Harm was going to come to us, post event, no matter what. Some argue we are not good enough at these things, meaning harm will come to us every time we generat

Harm was going to come to us, post event, no matter what. Some argue we are not good enough at these things, meaning harm will come to us every time we generate energy this way. The only real question being us or future people, near or longer term harm. Say we set that aside as a matter of ambiguity and just focus on type of harm. (My own take is we will generate energy this way, so we may as well fund serious risk mitigation of all kinds.) We have only one option here longer term, and that is dilution. Normally, we have two, the other being containment. (And, given we do make energy this way, strong investment in containment makes a lot of sense.) And in this scenario, we have both contaminated water to deal with and a core likely to enter the water cycle itself at some point too. It will, at that time, irradiate water for a long time. Is the harm in the atmosphere greater than in water? It will go somewhere. IMHO, the water is a better shield and has far greater capacity to serve as a medium to dilute in than the air does.