Ann Coulter - Radiation is good for you!

[james&olya 1,121]

Ann Coulter appeared on Fox news O'Reilly Factor and made the preposterous claim that radiation is good for you. She even claims that scientists have discovered this and the media is hiding it! She says the scientific consensus has changed and that it actually reduces the risk of cancer!

This sounds like the beginning of another right-wing BS 'truthiness' thing like their claims now that global warming has been debunked. Maybe if they say it loudly enough and enough times people will accept it as fact. Fox news viewers will believe almost anything!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Ann Coulter should head over to Fukushima and take a few good, deep breaths. Better yet, she should hang out there for a vacation. She'll be one glowing chick!

[Danno 1,228]

Ann Coulter appeared on Fox news O'Reilly Factor and made the preposterous claim that radiation is good for you. She even claims that scientists have discovered this and the media is hiding it! She says the scientific consensus has changed and that it actually reduces the risk of cancer!

This sounds like the beginning of another right-wing BS 'truthiness' thing like their claims now that global warming has been debunked. Maybe if they say it loudly enough and enough times people will accept it as fact. Fox news viewers will believe almost anything!

Though you can drown ... water too is good for you.

Are you misrepresenting someone again?

[james&olya 1,121]

Though you can drown ... water too is good for you.

Are you misrepresenting someone again?

"at some level--much higher than the minimums set by the US Government--radiation is good for you,"

Her words!

[B_J 2,752]

Here's the article she wrote:

Link

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Though you can drown ... water too is good for you.

Are you misrepresenting someone again?

No, I saw that, and had to cringe a bit.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

in every theoretical sense, she is right.

the thing with radiation (as with anything) is the ability of nature/beings to adapt to certain things.

It's the same way in different regions of the world how they can eat certain things, but if we eat it, it makes us sick.

If you believe in evolution, if you believe in adaptation, then what she's saying is correct.

Ever heard of radiation therapy?

[james&olya 1,121]

in every theoretical sense, she is right.

the thing with radiation (as with anything) is the ability of nature/beings to adapt to certain things.

It's the same way in different regions of the world how they can eat certain things, but if we eat it, it makes us sick.

If you believe in evolution, if you believe in adaptation, then what she's saying is correct.

Ever heard of radiation therapy?

If you only knew!

Radiation can be used to kill cancer cells but even when used in the cancer victim to help survive a cancer it puts the recipient at additional risk for developing another malignancy! Radiation is especially dangerous to children. A single abdominal CT exam in a young child gives them a 1/500 risk for future cancer! Maybe if we all wind up exposed to high radiation levels due to repeated nuclear reactor accidents our descendants, if humanity survives, after thousands of years will become genetically adapted to the radiation. This will occur as the majority of people on the planet die first and are unable to pass on their genetic material, leaving the occasional individual that has some natural enhanced resistance to its effects to survive. I suppose you are OK with this as long as it helps maintain corporate profitability. I mean, that is what is most important to a good conservative, right?

[Amby 490]

in every theoretical sense, she is right.

the thing with radiation (as with anything) is the ability of nature/beings to adapt to certain things.

It's the same way in different regions of the world how they can eat certain things, but if we eat it, it makes us sick.

If you believe in evolution, if you believe in adaptation, then what she's saying is correct.

Ever heard of radiation therapy?

I called it

[james&olya 1,121]

Though you can drown ... water too is good for you.

Are you misrepresenting someone again?

btw, your siggy is offensive! The corollary would be that a conservative is the one who employs the 14 year/old on-stage doing the live-sex acts and the politicians and law-enforcement that accept payment to look the other way. Just as accurate, just as offensive. Take down your cr@p please!

[Amby 490]

btw, your siggy is offensive! The corollary would be that a conservative is the one who employs the 14 year/old on-stage doing the live-sex acts and the politicians and law-enforcement that accept payment to look the other way. Just as accurate, just as offensive. Take down your cr@p please!

Report it

[james&olya 1,121]

Report it

I don't like doing that. I hesitated to even say anything but finally couldn't stay quiet any longer! Probably won't do any good, though I do find it interesting that in other posts he seems to identify as a conservative christian. Not sure how that kind of offensive statement fits in with his 'faith'!

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I called it

he who puts boundaries/rules in his thinking, is not capable of critical thought.

[james&olya 1,121]

he who puts boundaries/rules in his thinking, is not capable of critical thought.

'truthiness'

[Dakine10 5,452]

in every theoretical sense, she is right.

the thing with radiation (as with anything) is the ability of nature/beings to adapt to certain things.

It's the same way in different regions of the world how they can eat certain things, but if we eat it, it makes us sick.

If you believe in evolution, if you believe in adaptation, then what she's saying is correct.

Ever heard of radiation therapy?

The problem is she isn't speaking theoretically. She is actually talking about people exposed to radiation from the Fukushima plant. Assuming there is level of ionizing radiation that would be prophylactically beneficial to humans, we don't know what it is. To suggest that exposure to an unknown dose of ionizing radiation from nuclear fallout is beneficial is just silly.

What was completely asinine though was for her to try to support that argument by saying that only 31 deaths can be blamed on the Chernobyl disaster because other deaths haven't been confirmed by studies.

The subject is interesting, but her approach and rationale is absurd.