Sure is! And he's pointing out that understanding what that _difference is_ is pretty important. "everything that COULD be radioactive or contaminated" is a worthless and meaningless phrase, and in fact represents a _worthless and meaningless idea_.
Describing what constitutes a meaningful and worrisome amount of radiation is fundamentally critical to the topic, and pretending there's some kind of 'just to be safe' level of assumption we can make is silly.
There are pretty good regulations around what could be radioactive or contaminated in relation to a reactor core. Mother's milk is certainly not mentioned.
I'm writing Hacker News comments. I don't care to specify with verbose and overly anal details exactly what is included and excluded in such statements. Luckily, scientists and regulators don't agree with your opinion how ridiculous the risks are. If stuff comes close to a reactor, it has to be tested for contamination. And overall, there is a lot more waste which needs special disposal, than just the fuel.
Describing what constitutes a meaningful and worrisome amount of radiation is fundamentally critical to the topic, and pretending there's some kind of 'just to be safe' level of assumption we can make is silly.