Ann Coulter on Radiation, This might blow your mind!

[amicus]

I subscribe to her Newletter but seldom quote her, but this piece, flaunting common understanding, tempted me to see what your response might be.


Glowing Report on Radiation
by Ann Coulter

03/16/2011

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.

This only seems counterintuitive because of media hysteria for the past 20 years trying to convince Americans that radiation at any dose is bad. There is, however, burgeoning evidence that excess radiation operates as a sort of cancer vaccine.

As The New York Times science section reported in 2001, an increasing number of scientists believe that at some level -- much higher than the minimums set by the U.S. government -- radiation is good for you. "They theorize," the Times said, that "these doses protect against cancer by activating cells' natural defense mechanisms."



Among the studies mentioned by the Times was one in Canada finding that tuberculosis patients subjected to multiple chest X-rays had much lower rates of breast cancer than the general population.

And there are lots more!

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).

Dr. Dade W. Moeller, a radiation expert and professor emeritus at Harvard, told the Times that it's been hard to find excess cancers even from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, particularly because one-third of the population will get cancer anyway. There were about 90,000 survivors of the atomic bombs in 1945 and, more than 50 years later, half of them were still alive. (Other scientists say there were 700 excess cancer deaths among the 90,000.)

Although it is hardly a settled scientific fact that excess radiation is a health benefit, there's certainly evidence that it decreases the risk of some cancers -- and there are plenty of scientists willing to say so. But Jenny McCarthy's vaccine theories get more press than Harvard physics professors' studies on the potential benefits of radiation. (And they say conservatives are anti-science!)

I guess good radiation stories are not as exciting as news anchors warning of mutant humans and scary nuclear power plants -- news anchors who, by the way, have injected small amounts of poison into their foreheads to stave off wrinkles. Which is to say: The general theory that small amounts of toxins can be healthy is widely accepted --except in the case of radiation.

Every day Americans pop multivitamins containing trace amount of zinc, magnesium, selenium, copper, manganese, chromium, molybdenum, nickel, boron -- all poisons.

They get flu shots. They'll drink copious amounts of coffee to ingest a poison: caffeine. (Back in the '70s, Professor Cohen offered to eat as much plutonium as Ralph Nader would eat caffeine -- an offer Nader never accepted.)

But in the case of radiation, the media have Americans convinced that the minutest amount is always deadly.

Although reporters love to issue sensationalized reports about the danger from Japan's nuclear reactors, remember that, so far, thousands have died only because of Mother Nature. And the survivors may outlive all of us over here in hermetically sealed, radiation-free America.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ann Coulter is Legal Affairs Correspondent for HUMAN EVENTS and author of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors," "Slander," ""How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)," "Godless," "If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans" and most recently, Guilty: Liberal "Victims" and their Assault on America.

You can also follow Ann Coulter and Human Events on FACEBOOK.

~~~

A contribution to thinking outside the Box....by Amicus Veritas

 

[Bert Notorius]

Chemotherapy isn't particularly good for you either.

 

[eyer]

The Gulf Oil Spill: Crisis of Unfathomable Consequences

June 9, 2010 http://www.worldpress.org/Americas/3566.cfm

..."the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history."


Chicken Littles are always the most hysterically loudest among us...

 

[unregistered]

 

[thør]

They do use radiation to kill Cancer.

It can kill everything.....

And killing, isn't as bad as mutating......that's cancer.....

 

[Comshaw]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with massive doses of radiation.

http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/2331/df7lt.jpg

http://www.itimes.com/files/rsz/fit_s_400x600/files/08-2009/129787/8f14e45fceea167a5a36dedd4bea2543_1249549676.jpg

Absolutely nothing......







Comshaw

 

[phrodeau]

Isn't Ann Coulter a *gasp* female news personality?

 

[amicus]

She is an author who appears on television occasionally and tours a lecture circuit; but because she is blond and smart, I forgive her...

But...I shared this piece because I have never before read such an approach and I wondered what the general concensus might be.

amicus

 

[badbabysitter]

she's also a hack

 

[Shagly]

She is an author who appears on television occasionally and tours a lecture circuit; but because she is blond and smart, I forgive her...

But...I shared this piece because I have never before read such an approach and I wondered what the general concensus might be.

amicus

You should try a slow exposure to radioactive isotopes and check in in a year.

 

[amicus]

Y'all may know this, or you may not, but every hour of every day, every human, every life form on the planet, is pelted with radiation. Solar radiation from our sun, ambient radiation from decaying active elements on earth and Cosmic radiation from the depths of space.

There is the SAA, you might enjoy searching that, or the continual natural fluctuation of the Ozone layer in various locations that permits high levels of radioactivity to reach the surface.

Almost every human activity that sustans us carries some degree of risk; fire is dangerous but useful, growing food is essential,yet some soils are naturally toxic. Sand storms, dust storms, forest fires, locust hordes, mosquito's; all carry dangers to life. Red tides and shell fish kill people who consume them, as do some mushrooms, and nettles make a fine tea, but,like poison Ivy and Oak, pose a threat.

Now the above is all extemporaneous, but if you doubt, search, and you will find I am 100% accurate.

You may interpret any and all as you wish and certainly atomic energy poses a danger, like any other energy source. But I found Coulter's article most interesting and thought perhaps others might also.

But then...you have to have a mind...perhaps that was my error, assuming that you do.

der amicus

 

[badbabysitter]

Y'all may know this, or you may not, but every hour of every day, every human, every life form on the planet, is pelted with radiation. Solar radiation from our sun, ambient radiation from decaying active elements on earth and Cosmic radiation from the depths of space.

There is the SAA, you might enjoy searching that, or the continual natural fluctuation of the Ozone layer in various locations that permits high levels of radioactivity to reach the surface.

Almost every human activity that sustans us carries some degree of risk; fire is dangerous but useful, growing food is essential,yet some soils are naturally toxic. Sand storms, dust storms, forest fires, locust hordes, mosquito's; all carry dangers to life. Red tides and shell fish kill people who consume them, as do some mushrooms, and nettles make a fine tea, but,like poison Ivy and Oak, pose a threat.

Now the above is all extemporaneous, but if you doubt, search, and you will find I am 100% accurate.

You may interpret any and all as you wish and certainly atomic energy poses a danger, like any other energy source. But I found Coulter's article most interesting and thought perhaps others might also.

But then...you have to have a mind...perhaps that was my error, assuming that you do.

der amicus

just because Ann Coulter is a hack, doesnt mean she can't be right about things occasionally

even a broken clock has the right time twice a day

 

[phrodeau]

I know I need to cut down on my red tide consumption.

 

[dicknjane]

Seems to be entirely plausible even likely based on the cases she referenced. They due use high levels of radiation to treat many cancers.

I guess the high levels they speak of are based on government stated limits.

Since you get higher levels of radiation while at higher altitudes do pilots get less incidents of cancer? I know mongols have very low levels of cancer and they live at altitude. Probably something that should have more study done.

Maybe we can quit putting radon barriers and venting in new homes, a ridiculous requirement anyway.

 

[KRCummings]

They use cyanide and arsenic to treat people, too.
Dumbasses.

 

[Ishmael]

Isn't Ann Coulter a *gasp* female news personality?

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

 

[phrodeau]

Seems to be entirely plausible even likely based on the cases she referenced. They due use high levels of radiation to treat many cancers.

I guess the high levels they speak of are based on government stated limits.

Since you get higher levels of radiation while at higher altitudes do pilots get less incidents of cancer? I know mongols have very low levels of cancer and they live at altitude. Probably something that should have more study done.

Maybe we can quit putting radon barriers and venting in new homes, a ridiculous requirement anyway.

Risk of cancer seems to increase with time spent at higher altitudes.

http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/about-cancer/cancer-questions/airline-staff-and-cancer

 

[stephen55]

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

In this case, I think that who is reporting the studies does have significance, if only in that Coulter talks of studies but gives no references. Reading down the post, I see so many examples of statements that are simply wrong that I have no problem dismissing Coulter's article as simply being Coulter being Coulter.

She makes her living by being an ultra-conservative gadfly. She's great at being a gadfly. She sucks at being an epidemiologist who specializes in radiation induced health problems...which, in her case, is part of being an ultra-conservative gadfly.

 

[zipman]

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

 

[stephen55]

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

Damn!! Coffee all over my 'puter...again....

 

[Aviator1976]

she's also a hack

But does that mean she is wrong?

Statements like your just demonstrate the inability to have an intellectually honest discussion.

What ever you think of Ann Coulter's style, in this case it seems she has some science to back her up. So rather than attack the messenger, why not address the message?

 

[phrodeau]

But does that mean she is wrong?

Statements like your just demonstrate the inability to have an intellectually honest discussion.

What ever you think of Ann Coulter's style, in this case it seems she has some science to back her up. So rather than attack the messenger, why not address the message?

The message is cherry-picked.

 

[Aviator1976]

The message is cherry-picked.

But is it wrong?

Is there, or is there not some amount of hard science to support her claim?

It is absurd, and arguably ignorant, to dismiss her outright simply because you don't like her.

 

[stephen55]

What ever you think of Ann Coulter's style, in this case it seems she has some science to back her up. So rather than attack the messenger, why not address the message?

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 exposure, 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.

 

[off2bed]

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