|
Author
|
Topic: Coulter on radiation
|
AcousticGod
Knowflake Posts: 4944
From: Pleasanton, CA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted March 18, 2011 02:15 PM
  
Ann Coulter tells Bill O'Reilly: Radiation is good for youThe conservative author defends her blog post, "A glowing report on radiation." Bill O'Reilly doesn't buy it What's the opposite of fear-mongering? False-sense-of-security-mongering, probably. Or whatever you'd call Ann Coulter's latest blog post claiming that radiation does a body good:
With the terrible earthquake and resulting tsunami that have devastated Japan, the only good news is that anyone exposed to excess radiation from the nuclear power plants is now probably much less likely to get cancer. Coulter cites a 10-year-old newspaper article and some studies by fringe scientists as proof to her theory. She goes on to compare radition -- which she says is "a sort of cancer vaccine" -- to "poisons" like zinc and magnesium found in multi-vitamins. Bill O'Reilly invited Coulter onto his show last night and scolded her for misleading the audience into misunderstanding the well established dangers of radiation: [video] Salon.com
IP: Logged |
jwhop
Knowflake Posts: 3038
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted March 18, 2011 03:36 PM
Population studies from higher than normal radiation areas back Coulter up. Which is not to say that someone exposed to what would normally be a lethal dose of radiation would benefit from that dose of radiation.Let's understand that one of the most widely used treatments for cancer is radiation thearpy.
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/nuclear.html
http://www.haciendapub.com/article50.html IP: Logged |
Randall
Webmaster Posts: 6883
From: The Goober Galaxy
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted March 18, 2011 05:49 PM
Radiation is typically focused (as much as possible) on the cancer cells themselves and the immediate surrounding tissue, as radiation kills all cells indiscriminantly; however, we do get varying levels of radiation from all sorts of daily contact with various objects, including foods that we eat.------------------
"Never mentally imagine for another that which you would not want to experience for yourself, since the mental image you send out inevitably comes back to you." Rebecca Clark IP: Logged |
katatonic
Knowflake Posts: 6169
From:
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted March 18, 2011 06:16 PM
yes if you HAVE cancer, radiation can burn it out...but also the surrounding tissues, leaving a host of longterm side effects according to the few people i know who have experienced it. and many cancer survivors go on to re-experience the disease, so it's a tough call whether radiation has anything to do with that. personally i would rather not test it out...that said, despite the horrific loss of life and genetic mutation in japan after 45, the population in general does NOT seem to have suffered too drastically, as one might have expected... the HUGE numbers of cancers especially in children after chernobyl probably would NOT have happened without that accident, as figures from before and after pretty well lay out. IP: Logged |
Randall
Webmaster Posts: 6883
From: The Goober Galaxy
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted March 18, 2011 07:04 PM
Radiation is quite effective when it can be localized on a tumor. But they do require those administering it to stand behind iron shields. We are bombarded with radiation daily, and it seems that we have adapted to low levels. Radiation comes from the ground, rocks, space, millions of man-made objects, concrete, drywall, and fruits/vegetables. Bananas contain radioactive potassium-40, and nuclear plants actually measure radiation release by comparing it relative to the amount released by one banana. Bananas are so radioactive that you don't have to eat one to get a dose. If you stand next to a case, you are getting a pretty powerful amount. But Brazil nuts have 1,000 times more radiation than any other food...and it's in the form of radium. Our bodies have no use for radium. So, high levels of radiation can cause mutations in cells (leading to cancer) and death of cells. But interestingly, after three mile island, the radioactive iodine amount found in milk was less than found in one banana. BTW, if you see something shiny, glossy, or glowing-in-the dark, it's radioactive! I know a guy who has been produce manager for almost 20 years. That's a lot of radiation from a lot of cases of bananas. He is a very healthy guy. No cancer yet anyway.IP: Logged |
Randall
Webmaster Posts: 6883
From: The Goober Galaxy
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted March 18, 2011 08:51 PM
So, I guess I'm on the fence with this one. While there is plenty of evidence to support her main thesis, equating it to a cancer vaccine was a bit much. And no one can refute the lethal dangers of massive amounts of radiation being released near human populations. Plus, it was a rather rude and insensitive thing to say in light of the tragedy that occurred prior to the meltdown that resulted in devastation so bad that it may collapse their economy when combined with the loss of electrical power and resulting loss of factory production...and the incalculable loss of 10,000 or more human lives.  IP: Logged |
BearsArcher
Moderator Posts: 588
From: Arizona with Bear the Leo
Registered: Apr 2010
|
posted March 19, 2011 04:05 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Randall:
So, I guess I'm on the fence with this one. While there is plenty of evidence to support her main thesis, equating it to a cancer vaccine was a bit much. And no one can refute the lethal dangers of massive amounts of radiation being released near human populations. Plus, it was a rather rude and insensitive thing to say in light of the tragedy that occurred prior to the meltdown that resulted in devastation so bad that it may collapse their economy when combined with the loss of electrical power and resulting loss of factory production...and the incalculable loss of 10,000 or more human lives.
It all goes to genetics. Radiation can turn cancer genes off and turn others on. Our genetic predisposition may exist and when exposed to specific environmental stimulants, the genes begin to express. Then there are cancer cells that exist (genes / environment) that when exposed to radiation- disappear. I think that there is too much hype revolving around the potential risk of radiation poisoning here in the states. We receive higher doses being exposed to X-rays and going through the TSA scanners than we will from the fall out from Japan. IP: Logged |
Randall
Webmaster Posts: 6883
From: The Goober Galaxy
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted March 19, 2011 06:26 AM
I agree. But as far as the amounts in Japan, it is tragic.Some radiation is worse than others. You definitely wouldn't want to carry around uranium in your pocket.IP: Logged |
Randall
Webmaster Posts: 6883
From: The Goober Galaxy
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted March 19, 2011 02:12 PM
Oh, and I hope I didn't scare anyone from eating bananas. The body excretes excess potassiuum to maintain homeostasis (although sodium in excess can throw off the homeostatic balance if potassium levels are low), so the radioactive potassium-40 isn't absorbed by tissues. Brazil nuts are a bit different, as they contain radium; however, they also come with a built-in defense--a single nut contains some of the highest levels of selenium in a single food (50 micrograms), which defend against the radiation. Nature has built-in safeguards. Selenium has a lot of research behind it as an anti-cancer nutrient. While doctors typically only have one class in nutrition in medical school (and it's an elective), there is a ton of medical research done on various vitamins/minerals, including double blind longitudinal studies. Cancer patients are always low in certain nutrients, including low blood serum levels of selenium (allowing for the fact that cancer uses more nutrition from the body). That doesn't mean that there is a causal relationship, but the correlation is difficult to ignore. Patients who take selenium in daily 200 microgram amounts have over a third less incidences of cancer as compared to a placebo, and this seems to be a replicatable constant. ------------------
"Never mentally imagine for another that which you would not want to experience for yourself, since the mental image you send out inevitably comes back to you." Rebecca Clark IP: Logged |
SunChild
Moderator Posts: 1970
From: Australia
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted March 19, 2011 11:14 PM
Excellent info Randall!  ------------------
“It’s an interesting thing. Seeing Kuan Yin relating to a flower so intently. She's not just looking at it; she's interacting with it…I’m seeing how the act of relating to a flower appears to be so simple. Yet, it takes a tremendous amount of courage to make such a “simple” act important. Now, the lotus is floating away.” IP: Logged |
Randall
Webmaster Posts: 6883
From: The Goober Galaxy
Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted March 21, 2011 01:04 AM
Thanks, SC.IP: Logged |
Lindaland
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
