>Dosis sola facit venenum.

In radiation all dosage is cumulative and no, research has not shown otherwise yet.

>Do you have any education about radiation hazards and how to interpret them? You're acting like an expert yet failing to respond to the points at all.

I have a minor in Nuclear engineering and a minor in physics. So, kind of? I also have a BS in computational mathematics and poly sci, but they're less relevant.

>You're arguing dishonestly and cherrypicking a tiny part instead of responding to the actual point

Lol, you literally said this: >>Tritium occurs naturally, just saying. There's always a tiny amount in your drinking water. It's such a weak beta-emitter, that there's almost no danger from it.

and this

>> ...tritium decay is also far lower energy (and therefore both less penetrating and less damaging) than most other nuclear decay, to the point where it can't even penetrate human skin in the first place.

Really, this is the only point I've been attacking. Tritium is not a safe material, you keep saying it's harmless, and it's not. You don't know how it effects biological systems or the risk of it once ingested or inhaled. Your own paper says, exactly, what I said. Yet, somehow I'm dishonest.

>I'm sick of people who don't know anything trying to act educated but failing to grasp the most basic things.

Same.

>Respond to my individual points please and stop the cherrypicking. It's obvious and dishonest.

I did, you responded by posting a source that agreed with me, and point blank, said your understanding of the bio availability and effects of Tritium were wrong. Again, that is the only point I've been making this whole time.