Ann Coulter on Radiation, This might blow your mind!

[Aviator1976]

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.


Let's start with this one. Total crappola...

Radioactive iodine (I-131) is a major product of uranium fission in nuclear reactors. It undergoes beta decay (gives off a very high speed electron), with a half-life of about eight days, becoming xenon-131. Iodine-131 is one of the most carcinogenic nuclear fission products.

Iodine-127 is the normal, stable isotope of iodine.

Iodine is taken up by the thyroid gland where it is an essential part of the thyroid hormones thyroxine (T4) and triiodothyronine (T3).

If someone's diet is low in iodine, absorbed iodine is incorporated and used to make thyroid hormones. The thyroid can't chemically tell the difference between stable I-127 and highly carcinogenic I-131.

If one's diet is adequate in iodine or if additional iodine is consumed prior to exposure to I-131, the thyroid doesn't need any additional iodine and very little iodine (stable or radioactive) will be absorbed and stored by the thyroid gland. It simply passes through.

So, if the people around Chernobyl were iodine deficient, they would have absorbed the highly carcinogenic I-131 in their thyroid glands where it would cause many cases of thyroid cancer (which it did).

For Coulter to say that the spike in thyroid cancer in people around Chernobyl was due to dietary deficiency and not the carcinogenic I-131 from the reactor disaster is typical Coulter bullshit.

As for...

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.

...makes perfect sense if you define all the deaths due to radiation expose, such as in the people who responded and dealt with the disaster...as being indirectly due to the reactor disaster.

Ann Coulter is a great conservative gadfly. When it comes to science she's a moron.

You just made her point in your post....I am quoting your post here...

"If someone's diet is low in iodine, absorbed iodine is incorporated and used to make thyroid hormones. The thyroid can't chemically tell the difference between stable I-127 and highly carcinogenic I-131."

Now stay with me here...why did their bodies absorb the carcinogenic iodine? Well unless I am mistaken, it is because they had an iodine deficiency. You said as much yourself.

So in an otherwise healthy individual, the effect would have been negligible at worst. Because they were iodine deficient, their bodies were affected by the radiation.

I don't see where she is wrong.

 

[coastal-boy]

I think Ann Coulter should volunteer for dumping water on the reactor. It would be a public service as well as cancer prevention technique.

I be happy with her going and doing her broadcast next to the facilities for the next week.

 

[stephen55]

Coulter could say the sky is blue and liberals would say she's wrong just because she's Ann Coulter.

Chernobyl's Continuing Thyroid Impact
Specifically, the rate of thyroid cancer in adolescents aged 15 to 18 is also
now three times higher than it was before the 1986 disaster took place. ...
http://thyroid.about.com/cs/nuclearexposure/a/chernob.htm

9/92 "Nature" magazine: Thyroid Cancer 7.5 yrs after Chernobyl soaring
This increase started only 4 years after the Chernobyl accident, a surprisingly
short time by comparison with studies of thyroid carcinoma that have ...
http://www.ratical.com/radiation/inetSeries/ChernyThyrd.html

British Journal of Cancer - Thyroid carcinoma after Chernobyl ...
11 May 2004 ... Thyroid carcinoma after Chernobyl latent period, morphology and aggressiveness.
http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v90/n11/full/6601860a.html


Coulter could say that Chernobyl did nothing to thyroid carcinoma and I would say she is wrong because she is wrong...moron...

 

[Balladeer08]

even a broken clock has the right time twice a day

Only if it is a 12-hour clock. My broken 24-hour clock is only right once a day. And the day indicator, even less often.

 

[Aviator1976]

Chernobyl's Continuing Thyroid Impact
Specifically, the rate of thyroid cancer in adolescents aged 15 to 18 is also
now three times higher than it was before the 1986 disaster took place. ...
http://thyroid.about.com/cs/nuclearexposure/a/chernob.htm

9/92 "Nature" magazine: Thyroid Cancer 7.5 yrs after Chernobyl soaring
This increase started only 4 years after the Chernobyl accident, a surprisingly
short time by comparison with studies of thyroid carcinoma that have ...
http://www.ratical.com/radiation/inetSeries/ChernyThyrd.html

British Journal of Cancer - Thyroid carcinoma after Chernobyl ...
11 May 2004 ... Thyroid carcinoma after Chernobyl latent period, morphology and aggressiveness.
http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v90/n11/full/6601860a.html


Coulter could say that Chernobyl did nothing to thyroid carcinoma and I would say she is wrong because she is wrong...moron...

Excellent, you posted links to stories supporting your claim that thyroid carcinoma rates increased after Chernobyl because the local population was iodine deficient?

 

[Sean]

You just made her point in your post....I am quoting your post here...

"If someone's diet is low in iodine, absorbed iodine is incorporated and used to make thyroid hormones. The thyroid can't chemically tell the difference between stable I-127 and highly carcinogenic I-131."

Now stay with me here...why did their bodies absorb the carcinogenic iodine? Well unless I am mistaken, it is because they had an iodine deficiency. You said as much yourself.

So in an otherwise healthy individual, the effect would have been negligible at worst. Because they were iodine deficient, their bodies were affected by the radiation.

I don't see where she is wrong.

Another fucking Einstein.

 

[stephen55]

You just made her point in your post....I am quoting your post here...

"If someone's diet is low in iodine, absorbed iodine is incorporated and used to make thyroid hormones. The thyroid can't chemically tell the difference between stable I-127 and highly carcinogenic I-131."

Now stay with me here...why did their bodies absorb the carcinogenic iodine? Well unless I am mistaken, it is because they had an iodine deficiency. You said as much yourself.

So in an otherwise healthy individual, the effect would have been negligible at worst. Because they were iodine deficient, their bodies were affected by the radiation.

I don't see where she is wrong.

I've not seen anything that actually supports the statement that the people around Chernobyl had a diet deficient in iodine in the first place.

Second, if one's iodine intake is adequate, you still absorb iodine. The only store in the body for iodine is in the thyroid. That's where it goes. It may not stay very long, but that's where it goes. While it's there, it does it's beta decay thing and causes thyroid carcinoma.

It doesn't have to be incorporated into T3 or T4 to be carcinogenic, you idiot.

You don't see where Coulter is wrong because you don't want to see where Coulter is wrong.

Some day, I'm sure some geneticist will identify the gene that allows a certain percentage of the population to take the word of Ann Coulters over all of the word of epidemiologists, oncologists and nuclear physicists.

Of course, the science types are busy doing their thing while Ann Coulter does her very different thing.

 

[stephen55]

Another fucking Einstein.

Not exactly...

When Einstein was wrong, he had the grace to admit the same.

 

[phrodeau]

The cancer rates and death tolls are low because everybody got the fuck out of there, duh.

 

[Aviator1976]

I've not seen anything that actually supports the statement that the people around Chernobyl had a diet deficient in iodine in the first place.

Second, if one's iodine intake is adequate, you still absorb iodine. The only store in the body for iodine is in the thyroid. That's where it goes. It may not stay very long, but that's where it goes. While it's there, it does it's beta decay thing and causes thyroid carcinoma.

It doesn't have to be incorporated into T3 or T4 to be carcinogenic, you idiot.

You don't see where Coulter is wrong because you don't want to see where Coulter is wrong.

Some day, I'm sure some geneticist will identify the gene that allows a certain percentage of the population to take the word of Ann Coulters over all of the word of epidemiologists, oncologists and nuclear physicists.

Of course, the science types are busy doing their thing while Ann Coulter does her very different thing.

Well apparently it is not ALL of the scientific community as you seem to believe that disagrees with Coulter. Judging from the initial story that started this thread, there is a portion of the scientific community that that believes radiation is not always harmful.

Do you honestly think Coulter simply came up with this overnight? As she cites, the science is there. And these are not community college flunkies she cites.

Does the science support all of her conclusions, probably not. Is it enough to make you stop and think? Sure.

Ultimately her point is that once again all of the hyperbole in the media may not really be accurate.

 

[stephen55]

Excellent, you posted links to stories supporting your claim that thyroid carcinoma rates increased after Chernobyl because the local population was iodine deficient?

There are stupid questions and there are even more stupid statements.

You remind me of those incessant gadflies I met in first year university who argued in your style, then fortunately flunked out so I didn't have to deal with them in second year.

 

[Aviator1976]

There are stupid questions and there are even more stupid statements.

You remind me of those incessant gadflies I met in first year university who argued in your style, then fortunately flunked out so I didn't have to deal with them in second year.

Well you can imagine how fortunate I feel not to have flunked out! Measured against your intellect I imagine most people fail to measure up.

 

[RandallKinds]

Too bad Marie Curie didn't live long enough to read this.

 

[stephen55]

Well you can imagine how fortunate I feel not to have flunked out! Measured against your intellect I imagine most people fail to measure up.

Ann Coulter is very bright. I don't have a clue what her IQ might be, but I'm sure it's up there. It's what she does with it that sucks.

 

[laZilla]

They due use high levels of radiation to treat many cancers.

How do you even make a mistake like this? That is waaaaaaaay beyond the they're/their type of typo or error. That is on a whole new level of wtf stupid.

 

[Sean]

Not exactly...

When Einstein was wrong, he had the grace to admit the same.

I don't mind ignorance so much, I don't expect everyone to know everything, what does piss me off is people arguing from an ignorant position and insisting they're right because they're too fucking stupid to realise why they're wrong.

 

[Aviator1976]

Ann Coulter is very bright. I don't have a clue what her IQ might be, but I'm sure it's up there. It's what she does with it that sucks.

So it all comes back to style...you don't like her because of the way she delivers her message.

 

[stephen55]

So it all comes back to style...you don't like her because of the way she delivers her message.

She can deliver her message any way she wants.

It's not the style that bothers me. It's the content, at least the content of the original post.

To suggest that health problems and mortality from Chernobyl was nil, except for the 31 killed by the actual explosion, is worse than disingenuous. It's to deny and mock the deaths and ongoing cancer related health problems of many, many people.

She (and you) can hide behind obfuscation, absurd use of the meaning of direct as opposed to indirect, mentioning a few names as if that settles the issue and generally playing with words as opposed to facing facts.

I-131 and other radio-nucleotides released from Chernobyl killed a lot of people, made a lot of people sick and continues to do so. Ann Coulter, and you, notwithstanding.

I'll take her thoughts on Chernobyl and place them in the same receptacle I placed her idea that all Muslims should be on the no-fly list, and I'll do it for the same reason. Her style of saying it has nothing to do with it.

Ps; feel free to ingest as much plutonium as I do caffeine.

 

[Lancecastor]

http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/33acpqa.jpg

She tried having her Adam's Apple reduced with radiotherapy.

 

[Borscht]

So rather than attack the messenger, why not address the message?

Because nutcase polemicists aren't there to inform. They're there to entertain by being cheered on or jeered at.

I have no more interest in Ann Coulter's views on nuclear power than I have in Punch and Judy's take on climate change.

 

[Borscht]

http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/33acpqa.jpg

Isn't that the guy who played Buffalo Bill in Silence of the Lambs ?

 

[doctor_insanus]

http://www.myconfinedspace.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/support-that-complete-and-utter-bullshit.jpg

 

[Pookie]

Coulter could say the sky is blue and liberals would say she's wrong just because she's Ann Coulter.

I wouldn't. I'd just attribute it to that "right twice a day" thingy.

 

[stephen55]

http://www.myconfinedspace.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/support-that-complete-and-utter-bullshit.jpg

Well...here's one...

http://backseatcuddler.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/madjoker.jpg

 

[miles]

The studies either have scientific validity or they don't, who reports the studies is of ZERO consequence. Attack the studies or shut the fuck up.

Ishmael

That's not going to happen. Attacking the person is sooo much easier.