It is a word that is often (even by those in the professional field) incorrectly applied to situations such as, where nuclear contamination produces deformities
Define nuclear contamination, please.
Because it appears that this is a point of simple denial on your part. A mutation is simply an inheritable change in a genome of an organism. In multi-celled animals the change has to be a part of the reproductive cells to be inheritable, but it is certainly appropriate to call such a change in a lung cell a mutation if it affects new lung cells.
So exactly what is it that you consider to be a misuse of the term mutation? What constitutes nuclear contamination?
For a true mutation to occur that demonstrates the mechanism of macro evolution, the DNA would have to somehow reorganize into a genetic sequence that has never been known before now
This 'never known before now' stuff is complete nonsense. As long as the change was not a part of any of the ancestors of say a raven, why would it be important that the genetic sequence was known before in some other, non ancestural animal, such as a penguin. In my opinion, this 'requirement' is simply to allow disallowing some mutations that simply augment a currently known behavior. More simple denial.
You seem to want mutant to mean the cartoon version of mutant as applied to the X-men.
Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass