American professor Emily Hammond, an expert in energy and environmental law with George Washington University, said: "The challenge with radionuclides (such as tritium) is that they present a question that science cannot fully answer; that is, at very low levels of exposure, what can be counted as 'safe'?
"One can have a lot of faith in the IAEA's work while still recognising that compliance with standards does not mean that there are 'zero' environmental or human consequences attributed to the decision."
The US National Association of Marine Laboratories released a statement in December 2022 saying it was not convinced by Japan's data.
And marine biologist Robert Richmond, from the University of Hawaii, told the BBC: "We've seen an inadequate radiological, ecological impact assessment that makes us very concerned that Japan would not only be unable to detect what's getting into the water, sediment and organisms, but if it does, there is no recourse to remove it... there's no way to get the genie back in the bottle."
Environmental groups such as Greenpeace go further, referring to a paper published by scientists at the University of South Carolina in April 2023.
2011年福岛事件后，中国政府对邻海的放射性进行了测量
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3881145/
结果如下。最多是0。7BQ／升. 水的放射性符合安全标准。2011年地震时的释放量是这次释放的100倍以上，所以这次更不应该有什么问题。
中国的核电站每年都排放比这次日本废水更多的放射性。数据见下面中国放射防护研究所的报告。不光是废水，还有废气，而且废气的辐射量比废水更多。
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3881145/
作为用来对照的本底，下面这个报告概括了杭州地区淡水里以及当地生产的食物里各种放射元素（不光是氚和铯，还有其他重元素）的水平。这个报告显示秦山电站的排放有锶而不只是氚，不过是在安全水平之下。
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352186422001638
下面这个文件的表1总结了地球大气和海洋里主要放射元素的数量和来源。可以看出，相对于现有的（自然来源和人为因素的积累），福岛放水的影响是很小的.
https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/10/5481/2013/bg-10-5481-2013.pdf
更多我的博客文章>>> 福岛事件后，中国政府对邻海的放射性进行了测量 穷则思变实现阶层跃迁不容易。。。 我这里有一个德国海洋研究所对2011年泄露的模拟，大家可以看一看日本释放放射性水以后可能发生的传播。 为人民服务有风险。。。 继续探讨一下吃了被核排放污染的水产以后的风险。
链接。关键原文“原子能机构和参与的第三方实验室都未检测到任何达到显著水平的其他放射性核素”
具体检测报告内容及结果，见 https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/first_interlaboratory_comparison_on_the_determination_of_radionuclides_in_alps_treated_water.pdf
就是你一天摄入量总量不得超过多少，稀释了到一定程度，你摄入总量是安全的。
当然，不是说排放就合理，这是各种手段，因素综合的结果。
谁认为日本海产品没问题，谁喜欢吃谁吃。
新冠以后，我对科学数字不再没有脑袋的相信，新冠的“科学”是为政客的利益。
同理，核辐射数字也差不多。
American professor Emily Hammond, an expert in energy and environmental law with George Washington University, said: "The challenge with radionuclides (such as tritium) is that they present a question that science cannot fully answer; that is, at very low levels of exposure, what can be counted as 'safe'?
"One can have a lot of faith in the IAEA's work while still recognising that compliance with standards does not mean that there are 'zero' environmental or human consequences attributed to the decision."
乔治华盛顿大学能源和环境法专家、美国教授艾米丽·哈蒙德表示：“放射性核素（例如氚）面临的挑战是，它们提出了一个科学无法完全回答的问题；也就是说，在非常低的暴露水平下 ，什么才算“安全”？
The US National Association of Marine Laboratories released a statement in December 2022 saying it was not convinced by Japan's data.
And marine biologist Robert Richmond, from the University of Hawaii, told the BBC: "We've seen an inadequate radiological, ecological impact assessment that makes us very concerned that Japan would not only be unable to detect what's getting into the water, sediment and organisms, but if it does, there is no recourse to remove it... there's no way to get the genie back in the bottle."
Environmental groups such as Greenpeace go further, referring to a paper published by scientists at the University of South Carolina in April 2023.
美国国家海洋实验室协会2022年12月发表声明称，日本的数据并不令其信服。
夏威夷大学的海洋生物学家罗伯特·里士满告诉英国广播公司：“我们看到放射学和生态影响评估不充分，这让我们非常担心日本不仅无法检测到水、沉积物中的物质， 生物体，但如果确实如此，就没有办法将其移除……没有办法让精灵回到瓶子里。”
绿色和平组织等环保组织更进一步，引用了南卡罗来纳大学科学家于 2023 年 4 月发表的一篇论文。
“人们可以对原子能机构的工作充满信心，同时仍然认识到遵守标准并不意味着该决定对环境或人类造成‘零’后果。”