Ann Coulter Says Radiation is GOOD For You!

Most reasonable people are aware there are good uses for radiation. Most reasonable people are also aware high levels of radiation kills! Coulter isn't reasonable enough to admit the latter. Annie

The point is, when Bill O'Reilly tried to get her to clarify herself and concede that radiation also does kill people, she refused to do so. I'm not a scientist by any stretch of the imagination and I don't have any links to provide at this moment, but I've read of other such phenomena where things that are known to be harmful, even lethal, can actually be "good" in some cases. Don't quote me but I think I heard and read that smoking can prevent some forms of cancer; that's great but we also know it causes other forms, right? (And this comes from a smoker!) Annie

I did not see the Bill O'Reilly discussion. I guess radiation is a multi-faceted discussion. For instance, when I get an x-ray of my teeth, they throw a lead apron over my torso. That makes good sense to take that precaution - blocking all radiation. On the other hand, if the winds from Japan start to trip Geiger counters in the U.S., it might not be a good thing to have everyone start going crazy until there has been some intelligent assessment of the true risk. With man-induced radiation, the acceptable level is 'none'. We won't talk about natural radiation. There are other toxic elements of the world around us that we do not hold such a high standard for. We do not complain about a certain level; apparently we believe there is not too much risk. I believe there are toxins in botox, injected in the skin. Multivitamins contain trace amounts of zinc, magnesium, selenium, copper, manganese, chromium, molybdenum, nickel, boron - all of which are poison to our bodies at some level. What do we take into our body with a flu shot? Caffeine - every day and maybe multiple times a day - has the potential to kill us. I ramble, but I think the point is that some level of radiation is not likely to hurt us, and according to 'hormesis' may even help us. The media should be finding that kind of info for the public.

That's right, sierras, ZING I got hit again but I'm not in a reactor that's in the process of nearly melting down or in the vicinity of where the radiation is escaping. Annie

I will say this. I don't think she has every watched video footage of Chernobyl to see how bad it really can get.

You do realize that everything emits some amount of radiation right? The problem isn't escaping radiation. The problem is escaping radioactive particles.

Taskr just loves to put words in my mouth and twist what I actually do write. Just to clarify, Coulter indeed IS stupid if she thinks that, while some radiation is "good for you" when used to treat cancer, etc., it doesn't also KILL PEOPLE if they're exposed to too much. I doubt if Taskr would let his son drink milk or water from Japan right now or eat vegetables grown there. Annie

I'm sure her degrees that would qualify her to say some radiation is good for you are about the same as Annie's who is calling her stupid for making the statements.

Hmm.. read the discussion a few times, but didn't see Annie call Ms. Coulter stupid..

I have nothing to add, artistry! Well said and I agree. Annie

Hi artistry ... indeedy and I repeat, idiocy sells ... in addition, there's an all day lollypop everyday!

Perhaps if it science was truly science and not made into a liberal political agenda, we'd trust 'science' more. I've read many times that 'religion' silenced science in the past by killing or jailing those who went against the religious leadership of the day. But I've also read in the right here and now, that those who are skeptical of global warming have been silenced by withdrawal of funding, smear campaigns and other assorted schemes. Here's one scientists take on it; http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/09/nature-uses-the-d-word/ They (Nature mag.)say in a sidebar that: “The country’s future crucially depends on education, science and technology.” I don’t disagree, but we also need to separate science from the global warming ideology that has hijacked it. The current backlash they speak of has in fact been brought about in part by allowing this to happen. I’ll point out though that the sort of idealogy we see in the global warming movement doesn’t seem to pervade other sciences, at least until somebody demands that one of the science organizations embraces or endorses the cause. That’s when the dissent starts. For example: American Physical Society rejects climate policy plea from 160 physicists Dissenting members ask APS to put their policy statement on ice due to Climategate Witness Nature using the word denialism, born of the politically nurtured global warming ideology. If Nature’s editorial staff was not indoctrinated to at least some of that ideology, I wager they’d have used a different word. And they wonder why there is dissent while at the same time they use the word to insult people. I encourage subscribers to call them to task on this use of the word.

I suppose we'd need to know then what a "liberal scientific agenda" is as opposed to a "right wing scientific agenda" ... yes?

Annie, indeedy! There is nothing of value that I could ever take away from Ms. Coulter ... I've heard enough non-sense from her to have come to that conclusion. Maybe comedy!

I just got an idea; someone should put out the idea that there really are "V's" here, as in the series "V" and that they've got human skin on them but are ugly lizards underneath. They could claim they've already infiltrated our government, maybe even suggest the President is one of them. Then when the White House denies the existence of any lizard people living among us Beck, Coulter, Bachmann and the rest of the looney-tunes will have no choice but to swear they're here! Annie

Ironically, if Coulter's hair fell out it would kill her since she wouldn't have it to toss around all the time. Talk about someone who is trying to look younger than she is and failing miserably...lol! Annie

I'd chip in for the airline ticket to get her there. Annie

First of all, welcome to myLot and may you have much fun here! I never knew either there was a good side to being exposed to radiation! Annie

Thank YOU for your contribution! Annie

I'm sure Ann would tell you it's really the suits that killed them...lol! Annie

I understand it may be even more "just right" now! Annie

Yes, some of what she said is right, radiation treatment for cancer, for example, has saved lives. I'm not disputing that. My problem is that she refused to admit that high doses are often lethal either soon after the exposure or later on when someone is much more likely to get cancer. Annie

Everything she said was quoted from the New York Time and the DOE. Why would you expect her to stop and admit the obvious? I have not yet admitted that the sky is blue. Does that mean that since I haven't mentioned it, that I deny that the sky is blue? Everyone knows that overly high doses of radiation is bad. I personally don't read editorials, or any reading material of any kind, in order to be told what is blatantly obvious to everyone on the planet. The reason she didn't "admit" it is because she's a good writer and doesn't waste my time with "Captain Obvious" answers. This is like Obama telling us to inflate our tires during the 2008 campaign. Inflating our tires is a national energy policy? Reading your car's manual, is a brilliant plan by Obama? Lestists seem to need to be told the obvious, and when the obvious isn't said, then its some sort of cover-up. Rightist, like myself, do not need Coulter, or any other pundit, to tell us that high levels of radiation is bad. I can figure this out on my own. If the left in our country can not figure it out on their own, then that reflects more on them, than it does Ann Coulter.