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 ...
>>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.<<
I am wondering whose wallet would get damaged the most if people who are suffering from arthritis or some other disease started treatment involving low levels of radiation. I am guessing that the cancer treatment industry and all of those folks involved wouldn’t be too happy. Then there’s the folks who say the planet is over populated. Nope, don’t step on the toes of “accepted scientific dogma” or you will be scorned.
Targeted, intense radiation is the most common treatment for many cancers.
<><><><><
And it does so by being extremely toxic to the cancer cells, and how many of us would go through radiation treatment to feel good?
Hormesis and radiation treatment are not in any way comparable items.
I think that’s not quite the right analogy. Here’s my attempt.
“If one person takes 100 aspirin tablets, they die. Therefore even one half of one percent of an aspirin tablet is poisonous and should be banned by the EPA.”
thanks.. yep, good point, one caveat though, there are a lot of things that don’t feel so great, that are good for you.
many types of oral medicine come to mind.. they taste horrible, they have side effects, but the end result is good for you. So feeling crummy, while getting good medicine might be a reason to not always follow your gut on things like this..
Fair enough. New example: sunlight stimulates the production of vitamin D. In moderation, solar thermal radiation is indeed a health benefit. Again, not saying I agree with Ann’s hypothesis...
Shhhhhh. Don’t give those bastards any bright ideas.
But either way, Ann was saying low levels of radiation from TSA scanners was a danger a month ago, and now low levels of radiation from Japanese nuclear reactors could actually be beneficial. So I guess, according to Ann, it is all in were the radiation came from - nuclear power = good : TSA scanning = bad.
She is a hypocrite who is also inconsistent....yet people go right along with this nonsense.
The Potassium Iodide is meant to **Prevent** the radioactive iodine from being taken in by the thyroid! A small inconvenient fact people forget to mention.
If people here really believe Anne’s nutty hypothesis, why don’t all of you (Anne included) volunteer to go over to Japan and volunteer at the nuclear site?
You will be international heroes. Put your money where your mouth is.
Chill FRiend!
I’m not endorsing hormesis. I’m an ALARA guy. But does it not make sense that if a person has a low dietary intake of normal iodine, that they would take up a greater amount of radioiodine when they are exposed, and therefore have a greater risk of developing thyroid cancer? I’m not contradicting you.
Plus part of my job is to respond to radiological emergencies. Ain’t nothing heroic about it. It’s matter of time, distance and shielding together with dosimetry and personal protective equipment to minimize exposure, control risk and get the job done.
This thing is scaring people witless. It is serious, no doubt. Very. But it’s not the end of the world.
No, that's not what I said.
"Hey, you are free to follow her and her beliefs, but not me."
Again, I said nothing about what I believe. Is there a comprehension problem here?
Is what she said surprising? Yes. But is it wrong? I don't know. The point is, before jumping in and flaming her, or anyone else, you should bother to establish whether or not she is in fact wrong. It's just kinda logical.
-or-
Was she wrong when she said small amounts of radiation from Japanese reactors was beneficial?
Which one is she wrong about??? It is “just kinda logical” that she cannot simultaneously be correct about both.
Ann was useful in the past for ideas on reform and making fun of liberals. Now, not so much. She’s gotten lazy.
Not too lazy to “jump a shark”.
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.