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?)
Sink.
Kanpai!
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_tanker#Size_categories
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.
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.
Example of "warm water rises" is silly - global ocean is not a teapot, water on the abyssal plain is not heated from the bottom.
You understand that the concept of radioactivity is linked somehow to release of heat. Do you?
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.
"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.
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.
I think we were coming from different directions, i see what you are saying.
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.