Sorry, but the level of ignorance is expecting one chemical to behave exactly like another when chemistry shows us that they don't.
Sure, however I'm not doing that. I'm expecting that organisms, in general, absorb micronutrients with their metabolic processes and that in some, but not all cases, a radionuclide "analogues" a type of micronutrient when presented to a metabolism.
Essentially, I'm expecting organisms to conduct metabolic processes and I'm as concerned with how biota interacts with radionuclides as much as humans and animals.
Cesium is a Potassium analog in the body and seeks muscle mass as the main potassium channel. It has a biological half life from 30-110 days depending on which study you read.
Iodine131 is taken up in the thyroid. Even with no KI treatment, 30-40 days later it has all gone away from radioactive decay.
The microgram quantity for Pu-239 being lethal is due to the fact it is an energetic alpha emitter, has a long radiological half life, and it is a calcium analog so it seeks the bones and stays in a body for 50 years.
That's interesting. My information was that pu-239 was an iron analogue, that it's chloride was highly water soluble and its oxide states were an inhalant. It would be unsurprising if it is more complex.
The safe concentrations of various nuclides depends on their half life, the energy of the radiation they give off, and whether they retain in the body (does your body use this chemical).
Yes, that was what I also understood.
Cobalt-60, the most common radionuclide hazard in operating light water reactor power plants has a radiological half life around 5 years... but it isn't retained in the body well at all and will be eliminated in 7-10 days.
Well, I am more concerned with how many other effluents of the Nuclear industry processes are making their way into the environment. However, with respect, whilst the use of radioactive materials in medicine is important, I don't think it's just Human biology we should be looking at.
I also think we should be trying understand how these radionuclides interact with the foodchain as a whole. For example, what stops trees from rotting in the forest around Chernobyl?. I am really interested in understanding if it destroys the fungi there, and for how long? I think we are underestimating the importance of that.
I'd like to see more effort to gather data on Fukushima's effluents instead of having media blackouts from the Japanese government. I think this is an international concern now, if that's how plutonium behaves on the earth, what does it do in the ocean?
Especially, when we are talking about all of the industrial effluents from fuel cycle, just how many other effluent/analogues are out there?
If anyone wants to tell you different, check to see if they can put the title "Health Physicist" beside their name. That is who you go to for a complete and factual answer. (Often with more math than you really needed)
Yes, I do discuss this with a person like that, however the math is all greek to me. Of course other aspects of the industry also require you to be an an engineer, lawyer, politician and many other things that I am not. Maybe it was wrong to point to people and say there is no safe level of ignorance because I'm still trying to learn as much as I can. I think it's important to build an understanding of the Nuclear Industry's consequences, so when someone trivializes the behavior of these materials in the food chain, when I know it is not the case, I feel it is appropriate to point out that it is not a trivial matter at all.