Ann Coulter sez ....

[lawgator1]

At this point, I feel the need to chime in with some context to my OP.

Coulter made this argument and my sense was not that she really thinks there is no worry. Rather, she was complaining about the, in her words, mainstream media, sensationalizing the threat from the Japanese reactors.

Now, she did it in what is her unfortunately perpetual antagonistic manner, and I could tell that O'Reilly was annoyed by it. He kept saying that he understood why she was pointing out that the media were really hyped on the story, but cautioning her to calm down, herself, because in her zeal to be contrary to the media, she was coming off as a bit unhinged.

For awhile, she kept it up, just insisting yada yada yada. But towards the end, her argument shifted more accurately focused on what she was really complaining about, which was the hype.

This, in a nutshell, is my main problem with so many of the Fox commentators. Its this seeming constant desire to pick at the mainstream, to antagonize by being so ridiculous sometimes. It just comes across as so contrived and whiney.

At the end, she was no longer trying to argue either that radiation is good for you, or that there isn't cause for concern in Japan. It came down to just anti media.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[IPorange]

Yes, I realize that, but the point is the people that have lived long lives also had above "safe"-levels of exposure.

Are you very familiar with statistics? There are always going to be outliers and full range of outcomes for environmental things like this. That doesn't change the overall effect. "Exceptional" is a real phenomenon.

Can we agree that getting shot in the chest is lethal? I think so. Can we agree that there are lots of people who survive being shot in the chest? Of course. Does this mean we can tell people to not be worried about being shot in the chest, and cite the examples of the people who received prompt treatment and luckily survived? Of course not.

That's the nature of the discussion we're having here.

 

[IPorange]

Can we see this science, please?

The science he states is real, but only part of the story. The other part is the horrible reality of too great of exposure to radiation, which is what we are really talking about in regards to these plants having a major release of radioactive material in the first place.

 

[IPorange]

At this point, I feel the need to chime in with some context to my OP.

Coulter made this argument and my sense was not that she really thinks there is no worry. Rather, she was complaining about the, in her words, mainstream media, sensationalizing the threat from the Japanese reactors.

Now, she did it in what is her unfortunately perpetual antagonistic manner, and I could tell that O'Reilly was annoyed by it. He kept saying that he understood why she was pointing out that the media were really hyped on the story, but cautioning her to calm down, herself, because in her zeal to be contrary to the media, she was coming off as a bit unhinged.

For awhile, she kept it up, just insisting yada yada yada. But towards the end, her argument shifted more accurately focused on what she was really complaining about, which was the hype.

This, in a nutshell, is my main problem with so many of the Fox commentators. Its this seeming constant desire to pick at the mainstream, to antagonize by being so ridiculous sometimes. It just comes across as so contrived and whiney.

At the end, she was no longer trying to argue either that radiation is good for you, or that there isn't cause for concern in Japan. It came down to just anti media.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Yes.

 

[utgibbs]

The science he states is real, but only part of the story. The other part is the horrible reality of too great of exposure to radiation, which is what we are really talking about in regards to these plants having a major release of radioactive material in the first place.

What are the health benefits of radiation exactly? What is the mechanism for "light" exposure promoting health? I didn't see this in the article.

 

[IPorange]

What are the health benefits of radiation exactly? What is the mechanism for "light" exposure promoting health? I didn't see this in the article.

The mechanism isn't well understood. Could be that it ramps up your cells' natural repairing abilities to compensate, which leads to less copying errors overall in the longterm. Like building up a stronger "baseline" of repair.

Consider that Denver, Colorado has the highest radiation levels of any metropolitan area in the US due to it's elevation. It's also widely considered the healthiest metropolitan area. There is no elevated cancer rates or anything, either.

Again though, there is a huge difference between the fluctuations of radiation occurring naturally in different parts of the world, and the fluctuations in radiation when you're working with nuclear fission plants.

 

[utgibbs]

The mechanism isn't well understood. Could be that it ramps up your cells' natural repairing abilities to compensate, which leads to less copying errors overall in the longterm. Like building up a stronger "baseline" of repair.

Consider that Denver, Colorado has the highest radiation levels of any metropolitan area in the US due to it's elevation. It's also widely considered the healthiest metropolitan area. There is no elevated cancer rates or anything, either.

Again though, there is a huge difference between the fluctuations of radiation occurring naturally in different parts of the world, and the fluctuations in radiation when you're working with nuclear fission plants.

I'm really finding it difficult to ascribe these health benefits to radiation. It could be any number of effects.

The pilot example springs to mind. It's a career field which is well-educated, quite isolated, actually, from the carcinogens which, for instance, would plague taxi drivers, and probably from a cross-section of the population engaged in regular exercise throughout life.

It seems to me the "science" behind these assertations would be quite hard to pin down....

I think I will look for some peer-reviewed literature on this. Any you have found useful would be greatly appreciated. :hi: