>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.

You paper literally says exactly what I said above for how Tritium interacts with your body's metabolism, and the risk factors of that.

Thank you for proving my point.

>Tritium occurs naturally, just saying.

At 10^-18 per H. That's effectively non-existent, and this is more concentrated.

>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.

There's no danger from it because there's effectively none there naturally. Being a 'weak' beta emitter is meaningless once it's already in your body.

>Because of the short half life, there's also no reason to expect long-term accumulation.

Holy shit, that's not how it works. Super heavy water in your body can under go chemical changes. Swapping bonds with other atoms, and taking the place of hydrogen in various metabolic reactions that take place. Some of them will form bonds and become sugars, proteins and amino acids.

When that tritium decays, you be left with an ionizing electron inside your body, an He3+ and a damaged base pair, amino acid, protein, etc.

It is NOT safe, and it's terrifying that you think it is.

>tritium decay is also far lower energy (and therefore both less penetrating and less damaging) than most other nuclear decay,

Tritium is heavy hydrogen and takes the place chemically of hydrogen. Once it's in your body it will fill the same role as hydrogen does which means it's getting into your cells, your proteins, even your DNA where it will do a lot of damage when it decays.

It's not harmless. Not in the slightest.

To expensive. Plus the changing climate makes it harder to design good (read: cheap) cooling systems.

Renewables are cheaper, even with additional energy storage costs are considered.

That said, refreshing a couple per-existing plants may not be a bad idea. We just need to realize they wont ever be profitable and subsidize them at a federal level so they can "compete" with other sources.