And also like Prickle says it's all moot because releasing it into the ocean is the better solution - in terms of cost, risk, dilution effectiveness, and political feasibility. Maybe their fishing industry would be impacted less if they dumped it in a lake - although I suspect the effect will be temporary as the global market reconfigures itset, and South Korea already bans fish and agricultural products from Fukushima, and Japan was already headed toward a trade war with China for other geopolitical reasons. There would also be economic impacts as a result of dumping it in Lake Inawashiro - for example to tourism in the Lake Inawashiro area. Is that a good trade-off? I don't think the answer is as obvious as you claim.

And I don't know how you can claim "it's simply a solution which they didn't even consider" - were you there in the room when the engineers were drawing up ways to treat the wastewater before deciding on this one? Honestly I find it perplexing that you are so fixated on this notion that because they didn't choose some suboptimal solution to dispose of waste water, somehow that is emblematic of "Japanese domestic politics at it's worst".

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_r...

Fundamentally, the complaint is that the tritium water will cause environmental damage. => And will lead to damage to humans. If we go down to the roots of the issue, it has not, and never was centered around whether the bq/L was below human drinking limits. It has always been about whether the bq/L amount is safe for the environment. That's why I brought up the natural range in the first place. If anything, claims about it being safe to drink have been a distraction brought up to placate protestors. (And it misses the point)

Therefore, the powerplant should be (and has been) required to reduce environmental effects. When it comes to controlling the Catastrophically F'd reactors, they've been less than capable to say the least. But that's not explicitly related to the tritium water we are discussing about right now.

So, the goal should be to minimize environmental damage. In order to better ensure that, the Tritium water should not cause a major change in composition of the water. Therefore, the bq/L of tritium in water, should preferably, not change beyond the naturally expected amount. (ie: 0.4–1.2 bq/L) Hence why I brought up how your solution violates that basic idea, while the sea release does not. I even showed you the very basic napkin math that made me come to that conclusion.

You do realize, one of the other proposed solutions was actually release by air? After all, Tritium is an isotope of Hydrogen. That plan was specifically dropped because the amount of expected tritium per cubic liter of air, would be greater than when released in water. The decision from the start, has been about minimizing the becquerels per cubic liter. Certainly, the government would accept nothing else.

I should point out, the water is more dangerous when stored. By default, the stored water has a significantly higher concentration until it is diluted. Certainly, higher than the safe level. A leak from the tanks would cause significantly more environmental damage. Just like with aircraft design, where every contingency is considered, we must also consider every contingency for when that containment fails. History has shown us multiple times, that inevitably, even the best built systems are destroyed by human error.

Quite frankly, your complaints are more arbitrary than mine. You are proposing that Japan should take the concerns of uninformed individuals, over the concerns and claims made by professionals.