Well that is interesting.  Sounds kinda all new agey, but there ya go.

(Back in the '70s, Professor Cohen offered to eat as much plutonium as Ralph Nader would eat caffeine -- an offer Nader never accepted.)

Interesting

phreddy wrote:

opsec wrote:

(Back in the '70s, Professor Cohen offered to eat as much plutonium as Ralph Nader would eat caffeine -- an offer Nader never accepted.)

Interesting

I'll have a demitasse of plutonium with a double milk of magnesia back, please.

If your drinkin', I be buying.

Ill put that in the same file as the salt cave that my Aunt swears by. Full of great wisdom like

But there is a huge difference between
salt in its original form, as it has crystallized in the Earth over millions of
years, and “regular” table salt. Wholesome, natural salt has been used as a
holistic remedy for centuries.  Table salt, on the other hand, is nothing more
than sodium chloride with additives: a substance that - through industrial
processing -  become one of our worst  enemies.

Which is funny because 99.99% of the salt you get at the store comes from either salt lakes or is mined from deep in the earth. It's about 1000 times more expensive to make it from a chlorine reaction than to extract it from the sea or dig it out of the ground.

Dusty, I'll bet you never expected to post a conversation between Coulter and O'Reilly that wasn't posted for sarcastic effect.

I had read about the beneficial effects of radiation before, but, as Coulter says, the media always plays it up as though the smallest amout will give you cancer.  I would like to see more studies on cat scans and xrays.  They always tell you not to have too many or you'll develop cancer for sure.  That may be total bullshit.

Media says radiation is scary.  This causes fear that sells products. 
Fox news says the media is wrong.  This causes anger that sells products.

Ann’s kind of late to this party.  I’m surprised s/he missed this place.

phreddy wrote:

Dusty, I'll bet you never expected to post a conversation between Coulter and O'Reilly that wasn't posted for sarcastic effect.

I had read about the beneficial effects of radiation before, but, as Coulter says, the media always plays it up as though the smallest amout will give you cancer.  I would like to see more studies on cat scans and xrays.  They always tell you not to have too many or you'll develop cancer for sure.  That may be total bullshit.

You really don't know what depths I will sink to, do you?

Even if all of her citations are correct (I'll assume for the sake of time that they are, though I trust her about as far as she can throw me), her conclusions don't match her assertions.  The thing is, if there is a major nuclear catastrophe, people aren't going to end up with a measly five times the normal background radiation levels.

She is right that the media loves a good radiation scare story, but she's just as bad as the media she decries, because the problem with both of their reporting is that they frame everything as radiation vs. no radiation.  It's all about how much radiation, not if you are exposed to radiation.  Hell, you're exposed to higher-than-normal radiation if you eat a banana.

On an unrelated note, I was listening to a documentary about HELA cells and they explained that early radiation therapy for cervical cancer in the 50s consisted of sewing pouches with radium in them to the walls of the cervix, essentially burning off the cancer cells.  That just sounds incredibly painful.

I know a guy who's job is sticking radioactive needles into prostates and vaginae. Breasts and jaws are also fair game.

tojo2000 wrote:

Even if all of her citations are correct (I'll assume for the sake of time that they are, though I trust her about as far as she can throw me), her conclusions don't match her assertions.  The thing is, if there is a major nuclear catastrophe, people aren't going to end up with a measly five times the normal background radiation levels.

She is right that the media loves a good radiation scare story, but she's just as bad as the media she decries, because the problem with both of their reporting is that they frame everything as radiation vs. no radiation.  It's all about how much radiation, not if you are exposed to radiation.  Hell, you're exposed to higher-than-normal radiation if you eat a banana.

Like I said, she is just being her usual attention whore self.  Not surprisingly, real scientists disagree.


http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/ … 2011-03-18

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011 … protec.php

AladdinSane wrote:

And now for some classic Krautrock:

Link to YouTube page

Saw them live.  Great Band.

phreddy wrote:

...there is scientific evidence that anyone exposed to the radiation, " is now probably much less likely to get cancer."

Lucrezia Borgia is believed to have consumed small amounts of various poisons so that she would have partial immunity to whatever poison she served to her victims.  Perhaps the poisons acted as preventative chemotherapy and were good for her?  After all, she didn’t get cancer!

Science journalism requires more study and thought than Coulter ever gives any subject.  In this instance she comes off as an idiot.

tojo2000 wrote:

phreddy wrote:

I find it entertaining when Ann Coulter's critics try to take her down.  Both of these guys are obviously Coulter haters.  They both launch ad hominem attacks which have nothing to do with her column.  They attribute a claim to to her that the Japanese nuke plant meltdowns are good for us, then go on to dispute the spurious claim.  All she said was that there is scientific evidence that anyone exposed to the radiation, " is now probably much less likely to get cancer."   It was a NY Times article she quoted that said radiation "is good for you".  Their damning evidence that she is "stupid" and out of her league consists of rambling scientific explainations of how she is only partially correct and that "Most researchers remain skeptical of hormesis".

Jesus, phreddy, dislodge your lips from her cock for a second and read what they're saying.  She made a direct claim that the radiation from the reactors in Japan would have a beneficial effect, and threw out some examples that purport to support her claim, but that's not how science works.  If people can't reproduce your findings then they're worthless.  She didn't claim that hormesis might exist, she wrote an article making a specific claim with no credible evidence.

Don't say Cock Tojo, engorged oversized Clitoris but not that other C-word.  Phwed is sensitive after all.

headkicker_girl wrote:

I don't think for a minute that she believes half of the crap she spews. She is an attention whore, pure and simple.  Like a petulant child she acts out until she's back in the headlines.  Apparently it works because she has people like you defending her bullshit.

Glenn Beck's more masculine twin.

Fled wrote:

And yes, I say failed because she does not practice, has not for years, and . . . .

Your perjorative is poorly chosen for Ms. Adamsapple.  Perhaps she simply found that being a bimbette media star is far easier and more lucrative than practicing law, which, speaking from experience, is a tedious way of making a living.  After all, how else is a T-girl going to give the dittohead boys a boner without risk of an std?

I'm more in agreement with Headkicker.  Apparently, being a failed lawyer is an excellent resume boost for a run at the presidency.  It worked for Clinton and Obama.  But wait, Coulter hasn't had her law license suspended or been disbarred.  She'll have to work on that.

Last edited by phreddy (2011-03-22 11:43:27)

Fled wrote:

And yes, I say failed because she does not practice, has not for years, and . . . .

Your perjorative is poorly chosen for Ms. Adamsapple.  Perhaps she simply found that being a bimbette media star is far easier and more lucrative than practicing law, which, speaking from experience, is a tedious way of making a living.  After all, how else is a T-girl going to give the dittohead boys a boner without risk of an std?

I agree that she found being a meda star more lucrative and much less work.  It takes no talent to talk out of your ass, especially when your target audience consists of morons.  You have to actually think and be accountable to practice law (even the worst ones).

phreddy wrote:

Fled wrote:

And yes, I say failed because she does not practice, has not for years, and . . . .

Your perjorative is poorly chosen for Ms. Adamsapple.  Perhaps she simply found that being a bimbette media star is far easier and more lucrative than practicing law, which, speaking from experience, is a tedious way of making a living.  After all, how else is a T-girl going to give the dittohead boys a boner without risk of an std?

I'm more in agreement with Headkicker.  Apparently, being a failed lawyer is an excellent resume boost for a run at the presidency.  It worked for Clinton and Obama.  But wait, Coulter hasn't had her law license suspended or been disbarred.  She'll have to work on that.

Bush was a failed businessman and Reagan was a failed actor.  I guess failure is a prerequisite for being President.

headkicker_girl wrote:

phreddy wrote:

Fled wrote:

And yes, I say failed because she does not practice, has not for years, and . . . .

Your perjorative is poorly chosen for Ms. Adamsapple.  Perhaps she simply found that being a bimbette media star is far easier and more lucrative than practicing law, which, speaking from experience, is a tedious way of making a living.  After all, how else is a T-girl going to give the dittohead boys a boner without risk of an std?

I'm more in agreement with Headkicker.  Apparently, being a failed lawyer is an excellent resume boost for a run at the presidency.  It worked for Clinton and Obama.  But wait, Coulter hasn't had her law license suspended or been disbarred.  She'll have to work on that.

Bush was a failed businessman and Reagan was a failed actor.  I guess failure is a prerequisite for being President.

Even Clinton failed to inhale, we may be on to something here. The biggest problem with this theory as it stands now is that it can't be used to make predictions. All the 'front runners' so far are miserable failures of one kind or another.

Ann Coulter strikes back with science.  (Caution, unlike her first column, which was completely science-based and lacked political punch, this one rips the liberals who have tried to counter her claims.  If watching liberals being ripped to shreds bothers you, do not read this week's column.)

Last edited by phreddy (2011-03-25 12:47:21)

Fled wrote:

I hate to break the news to you Phreddy, but you've linked to the same article twice.  She does not get more convincing on a second read.  Perhaps she should try to prove her original point by addressing the effects of radiation rather than picking on an array of Hollywood figures speaking on wholly unrelated topics, as though that proves her point, whatever it was, about radiation.  To make an analogy, one could label Coulter's position on radiation as "conservative," and then attack it as somehow related to the science of intelligent design.  She uses a weak rhetorical devices rather than reasoned argument for a reason.

I believe her rationale is perfectly valid.  First she points out, as I did in my comments about the first column, that her detractors offered no real rebuttal to her statements, only ad hominem attacks.  Second, she likens this radiation scare to other hysterical incidents hyped by the liberal press and their Hollywood "experts".

You've linked to the same article both times.  Only the second article is linked in both of your comments, even in your first post. 

Her line of attack in the second article is specious for the reasons I stated.  She smears a lot of crap around as though it has anything to do with beneficial health effects of exposure to radiation.  She adds nothing of value in the second article. 

If her original point was that there is some scientific evidence that low levels of radiation exposure can have beneficial effects, no problem.  Like Dusty said, it sounds a little new-agey, like homeopathy, but so be it.  However, she went a hell of a lot further than that.  I found her article elsewhere, and among other inanities, she said:

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.

Less likely to get cancer than who?  Than those not exposed?  She goes on to claim there is burgeoning evidence" that excess radiation exposure amounts to a "cancer vaccine."  What an idiot.  Don't be an idiot and buy in to that.  Just go visit the ruins of Chernobyl and report back.

Last edited by Fled (2011-03-25 18:41:47)

phreddy wrote:

The only confirmed fatalities from Chernobyl were those killed in the original blast.  Honest.  Look it up.

And the tooth fairy is a supply-sider. Do you also believe that there is no link between cigarette smoking and cancer?

I have family in Scotland who are still suffering from the results of Chernobyl, as are many in their local community.  I take that was a joke Phwedd.