赞同你的观点。学周老大，远离……。听听不同声音，不能因为浓度低就说安全，为时过早了。为什么现在癌发病率高？
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。”
