Ann Coulter sez ....

#51
#51
IPorange said:
Tell this to the deformed children.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Like I said. There were acute levels of exposure that caused alot of problems. The most common was apparently thyroid cancer among children who drank milk from cows that ate contaminated grass. As you move into populations who were further out, the effects seem minimal and some claim even positive.
 
#52
#52
I will say that radiation isn't good for you, but it isn't always bad for you. There are fuzzy levels, and I would bet they are quite higher than most think. That said there's absolutely no reason not to take every extra precaution in this scenario, and that includes large evacuation areas and having people stay inside. Or if you don't live there, getting the hell out of Japan.
 
#54
#54
lawgator1 said:
I don't put any weight on what either has to say. They both rely on the outlier data to support their arguments and thereby kill their credibility.
Click to expand...

You of all people should not be condemning anyone who uses any kind of data.
 
#57
#57
I know I'm late to the party ...

It seemed to me that the point Ann Coulter was attempting to make is that the "safe" level of radiation is higher than what is the official "safe" level. She was also saying that there are doctors who have researched effects of radiation say that is it not as bad for us as people like to believe.

She wasn't saying radiation at any level is good, she is just saying that let's consider that higher levels of radiation are not necessarily bad for us.

BS crazy? Really?

I can see the logic. I am open to the idea that she could be right.
 
#58
#58
azVolFan said:
I know I'm late to the party ...

It seemed to me that the point Ann Coulter was attempting to make is that the "safe" level of radiation is higher than what is the official "safe" level. She was also saying that there are doctors who have researched effects of radiation say that is it not as bad for us as people like to believe.

She wasn't saying radiation at any level is good, she is just saying that let's consider that higher levels of radiation are not necessarily bad for us.

BS crazy? Really?

I can see the logic. I am open to the idea that she could be right.
Click to expand...

Sorry man. Her melodramatic babble for the last 10 years has tainted my view of her forever. Even if she is right, I'm still sticking with BS crazy.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#59
#59
lawgator1 said:
It's like watching a car crash. You can't take your eyes off it. Besides, as a fan of logic and someone who keeps his mind alert by spotting and correcting both blatant and sublte efforts to mislead by engaging in logical fallacies, I find them to be a gold mine of examples.
Click to expand...

You should tune in for Glenn Beck's happy hour.
 
#61
#61
Again, it's like saying water can be good for you. Of course, it's natural. We're all naturally slightly radioactive. This is a weird semantics game. The levels coming out of that plant aren't in the range of "good for you."
 
#62
#62
IPorange said:
Again, it's like saying water can be good for you. Of course, it's natural. We're all naturally slightly radioactive. This is a weird semantics game. The levels coming out of that plant aren't in the range of "good for you."
Click to expand...

I don't know that people should worry too much. I think we have an irrational fear of radiation. Studies show that survivors of Nagasaki and Hiroshima are living longer than the Japanese that were nowhere near the blasts.

Ralph Nader famously said that a pound of plutonium could cause 8 billion cancers. Scientist Bernard Cohen said he'd eat as much plutonium as Nader would eat coffee grounds. Nader declined the challenge. Cohen approached many major TV stations and stated that he would eat 1000 times as much plutonium as what Nader said would be fatal and he never heard back from anybody. Unfortunately the media in general is only interested in the scaremonger's side of the issue.
 
Last edited:
#63
#63
nbakerld said:
I don't know that people should worry too much. I think we have an irrational fear of radiation. Studies show that survivors of Nagasaki and Hiroshima are living longer than the Japanese that were nowhere near the blasts.
Click to expand...

Except all the ones that have already died. Dead men and women aren't around to tell their story now are they? 200,000 people died of cancer and leukemia in the five years after the bombs dropped, that lived in the vicinity of the cities.
 
#64
#64
This is exactly the same as arguing the sun doesn't cause skin cancer, or cigarettes don't cause lung cancer. Of course there isn't a direct, exposure= death relationship like with cyanide or something.
 
#65
#65
I believe you mentioned before that the Japanese people that survived also received better medical care throughout their life afterwards and that should be reiterated.
 
#66
#66
IPorange said:
Except all the ones that have already died. Dead men and women aren't around to tell their story now are they? 200,000 people died of cancer and leukemia in the five years after the bombs dropped, that lived in the vicinity of the cities.
Click to expand...

Yes, I realize that, but the point is the people that have lived long lives also had above "safe"-levels of exposure.
 
#67
#67
nbakerld said:
Yes, I realize that, but the point is the people that have lived long lives also had above "safe"-levels of exposure.
Click to expand...

I agree that the "safety" numbers are lower than perhaps the actual threshold before harm, and that there are some unexpected benefits to nominal extra radiation exposure. That doesn't mean the danger faced by those in vicinity of the Japanese nuclear plants in question are inconsequential.
 
#68
#68
nbakerld said:
I don't know that people should worry too much. I think we have an irrational fear of radiation. Studies show that survivors of Nagasaki and Hiroshima are living longer than the Japanese that were nowhere near the blasts.

Ralph Nader famously said that a pound of plutonium could cause 8 billion cancers. Scientist Bernard Cohen said he'd eat as much plutonium as Nader would eat coffee grounds. Nader declined the challenge. Cohen approached many major TV stations and stated that he would eat 1000 times as much plutonium as what Nader said would be fatal and he never heard back from anybody. Unfortunately the media in general is only interested in the scaremonger's side of the issue.
Click to expand...

I'm not calling you out specifically, but you happen to be on the last page, and I've seen this line of reasoning a lot now. I don't know where the uninformed (and frankly, pitiful) tripe is coming from about radiation being "good" for you, but the record needs to be set straight on the aftermath of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Wilfred Burchett of Australia, defied the US Military and made it to Hiroshima three days after the explosion:

WILFRED BURCHETT: These people were all in various states of physical disintegration. They would all die, but they were giving them whatever comfort could be given until they died. And the doctor explained that he didn’t know why they were dying. The only symptoms they could isolate from a medical point of view was that of acute vitamin deficiency. So they started giving vitamin injections. Then he explains where they put the needle in, then the flesh started to rot. And then, gradually, the thing would develop this bleeding, which they couldn’t stop, and then the hair falling out. And the hair falling out was more or less the last stage. And the number of the women who were lying there with sort of halos of their black hair which had already fallen out. I felt staggered, really staggered by what I’d seen. And just where I sat down, I found some lump of concrete, I remember, that had not been pulverized. I sat on that with my little Hermes typewriter, and my first words, I remember now, were, “I write this as a warning to the world.”
Click to expand...

Pulitzer Prize winner George Weller made it to Nagasaki in a rowboat. His report was censored by MacArthur, and his 25,000 word manuscript never returned (his son found a copy and has republished it in 2005):

ANTHONY WELLER: He was as astonished as the Japanese doctors were, of course, by what he referred to in his reports as “Disease X.” It was perhaps not so astonishing to see some of the scorches and burns that people had suffered. But to see people apparently unblemished at all by the bomb and who had seemingly survived intact suddenly finding themselves feeling unwell and going to hospital, sitting there on their cots surrounded by doctors and relatives who could do nothing, and finding, when he would go back the next day, that they had just died, or that, let’s say, a woman who had come through unscathed, making dinner for her husband and having the misfortune to make a very small cut in her finger while peeling a lemon, would just keep bleeding and bleed to death, because the platelets in her bloodstream had been so reduced that the blood couldn’t clot anymore.
Click to expand...

Can we shut the bleep up now about how good radiation is for us?
 
#69
#69
Jesus, some of y'all will argue anything if some right wing pundit says it... and I thought libs were the worst about that.
 
#70
#70
IPorange said:
I agree that the "safety" numbers are lower than perhaps the actual threshold before harm, and that there are some unexpected benefits to nominal extra radiation exposure. That doesn't mean the danger faced by those in vicinity of the Japanese nuclear plants in question are inconsequential.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with you and I wouldn't want to be in a position to risk eating nuclear plants (lol). People are acting like Coulter (whom I don't even like) said something monumentally ignorant a la Palin or Biden, but I'm merely pointing out that there is scientific support of what she said.
 
#71
#71
nbakerld said:
I totally agree with you and I wouldn't want to be in a position to risk eating nuclear plants (lol). People are acting like Coulter (whom I don't even like) said something monumentally ignorant a la Palin or Biden, but I'm merely pointing out that there is scientific support of what she said.
Click to expand...

I do understand your point. The issue, as it relates to Coulter (and Palin/Biden as you mentioned) is that she has hurt her credibility with melodramatic sometimes incoherent psychobabble about anything even remotely left of her views. She has tainted her own well. She makes the boy who cried wolf look like a model of restraint.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#72
#72
JayVols said:
I do understand your point. The issue, as it relates to Coulter (and Palin/Biden as you mentioned) is that she has hurt her credibility with melodramatic sometimes incoherent psychobabble about anything even remotely left of her views. She has tainted her own well. She makes the boy who cried wolf look like a model of restraint.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I read one of her books. Tell me about it.
 
#74
#74
nbakerld said:
I totally agree with you and I wouldn't want to be in a position to risk eating nuclear plants (lol). People are acting like Coulter (whom I don't even like) said something monumentally ignorant a la Palin or Biden, but I'm merely pointing out that there is scientific support of what she said.
Click to expand...

Can we see this science, please?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top