I'm going to leave it at this:
You cite Weston A Price, Mercola, and Wikipedia. Really.
You also cite some other sources that don't in any way disprove a single thing I said. There is an entirely different reason for high dosages used with exposure to radioactivity, as a first example. It in no way refutes anything I said. In a second example, your FAO document is sloppy with units, confusing mg with mcg at least once and it looks like more: for example, it gives American iodine intake as 500 "mg" per day which, as mg, is not correct. Far more seriously than that, however, is your selective citation of the document that you present to counter what I've posted.
In this document that you cite, you selectively omit that it gives 30 mcg/kg/day as the probable safe upper limit for adults. For an 80 kg man that would be 2.4 mg. Way below 50 mg!
So, since you cited that one as authoritative, do you now acknowledge that as a reasonable value for probable safe upper limit? Or do you pick and choose: you don't like that part so you throw it out, but the parts you select to support you, you keep? (I don't know, it's an honest question. Perhaps you'll spot that your document gives that as a probable safe upper limit and accordingly revise your recommendations.) I don't think too much of selective citation.
You assert, without having checked, that what I'm saying might be out of date. If you had checked you'd know differently.
I'm citing primary research, which I have the education and experience to understand, and citing world-recognized panels of scientists publishing under peer review, as well as individual such articles. I'm not citing Weston A Price, Mercola, and Wikipedia.
I've read what you've read, plus what I've read.
It appears you've read only the types of sources you've given and obviously have not read what I've provided for you. Instead you assume, wrongly, it "might" be out of date.
You are absolutely in an alternate reality with any claim of the body holding anything like 1500 mg of iodine. The human body has been chemically analyzed. Repeatedly. What you say is categorically false and proven so repeatedly in the scientific literature. You cite the Weston A Price website as attempted support. (Gee, why don't I cite Livestrong and then we can have a really super quality discussion.) That's fantasy to think that their extrapolation, which is what that one is, outranks actual measurement.
It's simple fact: the amounts you recommend are shown dangerous with continued intake, are based on completely false theory of amount that should be in the body that you get from an alternative-health website, and which amounts have never been shown by comparison to give better effect for replenishment than more normal intake.
I have given absolutely thorough substantiation already and have no desire to keep repeating myself with it and won't. If you want to know, go read what I cited in the primary literature, not Weston A Price, Mercola, and Wikipedia. Standards should be higher than that. If you had read and understood the references from the previous post, even the first few, I would not have needed to post the above.
Your choice as to whether to accept evidence-founded knowledge on this matter or to continue believing and propagating myth, and worse, myth that a ton of evidence says can harm.