Ann Coulter: 'Radiation is Actually Good For You' (Video)

reply to post by DrZERO

Ann Coulter has lost it....totally over the edge into the abyss of insanity. Let her post a video of her ingesting radioactive material cesium-137 or something. Why not take a shot of arsenic with it Ann?

reply to post by 1SawSomeThings


She did not claim that a spontaneous release of radioactive material is healthy and I challenge you to prove me wrong about that! She restated what several scientific studies have said and what they say, in summary, is that there is evidence that exposure to certain amounts of radiation have caused a lower than average cancer rate in more than one group of individuals. This is not a matter of opinion please see the link in my first post in this thread to the .pdf which shows a major medical study of one of these focus groups. She is not saying that people need to run over to Japan nor is she saying its the next medical miracle; she is saying it warrants more attention.

It amazes me how people can be so biased by their dislike of a newsperson that they don't recognize that that very newsperson is trying to bring alternative suppressed medicine into mainstream reporting. For Cripe's sake she is saying "the media is not talking about this potential treatment for cancer and they should be" and that to me is a very very good thing. She makes a statement that scientific evidence shows a possible way to prevent/treat cancer, which the media is suppressing by her own admission, and she is trying to bring this to the people's attention. That to me seems like the sort of behavior that would get you applause points on ATS if you made a thread like that.

I realize you may have issue with her physical appearance. Her appearance has nothing to do with the scientific studies that she is speaking of in the dialogue and if you somehow think that anything about her appearance discredits the scientists then I humbly suggest you reevaluate your reasoning process.

Please watch the video in its entirety rather than relying upon other's evaluations of it.

reply to post by Dilligaf28

To be honest I had not viewed the video and I do not hold anything against her personally (in fact she has had some good things to say about folks in my town after visiting here once)...I was reacting to the headline which I took at face value.

I have an awesome idea. Since Ann Coulter thinks radiation is so good for people, perhaps she should go on over there and hang out at the fukushima plant for a while

reply to post by DrZERO


I wonder what Bill O'Reilly knows that isn't general knowledge when he uses the example of 911 while arguing his case for the dangers of radiation at 3:28 and then mentions the debris coming from the towers.

He almost looked as though he caught himself in mid sentence and then continued, hoping no one would notice that his example wouldn't add to his argument unless of course he is actually talking about radiation from the towers.

There was a study done on the occupants of a slightly contaminated apartment building in Taiwan, which purported to prove the radiation had improved people's health over the average for Taiwan.

What the study did not mention was that the apartments, still quite new, had attracted young, well-off residents.
The people living in them were bound to be healthier, because they were younger and wealthier. The children had less congenital deformities because congenital deformities are linked to the age of the mother, and these mothers were young.

Just because something is labelled "science", does not mean it's fact. There are all sorts of charlatans putting out biased "studies" to cater to the needs of corporate interests.

reply to post by Dilligaf28


At first I was shocked by the title however after watching the video she said "SMALL amounts of radiation"......

Keep in mind radiation treatment is used as a treatment for cancer sufferers; a whole lot more than she is suggesting.

Would be interesting to see that scientific data before I make any opinion on whether I agree with it or not.

I think the IDEA is more shocking than the actual video itself.

Originally posted by DrZERO

Originally posted by 2manyquestions
Holy hell. This woman has reached a new level of ridiculous.

She should ask the people of Chernobyl how beneficial radiation from a nuclear disaster has been for them.

Interesting that you mention Chernobyl, because Coulter does reference it in her column:

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.

SOURCE

No mention of a generation of cancer-ridden, deformed children, though.

Man,... she really IS crazy. What a convenient statistic. I'd like to see her spend her vacation on the beach near the nuclear reactor. Maybe she should go visit the orphanage in Chernobyl.

This is what Ann is known for. She is an attorney for Pete's sake. She has a way of looking at things from a different point of view. She is saying it because its the opposite of what everyone is thinking just to show that she can hold an argument on the flip side of the issue. When you get past arguing about her saying that radiation is good for you maybe you can see the genius. Shes got balls ill give her that.

reply to post by Digital_Reality


She never said large doses of radiation....

Keep in mind cancer sufferers receive large doses of radiation therapy - some most probably receive more than they should. If radiation is generally that bad then why use it as a treatment for cancer?

I'm of the idea this woman said SMALL doses however I'm thinking exactly how much IS safe? So lets not jump the gun here....

The question is, is there any truth to what she is saying?

reply to post by bluemirage5


I know exactly what she said. I'm saying she is so good even with a video some people still don't understand what she said.

Radiation therapy is used for cancer because it destroys cells, be it cancer cells, blood cells or any other cells. Radiation ravages the area of the body it is targeted at. Radiation therapy for people who do not have cancer is a tremendously idiotic idea. All it would do is kill cells that the person needs.

"A carcinogen is any substance, radionuclide, or radiation that is an agent directly involved in causing cancer. "
en.wikipedia.org...

We know what causes cancer. Radiation!!!!! That's it!!! Cigarettes are loaded with radionuclide from pesticides and processing.
This is so ludicrous it reminds me of this:
www.5min.com...

Watch all the way through and tell me what we learned from the 600+ Nazi "Brain Scientists".

I would like to point out that she is an ACTRESS. They all are, even politicians. They are chosen for our viewing pleasure by ratings of our viewing habits. They will say anything they are told.


Good study from 1995: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Maybe if you read this it will make sense.

Ann Hart Coulter (born December 8, 1961) is an American lawyer,[1] conservative social and political commentator, author, and syndicated columnist. She frequently appears on television, radio, and as a speaker at public events and private events. Well-known for her right-wing political opinions and the controversial ways in which she defends them, Coulter has described herself as a polemicist who likes to "stir up the pot" and, unlike "broadcasters," does not "pretend to be impartial or balanced."

Link

reply to post by Digital_Reality


Yeah, I really like her ideas about the perfect Jew.

Sounds a lot like these ideas: www.ffrf.org...

She's insane.

She used radiation used on cancer as an example of how good it is for you?

Go ask a doctor is radiation is good for a cancer patient. Sure. It can get rid of the cancer in controlled and consistent doses. But that is after it attacks your immune system, makes you vomit uncontrollably and your hair fall out, cause fatigue and infection, etc., etc., etc.

CHEMO FOR EVERYONE!

What an idiot!

reply to post by nunya13


although everything you said i agree with, for future reference, chemo is not radiation therapy.

I've always thought ANY amount of radiation is bad for you and there's no safe amount. However, I'm not a scientist and I'm abit ignorant of the subject......although I know all about the experiments over the years and not just in Nazi death camps but by American & Israeli scientists/doctors and what they did to prisoners, soldiers and worse of all 100,000 young Sephardic children back in 1952 in Israel.

She was talking about radiation hormesis.



As far as I know, there is some evidence for it. Wikipedia has a decent write-up about it. It's not completely insane but as far as I know radiation hormesis is still somewhat speculative and not well established.

en.wikipedia.org...

The most accepted model that predicts that all radiation is harmful is the LNT model, but is also somewhat controversial.

en.wikipedia.org...

It seems to me like she was just being a media whore by passing off a theory as fact without knowing many of the details.

what a tool ann coulter is, who even takes her seriously. next thing shes going to come out and say that dying is healthy.

what an ignorant troll baiter she is. wtf is she even famous for. she obviously has no talent other than being annoying.