the concept of radioactivity is linked somehow to release of heat. Do you?

[Tepix]

It's not just Tritium. TEPCO, a Japanese power company, estimates that more than 70% of the tanks — that’s 700,000 tons of water — will need secondary treatment before the water is in any state to be released.

Also my guess would be that they lay a pipe from these tanks into the water to dump the 1 million tons, meaning there would be some spots with fairly high concentration for a long time.

[ClumsyPilot]

We diverged a lot from initial claim of:

"total amount is not a relevant measure .." concentration.

That claim is incorrect - it is obviously possible to release tritium water without causing damage.

The actual management of Fukushima is a rabbithole, but if they spent years containing it, I dont think they will just flush it down a tube and call it a day.

[svara]

> That claim is incorrect - it is obviously possible to release tritium water without causing damage.

Seems like you somehow misunderstood what I was saying then? You are basically restating my point.

The specifics of what's going on at Fukushima have nothing to do with it. Yes, if they can release contaminated water in a way that a maximal safe concentration is never exceeded, that would be safe.

I did not comment on whether nuclear plants are better or worse than coal plants or anything like that, I just pointed out that the argument about release of radioactive material by coal plants must be made in a different way (if that is possible) if it is to be effective.

NB: Please don't take this personally, but this looks like another example of interpreting a statement based on whether it superficially seems to fit into one's preferred narrative rather than looking at what was actually said. What I actually wrote is simply correct based on basic physics and biology.

[ClumsyPilot]

I never took it badly - its hard to convey tone with just short text!

I think we were coming from different directions, i see what you are saying.