[janmalec]

You have completely missed my point. Every time you drive to work or flush your toilet you make an impact to the environment. How do you justify this action? Is it ok because you think that the impact to the environment is small? Will the end result of your action be a "massive destruction of the ecosphere"? Maybe it will be, but you have no other choice in life than evaluate all impacts and improve where you can and where it matters most.

[Archelaos]

I think, I understood you very well. The flushing of the toilet is of course also a liability. But my point is, nevertheless to take it serious, even though its impact might be small. I think we should not only focus on where it matters the most, and ignore the rest, but try to improve the situation across the board, including the smaller things.

[madsbuch]

I think this comment very well encompasses the modern discourse on sustainability: With a complete lack of a principle of proportionality.

The problem by elevating the seriousness of flushing a toilet, is that it dilutes more severe cases where one could do an actual impact.

[Archelaos]

The problem is that people think there is a lack of proportionality until they discover that there reall isn't. That happend again and again. And this is the reason why an ecologically sensible society fights on all fronts. There are reaons why you are not allowed to flash anything down the toilet, there is ongoing research how to improve wastewater management, etc., etc.

To get back to the original issue: the OP told us that the dumping of Tritium does less harm than other discharge and thus we should look elsewhere for improvements. As I understand this sentence, he means we should not worry about it at all. This is out of proportion: he could have claimed that we should worry less about it, but it does not follow, that we should totally ignore it.