Ann Coulter: 'Radiation is Actually Good For You' (Video)

Originally posted by DrZERO
Here's Coulter's interview on O'Reilly:

Umm yeah i believe her as much as I believe someone on here who has never seen what it can do to people, and say they are experts, i am not expert either I don't trust anyone giving me info on radiation unless they have gone through specific training in bombs and radiation. I believe EOD techs over this #. Sorry but reading about it, and being trained in it is two different things. Plus, she sounds like a dude...

I watched the video three times. I didn't hear her say that ALL levels of radiation are good for you. Only that SOME radiation in excess of what is usually recommended is beneficial. She said, they are saying that the tiniest bit of radiation is bad for you and these studies, which I'm willing to bet most you never bothered to read before bashing, suggested otherwise. Bad timing? Yes but, I doubt that the responses had much to do with timing and more with people's hatred for this woman. Look at the comments...don't get me wrong I don't like her either but it really doesn't matter what you think about her personally, is what she saying true or not?

reply to post by DrZERO


I am not sure why you think I avoided your request. Even though I do not have to explain myself I will point out last night was Saturday night. I had better things to do than be on ATS.

I will gladly research the thread and post to you again the questions that you ignored. If in my research I see that I overlooked your response I will acknowledge it.

I have noticed your opinions seems to have changed on this issue somewhat. I believe Anne makes it very clear by stating that O'Reilly should have the physicians and scientists that performed these studies on his show that she is in no way attempting to cover up or tarnish this information and genuinely wants further dialogue on the subject.

reply to post by Dilligaf28


No worries, you had said something to the affect that I was dodging your inquiries. I said that I didn't think that was the case and asked you to clarify. Later in the day you had made responses to other posters but said nothing about the queries I was dodging, so I made that post.

But honestly I don't think it matters. I see your perspective and you and the previous poster are correct with your descriptions of the interview.

My point, as the previous poster echoed, was that the timing of the interview was poor. Combine that with O'Reilly starting the interview by saying Ann Coulter has a new column out about the situation in Japan, and then she starts her column with the Japanese are better off being exposed comment just leaves me wondering what the true intentions of the piece really were.

To me it seems like a propaganda piece to minimize peoples perceptions of what's going on with that reactor and how it will affect the rest of the world by correlating it with these radiation hormesis studies. I think that if there is any benefit to these studies Coulter has effectively demonized them by bringing them up in this context, and the responses that you have seen in this thread are testament to that assertion.

This is my opinion and you are free to disagree. I think I have clarified my point in this and previous posts, but let me know if you still feel that I have somehow not addressed one or more of your statements.

I am firmly persuaded, and can produce the evidence to support my conclusion, that if we stitched Ann Coulter's brain to Sarah Palin's, we'd still be half a brain short of a full neural network.

What an idiot.

Wow!!

You have to be INCREDIBLY DUMB to make O'Reilly look smart. I mean, she makes the man who claimed the "tide" is proof for god look smart...quite a feat

Then again, it's FOX "News", we should be kinda used to the stupidity by now...

reply to post by Dilligaf28


I never said that the USA is the only country that filters information to the public. Any other country is just as capable. But what you linked me sir, was a pdf. I could make a pdf in no time and could state that unicorns and leprechauns are real and saying I have "evidence" in my pdf but the truth is it would be lies. Like I said before, just because somebody wrote it on the internet doesn't make it the truth.

The .pdf is a scanned version of a study that The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons released in their printed Volume 9 Issue 1. I gave you everything you asked for. Proof that these studies did indeed take place and the study was not performed in America was what you wanted and I gave it to you. Now big surprise you have "moved the goal posts" and now cast the wider net of "any government lies".

That study is a valid, published, scientific examination of the phenomenon Anne reported. I realize seeing exactly what you asked for is shocking to you. Do you realize that providing exactly what you asked for only to see you disparage it and shabbily attempt to discredit it is not shocking to me at all?