It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 6
38
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Dilligaf28
 


As far as the 'V' comment goes, if you are suggesting that Ann Coulter is a reptilian, then I would tend to agree, and I don't even believe in the whole reptilian conspiracy, but alas, perhaps that is discussion for another thread.

Yes, I did watch the entire video, and read the column, which is why she was brought on to O'Reilly's show. As you noted Coulter has no problem talking over O'Reilly and I find it hard to believe that she would not correct O'Reilly if she felt that he was incorrectly relating her column and statements during the interview to the disaster in Japan. She makes no attempts to do this.

I feel it is necessary to quote again the FIRST PARAGRAPH of the column that she was brought on to the O'Reilly show to discuss:

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.

www.anncoulter.com...

This is how she starts the column, O'Reilly introduces the interview referencing the Japan incident. Even if she did not specifically repeat her own asinine claim in the interview, she did not refute it either. And it wasn't because of a "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" (your words).

Coulter has made no change to the column, she has made no statement retracting her comments that "anyone exposed to excess radiation from the nuclear power plants is now probably much less likely to get cancer."

As someone pointed out earlier, Coulter is an attorney, and is very smart. She knows exactly what she is doing and she knows that the average FOX News loving idiot will correlate the radiation from Japan's nuclear disaster to the studies she is talking about.

The studies she references in her column are 10, 20 and 30 years old! Why is it now she writes this column, why is it now she's brought on to O'Reilly, why is it now she takes a stand for 'healthy radiation' while referencing the nuclear disaster in Japan? It's not because she is "wishing to discuss a documented, scientifically supported, and potentially beneficial yet suppressed medical treatment on the MSM" (your words).

Maybe the studies she references have merit, maybe low levels of radiation provide eternal life, I don't know the answers, but I do know that it's no coincidence she writes her column as the chief of the nuclear plant weeps over the amount of lethal radiation that is being released, and the MSM announces that plumes of it are now reaching the US.




posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by DrZERO
 


From what I gather of your postings you do not care at all about any potential benefit these studies may show because it came from Anne Coulter at the time of the Japanese crisis? Had she reported this earlier or in the future would you still feel as adamantly as you do now?

You can throw all the spin you want around it. The simple fact is Anne says at the end of the video that this warrants more discussion and the scientists should be talked to on camera. There probably is an ulterior motive in this being discussed now but its not sinister or conspiratorial, its ratings. Thats what FOX or CNN or any media outlet wants is ratings. One could argue that Anne took advantage of the Japanese crisis to bring this information to light as it offered a perfect opportunity to discuss this issue while the nation's mind was on radioactivity in general.

You are focusing on the messenger not the message. You are so blinded by your dislike of Anne Coulter that you cannot see what she is trying to do here; which is to discuss something in the MSM that seems to be "stifled" by the other MSM outlets. Again I will ask you why is Anne Coulter deserving of vilification for trying to bring suppressed information to the public's attention?



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   
lol what a headline to to read when signing into ATS. watching the video now... hey you [snip] leave Canada out of this you troll.

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.
edit on 3/19/2011 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by BigfootNZ
reply to post by DrZERO
 


Errr but isnt medical radiation targeted directly at a specific area, ie the spot where the tumor is... not thrown at your entire body willy nilly... and even then it'll still stuff you up while it destroys the tumor, and thats never a given either.


Exactly- it is targeted right on/at the Tumor- not the entire body. And at that it makes you deathly ill. Ill to the point that some people choose to die rather than undergo radiation treatment. The first effect is that it literally wipes out your white blood cells, crashing your entire immune system.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Dilligaf28
 


It's not that I don't care about potential health benefits of any type of study, it's that I am highlighting Coulter's correlation of these studies to the disaster in Japan. In fact, as you can tell by the average response here, Coulter has done nothing but brought ridicule on the 'low dose' theory by including the Japanese disaster in her column and stating that those involved are somehow better off.

I understand that media outlets like FOX rely on ratings, but I think that the timing of this particular piece is a form of propaganda used to soften the blow of the true implications of what has happened in Japan. It is Coulter who is throwing the spin on this, not me.

I don't know what Ann Coulter is deserving of, but I think that she does a fine job at vilifying herself.


Originally posted by UrgentInsurgent
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 specifically references the people in Japan, the radiation levels there have now been said to be lethal, what else would she be talking about?

The quote above about Coulter thinking the crisis is overblown is from the person who wrote the article that is cited at the beginning of this thread. It was never claimed that Coulter said this, that's why there are no quotation marks around the statement. But I think the author did infer that from her when she said that the people in Japan are now less likely to get cancer because they've been exposed to radiation from a nuclear meltdown.


Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
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.

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.

It's interesting you mention the naked body scanners because that was one of the first things I thought of when hearing about this column/interview. I thought, "great, the next headline will be that radiation from naked body scanners is good for you too." One of the studies she references is about women who have an above average amount of chest x-rays.

As far as the guys who had to enter the reactor, don't worry about them, Ann Coulter says that they are less likely to get cancer.



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



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   
As if... SCIENTISTS SHOW that radiation is GOOD FOR YOU! HURRAY FOR SCIENCE! gee, i sure am glad that other blue collar guys like me in 'murka are safe from the radiation! actually, BRING IT ON! we can handle it! YEAH! 'MURKA!



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by DrZERO
 


It's reaching cali...why do we even have nuclear plants if things like this happens...its worse than using a big bomb as a reactor just hoping one day it dont blow up



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by DrZERO
 


First of all Anne Coulter did not say those likely to enter the reactor are less likely to get cancer. Honestly where do you come up with this stuff? She never said the crisis is overblown either. You can "read between the lines" all you want but the thing about reading between the lines is no one can see it but you. That means its your own opinion not the fact of the matter. There is nothing in between the lines but blank space until you fill it in with nonsense such as this.

Secondly its not propaganda nor is it a way to subtly calm Americans. I am curious if perhaps there is a shortage of aluminum foil in your kitchen drawer?



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 01:03 PM
link   
If you follow WEBBOT - here is the tag of the day:

The Winds, the Wars,m and the Witch

Wind Wars and Witch

Amazing how prescient this is.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Dilligaf28
 


As I stated in the previous post, the author of the article inferred that Coulter thought the crisis was overblown by her statements that the Japanese exposed to the radiation from their melted down nuclear reactor are better off because they are less likely to get cancer. I, nor anyone else, claimed that she said that.

The statement I made replying to ThirdEyeofHorus regarding the men that entered the reactor was sarcasm intended to highlight how ridiculous Coulter's theory that the Japanese are now less likely to get cancer, apparently it was lost on you.

You don't think her column and interview are propaganda, you are entitled to your opinion, I am entitled to mine.

Thanks for ending your post with an ad hominem attack on me though, that was classy (more sarcasm).

edit to add:

you don't have to read between the lines. Coulter said the people in Japan are now less likely to get cancer because of the radiation from the nuclear disaster, not me.
edit on 19-3-2011 by DrZERO because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by DrZERO
 


Thus far you have completely avoided answering any query I have posed to you and replied with only distraction tactics and misdirection. I felt since you were operating on that level that perhaps communicating to you in a fashion more akin to your own method of communication was the polite thing to do.

Also you did not notate your "sarcasm" as such. Perhaps I should apply the standard you hold Ms. Coulter to and deny any validity to your statement of intended sarcasm and label your statement a fact given you did not offer any defensive statements to the contrary in the post I was speaking of?



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Dilligaf28
 


Which queries are you speaking of? I would be happy to respond any query you have, as I thought I already had, but if not ask away.

I'm sorry if making my point, or expressing my opinion is somehow distracting to you, or misdirects you. Let me know if you would like me to clarify anything I have previously said

I think I just offered a defensive post saying that I used sarcasm. You can label my posts any way you please, I think most here know what I'm driving at. I don't hold Coulter to any standards, I am simply commenting on her column and interview.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by DrZERO
 





average FOX News loving idiot will correlate the radiation from Japan's nuclear disaster to the studies she is talking about.


Oh goody! Do I get to make equally brash statements about people who love MSNBC and CNN and people getting tingles up their legs over a Presidential Candidate?



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by DrZERO
 





She specifically references the people in Japan, the radiation levels there have now been said to be lethal, what else would she be talking about?


Her column was from March 16th, that information was not out yet. Again, I don´t think she meant it was healthy for people directly exposed to a meltdown.



The quote above about Coulter thinking the crisis is overblown is from the person who wrote the article that is cited at the beginning of this thread. It was never claimed that Coulter said this, that's why there are no quotation marks around the statement.


No, he only said ´´according to``. Seems to imply that somebody said something.

Like I said a fabrication.

I think the research she referenced is pretty interesting, if people want to ignore it because keejerk reactions are the cool thing, fine.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by DrZERO
 





average FOX News loving idiot will correlate the radiation from Japan's nuclear disaster to the studies she is talking about.


Oh goody! Do I get to make equally brash statements about people who love MSNBC and CNN and people getting tingles up their legs over a Presidential Candidate?


Actually, you do and should.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   
This is what I call extreme BS, only because some radioactive elements like cesium have applications in medicine doesn't mean plutonium radiation is good for your health, how can you be so stupid?



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   
There is far more to this story than all the blowhards may let on. I have known about the back story for many years.

I am referring to continuous low level exposure you will get from low level contamination of your environment. Not, direct, short term, high level, exposure..

www.jpands.org...

nige.files.wordpress.com...

giriweb.com...

www.radiationhormesis.com...

www.angelfire.com...

www.radiationhormesis.com...

Bernard Cohen was an environmentalist that was dead set on implementing hard limits on low dose exposure. Stuff like radon, and low level waste. He was one of the key people behind many of the radiation regulations in the united states.

He had a problem………

He lacked proof about the deadly effects of low level radiation, So he set out with one of the biggest studies of radon exposure that has ever been conducted, to get that proof. When he had the proof, he could use it as the leverage he needed to get more strict limits put in place for radiation exposure.

But………..
When all the paperwork was filed away, and the study was completed, the figures he seen was contradictory to his belief. He could find no confounding factors. So he had to accept the fact that no mater how much he hated it, his belief was wrong, and the whole radiation situation was overblown. The ironic thing is…….He was one of the people that helped blow it out of proportion in the first place.

As it sets, He has a cash reward out for anyone that can find a confounding factor, or reason why his data is not correct. That reward has never been claimed, because no one has found a flaw.

The moral of the story isn’t that you should bathe in radiation for your health. It’s that you shouldn’t worry about it like it’s the end of the world. Just calm down, and get on with your life. A little bit of radiation isn’t going to kill you.

And as the old saying goes, “What doesn’t kill you will only make you stronger."
edit on 19-3-2011 by Mr Tranny because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by SpectreDC
 


You beat me to it, but I wholeheartedly concur. I never meant to leave out all the idiots watching CNN and MSNBC. I would also further stipulate that not everyone that watches those networks are idiots, I was merely suggesting that a tremendous amount of people get their information from these sources and then incorporate it into their minds as fact. Perhaps idiot was a rather brash term.


Originally posted by UrgentInsurgentHer column was from March 16th, that information was not out yet. Again, I don´t think she meant it was healthy for people directly exposed to a meltdown.


Well, she said, "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" So you tell me what she meant by that statement. The MSM has been reporting on radiation leaking from a possible meltdown as early as March 12th.


Originally posted by UrgentInsurgentNo, he only said ´´according to``. Seems to imply that somebody said something.

Like I said a fabrication.


Let's clear this up, here is the quote, from Meena Rupani, the author of TPM article:

According to conservative columnist Ann Coulter, this whole Japanese nuclear crisis is overblown and "radiation is actually good for you" and the media isn't reporting its benefits enough.


The part in quotations: "radiation is actually good for you" is what Coulter said on O'Rielly. The part about 'according to Ann Coulter this whole Japanese nuclear crisis is overblown' is Rupani's opinion of what Coulter said in her column stating that the people of Japan who have been exposed to radiation are better off.

I think the research and studies she is talking about on it's face is interesting as well. Too bad she didn't talk about it 10, 20, 30 years ago when the studies were done. Too bad she brings it up now while saying that these studies somehow show the Japanese are better off for being exposed, I think that correlating the two detracts credibility from this type of research in most people's eyes. Like you said, the "jerk-knee reaction," that we are witnessing here in this thread.





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



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by DrZERO
 


Actually I think you are incorrect. I don't think this is propaganda or TPTB trying to feed us a line.

I think its just 1 really dumb TV personallity making a fool of herself in front of the nation. We should applaud her really for publicly admitting adult onset retardation is a real.







 
38
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join