Ann Coulter Says Radiation is GOOD For You!

@anniepa (27238)
United States
March 19, 2011 11:03am CST
You can read an excerpt and hear and see for yourself what Ann Coulter told a skeptical Bill O'Reilly last night. Yes, she actually DID say radiation can be good for you and REFUSED to admit some radiation will kill you when O'Reilly asked her to! http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/ann-coulter-tells-bill-oreilly-radiation-a Here's Coulter's column where she expands on this topic: http://www.anncoulter.com/ So, what do you think? Is Coulter RIGHT and should we all be heading to Japan to soak up as many of these health rays as we can? Annie
4 people like this
16 responses
@matersfish (6311)
• United States
19 Mar 11
I watched the interview when it aired. Coulter was quoting some doctors who believe radiation in low levels is actually good for you. She also mentioned people who pay good money to expose themselves to radiation. So evil? On the flipside, you have others pushing the panic button, stating that any radiation is absolutely deadly and you should run far, far away. The debate is on. There are many physicists and other experts claiming that radiation in low levels is harmless, and you'll get as much from a microwave or a dental xray.
2 people like this
@anniepa (27238)
• United States
24 Mar 11
Most reasonable people are aware there are good uses for radiation. Most reasonable people are also aware high levels of radiation kills! Coulter isn't reasonable enough to admit the latter. Annie
• United States
24 Mar 11
1 person likes this
@djbtol (5498)
• United States
19 Mar 11
We ought to clarify that Ann Coulter is only reporting on a phenomenon that many scientists have looked at. It is still not widely accepted among medical experts, I think because it is not understood. This is a known phenomenon that exists totally apart from Ann Coulter. Read more here http://scienceray.com/biology/human-biology/radiation-our-friend/
2 people like this
@anniepa (27238)
• United States
19 Mar 11
The point is, when Bill O'Reilly tried to get her to clarify herself and concede that radiation also does kill people, she refused to do so. I'm not a scientist by any stretch of the imagination and I don't have any links to provide at this moment, but I've read of other such phenomena where things that are known to be harmful, even lethal, can actually be "good" in some cases. Don't quote me but I think I heard and read that smoking can prevent some forms of cancer; that's great but we also know it causes other forms, right? (And this comes from a smoker!) Annie
@djbtol (5498)
• United States
20 Mar 11
I did not see the Bill O'Reilly discussion. I guess radiation is a multi-faceted discussion. For instance, when I get an x-ray of my teeth, they throw a lead apron over my torso. That makes good sense to take that precaution - blocking all radiation. On the other hand, if the winds from Japan start to trip Geiger counters in the U.S., it might not be a good thing to have everyone start going crazy until there has been some intelligent assessment of the true risk. With man-induced radiation, the acceptable level is 'none'. We won't talk about natural radiation. There are other toxic elements of the world around us that we do not hold such a high standard for. We do not complain about a certain level; apparently we believe there is not too much risk. I believe there are toxins in botox, injected in the skin. Multivitamins contain trace amounts of zinc, magnesium, selenium, copper, manganese, chromium, molybdenum, nickel, boron - all of which are poison to our bodies at some level. What do we take into our body with a flu shot? Caffeine - every day and maybe multiple times a day - has the potential to kill us. I ramble, but I think the point is that some level of radiation is not likely to hurt us, and according to 'hormesis' may even help us. The media should be finding that kind of info for the public.
@gladys46 (1205)
• United States
19 Mar 11
Annie, idiocy sells! Since when do right wings trust science anyway?
1 person likes this
@debrakcarey (19924)
• United States
19 Mar 11
Perhaps if it science was truly science and not made into a liberal political agenda, we'd trust 'science' more. I've read many times that 'religion' silenced science in the past by killing or jailing those who went against the religious leadership of the day. But I've also read in the right here and now, that those who are skeptical of global warming have been silenced by withdrawal of funding, smear campaigns and other assorted schemes. Here's one scientists take on it; http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/09/nature-uses-the-d-word/ They (Nature mag.)say in a sidebar that: “The country’s future crucially depends on education, science and technology.” I don’t disagree, but we also need to separate science from the global warming ideology that has hijacked it. The current backlash they speak of has in fact been brought about in part by allowing this to happen. I’ll point out though that the sort of idealogy we see in the global warming movement doesn’t seem to pervade other sciences, at least until somebody demands that one of the science organizations embraces or endorses the cause. That’s when the dissent starts. For example: American Physical Society rejects climate policy plea from 160 physicists Dissenting members ask APS to put their policy statement on ice due to Climategate Witness Nature using the word denialism, born of the politically nurtured global warming ideology. If Nature’s editorial staff was not indoctrinated to at least some of that ideology, I wager they’d have used a different word. And they wonder why there is dissent while at the same time they use the word to insult people. I encourage subscribers to call them to task on this use of the word.
@gladys46 (1205)
• United States
19 Mar 11
I suppose we'd need to know then what a "liberal scientific agenda" is as opposed to a "right wing scientific agenda" ... yes?
@gladys46 (1205)
• United States
20 Mar 11
Annie, indeedy! There is nothing of value that I could ever take away from Ms. Coulter ... I've heard enough non-sense from her to have come to that conclusion. Maybe comedy!
1 person likes this
@sierras236 (2740)
• United States
19 Mar 11
Oh, wait for it... Zing, you just got hit with radiation. Zing, it happened again. We get exposed to radiation that emits directly from the earth. Our bodies have the capacity to handle radiation. But like everything else, there is a limit to what a person can handle.
1 person likes this
• United States
20 Mar 11
I will say this. I don't think she has every watched video footage of Chernobyl to see how bad it really can get.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27238)
• United States
24 Mar 11
That's right, sierras, ZING I got hit again but I'm not in a reactor that's in the process of nearly melting down or in the vicinity of where the radiation is escaping. Annie
@andy77e (5165)
• United States
25 Mar 11
You do realize that everything emits some amount of radiation right? The problem isn't escaping radiation. The problem is escaping radioactive particles.
@katsmeow1213 (29047)
• United States
19 Mar 11
Does she have a medical or scientific degree of some sort? I mean, what credentials does she have to make a claim like this? Personally, I am no expert in this area.. but my common sense says that radiation is very bad!
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13925)
• United States
19 Mar 11
I'm sure her degrees that would qualify her to say some radiation is good for you are about the same as Annie's who is calling her stupid for making the statements.
• United States
20 Mar 11
Hmm.. read the discussion a few times, but didn't see Annie call Ms. Coulter stupid..
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27238)
• United States
24 Mar 11
Taskr just loves to put words in my mouth and twist what I actually do write. Just to clarify, Coulter indeed IS stupid if she thinks that, while some radiation is "good for you" when used to treat cancer, etc., it doesn't also KILL PEOPLE if they're exposed to too much. I doubt if Taskr would let his son drink milk or water from Japan right now or eat vegetables grown there. Annie
@artistry (4154)
• United States
19 Mar 11
......Hi there annie, Well "Miss Mouth" as I have dubbed her can go to her dentist, get all her x-rays done and refuse to use the protective cover. Put your body where your words are, would be my answer to Miss Mouth. I heard some of those workers in the nuclear plant who stayed behind to help, are already having problems. She is just a stupid woman proving it all the time. Cheers.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27238)
• United States
20 Mar 11
I have nothing to add, artistry! Well said and I agree. Annie
@gladys46 (1205)
• United States
20 Mar 11
Hi artistry ... indeedy and I repeat, idiocy sells ... in addition, there's an all day lollypop everyday!
1 person likes this
@sam3m1 (190)
• United States
20 May 11
i've learned over a few years of listening to this pinwheel (coulter) that she has finally decided that by saying outrageous things, she can make more money in book sales, etc. a few years ago i caught an unscripted moment when she was complaining to staff of a tv program that she was getting famous but not making any money. the unfortunate thing is that because her words are carried by the media, that a certain percentage of people will accept what she says as truth. of course radiation is good for you. that's why people wear those big yellow suits and die when they get too much exposure.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27238)
• United States
3 Jun 11
I'm sure Ann would tell you it's really the suits that killed them...lol! Annie
• India
21 Mar 11
All electomagnetic radiations are not harmless, like xrays, radiations from radioactive substances, even those from cell phones.. cancer patients are exposed to radiations in 'controlled' dose decided by the doctor and only the selected area is exposed.. Thanks for sharing the link and this discussion Cheers. God bless you, have a nice day ahead. Professor ‘Bhuwan’. .
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27238)
• United States
25 Mar 11
Thank YOU for your contribution! Annie
@mythociate (15753)
• Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
20 Mar 11
I KNOW Ann Coulter is right! Ann Coulter is ALWAYS Right! No, we don't want to get too much radiation ... just like sunlight; ANYTHING beyond moderation is unhealthy. But I know the Japanese are getting it just-right.
@anniepa (27238)
• United States
25 Mar 11
I understand it may be even more "just right" now! Annie
1 person likes this
@jazel_juan (15767)
• Philippines
20 Mar 11
This made me skeptical but then if we want real proof on what she is saying, why not bring her to Japan and expose her first to radiation and then that is where we will find out if it is bad or not. Who agrees with me? i mean, precaution is still a must, people are scared of it because if what happened before and it might happen again but with the fact she was saying she sounds so sure of it! well i hope she is since Philippines is near in Japan hahahaha but bring her there and we will see if it is true!
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27238)
• United States
26 Mar 11
I'd chip in for the airline ticket to get her there. Annie
@jerzgirl (8027)
• Gloucester City, New Jersey
20 Mar 11
Man Coulter is a buffoon. Even Bill O'Reilly questioned her judgment, although he never FULLY declared it to be as dangerous as it is. It's like they're all on a leash and aren't allowed to actually tell one another they're wrong. They're only allowed to suggest that it's possible. So, he couldn't actually say she was an idiot. He could only say what he was allowed to say. Ann, on the other hand, would say ANYTHING if it was in opposition to what most Democrats believe, and right now, the Dems are in the White House and are concerned about radiation from Japan, so she is OBLIGATED to say whatever goes against what they're saying, even if it's totally absurd.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27238)
• United States
24 Mar 11
I just got an idea; someone should put out the idea that there really are "V's" here, as in the series "V" and that they've got human skin on them but are ugly lizards underneath. They could claim they've already infiltrated our government, maybe even suggest the President is one of them. Then when the White House denies the existence of any lizard people living among us Beck, Coulter, Bachmann and the rest of the looney-tunes will have no choice but to swear they're here! Annie
@ZephyrSun (7385)
• United States
19 Mar 11
LMAO! That was great, I really needed a good laugh. So don't worry if your arm falls along with your hair because radiation is good for you.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27238)
• United States
19 Mar 11
Ironically, if Coulter's hair fell out it would kill her since she wouldn't have it to toss around all the time. Talk about someone who is trying to look younger than she is and failing miserably...lol! Annie
• Philippines
19 Mar 11
With the technology today, all of us have been exposed to radiation. Maybe too much of it is something that is bad. I never knew that there is good side in being exposed to radiation though.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27238)
• United States
19 Mar 11
First of all, welcome to myLot and may you have much fun here! I never knew either there was a good side to being exposed to radiation! Annie
@TwiKnight (107)
• Malaysia
20 Mar 11
If it means I'm getting an extra arm with Mexican food-growing capabilities, an extra stomach to accommodate the indefinite helpings of Mexican food, and an extra leg to run quick to the nearest Mexican food restaurant, then I'm all for going to Japan. Well, I only believe her that much. Not much for the bit about radiation-induced cancer. Doesn't sound fun in the least.
1 person likes this
@andy77e (5165)
• United States
20 Mar 11
Actually the question isn't "is Ann Coulter right?"... The question is, is the New York Times, and the early 90s Department of Energy right? Ann Coulter was simply quoting a story printed in the New York Times, that was based on a report from the DOE in 1991. Funny how we always question the messenger instead of the source... isn't it Annie? However, given that we are exposed to varying amounts of radiation every day, and given how the largest source of harmful and helpful radiation is the Sun... Yes, it wouldn't surprise me if slightly elevated levels of radiation could possibly be healthy. I would have to look up and read the 1991 DOE report, and read the peer reviews of it. Until then, I don't know conclusively either way.
@anniepa (27238)
• United States
24 Mar 11
Yes, some of what she said is right, radiation treatment for cancer, for example, has saved lives. I'm not disputing that. My problem is that she refused to admit that high doses are often lethal either soon after the exposure or later on when someone is much more likely to get cancer. Annie
@andy77e (5165)
• United States
25 Mar 11
Everything she said was quoted from the New York Time and the DOE. Why would you expect her to stop and admit the obvious? I have not yet admitted that the sky is blue. Does that mean that since I haven't mentioned it, that I deny that the sky is blue? Everyone knows that overly high doses of radiation is bad. I personally don't read editorials, or any reading material of any kind, in order to be told what is blatantly obvious to everyone on the planet. The reason she didn't "admit" it is because she's a good writer and doesn't waste my time with "Captain Obvious" answers. This is like Obama telling us to inflate our tires during the 2008 campaign. Inflating our tires is a national energy policy? Reading your car's manual, is a brilliant plan by Obama? Lestists seem to need to be told the obvious, and when the obvious isn't said, then its some sort of cover-up. Rightist, like myself, do not need Coulter, or any other pundit, to tell us that high levels of radiation is bad. I can figure this out on my own. If the left in our country can not figure it out on their own, then that reflects more on them, than it does Ann Coulter.
@laglen (19782)
• United States
20 Mar 11
It seems to me that Ms Coulter is quoting physicists and not making a scientific statement on her own. And actually quite a few physicists. I am not a scientist or a doctor so I can not even pretend to know whether they are right or wrong. But when you look at the different ways that we are exposed to radiation and the benefits of radiation, well it seems to me that common sense says she may have a valid point.