> 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.
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.