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 ...
It was interesting watching Megyn Kelly with the big O last night. She was turning her guns on him - called him an armchair lawyer, told him to pipe down and stop trying to talk over her. It was ostensibly cordial, but noticeable, to me. Maybe he suggested something involving a loofah.
Drinking Alcohol is Haraam - Even a single drop
Muzzies can shove it.
The context of her statement really should be : exposure to LOW LEVELS of radiation is good for you, reduces cancer risk.
Her statement is based on a theory called -— HORMESIS, which says that Certainly radiation kills cells and can stimulate immune responses.
Before you go sticking your head in the X-ray machine (which she isn’t telling anyone to do ), a little perspective is in order here. While there are scientists who subscribe to the theory that low levels of radiation can have beneficial health effects — it’s called hormesis — it is still an outside-the-mainstream opinion.
Whether low-level radiation is protective against cancer, a theory called hormesis, is debated in the scientific community.
“Radiation is not good for you, even in small amounts.”
Targeted, intense radiation is the most common treatment for many cancers. Not saying Ann is correct, just addressing your comment.
RE: You really believe that crap?
Please re-read my post (the one that you responded to ) and tell me where I said I believe it...
RE: Coulter made a rather broad statement that if examined in the detail is correct.
Actually, the fact of the matter is as Coulter put it, the theory that exposure to low levels of radiation is actually good for you and reduces cases of cancer — is correct.
Reputable scientists disagree about that. I’m questioning whether Coulter was correct in saying there is “a growing body of evidence” that radiation in excess of approved exposure levels may be beneficial.
There is a small but growing body of research to back up those claims.
But the fact is that the mainstream of the scientific community HAS NOT EMBRACED THE THEORY.
They point to limitations of those studies and argue the research falls well short of scientific evidence.
Coulter failed to present this counter-weight, the opinion shared by the majority in the scientific community, which doesn’t buy into — and in many cases outright rejects — the idea that low levels of radiation can have beneficial health effects and reduce the risk of cancer.
So, we have to really take Coulter’s claims with SKEPTICISM.
How do you expect to avoid radiation? Tinfoil hat and lead underwear?
An Inconvenient Truth.
Exercise: make a list of the US States with the highest natural backgrounf radiation. Make a list of the states with the lowest cancer deaths. Compare the lists.
Rocky Mountain high.
I wouldn't be so quick to call her names. Take some time to read about Radiation Hormesis. There are dozens of studies from around the world indicating that she may be absolutly correct on this.
That's different. The KI tablets are meant to overload the body system takeup of iodine. If the body is already overdosed on iodine, the radioactive iodine from the reactor doesn't get into the thyroid gland.
There is a kernel of fact there.
Low levels of dietary iodine leaves room in the thyroid for uptake of radioiodine. The more radioiodine concentrates in the thyroid, the greater the chance of it causing cancer.
That’s why they are issuing KI pills. Fill the thyroid up with ‘safe’ iodine and the radioiodine can’t settle in there. It remains dispersed in the body and eventually gets exrcreted. No one bit of tissue takes a concentrated dose.
Let’s put it this way, some scientists (emphasis on some, not most ) say that radiation kills cells and can stimulate immune responses.
It is possible for precursors of cancers, which are produced in the absence of above-background radiation exposure, might be eliminated through the processes of cell killing and immune response activation.
But BE CAREFUL, radiation exposures, even at background levels, can also initiate, promote new cancers and accelerate the manifestation of cancers that would occur in later life in the absence of exposure.
I’d direct everyone to Dr. Charles Land of the National Cancer Institute, who has shown in several of his recent publications that there is considerable uncertainty in the estimation of radiation risk. In his work, he does not give much credibility to the possibility that radiation induces a protective or beneficial effect. On the other hand, he concludes that even if some credibility could be given to the possibility of a threshold or beneficial effect of radiation exposure at low doses and low dose rates, the biological and epidemiological evidence that new cancers may be initiated or promoted by radiation exposure cannot be completely ruled out.
IOW, THE SCIENCE IS STILL OUT ON THIS AND THERE IS CONSIDERABLE DISAGREEMENT AMONG SCIENTISTS.
We need carefully conducted epidemiological evidence in human populations that have been carefully monitored and followed up over time.
At least as of my college chemistry class over 50 years ago, all metals are poison. But, as Coulter pointed out, people take pills to ingest trace amounts of zinc and other metals. To improve their health.The reality is not only that "dosage makes the poison," but that what is poisonous in large doses may be beneficial in very small doses.It is surprising, I admit, that the latter should apply to radiation. But if that is what the data shows, it is arbitrary and capricious to reject the data in favor of the prejudice that "If one is good, two is better."
One may be good, yet two might actually be bad - and a hundred, deadly.
radiation was good for my Dad.. he received radiation therapy for his cancer.
<><><><
By being extremely toxic to the cancer cells.
And I’d wager your dad did not feel so great while going through the treatment.
I agree. But at the minimum, you would also have to agree that the scientists who proposed this theory are not a bunch of crack pots.
Personally, the linear extrapolation of radiological risk we have been following for the last 60 years or so has little or no scientific basis.
To put it into easier to understand terms than units of radiation, it says that we know if one person were to take 100 aspirin tablets, that person will die. Therefore projecting that risk level back to zero means that if 100 people each took one aspirin, one of those 100 people would die.
So far the only side effect I've seen is that it must've fried a few brain cells, otherwise how do you explain harry reid?
The Fukishima plume is going to be about as radioactive as an banana after traveling 5000 miles.
Also: Anne is plausibly correct about radioactive hormesis. There’s a J-shaped response to many poisons: it’s plausible that a small amount of radioactivity has a net positive effect. She certainly shouldn’t be shouted down without examining the facts.
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.