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: 9
38
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by DrZERO
 


I just thought about it, chemotherapy is so successful right since it cooks your insides yeah its perfectly safe for u to be radiated poisioned cuz it reduces ur chance of cancer so they say but also kills u from the inside out




posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 10:21 PM
link   
To quote the great Weird Al, "Put your head in a microwave and give yourself a tan"



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 10:35 PM
link   
WOW what an idiot this woman is.Where the hell did she get her diploma from...Cracker Jacks box?
She gives Blond's a bad name,what a bimbo!



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by DrZERO
 
I always wondered how she got that Adam's apple.
Could it be a radiation residual?
Could it be she wants us to have large larynxes too?



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 11:35 PM
link   
Wow Ann Coulter did the impossible.... say something dumber than Sarah Palen


The woman continues to troll the MSM with her BS, this is very lulzy. Maybe she has used radiation to achieve that leathery skin like reptilian appearance? Oh the benefits.. we could always use a extra arm mutation. Just think if i got shot a dose of that priceless plutonium i could blog while i blog "xzibit chimes in"


So jealous of the Japanese right now "shrugs"

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



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 11:46 PM
link   
It is pretty disturbing that so many people in this thread are unable to even understand what took place and was discussed in that interview. To preface my point, I want to first say that I am no fan of Ann Coulter; in fact, I greatly dislike her. Here are a few things, though, which I felt compelled to elucidate for those people in this thread making sarcastic comments in response to statements that were neither made nor implied.

1. Chemotherapy is not the same thing as radiation therapy. Chemotherapy is chemical therapy. There is no radiation involved whatsoever in chemotherapy. They are entirely different treatments. Some cases of cancer are treated using chemotherapy, some are treated using radiation, some are treated by using both of them at the same time, and some are treated using one after the other. Some cancers are treated using alternative methods.

2. At no time in that interview did Ann Coulter say (or even imply) anything to the effect of "since radiation is used to treat cancer it is good for you". She said, to paraphrase, "there exists some studies which have concluded that radiation in excess of current governmental safety limits has been shown to correlate with a reduction in future cancer rates." Note that she never said anything about how much in excess of the standard safety limit those doses were. Thus, she did not imply that standing near a pile of polonium or juggling some plutonium bowling pins would cure you of some ailment or anything else to that effect. Anybody who actually watched the interview who believes that should get their hearing checked.

3. Regardless of the validity of the cited studies' conclusions, everything Ann Coulter said in that interview was a fact. The first sentence/paragraph of her column is the only statement I have found any issue with. She implies that the studies' conclusions are a fact and that the type and level of radiation around the plant are in accord with those cited in the studies she describes. Assuming that the studies are relevant to the type of radiation and level of radiation at and around the plant, she should have qualified that first sentence/paragraph using a phrase such as "according to the following studies" somewhere. I have not checked the studies to see if they are relevant in any way to the situation at Fukushima. If they are not, then her first paragraph is complete garbage. Of course, this would have no bearing on the validity of the cited studies and the rest of her article. To assume so would be a fallacy of composition. To discount what Ann Coulter is citing simply because Ann Coulter is citing it is also a genetic fallacy. She is often wrong and has, in my opinion, a dangerous and abhorrent political philosophy, but that does not mean that what she is saying here is garbage. It is not a settled issue.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 12:41 AM
link   


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.
reply to post by DrZERO
 



She calls it a terrible earthquake and resulting tsunami that have devastated Japan, the ONLY good news is....

How can anyone say that she said or implied that the whole situation is overblown?

Are you saying that every Japanese inhabitant has received a lethal dose of radiation? Once again, I don´t think she was talking about the people in the direct vicinity of the reactors. I think most exposees were exposed to lower levels of radiation.



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.


What she said on O´Reilly was not directly connected to Japan. Your right, it is Rupani´s opinion, he should not have said according to Coulter, that is simply not the truth, and it is a fabrication.

I think you´ll have to agree on that.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 12:47 AM
link   


It is pretty disturbing that so many people in this thread are unable to even understand what took place and was discussed in that interview. To preface my point, I want to first say that I am no fan of Ann Coulter; in fact, I greatly dislike her. Here are a few things, though, which I felt compelled to elucidate for those people in this thread making sarcastic comments in response to statements that were neither made nor implied.
reply to post by joemelon
 


I find it pretty disturbing to. Especially this,



She is a tard. Didn't have to read the thread, already know from seeing her name that its utter nonsense.


Embrace ignorance, way to go. The woman referred to acual, factual, researchable studies, are you proud?



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 01:19 AM
link   
reply to post by UrgentInsurgent
 


Thank you.


I really don't like this character on Minitrue either. She seems to be a hawkish and always with an oddly elevated tone and exited gesturing pointing out all the evils in the world. I am particular instead to watching the viewers of the 2 minute hate channel.
edit on 3/20/2011 by utsaME because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/20/2011 by utsaME because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 01:24 AM
link   

@Dilligaf28
@CObzz
@UrgentInsurgent
@bluemirage5

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:





The roentgen equivalent in man (or mammal[1]) or rem (symbol rem) is a unit of radiation dose equivalent. It is the product of the absorbed dose in rads and a weighting factor, WR, which accounts for the effectiveness of the radiation to cause biological damage.

en.wikipedia.org...öntgen_equivalent_man


In other words, it doesn't matter where the radiation is coming from, because a roentgen equivalent is already adjusted for the quality factor and type of the radiation. It doesn't matter if Coulter was talking about the radiation from the radioisotopes coming from Fukushima, or not. In other words, yes Coulter was saying that small increases in radiation can have a positive effect, no matter the source. There is some evidence pointing to this, but it is still far from an accepted theory.


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.


The reactor is emitting a large amount of radiation. For all intents and purposes radiation is line-of-sight, so it's not really a problem unless you can see the reactor. The main issue is that radioactive isotopes are being spread around, which then emit radiation. According to radiation hormesis small increases in background radiation levels can cause benefits, but this does not mean that large doses will give any benefit, but will give harm. Even if Hormesis was true, which is subject to debate and needs further research, then the benefit and harm of the increased radiation levels from this incident would depend on how much the radiation levels have increased.


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.


Of course the people working at the reactors could get disastrous effects from the massive doses of radiation they are receiving. That's not what Coulter was talking about, although it was not made clear.

She cites Bernard Cohen www.phyast.pitt.edu... which says no such thing.

more information on radiation hormesis:

dspace.lrri.org:8080...

fullcomment.nationalpost.com...
edit on 20/3/11 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 20/3/11 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)

edit on 20/3/11 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 02:02 AM
link   
Oh my, I sure hope she walks her talk and moves into a house right next to those reactors in Japan, so she can benefit from all that radiation. It's even for free!



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 02:41 AM
link   
reply to post by DrZERO
 



Radioactive plumes have now started to arrive in Southern California, but it's ok, because Nuclear Physicist and Medical Physician Ann Coulter went on FOX last night and informs us that there is no need to worry, radiation is GOOD for us!


I've heard something along these lines myself. I was always leery about it when all the cool kids would power up the modified microwave oven with its door off and stand in front of it calling me a chicken for not getting nuked with them. Oh how I hated that peer pressure. Come on they'd say, don't you want to be cool like us? Man I wish Ann Coulter was around back then to give me advice. I was such a nerd and I could've actually been in with the cool crowd!

This was right around the time that I was putting to rest the long standing myth that drinking sea water would cause dementia and lead to serious health problems. I guess I was wrong, I should've been nuking with the other kids instead. Wait, isn't sea water being used on the reactors? I think I may be onto something here. Where did I put that modified microwave?



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 03:17 AM
link   
Why is this thread being pushed giving this title more exposure, this is a joke. That woman wouldn't be caught dead anywhere within 200 km of Japan. Believe me. I am surprised no one brought up Chernobyl in a debate with her. No one brought up Acute Radiation Syndrome with her. And no one brought up the fact that although she speaks of the 1 % of scientists whos work she blows up completely out of context to argue her point, 99 % agree that its dangerous, deadly, lethal, and bad. Give me a break.
edit on 20-3-2011 by lastdragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 03:30 AM
link   


And no one brought up the fact that although she speaks of the 1 % of scientists whos work she blows up completely out of context to argue her point, 99 % agree that its dangerous, deadly, lethal, and bad. Give me a break.
reply to post by lastdragon
 


She never said that the 99 percent of scientists were wrong. She just pointed out the research that implies that certain levels of radiation could actually be beneficial.

Are you afraid that people might think that a meltdown is good for ya? If people do, they are much bigger idiots than people accuse Coulter of being.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 03:37 AM
link   
reply to post by joemelon
 

Thank you for the well thought out, intelligent post. I agree with you on each of your points, especially the third. You know, when I first heard of this piece by Coulter, I thought 'what a kook she is', but looking back it really is because of that first paragraph in her column where she correlates these hormesis studies to what is happening in Japan right now.

And with this in mind, I am starting to wonder if this was her intention all along, to throw a black shroud on what would otherwise be thought provoking information. It almost seems like she is intentionally poisoning the very information that she supposedly wants to bring to light. I think that the reaction of the posters in this thread is tantamount to that observation.

reply to post by UrgentInsurgent
 

Originally posted by UrgentInsurgent
How can anyone say that she said or implied that the whole situation is overblown?

Are you saying that every Japanese inhabitant has received a lethal dose of radiation? Once again, I don´t think she was talking about the people in the direct vicinity of the reactors. I think most exposees were exposed to lower levels of radiation.

The authors inference of Coulter's statement saying that "anyone exposed to excess radiation from the nuclear power plants is now probably much less likely to get cancer," was that he (or she) thought the situation was overblown. It is his (or her) opinion, and like us, he (or she) is entitled to it.

I'm not saying that every Japanese inhabitant has received a lethal dose of radiation. I am saying that the chief of the nuclear plant in Japan is crying as the Japanese government acknowledges that lethal amounts of radiation are being emitted while Coulter is commenting that "anyone exposed to excess radiation from the nuclear power plants is now probably much less likely to get cancer," and that this is "good news."


Originally posted by UrgentInsurgent
What she said on O´Reilly was not directly connected to Japan. Your right, it is Rupani´s opinion, he should not have said according to Coulter, that is simply not the truth, and it is a fabrication.

I think you´ll have to agree on that.

And that's the crux of the entire thread. What Coulter said on O'Reilly was not directly connected to Japan, and yet she lets O'Reilly introduce her interview by saying, "Ann Coulter has a new column out today about the nuke situation in Japan," without correcting him or clarifying her statements. That combined with the opening paragraph of her column correlating these hormesis studies with the nuclear disaster in Japan has a two-fold effect: one, a blatant attempt at promoting propaganda that somehow blunts the reality of what is happening in Japan and it's effects on the US; and two, offending most people to the point that they will not consider otherwise intriguing research on the validity of radiation hormesis.

I will not testify to what Rupani should have, or shouldn't have said. Rupani was offering an opinion, and I will agree that opinion is not fact, it is opinion.

reply to post by C0bzz
 
C0bzz, thank you for your input and for the links. Please note that my statement you quoted, "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," was made with sarcasm. I aploligise for any misunderstandings (you can thank Dilligaf28 for the clarification).



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 03:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by lastdragon
I am surprised no one brought up Chernobyl in a debate with her.


Interestingly enough Coulter does talk about Chernobyl 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.
www.anncoulter.com

archasama posted a youtube video on page 5 of this thread contesting these sentiments, featuring the unfortunate progeny of the Chernobyl victims. HERE is the link.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 03:56 AM
link   


I am saying that the chief of the nuclear plant in Japan is crying as the Japanese government acknowledges that lethal amounts of radiation are being emitted while Coulter is commenting that "anyone exposed to excess radiation from the nuclear power plants is now probably much less likely to get cancer," and that this is "good news."
reply to post by DrZERO
 


Jeah, I admit it´s stupid to say that ANYONE exposed is less likely to get cancer. It´s a general statement that doesn´t take into account what level and duration of radiation a person is exposed to.

I agree that it is weird to say this stuff in relation to the Japan disaster.

Still the info she provided is factual and interesting, and should not be overlooked.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 04:01 AM
link   
reply to post by UrgentInsurgent
 


And that's the thing, it really is interesting and factual information, and as I said in my previous post, the more I think about it the more I think that Coulter wants it to be overlooked. As previous posters have said, this chick is smart, she knows exactly what she is doing.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 04:10 AM
link   
reply to post by DrZERO
 


Mmm, I don´t know, I never heard about the benefits before, until she brought it up.

Doesn´t seem to be a good way of burying this info.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 07:11 AM
link   
Anyone who actually takes ANYTHING serious that this nutty lady says should really have their head examined.

I just want to know HOW she has an ADAMS APPLE BIGGER THAN MOST MALES HAVE!!!!!

SCARY....

Whats the deal with that?!




top topics



 
38
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join