You're right that this isn't an exactly viable comparison. Though there do seem to be signs that tritium too, is subject to biomagnification. I've posted a link below

Edit: for clarity, here's the link again. The main takeaway for me is that phytoplankton can make tritium bio-available and that this bio-available form of tritium is both getting bio-magnified up the food-chain and is entirely disregarded by current legislation, since the bio-available form of tritium is technically in a different chemical configuration. If I'm getting any of this wrong, feel free to correct me, everyone

[–] charlie@hexbear.net 9 points 1 year ago

I love getting reminded that I don’t actually know shit and that’s a very good reason to not be reactionary. Thank you, I gotta read into this a little more.

I have a vague background as a nuclear technician, (very far removed from that life) so I initially thought this was more reactionary behavior against nuclear energy. Nuclear powered ocean vessels also treat their water and release it into the ocean. Dilution is the solution sort of, but tritium becoming bio-available is not something I’ve heard mentioned here.

[–] BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That's an interesting, read, thanks for sharing! For what it's worth, the study used massively higher doses of tritium than what's being released: 10 million becquerels/L in the study water (which is 1,000x the drinking water limit) compared with - per Reuters - 63 becquerels/L in the wastewater.

I stopped short of saying that I didn't think there would be environmental harm because it does seem like there's cause for concern, even if the tritium has a relatively short half life. But I don't know if the claims being made by opponents are justified.