Radiation Good – Ann Coulter Bad
I couldn’t make this stuff up if I wanted too. Ann Coulter is on video with Bill O’Reilly stating that some forms of radiation are good for you when talking about the nuclear radiation coming out of Japan. We should take up a collection to send her over to Fukushima Japan to camp out next to the nuclear power plant that is leaking the love fest juice that she believes to be good for us. Or we could all pitch in to buy her a nice condo over at Three Mile Island. Land prices are cheap for some unknown reason. She could plant a nice garden and maybe start an apple orchard or something. (PUN intended) I found this video regarding her stance on radiation being good for you over at the Huffington Post…
The bat shit loon's article is here!
Before Ann Coulter goes quoting scientists on the effects of radiation on the human body she should read all of the facts from those scientist and not just the headlines. You have to give O’Reilly kudos for practically calling her a journalistic hack to her face. Does the woman not know how to use Google? Double dumb ass on her.
Papamoka
Labels: Ann Coulter, Effects of Radiation, Fox News, Fukushima, Japan, Nuclear Power, Radiation, Radiation Cloud, Radiation Poisoning
posted by Papamoka at
11:30 AM
14 Comments:
I did not read this whole thing right now, as I am very busy working. I will read the rest later. I did read the title, though, and this is the second time in the past few days that someone has pointed out my radiation-deficiency. Can you shoot me an email letting me know where I can get the healthy dosage? Do they package it in pill form?
Email on the way John. Please be advised that in females of the human species, excessive doses of radiation tends to grow an Adam's Apple in the throat region. Source: Ann Coulter
In case you haven't noticed, the Adam’s apple tends to be missing in most females, which is why they typically cannot do whatever men are able to do with them.
I think this cure is long sought and just one more reason we should continue to support stem cell research, but I digress.
Your talking about woman not being able to play full contact football and stuff like that right John?
If that's what men do with their Adam's apple, then, yes, that is what I mean. I never intentionally use mine, but I still want it, just so in case I need it for something. Call me a hoarder.
I find it a little sexist to say women cannot play full contact football just because they have no Adam's apple. To even admit the obvious truth that women would mostly get crushed if they did play contact football is sexist. To even admit that woman have no Adam's apple in the first place is sexist.
You, sir, are a sexist!
I am in fact a sexist John. Guilty. I'm one of those people. And as the father of five daughters I tend to not want my baby girls ever wanting to play full contact football or have an Adam's apple. Just saying.
But feel free to digress or supress how you really feel about the issue of radiation on the human body. I think I might know of an Anti-Health store that is running a special on those pills you were looking for. LOL!
Matt, did you read her article? --Which of the studies she cited do you dispute and on what Basis?
--Are all these institutions Republican shills, including the UN?
--You do know the difference between radiation exposure and ingesting radioactive fallout, right?
--Did you read where she acknowledged opposing views?
Politicians and pundits say plenty of silly things Mat, you can find them without demeaning yourself. Has Guam capsized yet?
I guess we'll see.
Thanks for the article by the way. I don't follow her and wouldn't have seen it. Very interesting.
Jeff,
Are you going to Japan anytime soon? Would you put someone you love in the danger of any radiation poisoning? I sure as hell wouldn't when a nut job bat shit loon like Ann Coulter says its okay? No science will tell you that any radiation such as what is being expelled in Japan is good for you. Her opinion is looney and she just happens to be a Republican. I don't believe I mentioned her political party in the post Jeff but thank you for mentioning it.
Why are people like her so filled with nothing but bat shit loon ideas? And I'm the one demeaning myself? Get a grip my friend. Radiation in any form is not good for the human body. Or is sunblock cream a scam too? Or is it just another form of radiation?
Get real Jeff. Please.
Some of the studies she cites.
"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. "
"...A $10 million Department of Energy study from 1991 examined 10 years of epidemiological research by the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health ..."
"..In 1983, a series of apartment buildings in Taiwan..."
"Bernard L. Cohen, a physics professor at the University of Pittsburgh,..."
"...group of scientists who concluded their conference on hormesis at the University of Massachusetts ..."
"Indeed, after endless investigations, including by the United Nations, Manhattan Project veteran Theodore Rockwell summarized the reports to Bethell in 2002, ..."
"Dr. Dade W. Moeller, a radiation expert and professor emeritus at Harvard..."
--Which of these sources that she cited are you disputing?
--Do you have any scientific basis for saying they are wrong?
She acknowledges ," 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."
Will you admit that she has cited scientific studies that are from nonpartisan or liberal leaning sources and is not just spouting her opinions. Can you support your opinions with such or do you not need science because she's Coulter?
If you can site studies to dispute her citations I shall be interested but please excuse me if I don't find the seat of your pants authoritative.
Why are you looking at the seat of my pants Jeff? ROFLOL!
I'm sorry Jeff, but I was born at night but not born last night. Ask any expert on radiation and they will be the first to tell you to avoid it. It's common sense and every study and research paper will tell you that exposure to high doses of radiation or long term exposure is not good for the human body or future generations if you want to have children.
Love ya man but you do try your best to get under my skin with the devil's advocate.
Feel free to comment away to your hearts desire. I get a kick out of it.
The key word is "high" doses, Mat. She never addressed high doses. A person in a town near Fukushima reactor gets exposed to an extra 3.5 microsieferts of radiation a day. This is equal to a mammogram every two years. Is that a dangerous dose, Mat? Would you prohibit your loved ones from getting one every two years?
Do you realize that if you flew there, stayed a month, and flew back, that you would get more exposure from flight than from the month there. And that does not include the scanners.
The smallest one year dose that can be linked to any increased danger of cancer is almost a hundred times what they are being exposed to.
Coulter says enough silly things without making this stretch. When did you decide O'Reilly was an authority. I think he is a nut.
Did you read her article, Mat?
Jeff,
“Actually, the scientific assessment of what levels of exposure to ionizing radiation are dangerous is, as you might imagine, a wee bit more complicated than my little sarcastic rejoinder makes it, but you’d never know that from Ann Coulter’s article and her interview with Bill O’Reilly. The reason for my sarcastic characterization of Coulter’s scientific nonsense is because her article uses many of the same tactics as any denialist. Chief among these is that Coulter takes the germ of a scientific controversy and then uses it to try to imply that the scientific consensus is fatally flawed.”
The Ann Coulter Fallacy
The article is one of the many articles that refute Coulter's love of radiation. What makes it special is that it speaks of the logical fallacy in her thinking, instead of addressing her talking points alone. It does refute her science, and her scientific method, but the science is well over her head, despite her law degree. I felt like it was a complete waste of time to refute something that the scientific community almost universally rejects without some reason for doing so. However, I can see that you are very committed to defending Coulter's scientific name. This article does not merely attack her science, but also attacks her scientific mind.
Jeff, you made a semi-interesting point in asking did anyone read her article. I happily laughed at her ridicule without subjecting myself to her wisdom. If Copernicus discusses the finer details of heliocentric theory, we tend to notice. However, if a truck driver at a local diner starts explaining how he knows the sun has no effect on other bodies, we tend to have more important things to do with our time than to research his science. We can, however, laugh at him, because that only takes a minute.
The Ann Coulter Apologist Movement will fail, sir; and Ann will not go down with the ship. She will be the first one on the lifeboat, even if it seats only one. If I were you, I would have asked the question if it occurred to me to ask, as it was an interesting point: “Did anyone actually read her article.” However, the question would have been rhetorical.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home