Posted on 03/23/2011 10:13:11 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Conservative maverick Ann Coulter has poured scorn on growing fears over the fallout from Japan’s nuclear crisis by claiming that ‘radiation is good for you.’
With her bizarre outburst, Coulter became the latest celebrity to cause a stir over controversial remarks on the disaster in Japan.
The right wing commentator was attempting to quell concern that a radiation plume was due to hit America’s West Coast today after travelling 5,000 miles across the Pacific Ocean from the damaged reactor at Fukishima.
There is a growing body of evidence that radiation in excess of what the government says are the minimum amounts we should be exposed to are actually good for you and reduce cases of cancer,’ she told Fox News TV host Bill O’Reilly.
Coulter pointed to articles in the New York Times and The Times of London to back up her argument. ‘So we should all be heading for the nuclear reactor leaking and kind of sunbathing,’ joked O’Reilly. Coulter was speaking after writing a column on her website titled, ‘A Glowing Report on Radiation.’
She quotes a string of doctors to back her argument and writes: ‘With the terrible earthquake and resulting tsunami that have devastated Japan, the only good news is that anyone exposed to excess radiation from the nuclear power plants is now probably much less likely to get cancer.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Ed Schultz of MSNBC targeted Ann Coulter and her recent comments on radiation’s positive health benefits in his “Take Down” segment on Friday night. Last week, Ann Coulter wrote a blog post about the positive health benefits of radiation and made national headlines when Bill O’Reilly scolded her on his show for the shoddy research and inappropriate timing of her incendiary claims. Schultz agreed and took the scolding to the next level saying:
A lot of people say Ann Coulter is toxic. But we had no idea that she would take that literally. You would laugh at her if she wasn’t making light of a terrible tragedy.
Watch Schultz’s segment in full. Note Ann Coulter’s glowing green head.
CLICK THIS LINK FOR THE VIDEO :
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2011/03/21/ed_schultz_ann_coulter_radiation
She and O Reilly make fun of birthers. They are stooges for Obama and Prince Al Waleed. Ef both of them.
Slow Eddie is not capable of nuance.
Coulter was at FUJPAC saying how there needed to be more homo conservatives.
Most likely, again, we’ve been fooled again.
I always thought she was an idiot. This only proves what I thought all along.
Was she wrong? You should start with that.
Radiation is good for you? Really? Hey, you are free to follow her and her beliefs, but not me.
I wouldn’t say idiot. She knows how to use the press to make big money. Is she to be taken seriously? No way. She is an entertainer. I do agree with her that the current crop of GOP candidates will lose to Zero.
Here is a copy of Ann Coulter’s original article entitled:
A GLOWING REPORT ON RADIATION
http://staugustine.com/opinions/2011-03-20/coulter-glowing-report-radiation
EXCERPT :
A $10 million Department of Energy study from 1991 examined 10 years of epidemiological research by the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health on 700,000 shipyard workers, some of whom had been exposed to 10 times more radiation than the others from their work on the ships’ nuclear reactors. The workers exposed to excess radiation had a 24 percent lower death rate and a 25 percent lower cancer mortality than the non-irradiated workers.
Isn’t that just incredible? I mean, that the Department of Energy spent $10 million doing something useful? Amazing, right?
In 1983, a series of apartment buildings in Taiwan were accidentally constructed with massive amounts of cobalt 60, a radioactive substance. After 16 years, the buildings’ 10,000 occupants developed only five cases of cancer. The cancer rate for the same age group in the general Taiwanese population over that time period predicted 170 cancers.
The people in those buildings had been exposed to radiation nearly five times the maximum “safe” level according to the U.S. government. But they ended up with a cancer rate 96 percent lower than the general population.
Bernard L. Cohen, a physics professor at the University of Pittsburgh, compared radon exposure and lung cancer rates in 1,729 counties covering 90 percent of the U.S. population. His study in the 1990s found far fewer cases of lung cancer in those counties with the highest amounts of radon — a correlation that could not be explained by smoking rates.
Tom Bethell, author of the “Politically Incorrect Guide to Science,” has been writing for years about the beneficial effects of some radiation, or “hormesis.” A few years ago, he reported on a group of scientists who concluded their conference on hormesis at the University of Massachusetts by repairing to a spa in Boulder, Mont., specifically in order to expose themselves to excess radiation.
At the Free Enterprise Radon Health Mine in Boulder, people pay $5 to descend 85 feet into an old mining pit to be irradiated with more than 400 times the EPA-recommended level of radon. In the summer, 50 people a day visit the mine hoping for relief from chronic pain and autoimmune disorders.
Amazingly, even the Soviet-engineered disaster at Chernobyl in 1986 can be directly blamed for the deaths of no more than the 31 people inside the plant who died in the explosion. Although news reports generally claimed a few thousand people died as a result of Chernobyl — far fewer than the tens of thousands initially predicted — that hasn’t been confirmed by studies.
Indeed, after endless investigations, including by the United Nations, Manhattan Project veteran Theodore Rockwell summarized the reports to Bethell in 2002, saying, “They have not yet reported any deaths outside of the 30 who died in the plant.”
Even the thyroid cancers in people who lived near the reactor were attributed to low iodine in the Russian diet — and consequently had no effect on the cancer rate.
Meanwhile, the animals around the Chernobyl reactor, who were not evacuated, are “thriving,” according to scientists quoted in the April 28, 2002 Sunday Times (UK).
CLICK ABOVE LINK FOR THE REST OF HER ARTICLE.
Wine is good for you too, but not if you drink a whole bottle.
Yeah, I read the article last week. She cites a good number of factual occurences, and she NEVER says radiation is good for you. She merely puts out the idea. Nothing wrong with that. Also, is the idea REALLY more insane than the idea of injecting yourself with a deadly disease in order to not get the deadly disease?
RE: half the time no one knows whether to take Ann seriously or not
Based on the article she wrote, and based on her back and forth with Bill O’Reiley, I’d say she’s serious on this topic.
She has jumped the shark.
Terrible analogy.
Radiation is not good for you, even in small amounts.
Amazing to watch how some will follow their leaders right over the cliff.
radiation was good for my Dad.. he received radiation therapy for his cancer.
Natural radiation occurs almost everywhere.
But I will grant you, that while Ann technically may have been correct, it probably still was a silly thing to say.
The thyroid cancer after the Chernobyl accident was attributed to low levels of iodine in the Russian diet? Really? You really believe that crap?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.