It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


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

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 01:25 AM
reply to post by h3akalee
nb; if the child tries to jump out the bath thats an indicator that the water is too hot

posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 01:33 AM
Regardless of what TV reporters family and I are locked and loaded (food,water,...etc)...we are ready to bug the F out of Westcoast.

posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 01:40 AM
MORON she does realize that there are different types of radiation. Erhmmmmm the radiation coming out of the reactors are the bad kind
. What do you expect? She's blond

posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 03:20 AM
I see a lot of kneejerk reactions here.

She never said that the radiation from, for instance a nuclear meltdown is good for you.

She just gave some examples where exposure to levels of radiation, 5 times higher than the accepted value, seems to be related to a measurable decline in average cancer rates, in the cases she gave examples of.

I don´t know if it´s a fair conclusion, but it is interesting info nevertheless.

People should read what actually was said, before responding.
edit on 19-3-2011 by UrgentInsurgent because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-3-2011 by UrgentInsurgent because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 04:53 AM
Yup, shes a moron, of the highest caliber. Her argument has absolutely no credence whatsoever. A pathetic attempt to get more "air time". Shes neither a scientist or a physician and she thinks shes doing the public a favor by misinforming.

Shes citing studies without telling the audience where these studies can be found, shes ignoring confounding biases and other possible variables that can affect a different outcome of the study. And I am willing to bet that these studies have stated that there may be other variables that were not taken into account in their paper. Which means she is taking all these studies out of context and forming a conclusion that can be detrimental to the general public.

There are only 2 outcomes from high radiation, cell death or mutation. Cancer cells can mutate from radiation or die. Heres the thing. Cancer cells are literally "Super Cells". If radiation kills off cancer cells, imagine what it does to our normal cells.

Radiation is used as treatment for certain cancers, but only if the benefit will outweigh the risk. Radiation therapy WILL kill your normal cells too.
edit on 19-3-2011 by DrChuck because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-3-2011 by DrChuck because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 05:17 AM
Lmao for real, radiation is ok? Someone send her over to Japan with a couple cases of Aquafina, so she can get those rods cooled!
edit on 19-3-2011 by Naptown317 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 05:23 AM
She needs a good hard shag - I volunteer to administer it.

posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 05:28 AM

You state that Coulter is not talking about radiation from a failing nuclear power plant, and that she is talking about other sources of radiation, and yet O'Reillly introduces the interview by saying:

"Ann Coulter has a new column out today about the nuke situation in Japan."

Even though in the interview she doesn't flat out say that the studies she is quoting don't show "that nuclear disaster type" of radiation is good for you, after that introduction she never clarifies it either.

In other words after O'Reilly ties her column in with the situation in Japan, Coulter never says something like, "Bill, I'm not talking about the radiation coming off the blown nuclear facility in Japan, I'm talking about natural low doses of radiation that you get by living in apartments in Taiwan or having a lot of chest x-rays. There is a difference, Bill."

And if you don't think that Coulter herself believes that radiation from Japan's nuclear disaster is the "good, healing, type" of radiation, then just read THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF HER COLUMN:

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.

Is that proof enough for you?

The fact that the studies she quotes don't talk about this type of radiation is just a testament to how devious she is and how skilled she and O'Reilly are at creating this propaganda as deadly amounts of radiation spew from reactors in Japan and an unknown portion of that radiation heads to the US on the jet stream.

Devious and diabolical.
edit on 19-3-2011 by DrZERO because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 06:19 AM
Radiations are a little more complex than most think. .

Both O'Reilly and Coulter were right. Some types of radiation kills humans or bacteria or both, all depending on the intensity, wavelength and source.

posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 07:06 AM
WHAT THE DUCE!?!?! Finally! something good in this world!...N3W85... (Newbs)


posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 07:08 AM

"radiation is actually good for you"


Of course it is!

posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 07:20 AM
I frequently work with x-ray equipment so I've taken the time to see what I was dealing with. The first cancer/radiation graph that was produced was based on a study on the effect from the nukes on Japan. Taking a few dots on the scale they simply draw a line and that was that. (LNT - linear no-threshold model.)

The model was initially created based on reconstructed doses for Japanese atomic bomb survivors. The obtained data, which clearly indicated an increased risk of cancer for acute doses larger than 100 mSv which was linear with respect to the dose, was then extrapolated down to zero dose. (Link)

So, you give one person 100 gallons of seawater to drink, a second one gets 10 gallons and a third gets one gallon.

Then you draw graph on salt vs increased risk of health problems and conclude that any amount of salt will result in a higher risk. There is no healthy dose of salt. Period.

Salt, also known as table salt, or rock salt, is a mineral that is composed primarily of sodium chloride. It is essential for animal life in small quantities, but is harmful to animals and plants in excess. (Link)

This would give a threshold graph for salt on which you can see when salt is getting hazardous for health. It's called threshold graph

When you would look closer at the area below the threshold you would get something like the next graph. It's called a Hormetic graph.

I believe this hormesis hypothesis to be more logical than the linear hypothesis. Though the linear graph still is the official norm. Radiation hormesis is getting more and more support.

Radiation hormesis (also called radiation homeostasis) is the hypothesis that chronic low doses of ionizing radiation (in addition to the natural background doses) are beneficial, stimulating hypothetical reserve repair mechanisms that protect against disease, but are not activated in absence of additional ionizing radiation. The reserve repair mechanisms are hypothesized to be sufficiently effective when stimulated as to not only cancel the detrimental effects of extra ionizing radiation but also protect from other damage (see hormesis).This counter-intuitive hypothesis has captured the attention of scientists and public alike in recent years. (Link)

edit on 19/3/11 by D.Wolf because: typo

posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 07:23 AM

posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 07:57 AM
Well how about she tells it to the children of Chernobyl.

posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 09:32 AM
That's "Unfair & Unbalanced Faux noose for you." It's obvious that non-excuse for a news network has given up any pretence at news journalism *sic*.

I think hoenst decent Americans should force Sarah Palin to hunt down fox anchors and
shoot them in the head! *satire*

posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 10:45 AM
This is mental illness in its worst form. The psychopaths running the media have reached a new level of insanity.

posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 10:56 AM
reply to post by DrZERO

The great devious and diabolical Anne strikes again! Perhaps Anne Coulter is actually Anna from the V's and she is out to bliss us over to her side through Fox's broadcasting capabilities?

Ok that was for the kneejerkers in here that aren't looking more into this than the thread tittle. Now as for your statements to the three of us I will ask if you have watched the entire video? Yes O'Reilly introduces Anne that way and yes Anne does not correct him. If I were on O'Reilly's show I too would ignore the ignorance he espouses and just keep right on delivering my point. I feel as if I am sort of doing that now actually. At the end of the video Anne makes the statement that this deserves further attention and that O'Reilly should have physicists and scientists which champion this alternative treatment on his show for discussion and debate. I really don't see anything evil about wanting dialogue.

Her column did indeed reference the Japan tragedy that is not in dispute. What is notable is that she did not at any point during the interview make any statements about Japan having any health benefits. Perhaps this is due to Anne's realization that the scientists weren't talking about a meltdown type of release after she had written the column but before she went on the air? Her behavior on the air clearly demonstrates that she is wanting an alternative means of healing brought from suppression to discussion.

ATS please explain to me why Anne Coulter wishing to discuss a documented, scientifically supported, and potentially beneficial yet suppressed medical treatment on the MSM not something you all feel deserves applause?

posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 11:51 AM

Originally posted by schuyler
All these derisive replies and yet not a single reference to the actual article where she lays out her thesis.

It's right here.

How about going to these sources she cites and refute them, rather than the messenger?

I agree with you here. All these people jumped on the bandwagon of hating Ann. I bet they mostly hated her already. I heard the interview on the radio yesterday while driving, and I heard her say that "Some radiation" can be good for you, and yes we do use it as a cancer treatment. She also said we absorb a lot of radiation from the earth naturally.
It's like the hysteria that you have to slather on a ton of chemical just to run to the grocery so you dont get irradiated by the sun.
However, I hope this is not used to excuse the use of the all over nude body scanners at every airport, because that will definitely impact frequent flyers, pregnant women, children, elderly, etc.
She also stated there are different types of radiation and also admitted that she is not an expert in the field.
That being said, I still worry about the millions of people in Japan exposed to high levels and not being informed about it.
I also feel sad for the people who really tried to get control of the reactors and have not succeeded. It is so easy to sit behind a computer and criticize others. I saw a report yesterday that people had to walk inside the plant to do certain things. Did anyone here even care about that? Maybe that poor guy was up close and will end up sick. We don't know that.
And Ann even quoted the New York Times in her article which was talking about scientists.
"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 -- "

The govt also has a low level set for the IU and mg allowed in vitamins, and that is intended to be lowered still when it harmonizes with Codex Alimentarius.
Interesting times we live in.
edit on 19-3-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 11:58 AM
Well excuse me for pointing out what was said.

And if you don't think that Coulter herself believes that radiation from Japan's nuclear disaster is the "good, healing, type" of radiation, then just read THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF HER COLUMN: 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.
reply to post by DrZERO

I admit this is a pretty weird thing to say, but with excess radiation, she probably means a dosage higher than approved level, the 5 times higher level she talked about. I don´t know what the levels in Fukushima were, but I´m sure she wasn´t talking about a completely exposed meltdown.

According to conservative columnist Ann Coulter, this whole Japanese nuclear crisis is overblown

Also, she never said or implied this, it´s a fabrication.

She just sited scientific research that can be reviewed, and is pretty interesting. I don´t see the problem, nobody is going to think that a nuclear meltdown is good for your health.

posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 12:01 PM
She's not even a she, I'm pretty sure "it" is a man. Not really joking.

Anyway, as a previous poster already said, "she" like many others have mastered the art of enthralling the ignoramuses of America. They're actually very clever. Everything is just an act.

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in