Fukushima Daiichi began releasing wastewater today into the ocean

I was meant to post a link to a recent study on cancer mortality after low dose exposure to ionising radiation but forgot after ranting. This obviously doesn't hold much weight with regards to the tritium waste water release, but does give some credence to my school of thought that any radiation is harmful.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/radiation-exposure-cancer-research-uk-health-security-agency-b2394453.html 
https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-study-looking-at-risk-of-cancer-death-after-low-dose-occupational-exposure-to-ionising-radiation-in-workers/

Actual study:  https://www.bmj.com/content/382/bmj-2022-074520

Radiation doesn't scare me either, per se. What learning all about radiation has done is taught me to respect it. Same goes for fire. That doesn't frighten me per se, but I keep it at arms length.

The real biggie for me with Fukushima Diiachi is this.... It's not over. It hasn't finished. It is still in the same crapped out state as it was 12 years ago. The only thing keeping that waste water out of the ocean is the ice wall. That fails and it's back to the start again. What when the pedestal finally collapses? When will the real decommission start of the corium? When do they get that out and away from the water? Until such a time Fukushima Diiachi is still very much an ongoing issue. As it stands, they are simply keeping the monster behind a closed door. What when that door fails? Back to square one?

There is another way the tritium waste water can be managed. Evaporation ponds. Tritium is lighter than air, so simply evaporating it off will enable the gas to evaporate off into the atmosphere where the sun will regulate the amount in the upper atmosphere. Why don't they do this? Too expensive? Too hard to move the tanks of 40(?) tonnes of water, or 1000 tonnes, whatever they are. Too heavy for our road vehicles. So expense plays a major part.

Both Chernobly and Fukuchima Diiachi score the same 7 on the INES scale. That's the top, there is no 8. Chernobyl was by far a larger plume that went over Europe, but then it stopped, and has sat stopped ever since. Sure it is still hot, but if they wanted to just leave it alone they wouldn't really have needed to build the new sarcophagus, they built that to keep in the dust and other particles and contain any eventualities during the decommission process. Fukushima released more radiation into the sea than Chernobyl released into the air if you dig right down into it. A fact that many have tried to cover up. Most of the core from Chernobyl landed in Ukraine, hence the exclusion zone. The core wasn't ejected from Fukushima, only ancillary parts, so the plume wasn't as bad, and Japan did act much quicker than Chernobyl, and with more education than Chernobyl (the world hadn't dealt with a nuclear explosion in this way before) so less people were harmed. I think to say one was worse than the other is naive, they were both very different accidents, with different variables involved. Until the cores are removed from Fukushima the only thing stopping it going again is electricity. Stop that electricity running to the crippled plant and there is a very very good chance it will go into meltdown again. The electricity stops, the ice wall melts and all that water starts flowing out to sea again.

Fukushima ain't over yet.

and many aereas can be reinhabited and indeed some have moved back but many are scared to do so.

This isn't quite right. I get the feeling you haven't much heard from the people affected there. There are many reasons people aren't moving back. There is still the exclusion zone. People simply can't move back there yet. Some areas have been opened back up, but only some of the original exclusion zone. Some people moved back, but few. Some people went back to get belongings etc only to go away again. Some people lost absolutely everything they ever had during the tsunami. Every last possession they ever had, everything. No home, no life. Nothing. Some people made a new life in other places when they weren't allowed back. So to label the whole as 'afraid to go back' in simply disrespectful and rude to those affected. That's not the case for all. Many people lost everything and to go back to that place and rebuild from scratch is just emotionally and mentally too hard for them. I think if I lost everything I have at home here, now, including my home, I don't think I would move back. Too much emotional baggage.