>Tritium cannot bio-accumulate

I'm simply agreeing that if it is possible, then the justification for release is invalidated. If you would like to argue your point with the commenter I replied to, you are welcome to do that.

False. For example there is a an increases the strength of water's hydrogen–oxygen bonds. Tritium acts similarly to Protium, however it has chemical differences (ignoring the radioactivity).

Even Deuterium has enough chemical difference to be poisonous in large quantities, even though it is not radioactive. Wikipedia: “When a large fraction of water (> 50%) in higher organisms is replaced by heavy water, the result is cell dysfunction and death.”

>Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that".

(I always get the DVs for doing this, but somehow, dang always receives applause for doing the same exact thing.)

now, to be clear, the radioactive meltdown part of the nuclear plant, I was not comparing to the coal exhaust. just the water part was compared to the coal exhaust. the meltdown part making an area uninhabitable for ten thousand years, that doesn't have a thing for comparison. that's just a bonus that stands on its own.

now - did you read my comment, like I read the article, before replying to the comment to which you replied? confused? you should be. so long, and thanks for all the fish.