PDA

View Full Version : Ann Coulter says radiation is good for you



wolfdancer
03-18-2011, 10:25 PM
...on the Larry King show...., another more sobering report on Huffpo, says that some of our east coast nuclear plants, sit on shaky ground. So, this might be a "good thing" in Ann's way of thinking....might restore that youthful glow????
I'm sure that the Japanese who were exposed will now take heart, as Ann says this will reduce their chances of contracting cancer.
To Bill O'Really's credit, he did hot seem to put much stock in her "scientific" report. I think when they cut her small brain off, it affected her reasoning......but she has made a career and a small fortune of being controversial.

Chopstick
03-19-2011, 12:45 AM
A few words about radiation from the inventor of the neutron bomb. He drives a Chevy Malibu. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

Radiation is good for you (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qljXevEW2W0&feature=related)

LWW
03-19-2011, 02:13 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chopstick</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A few words about radiation from the inventor of the neutron bomb. He drives a Chevy Malibu. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

Radiation is good for you (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qljXevEW2W0&feature=related) </div></div>

Woofie obviously has no idea what he's talking about again.

Much like parrots who repeat what they are taught to repeat, yet have no actual understanding of what they are squawking.

What AC actually said is that studies conducted by the United Nations, Harvard, University of Massachusetts, University of Pittsburgh, New York Times science section, US Govt, Canadian Govt, Taiwanese Govt, and US Dept of Energy all back up the "HORMESIS" hypothesis ... that levels of radiation several times the "SAFE" level advised by the US federal gubmint actually has beneficial health effects.

But, as we have seen so often in the past, the far left will often desperately cling to whatever the omniscient state tells them to believe while rejecting the results of scientific experimentation.

OH DEAR! (http://anncoulter.com/)

pooltchr
03-19-2011, 06:59 AM
Simple minds have to keep decision making to a minimum. Hence, in their world, if Coulter, Limbaugh, or Beck say anything, it must be wrong. And if any Dem says anything, it must be correct.

It's the only way they can function.

Steve

LWW
03-19-2011, 12:13 PM
How true.

As an added nail in the coffin of a ridiculously lame argument however ... modern medicine uses increased radiation in everything from dental X-rays to cancer treatment.

Much of our food supply is irradiated before it's shipped to the store ... in fact, I'm going to irradiate some lunch.

wolfdancer
03-19-2011, 12:23 PM
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

wolfdancer
03-19-2011, 01:30 PM
Do you have some proof of your latest "insider's info" claim?
If anyone here on this board looks to you for "The definitive" answer to something being "debated" here, then I feel sorry for them; also have a nice deal for them. I am selling shares on the Brooklyn Bridge .......
Since you place so much stock in Ann, Rush, Glenn,Bill, and the entire Fox news team of talking heads, while believing yourself to be some kind of authoritative commenter on their diatribe ....I think you can overlook others who might not share in your unbridled faith in these f**ks, er, folks, and who then might look elsewhere for their news updates....As an aside...it's informative to get divergent opinions and not just buy into someone's bs just because they are saying what you want to hear.

wolfdancer
03-19-2011, 01:50 PM
another insulting post made just for the sake of insulting others.
You can buy into the dickless wonder's claim to now being an expert on
safe radiation limits....but I only listen to accredited scientists.
When I was a teen, the accepted treatment for acne, was X-ray treatments. Wonder how many they blinded, or caused skin or brain cancers before they discovered how dangerous it was?
And then the poor souls; military personnel, that were used to test the effects of radiation at the White Sands testing grounds.
It's well documented how badly they fared later on in life.
Before you object about that...you may want to check it.
This was the early warning given by our Gov't. in event of a nuclear attack...."dig a trench a few ft deep jump in, cover yourself, don't look up, ...... then bend over and kiss your a** goodbye" (I added the final bit of sage advice)

pooltchr
03-19-2011, 01:51 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...it's informative to get divergent opinions and not just buy into someone's bs just because they are saying what you want to hear. </div></div>

Practice what you preach, woofie.
Practice what you preach.

Steve

wolfdancer
03-19-2011, 02:02 PM
I don't go around posing as some kind of authority on topics. I think you folks what do, set yerselves up for a big fall, but that is just my own idea. Hence the links, when I make some kind of a declarative post.....but, but, since you object to similar posts of Gayle's, when her links don't agree with your own ideas?
.....why am I trying to reason with you?

pooltchr
03-19-2011, 04:22 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't go around posing as some kind of authority on topics. </div></div>

You do, and you don't even know it. You are quick to shoot down everyone else, which is the same thing. Perhaps it never crossed you little brain, but there are other people who also do research on topics. You and your friends choose to select the reviews that are published by those who agree with you (Huffpo, for example), and choose to ignore other resources.

You think as long as someone agrees with your expert opinion, it must be right. But if anyone dares to challenge your opinion, then it must be wrong.

Steve

Stretch
03-19-2011, 04:48 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How true.

As an added nail in the coffin of a ridiculously lame argument however ... modern medicine uses increased radiation in everything from dental X-rays to cancer treatment.

Much of our food supply is irradiated before it's shipped to the store ... in fact, I'm going to irradiate some lunch. </div></div>

Stretch
03-19-2011, 04:51 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How true.

As an added nail in the coffin of a ridiculously lame argument however ... modern medicine uses increased radiation in everything from dental X-rays to cancer treatment.

Much of our food supply is irradiated before it's shipped to the store ... in fact, I'm going to irradiate some lunch. </div></div>

Dental x-rays, ya real safe. Is that why they drape a lead apron over you and leave the room? St.

pooltchr
03-19-2011, 06:09 PM
That's probably because you only do it once every 6 months, while the x-ray techs do it several times a day.

Steve

Qtec
03-19-2011, 06:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That's probably because you only do it once every 6 months, while the x-ray techs do it several times a day.

Steve </div></div>

There is radiation and there is radiation.

There is a BIG difference between having an x-ray and breathing in radioactive particles.

Q

pooltchr
03-19-2011, 07:20 PM
And controlled radiation has some very positive uses.

Steve

Qtec
03-19-2011, 07:53 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And controlled radiation has some very positive uses.

Steve </div></div>

So?

Tell me which medical procedure requires you to breathe in radioactive perticles which WILL give you cancer?

Q

LWW
03-20-2011, 02:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...it's informative to get divergent opinions and not just buy into someone's bs just because they are saying what you want to hear. </div></div>

Practice what you preach, woofie.
Practice what you preach.

Steve </div></div>

I've been telling him that for years.

The rest of the post is an attestation to his inability to read.

LWW
03-20-2011, 02:45 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't go around posing as some kind of authority on topics. </div></div>

You do, and you don't even know it. You are quick to shoot down everyone else, which is the same thing. Perhaps it never crossed you little brain, but there are other people who also do research on topics. You and your friends choose to select the reviews that are published by those who agree with you (Huffpo, for example), and choose to ignore other resources.

You think as long as someone agrees with your expert opinion, it must be right. But if anyone dares to challenge your opinion, then it must be wrong.

Steve </div></div>

Well, I have to give him the point that I don't know of anyone who has ever mistook him as an expert on anything.

LWW
03-20-2011, 02:58 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And controlled radiation has some very positive uses.

Steve </div></div>

What's amazing is that some people don't realize that nearly all human exposure to radiation is through breathing in radioactive particles.

Snoopy and woofie really should review the voluminous data supplied by AC instead of cowering in fear waiting for the state to save them.

Soflasnapper
03-20-2011, 03:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chopstick</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A few words about radiation from the inventor of the neutron bomb. He drives a Chevy Malibu. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

Radiation is good for you (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qljXevEW2W0&feature=related) </div></div>

Woofie obviously has no idea what he's talking about again.

Much like parrots who repeat what they are taught to repeat, yet have no actual understanding of what they are squawking.

What AC actually said is that studies conducted by the United Nations, Harvard, University of Massachusetts, University of Pittsburgh, New York Times science section, US Govt, Canadian Govt, Taiwanese Govt, and US Dept of Energy all back up the "HORMESIS" hypothesis ... that levels of radiation several times the "SAFE" level advised by the US federal gubmint actually has beneficial health effects.

But, as we have seen so often in the past, the far left will often desperately cling to whatever the omniscient state tells them to believe while rejecting the results of scientific experimentation.

OH DEAR! (http://anncoulter.com/)
</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I only know about hormesis from my dabbling in teratology; a pharmacologist or toxicologist would be a far better source. But I know enough about hormesis to tell you that she's wrong. She has taken a tiny grain of truth and mangled it to make an entirely fallacious argument.

Radiation is always harmful it breaks DNA, for instance, and can produce free radicals that damage cells. You want to minimize exposure as much as possible, all right? However, your cells also have repair and protective mechanisms that they can switch on or up-regulate and produce a positive effect. So: radiation is bad for you, cellular defense mechanisms are good for you.

Hormesis refers to a biphasic dose response curve. That is, when exposed to a toxic agent at very low doses, you may observe an initial reduction in deleterious effects; as the dose is increased, you begin to see a dose-dependent increase in the effects. The most likely mechanism is an upregulation of cellular defenses that overcompensates for the damage the agent is doing. This is real (I told you there's a grain of truth to what she wrote), and it's been observed in multiple situations. I can even give an example from my own work.

Alcohol is a teratogenic substance it causes severe deformities in zebrafish embryos at high doses and prolonged exposure, on the order of several percent for several hours. I've done concentration series, where we give sets of embryos exposures at increasing concentrations, and we get a nice linear curve out of it: more alcohol leads to increasing frequency and severity of midline and branchial arch defects. With one exception: at low concentrations of about 0.5% alcohol, the treated embryos actually have reduced mortality rates relative to the controls, and no developmental anomalies.

If Ann Coulter got her hands on that work, she'd probably be arguing that pregnant women ought to run out and party all night. </div></div>

Ann Coulter's lawyer training ill equips her to understand science (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/03/will_radiation_hormesis_protec.php)

Stretch
03-20-2011, 06:40 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chopstick</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A few words about radiation from the inventor of the neutron bomb. He drives a Chevy Malibu. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

Radiation is good for you (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qljXevEW2W0&feature=related) </div></div>

Woofie obviously has no idea what he's talking about again.

Much like parrots who repeat what they are taught to repeat, yet have no actual understanding of what they are squawking.

What AC actually said is that studies conducted by the United Nations, Harvard, University of Massachusetts, University of Pittsburgh, New York Times science section, US Govt, Canadian Govt, Taiwanese Govt, and US Dept of Energy all back up the "HORMESIS" hypothesis ... that levels of radiation several times the "SAFE" level advised by the US federal gubmint actually has beneficial health effects.

But, as we have seen so often in the past, the far left will often desperately cling to whatever the omniscient state tells them to believe while rejecting the results of scientific experimentation.

OH DEAR! (http://anncoulter.com/)
</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I only know about hormesis from my dabbling in teratology; a pharmacologist or toxicologist would be a far better source. But I know enough about hormesis to tell you that she's wrong. She has taken a tiny grain of truth and mangled it to make an entirely fallacious argument.

Radiation is always harmful it breaks DNA, for instance, and can produce free radicals that damage cells. You want to minimize exposure as much as possible, all right? However, your cells also have repair and protective mechanisms that they can switch on or up-regulate and produce a positive effect. So: radiation is bad for you, cellular defense mechanisms are good for you.

Hormesis refers to a biphasic dose response curve. That is, when exposed to a toxic agent at very low doses, you may observe an initial reduction in deleterious effects; as the dose is increased, you begin to see a dose-dependent increase in the effects. The most likely mechanism is an upregulation of cellular defenses that overcompensates for the damage the agent is doing. This is real (I told you there's a grain of truth to what she wrote), and it's been observed in multiple situations. I can even give an example from my own work.

Alcohol is a teratogenic substance it causes severe deformities in zebrafish embryos at high doses and prolonged exposure, on the order of several percent for several hours. I've done concentration series, where we give sets of embryos exposures at increasing concentrations, and we get a nice linear curve out of it: more alcohol leads to increasing frequency and severity of midline and branchial arch defects. With one exception: at low concentrations of about 0.5% alcohol, the treated embryos actually have reduced mortality rates relative to the controls, and no developmental anomalies.

If Ann Coulter got her hands on that work, she'd probably be arguing that pregnant women ought to run out and party all night. </div></div>

Ann Coulter's lawyer training ill equips her to understand science (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/03/will_radiation_hormesis_protec.php) </div></div>

It's obvious to everyone here that Ann Coulter and LWW have a lot in common. Both are garden variety provocateurs who kindle tiny grains of truth and feeds it hate and spin in order to enjoy the firestorm.

Political pyromania is the only way he can "get off", sad. St.

Sev
03-20-2011, 06:52 AM
Did you know that NYC is radioactive? They try not to talk about that. Much of the concrete in the city is radio active.

Soflasnapper
03-20-2011, 01:04 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Did you know that NYC is radioactive? They try not to talk about that. Much of the concrete in the city is radio active. </div></div>

So do we expect better health from that, or worse?

BTW, I've read the Israeli embassy in NYC registers hot for radioactivity.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">One alleged radiation hot spot on Manhattan's east side has the
potential for becoming a political hot spot: A strong radiation spike
from the area of the Israeli Embassy. Officials would not comment on why
they thought that particular area allegedly showed such a stunning peak
in radiation.
</div></div>

Results of aerial radioactivity survey for NYC (http://cleveland.indymedia.org/news/2006/10/22798.php)

LWW
03-20-2011, 04:21 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ann Coulter's lawyer training ill equips her to understand science (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/03/will_radiation_hormesis_protec.php) </div></div>

That's astounding coming from you.

AC made no effort to do anything other than point those cowering in fear under their covers with their iodine tablets to look at the results of actual scientific research ... as opposed to the spoon fed anti capitalist pap the US far left prefers.

Soflasnapper
03-21-2011, 04:29 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ann Coulter's lawyer training ill equips her to understand science (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/03/will_radiation_hormesis_protec.php) </div></div>

That's astounding coming from you.

AC made no effort to do anything other than point those cowering in fear under their covers with their iodine tablets to look at the results of actual scientific research ... as opposed to the spoon fed anti capitalist pap the US far left prefers. </div></div>

What's astounding about that, from me? She's a lawyer, and lawyers don't concentrate their studies in the sciences, in math or statistics, leaving them at the mercy of headline writers.

Coulter misrepresented the controversy over hormesis as an apologetic against those who think (correctly) that radiation is harmful, to say there is nothing to worry about. To such a degree that she had even Bill-O scoffing (at least for this once, correctly).

Qtec
03-21-2011, 10:25 PM
Who listens to A Coulter?

She's a shock-jock attention whore.

Q

LWW
03-22-2011, 04:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ann Coulter's lawyer training ill equips her to understand science (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/03/will_radiation_hormesis_protec.php) </div></div>

That's astounding coming from you.

AC made no effort to do anything other than point those cowering in fear under their covers with their iodine tablets to look at the results of actual scientific research ... as opposed to the spoon fed anti capitalist pap the US far left prefers. </div></div>

What's astounding about that, from me? She's a lawyer, and lawyers don't concentrate their studies in the sciences, in math or statistics, leaving them at the mercy of headline writers.

Coulter misrepresented the controversy over hormesis as an apologetic against those who think (correctly) that radiation is harmful, to say there is nothing to worry about. To such a degree that she had even Bill-O scoffing (at least for this once, correctly). </div></div>

Do you honestly believe that Americans will be harmed by the radiation coming across the ocean from Japan?

Do you really believe TMI was a nuclear disaster?

Please tell me you aren't that far gone.

Qtec
03-22-2011, 05:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ann Coulter's lawyer training ill equips her to understand science (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/03/will_radiation_hormesis_protec.php) </div></div>

That's astounding coming from you.

AC made no effort to do anything other than point those cowering in fear under their covers with their iodine tablets to look at the results of actual scientific research ... as opposed to the spoon fed anti capitalist pap the US far left prefers. </div></div>

What's astounding about that, from me? She's a lawyer, and lawyers don't concentrate their studies in the sciences, in math or statistics, leaving them at the mercy of headline writers.

Coulter misrepresented the controversy over hormesis as an apologetic against those who think (correctly) that radiation is harmful, to say there is nothing to worry about. To such a degree that she had even Bill-O scoffing (at least for this once, correctly). </div></div>

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>Do you honestly believe that Americans will be harmed by the radiation coming across the ocean from Japan?</span>

Do you really believe TMI was a nuclear disaster?

Please tell me you aren't that far gone. </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="color: #990000">Nearly 370 farms in Britain are still restricted in the way they use land and rear sheep <span style='font-size: 14pt'>because of radioactive fallout from the Chernobyl nuclear power station accident 23 years ago,</span> the government has admitted.</span>

Environmentalists have seized on the figures as proof of the enormous dangers posed by nuclear power as the UK moves towards building a new generation of plants around the country.

Dawn Primarolo, minister for health, revealed 369 farms and 190,000 sheep were affected, but pointed out this was a tiny number compared with the immediate impact of radioactive fallout from Ukraine.

"<span style='font-size: 14pt'>This represents a reduction of over 95% since 1986, when approximately 9,700 farms and 4,225,000 sheep were under restriction across the United Kingdom.</span> All restrictions in Northern Ireland were lifted in 2000," she added.

Critics of the nuclear industry expressed alarm at the latest numbers, which they believed would increase public unease about the highly toxic and long-term impact of radioactivity.

David Lowry, a member of Nuclear Waste Advisory Associates, said the figures demonstrated the "unforgiving hazards" of radioactivity dispersed into the environment, whether from Chernobyl in Ukraine, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>thousands of miles away and 23 years ago, </span>or over decades from the Faslane nuclear submarine base in Scotland, as revealed by the Guardian last month. </div></div>


link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/may/12/farmers-restricted-chernobyl-disaster)

I guess the answer would be yes.

Q

LWW
03-22-2011, 05:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Did you know that NYC is radioactive? They try not to talk about that. Much of the concrete in the city is radio active. </div></div>

His Snoopy brother thinks that Chernobyl is in Pennsylvania ... so, again, the bar has been held far too high.

Soflasnapper
03-22-2011, 03:57 PM
Do you honestly believe that Americans will be harmed by the radiation coming across the ocean from Japan?

Perhaps they might. All that would have to happen to make it a certainty is that biological concentration up the food chain yields a high enough eventual level to exceed the very small levels for which the hormesis claims obtain.

So unless Ann Coulter can show certainty on how much we'll receive, how much that may be concentrated going through the food chain, and EXACTLY where the hormesis effect applies and then ENDS, so we can be sure we will remain below where nobody claims there are healthful effects, it remains a possible danger.

Do you really believe TMI was a nuclear disaster?


Without knowing your definition, it is hard to say. However, it's clear that the promises of safety and no chance of release, that the controls were entirely adequate and failsafe, proved to be wrong. It certainly was a nuclear power industry disaster in that respect, opening the eyes of the public as to the inadequacies of the industry to be able to live up to their solemn assurances, and their technologies able to do what they were designed to do.

wolfdancer
03-23-2011, 01:37 AM
I like my sources, the ones I take the time to check, and then link to. Your usual backup to support your claims are the talking heads at Fox.....sorry, but with them it's hard to separate fact from fiction. The problem seems to be that...a good reporter reports, then comments on the news.....they "spin" the news,first, then comment....
In this case...since Ann says "radiation good" for you....why don't you stick your head in a microwave oven and report back to us?

LWW
03-23-2011, 01:38 AM
The correct answers are:

1 - Unless and until the reactor situation in Japan worsens by a large amount, there will be no legitimate health hazard to Americans. The media has used this as a a sensationalist tool and far too many people are buying into it.

2 - TMI harmed nobody.

pooltchr
03-23-2011, 07:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[i]Without knowing your definition, it is hard to say. However, it's clear that the promises of safety and no chance of release, that the controls were entirely adequate and failsafe, proved to be wrong. It certainly was a nuclear power industry disaster in that respect, opening the eyes of the public as to the inadequacies of the industry to be able to live up to their solemn assurances, and their technologies able to do what they were designed to do. </div></div>

What you are saying is true for everything. As we grow and progress, we learn, and we adapt new ideas.
Remember when cars didn't have seatbelts? We all thought they were fine, but we have learned that seatbelts are a good idea to reduce risk, so we now have seatbelts.
Your parents probably thought it was fine for you to ride your bicycle without any head protection. Today's parents see things differently. Were your parents wrong to let you ride your bike?

Housed didn't used to need smoke detectors, but now, most people wouldn't consider not having a couple of them.

As we become more educated, we learn from the past. Will the people 50 years in the future think we were foolish for some of the things we do today? Probably!

But we can't stop living just because we haven't reached perfection yet. We never will.

It's like playing pool. No matter how good you get, there is always going to be room for improvement. But we don't quit, just because we aren't good enough. We work to get better.

Steve

Gayle in MD
03-23-2011, 08:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I like my sources, the ones I take the time to check, and then link to. Your usual backup to support your claims are the talking heads at Fox.....sorry, but with them it's hard to separate fact from fiction. The problem seems to be that...a good reporter reports, then comments on the news.....they "spin" the news,first, then comment....
In this case...since Ann says "radiation good" for you....why don't you stick your head in a microwave oven and report back to us? </div></div>

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Ha ha ha...good one!

LWW
03-23-2011, 09:12 AM
Careful, woofie and Gee will start wishing for your demise.

What fuels such hatred still remains a mystery to me.

ugotda7
03-23-2011, 11:23 PM
It's great that libtards lived up to their billing.....the more things change the more they stay the same.

by Ann Coulter
03/23/2011

In response to my column last week about hormesis -- the theory that some radiation can be beneficial to humans -- liberals reacted with their usual open-minded examination of the facts.

According to Noel Sheppard at Newsbusters, MSNBC's Ed Schultz devoted an entire segment to denouncing me. He called me toxic, accused me of spreading misinformation and said I didn't care about science.

One thing Schultz did not do, however, was cite a single physicist or scientific study.


I cited three physicists by name as well as four studies supporting hormesis in my column. For the benefit of liberals scared of science, I even cited The New York Times.

It tells you something that the most powerful repudiation of hormesis Schultz could produce was the fact that a series of government agencies have concluded -- I quote -- that "insufficient human data on hormesis exists."

Well, in that case, I take it all ba - wait, no. That contradicts nothing I said in my column.

Liberals should take up their quarrel with the physicists cited by both me and the Times. I'm sure the Harvard physics department will be fascinated to discover that the left's idea of the scientific method is to cling to their fears while hurling invective at anyone who proposes a novel thesis.

The fact that liberals are so terrified of science that they chronically wet themselves wouldn't be half as annoying if they didn't go around boasting about their deep respect for science, especially compared to conservatives.

Apparently this criticism is based on conservatives' skepticism about global warming -- despite the studies of distinguished research scientists Dr. Alicia Silverstone and Dr. Woody Harrelson. (In my case, it's only because I'm still waiting for liberals' global cooling theory from the '70s to come true.)

The left's idea of "science" is that we should all be riding bicycles and using the Clivus Multrum composting latrines instead of flush toilets. Anyone who dissents, they say -- while adjusting their healing crystals for emphasis -- is "afraid of science."

A review of the record, however, shows that time and again liberals have been willing to corrupt public policy and allow people to die in order to enforce the Luddite views of groups such as the Union of Concerned Scientists (original name, "Union of Concerned Activist Lawyers Who Took a Science Course in High School").

As I described in my book "Godless," both the government and the entire mainstream media lied about AIDS in the '80s by scaring Americans into believing that heterosexuals were as much at risk for acquiring AIDS as gays and intravenous drug users. The science had to be lied about so no one's feelings got hurt.

In 1985, Life magazine's cover proclaimed: "NOW, NO ONE IS SAFE FROM AIDS." In 1987, U.S. News & World Report reported that AIDS was "finding fertile growth among heterosexuals." Also in 1987, Dr. Oprah Winfrey said that "research studies" predicted that "one in five heterosexuals could be dead from AIDS at the end of the next three years."

In 1988, ABC's "20/20" claimed the CDC had discovered a shocking upsurge of heterosexual infections on college campuses. It struck no one as odd that 28 of the 30 infections had occurred in men (with alphabetized spice racks and at least three cats, one named Blanche).

Two years later, CNN broadcast that same 1988 study, proclaiming: "A new report from CDC indicates that AIDS is on the rise on college campuses."

A quarter-century later, and we're still waiting for the big heterosexual AIDS outbreak.

But at least science achieved its primary purpose: AIDS was not stigmatized as a "gay disease." Scientific facts were ignored so that science would be nonjudgmental. That was more important than the truth.

Liberal activists also gave us the alar scare in the late '80S based on the studies of world renowned chemist and national treasure Meryl Streep.

Alar is a perfectly safe substance that had been used on apples since 1968 both to ripen and preserve the fruit. It made fresh fruit more accessible by allowing fruit pickers to make one sweep through the apple grove, producing ripe, fresh fruit to be distributed widely and cheaply.

But after hearing the blood-chilling testimony of Streep, hysterical soccer moms across America hopped in their Volvos, dashed to their children's schools and ripped the apples from the little ones' lunch boxes. "Delicious, McIntosh and Granny Smith" were added to "Hitler, Stalin and Mao" as names that will live in infamy.

The EPA proposed banning alar based on a study that involved pumping tens of thousands times more alar into rats than any human could possibly consume, and observing the results. The rats died -- of poisoning, not tumors but the EPA banned it anyway. Poor people went back to eating Twinkies instead of healthy fresh fruit.

Meanwhile, the World Health Organization advised against an alar ban and Europeans continued to eat fruit with alar in their nice warm houses powered by nuclear energy (halted in the U.S. thanks to the important work of Dr. Jackson Browne and Dr. Bonnie Raitt).

Other scientific theories developed in the laboratories of personal injury lawyers and TV networks included the left's "cancer cluster" claim in the '80s. The Centers for Disease Control investigated 108 alleged "cancer clusters" that had occurred between 1961 to 1983 and found no explanation for them other than coincidence -- and a demonstrable proximity to someone with deep pockets.

As Yale epidemiologist Michael Bracken explained: "Diseases don't fall evenly on every town like snow." Random chance will lead some areas to have higher, sometimes oddly higher, numbers of cancer.

But just to be safe, we all better stop driving cars, eating off of clean dishes and using aerosol sprays.

Some of the other scientific studies and innovations that make liberals cry are: vaccines, IQ studies, breast implants and DDT.

After decades of this nonsense, The New York Times' Paul Krugman has the audacity to brag that liberals believe the "truth should be determined by research, not revelation." Yes -- provided the "research" is conducted by trial lawyers and Hollywood actresses rather than actual scientists.

LWW
03-24-2011, 04:19 AM
Thanks for sharing, that work is a thing of beauty.

I especially agree with this part:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Liberals should take up their quarrel with the physicists cited by both me and the Times. I'm sure the Harvard physics department will be fascinated to discover that the left's idea of the scientific method is to cling to their fears while hurling invective at anyone who proposes a novel thesis.

The fact that liberals are so terrified of science that they chronically wet themselves wouldn't be half as annoying if they didn't go around boasting about their deep respect for science, especially compared to conservatives. </div></div>

LWW
03-24-2011, 04:34 AM
http://media.townhall.com/townhall/car/b/mrz032311dapr20110323124528.jpg

wolfdancer
03-24-2011, 01:32 PM
I would have bet originally, that no one, at least no one here, could link radiation leaks to seat belts, bicycle helmets, and smoke detectors....but, once again, I am agog, I am aghast..I want to throw up.
"In the event of a nuclear attack, dig a trench large enough to accommodate your body, lie face down in it and be sure to cover your *** "

pooltchr
03-24-2011, 01:36 PM
Once again you give us another example of your complete inability to comprehend what you read.

Lay off the gin.


Steve

JohnnyD
03-24-2011, 01:44 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I would have bet originally, that no one, at least no one here, could link radiation leaks to seat belts, bicycle helmets, and smoke detectors....but, once again, I am agog, I am aghast..I want to throw up.
"In the event of a nuclear attack, dig a trench large enough to accommodate your body, lie face down in it and be sure to cover your *** " </div></div>
How deep should a person dig?Do you have a link?Can you cut and paste a diagram?
How far does a person have to dig to unearth the TRUTH?
Do you believe in the truth?
The truth is there.
Many people like to keep the truth buried.But the truthnever deteriorates.It is always the truth.It cannot be recycled it never vanishes.The truth is there.The truth will set you free.

WHy did HE lie?

LWW
03-24-2011, 03:29 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't go around posing as some kind of authority on topics. </div></div>

You do, and you don't even know it. You are quick to shoot down everyone else, which is the same thing. Perhaps it never crossed you little brain, but there are other people who also do research on topics. You and your friends choose to select the reviews that are published by those who agree with you (Huffpo, for example), and choose to ignore other resources.

You think as long as someone agrees with your expert opinion, it must be right. But if anyone dares to challenge your opinion, then it must be wrong.

Steve </div></div>

It's a blast to use the PuffingonaPost of New York Slimes to prove them wrong ... which is why I use them as often as possible.

wolfdancer
03-24-2011, 04:43 PM
you are wrong....it's just ...your posts that I take zero stock in.
As you post just to mock people.... whatever "gem" you might have in your post is lost amongst the petty, trite, "put downs" that you believe you are entertaining the troops here with.
Well, it's back to the scrap pile for your posts, again.....Total Ignore. Have a great weekend !!!

pooltchr
03-24-2011, 05:06 PM
You and Gayle and your little "total ignore" game are so funny! Neither of you can go a day without reading every new post on this forum. You've proved it time and time again.

Why not admit it...it's nothing to be ashamed of.


Steve

JohnnyD
03-24-2011, 05:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">you are wrong....it's just ...your posts that I take zero stock in.
As you post just to mock people.... whatever "gem" you might have in your post is lost amongst the petty, trite, "put downs" that you believe you are entertaining the troops here with.
Well, it's back to the scrap pile for your posts, again.....Total Ignore. Have a great weekend !!!
</div></div>YOU are afraid of the truth.That man speaks the truth all the time.YOU are not used to it.The cess pool you hang in does not accept the truth.Accept the truth.The truth will hurt at times but it is the truth.
THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE&gt;
Well,off i go.Total ignore.NO,not good enough,COMPLETE IGNORE.OR,is total ignore better?Who knows what the future holds.

BLOODY HIPOCRITE!

ugotda7
03-24-2011, 05:26 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">you are wrong....it's just ...your posts that I take zero stock in.
As you post just to mock people.... whatever "gem" you might have in your post is lost amongst the petty, trite, "put downs" that you believe you are entertaining the troops here with.
Well, it's back to the scrap pile for your posts, again.....Total Ignore. Have a great weekend !!!
</div></div>

It's not Total Ignore...it's TOTAL IGNORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

pooltchr
03-24-2011, 05:43 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ugotda7</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
It's not Total Ignore...it's TOTAL IGNORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! </div></div>

Actually, it's
<span style='font-size: 17pt'>TOTAL IGNORE!!!!!!!!!!</span>

Steve

wolfdancer
03-24-2011, 05:48 PM
I don't have any of them important....what did you call them in another post...fonts, yes, I believe that's it....so I can't use them for emphasis as you are able to do.
I have used total ignore in the past, but now think ignore to be a stand alone verb?
So for the most part....I'll ignore him.

pooltchr
03-24-2011, 05:52 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't have any of them important....what did you call them in another post...fonts, yes, I believe that's it....so I can't use them for emphasis as you are able to do.
I have used total ignore in the past, but now think ignore to be a stand alone verb?
So for the most part....I'll ignore him.


</div></div>

Maybe you should get somebody to show you how it's done. Why not bring that up on your next conference call to Maryland?

Steve

JohnnyD
03-24-2011, 06:01 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't have any of them important....what did you call them in another post...fonts, yes, I believe that's it....so I can't use them for emphasis as you are able to do.
I have used total ignore in the past, but now think ignore to be a stand alone verb?
So for the most part....I'll ignore him.


</div></div> Why not try TOTAL IGNORE.On weekends you could switch to COMPLETE IGNORE.

BLOODY HIPOCRITE!

JohnnyD
03-24-2011, 06:04 PM
Without your ideas where would he be!Sitting and staring at his gin bottle telling the reflection "TOTAL IGNORE".

wolfdancer
03-24-2011, 06:41 PM
If you have an objection to my personal calls to Gayle, maybe you should complain here. My pm function has been turned off, denied my usage, for some time now, but as of yet I am still allowed to email her, and heaven forbid....place a personal call.

JohnnyD
03-24-2011, 06:50 PM
TOTAL IGNORE.

pooltchr
03-24-2011, 07:10 PM
woofie, I have no objection to you calling galye...nor do I have any objection to you e-mailing her. In fact, every e-mail you send to her is one less that will end up polluting my personal e-mail. (Yes, I still have those saved in case I ever need them as evidence.)

I was just suggesting that, since you seem to be lacking in some of the abilities on the computer that others seem to have, that maybe you could use one of those calls in a productive manner and learn how she does it.

You really do have reading comprehension problems, don't you?

Steve

JohnnyD
03-24-2011, 07:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">woofie, I have no objection to you calling galye...nor do I have any objection to you e-mailing her. In fact, every e-mail you send to her is one less that will end up polluting my personal e-mail. (Yes, I still have those saved in case I ever need them as evidence.)

I was just suggesting that, since you seem to be lacking in some of the abilities on the computer that others seem to have, that maybe you could use one of those calls in a productive manner and learn how she does it.

You really do have reading comprehension problems, don't you?

Steve </div></div>Not many people are willing to share their thoughts on being successful in life.As usual you are a very stand up person to do that.Now he determines his own fate.

wolfdancer
03-24-2011, 07:43 PM
I have told you many times in the past....what you can do with those "threatening" emails. It's a joke that you think you can threaten me with them. I even offered to pay to have them printed on rolls of t.p. for you.
Go for it, just don't bother me with your juvenile threats.
I'll show whomever shows up at the door a hundred or so posts of yours, and they might rule it in advance justifiable.....
I doubt if I ever threatened to use rifles with scopes as has been done here.
What kind of a "man" makes a punk a** threat like this one you are now making?

wolfdancer
03-24-2011, 07:47 PM
wonderful...and you don't have to keep repeating it...just do it

JohnnyD
03-24-2011, 07:50 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JohnnyD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">woofie, I have no objection to you calling galye...nor do I have any objection to you e-mailing her. In fact, every e-mail you send to her is one less that will end up polluting my personal e-mail. (Yes, I still have those saved in case I ever need them as evidence.)

I was just suggesting that, since you seem to be lacking in some of the abilities on the computer that others seem to have, that maybe you could use one of those calls in a productive manner and learn how she does it.

You really do have reading comprehension problems, don't you?

Steve </div></div>Not many people are willing to share their thoughts on being successful in life.As usual you are a very stand up person to do that.Now he determines his own fate. </div></div> THREAT about what? Your talking of a physical occurrence i'm speaking of a mental comprehension problem that you obviously have.YOU can change your life by attempting to comprehend.This has nothing to do with scopes,rifles,hitting people with boards or whatever.Your drinking is affecting your ability to clearly think and define right from wrong.People here are trying to help you and you keep being an internet bully.
Now back to TOTAL IGNORE.

JohnnyD
03-24-2011, 07:52 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">wonderful...and you don't have to keep repeating it...just do it </div></div>
TOTAL IGNORE.

wolfdancer
03-24-2011, 07:57 PM
Uh, JohnnyD, methinks you hit the wrong Reply to button?
I understand, it's late in the East Coast and you are probably on your second bottle of "that **** concoction that helps you hang on"
Here's a friendly tip for you:....stay out of other people's arguments, as you can barely keep up with your own.

JohnnyD
03-24-2011, 08:09 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Uh, JohnnyD, methinks you hit the wrong Reply to button?
I understand, it's late in the East Coast and you are probably on your second bottle of "that **** concoction that helps you hang on"
Here's a friendly tip for you:....stay out of other people's arguments, as you can barely keep up with your own. </div></div>
Uh,that was to you for sure.You needed some counseling.I'm here as your friend.Jesus loves you.I will be there for you in this time of need.Relax and read the good book.Take a sip of your favorite "alcoholic" beverage.Indulge in some fine "Godiva" chocolates.Take a walk in the park and enjoy nature.Watch the birds flying and singing.I will make myself more available to you from now on in your time of need.
I have diagnosed you with having a destructive need for recognition and approval.We will work on this together.First things first.Calming you down now and perhaps taking a "Total Body Cleanse" routine to flush you out.This will take time and i am willing to work with you.Have a wonderful evening.Oh,a Mr Glenfiddich said to say hi.
Jesus loves you.
Love & Peace.

your friend
JohnnyD.

pooltchr
03-24-2011, 08:17 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have told you many times in the past....what you can do with those "threatening" emails. It's a joke that you think you can threaten me with them. I even offered to pay to have them printed on rolls of t.p. for you.
Go for it, just don't bother me with your juvenile threats.
I'll show whomever shows up at the door a hundred or so posts of yours, and they might rule it in advance justifiable.....
I doubt if I ever threatened to use rifles with scopes as has been done here.
What kind of a "man" makes a punk a** threat like this one you are now making?
</div></div>

I didn't make any threat. I said I kept those e-mails as evidence, should it ever become necessary. I don't know you, and I don't know what you are capable of doing. But I do have evidence of your less than civil behavior.

And why didn't you finish your comment...justifiable what???? Did you just stop short of making a threat to me?
This is what I'm talking about. Anyone who can post or write the things you do might be capable of anything.

And I'm sure all your neighbors would be telling the local tv stations on the 6 o'clock news..."He was always pretty quiet and kept to himself most of the time".

Steve