I don't care if I get downvoted for this, I have to respond to being labelled a scaremonger, and this blatant acceptance of the Japanese government's view.

There are two sides to the "facts" regarding the Japanese release of the Fukushima water. I presented a hypothesis, presented both sides, and suggested scientific analysis that if done could confirm or fail to confirm that hypothesis. To call that scaremongering shows a lack of understanding of the English language, among other lacks.

Yes, Japan says the ALPS treatment system removes everything except Tritium, and it says the level of Tritium is safe to drink according to international standards[1]. However, as shown below there are a number of organizations who do not agree with or trust Japan's assertions of safety.

Panels on public policy in Japan also point out that there are no studies on the long term effects of Tritium[2].

Greenpeace and 6 UN Rapporteurs (the people UN special committees have appointed to report on their proceedings) condemned the water release as potentially further harmful to the people of Fukushima and the marine ecosystem [3][4][5].

U.S. National Association of Marine Laboratories expressed their opposition to the plan and stated that “there was a lack of adequate and accurate scientific data supporting Japan's assertion of safety" [6].

On a personal note, I've worked on three different U.S. military bases. All three had problems with groundwater contaminants from jet fuels and other things. All three had tests that certified 'the levels of contaminants are below danger levels and the water is safe to drink'. The majority of the people I knew at all three bases drank bottled water. On two of those bases I was explicitly warned I shouldn't drink the water, to get bottled water, when I start work on the base.

The definition of safety is also suspect when the people defining it have a vested interest in whatever it is being safe. Japan's release of the water has to be viewed as safe, because if otherwise then the implications and consequences from the rest of the world would be untenable for Japan.

[1] "The subcommittee on handling of the ALPS treated water report" (PDF). Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. 10 February 2020. pp. 12, 16, 17, 33, 34. Archived (PDF) from the original on 22 December 2020. Retrieved 10 April 2020.

[2] Ōshima, Kenichi; Mitsuta, Kanna; Gotō, Manashi (2021-04-11). "福島第一原発のALPS（多核種除去設備）処理汚染水海洋放出問題についての緊急声明". 原子力市民委員会 [Citizens' Commission on Nuclear Energy]. Tokyo. Archived from the original on 2021-04-11.

[3] Greenpeace International (13 April 2021). "The Japanese government's decision to discharge Fukushima contaminated water ignores human rights and international maritime law". Greenpeace. Archived from the original on 15 April 2021. Retrieved 15 April 2021.

[4] Tuncak, Baskut; Fakhri, Michael; Voule, Clément Nyaletsossi; Calí-Tzay, José Francisco (2020-06-09). "Fukushima: Japan must not ignore human rights obligations on nuclear waste disposal – UN experts". Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (press release). Archived from the original on 2020-06-15.

[5] Orellana, Marcos A.; Fakhri, Michael; Boyd, David (2021-04-15). "Japan: UN experts say deeply disappointed by decision to discharge Fukushima water". Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (press release). Archived from the original on 2021-04-15.

[6] "Despite opposition, Japan may soon dump Fukushima wastewater into the Pacific". www.science.org. Archived from the original on 2023-01-25. Retrieved 2023-01-26.