150,000 SQ.KM of Pacific with Fukushima nuclear material - ‘Remarkable’ amount released in ocean

[FBaggins]

45. Nope.

patronization (talking down to),

Missed the irony there, eh?

1. Bq/Kg (Which means the number of radioactive disintegrations per second in each kilogram) doesn't distinguish between the kind of radiation - alpha, beta, or gamma

Which would be so much less embarrassing for you if it weren't for the fact that K40 and Cs134/137 are both beta emitters (K40 actually shows all three types of beta decay)

2. You don't make any reference to the body's response to K-40 versus Cs-137.

Ah... more of the banana defense. How original. The fact is that no, potassium levels are not a constant in the body (else there would not be such a large body of research on variability of potassium levels and how/when to treat them... nor any need to include potassium in multivitamins... or tell people how to increase their potassium intake). It is true that we excrete the stuff, but it isn't instantaneous. The excretion time delay for potassium is about 30 days. The biological half-life for Cesium is closer to 70, but it too leaves the body. So no... you can't eat large amounts of potassium-rich foods and never increase your "body load"... you'll just hit a higher equilibrium level as the excretion rate matches your higher intake levels.

a naturally occurring isotope which Earth's creatures have evolved with and adjusted to, it can be considered normal and non-harmful since the environment in which we evolved is the baseline for determinations of health effects

That's nonsensical (and laughable)... though frequently parroted here. Elements are one thing, but a gamma ray of a particular energy is a gamma ray of a particular energy. The tissue that is exposed to it has no clue what element it came from.

the real meaning of "no safe level of exposure" is "No safe level of increase above the natural background radiation," and "natural" in this context excludes the radioactive contamination of our biosphere due to human nuclear activities

Just as ridiculous. The radon in your home is "natural"... but amount that you are exposed to is much higher (in most cases) because we live in well-sealed homes (where we did not evolve). Cosmic radiation is entirely natural, but we didn't evolve at 30,000 feet... and our decision to fly (or to live at higher elevations) impacts that dose.

You seem to be saying that you agree there is "no safe level of exposure" but then proceed to ridicule that very premise. That's confusing.

There's a difference between being confusing... and just being confused. The "no safe level" spin has always been just that... spin. It relies on the fact that "safe" is taken to mean that there is absolutely zero chance of any negative impact. By that standard, nothing is "safe". It's true that there is no way to build a bridge such that it immune to collapse in all circumstances. Some people have an irrational fear of bridges... but we would laugh at them if they went on about how there's "no safe exposure" to bridges and drove miles out of their way to avoid them... because driving is inherently dangerous too. And yet here you are telling me that we evolved walking on dirt and there were no bridges around.

IOW, "no safe level" is true... it just doesn't mean anything. The implied corollary (that any additional amount is to be avoided) is simply not true.

I'm just getting my socks on.

What you forget is that there's far more involved than just being willing to tell the truth. You first must know what the truth is... and your first two posts are not encouraging in that regard.