I studied some nuclear engineering in University (professor was an expert on Radioactivity and Environmental Accumulation, but I just took some classes out of interest). I think people are rightly worried, but radioactivity is one of those topics that is almost impossible to teach without a lot of explanation or background. I see many takes that I understand are entirely incorrect, but also understand that environmental accumulation isn't a super widely studied phenomenon (pretty much the only tests done are after accidents, where that professor and his like 15 worldwide co-experts rush off to after every spill or accident to study as much as possible for years). That leaves scary gaps in our knowledge, and it's understandable to be skeptical and conservative in how we treat those gaps. That includes this one, so I don't want to take a strong stance, honestly, except that education should come first then decisions can be made which the people agree with.
Tritium is not one I know much about (my professor was a big fan of weather patterns/soil deposits from rains and his studies from Chernobyl and Three Mile Island where this was not studied), but I do know that that professor gave us exams specifically on the problems of Fukushima and was entirely convinced that this was a non-issue even if they dumped it all out in only a few months. And he said this in like 2018. This is entirely an appeal to authority and nobody here knows me to trust it, but just a bit of extra info.
He was also much more nervous about a concentrated location in barrels due to well known accumulation that could occur if those leaked on land (soils, again)
I studied some nuclear engineering in University (professor was an expert on Radioactivity and Environmental Accumulation, but I just took some classes out of interest). I think people are rightly worried, but radioactivity is one of those topics that is almost impossible to teach without a lot of explanation or background. I see many takes that I understand are entirely incorrect, but also understand that environmental accumulation isn't a super widely studied phenomenon (pretty much the only tests done are after accidents, where that professor and his like 15 worldwide co-experts rush off to after every spill or accident to study as much as possible for years). That leaves scary gaps in our knowledge, and it's understandable to be skeptical and conservative in how we treat those gaps. That includes this one, so I don't want to take a strong stance, honestly, except that education should come first then decisions can be made which the people agree with.
Tritium is not one I know much about (my professor was a big fan of weather patterns/soil deposits from rains and his studies from Chernobyl and Three Mile Island where this was not studied), but I do know that that professor gave us exams specifically on the problems of Fukushima and was entirely convinced that this was a non-issue even if they dumped it all out in only a few months. And he said this in like 2018. This is entirely an appeal to authority and nobody here knows me to trust it, but just a bit of extra info.
He was also much more nervous about a concentrated location in barrels due to well known accumulation that could occur if those leaked on land (soils, again)