…and this is a 
That reputable scientist, Ann Coulter, recently wrote a genuinely irresponsible and dishonest column on radiation hormesis. She claims we shouldn't worry about the damaged Japanese reactors because they'll make the locals healthier!
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.
This only seems counterintuitive because of media hysteria for the past 20 years trying to convince Americans that radiation at any dose is bad. There is, however, burgeoning evidence that excess radiation operates as a sort of cancer vaccine.
As The New York Times science section reported in 2001, an increasing number of scientists believe that at some level -- much higher than the minimums set by the U.S. government -- radiation is good for you.
But wait! If that isn't enough stupid for you, she went on the O'Reilly show to argue about it. Yes! Coulter and O'Reilly, arguing over science. America really has become an idiocracy.
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.
We think there is probably a combination of factors going on. One is that alcohol is actually a fuel, so what they're getting is a little extra dose of energy; it's also deleterious to pathogens, so we're probably killing off bacteria that might otherwise harm the embryos, and we're killing those faster than we are killing healthy embryonic cells. It's the same principle behind medieval beer and wine drinking — it was healthier than the water because the alcohol killed the germs.
However, the key thing to note about hormetic effects is that they only apply at low dosages. Low dosages tend to be where the damaging effects are weakest, anyway, and where the data are also the poorest. The US government recommendations for radiation exposure are based on a linear no threshold model in which there is no hormesis to reduced effects at low concentrations for a couple of reasons. One is methodological. The data we can get from high exposures to toxic agents tends to be much more robust and consistent, and we do see simple relationships like a ten-fold increase in dose produces a ten-fold increase in effect, whereas at low doses, where the effects are much weaker, variability adds so much noise to the measurements that it may be difficult to get a repeatable and consistent relationship. So the strategy is to determine the relationships at high doses and extrapolate backwards.
Then, of course, the major reason recommendations are made on the simple linear model is that it is the most conservative model. The data are weaker at the low end; there is more variability from individual to individual; the safest bet is always to recommend lower exposures than are known to be harmful.
In the low dosage regime, these responses get complicated at the same time the data gets harder to collect. This is why it's a bad idea to base public policy on the weakest information. I'll quote a chunk from a review by Calabrese (2008) that describes why you have to be careful in interpreting these data.
In 2002, Calabrese and Baldwin published a paper entitled "Defining hormesis" in which they argued that hormesis is a dose-response relationship with specific quantitative and temporal characteristics. It was further argued that the concept of benefit or harm should be decoupled from that definition. To fail to do so has the potential of politicizing the scientific evaluation of the dose-response relationship, especially in the area of risk assessment. Calabrese and Baldwin also recognized that benefit or harm had the distinct potential to be seen from specific points of view. For example, in a highly heterogeneous population with considerable inter-individual variation, a beneficial dose for one subgroup may be a harmful dose for another subgroup. In addition, it is now known that low doses of antiviral, antibacterial, and antitumor drugs can enhance the growth of these potentially harmful agents (i.e., viruses), cells, and organisms while possibly harming the human patient receiving the drug. In such cases, a low concentration of these agents may be hormetic for the disease-causing organisms but harmful to people. In many assessments of immune responses, it was determined that approximately 80% of the reported hormetic responses that were assessed with respect to clinical implications were thought to be beneficial to humans. This suggested, however, that approximately 20% of the hormetic-like low-dose stimulatory responses may be potentially adverse. Most antianxiety drugs at low doses display hormetic dose-response relationships, thereby showing beneficial responses to animal models and human subjects. Some antianxiety drugs enhance anxiety in the low-dose stimulatory zone while decreasing anxiety at higher inhibitory doses. In these two cases, the hormetic stimulation is either decreasing or increasing anxiety, depending on the agent and the animal model]. Thus, the concepts of beneficial or harmful are important to apply to dose-response relationships and need to be seen within a broad biological, clinical, and societal context. The dose-response relationship itself, however, should be seen in a manner that is distinct from these necessary and yet subsequent applications.
I know, the Cabrese quote may have been a little dense for most. Let me give you another real world example with which I'm familiar, and you probably are, too.
Here in Minnesota in the winter we get very snowy, icy conditions. If I'm driving down the road and I sense a slippery patch, what I will immediately do is become more alert, slow down, and drive more carefully — I will effectively reduce my risk of an accident on that road because I detected ice. This does not in any way imply that ice reduces traffic accidents. Again, with the way Ann Coulter's mind works, she'd argue that what we ought to do to encourage more responsible driving is to send trucks out before a storm to hose the roads down with water instead of salt.
Ann Coulter is blithely ignoring competent scientists' informed recommendations to promote a dangerous complacency in the face of a radiation hazard. She's using a childish, lazy interpretation of a complex phenomenon to tell people lies.
Calabrese EJ (2008) Hormesis: Why it is important to toxicology and toxicologists. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 27(7):1451-1474.
Life Science
Medicine & Health
Comments
Posted by: Dhorvath, OM
|
March 18, 2011 3:32 PM
I love the resource that she quotes is the NYTs science section. A reputable research journal to be sure.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
March 18, 2011 3:35 PM
Radiation goes in, sickness comes out.
You can't explain that any more than you can explain the tides.
Glen Davidson
Posted by: llewelly
|
March 18, 2011 3:35 PM
Strictly speaking - although hydrogen explosions have occurred, the nuclear fuel itself is unlikely to explode, although a serious fire continues to be a risk.
Posted by: NewEnglandBob
|
March 18, 2011 3:35 PM
Ann Coulter and O'Reilly would be MY definition of HELL! Two useless turds in one place.
Posted by: blf
|
March 18, 2011 3:37 PM
Spraying a solution of liquidised Ann Coulter on the reactors is the solution! It'd so scare those nasty atomic genies they'd run away (those solving the immediate reactor problems), and it'd also save what's left of USAlien's brains (no more melting and running out of the ears after being exposed to such stoooopidity). However, and despite solving the reactor problem, it'd be yet another major disaster for Japan. I mean, would you want to be exposed to liquidised Ann Coulter? She's damaging enough as a gasbag of pure bigoted hateful idiocy. Unconstrained droplets of the stuff… shudders!
Posted by: subbie
|
March 18, 2011 3:39 PM
Aha! Hoist on your own petard you are. You've just proved homeopathy!
/sarcasm (Because if I don't, someone will think I'm serious.)
Posted by: Schenck
|
March 18, 2011 3:44 PM
A correction, FWIW:
"She's using a childish, lazy interpretation of a complex phenomenon to [get airtime and a enlarge her readership by telling] people lies."
So really, anyone looking to Anne Coulter for anything other than shits and giggles probably deserves high doses of radiation anyway, or at least sterilizing doses.
Posted by: Mr Ed
|
March 18, 2011 3:45 PM
I too am not an expert but I have seen a documentary and read many journals about a scientist who was exposed to radiation. It was very well documented he had greatly improved health but some psych issues. I think his name was Dr. Bruce Banner.
Posted by: AKron
|
March 18, 2011 3:45 PM
So I should hang around the old Badger lead mine here in Wisconsin because the low level radiation from the uranium in the rocks will cure me of cancer?
I mentioned that because that's what people used to do.
I just checked, and I can't get potassium iodine tablets ANYWHERE. The myth and mystery continues...
Posted by: blf
|
March 18, 2011 3:46 PM
Bah! thus solving…
Posted by: austinfilm
|
March 18, 2011 3:46 PM
I'd be delighted to see Ann test her hypothesis using the scientific method, by exposing herself to high doses of radiation.
Posted by: CarlosT
|
March 18, 2011 3:49 PM
So are Coulter and O'Reilly volunteering to be irradiated? I mean, if it's so healthy, why wouldn't they be on the next plane to Japan to soak in the goodness?
Posted by: llewelly
|
March 18, 2011 3:51 PM
If there is no fuel fire, there will be very little harm to anyone not working onsite. If there is a fuel fire ... iodine-131, strontium-90, cesium-137, and other radioactives will get into the air, and do serious damage. Human bodies tend to concentrate iodine in the thyroid, and strontium in the bones. Primary risks are thus thyroid cancer, leukemia, bone cancer, and various other cancers.
Posted by: Susan
|
March 18, 2011 3:51 PM
HAHAHahahaaaaa! Thanks, PZ!Posted by: janiceclanfield
|
March 18, 2011 3:53 PM
I'm glad I didn't pay money to see those two.
I'd be demanding a refund.
Asshats...
Posted by: Daniel de Rauglaudre
|
March 18, 2011 3:53 PM
Homo Sapiens Deinococcus Radiodurans.
Posted by: blf
|
March 18, 2011 3:54 PM
The NYT a commie mooslin-loving gay-infested lefto pinkish atheist propaganda sheet printed on—horrors!—recycled paper. I'm surprised it quoted the NYT as a source at all. Mein Kampf is more its style.
Did I just do a Godwin?
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmmHC21zGnShevfM8ZvjBSBzlZ8Vv_BeJ8
|
March 18, 2011 3:54 PM
Astonishing. I am sure, if she works hard at it, Ann can get a good deal on some land quite close to these reactors cheap for her new dream home. Perhaps she should walk her talk.
Posted by: cookieacct
|
March 18, 2011 3:55 PM
I love the banner across the bottom of the screen shot: "JUST OVER HALF OF AMERICANS STILL THINK"
And they are not the ones watching Coulter or O'Reilly!
Posted by: Teh Merkin
|
March 18, 2011 3:56 PM
So, if radiation is a "cancer vaccine," does that mean it causes autism?
Posted by: Agent Smith
|
March 18, 2011 3:59 PM
I can't figure out which is less healthy: exposure to radiation or to Ann Coulter's sensefree mutterings.
Her material might have hormetic effects at very low doses, but it's more likely to generate a Pavlovian reflex of intense nausea whenever a screed with her name at the top is encountered.
Posted by: No One
|
March 18, 2011 3:59 PM
"... I don't know how to pronounce, it I've only read about it."
Yeah. You're the expert.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
March 18, 2011 4:00 PM
So, Coulter and O'Reilly, ground into fine powder and distributed in the water supply, would make us slightly less stupid?
Actually, I don't care how sound the rationale is: we should try it anyway. If positive effects aren't found, try with a higher dose (i.e. grind up another neocon pundit and throw him or her into the mix.) Repeat until problem solved.
Posted by: Multicellular
|
March 18, 2011 4:03 PM
Small quibble - you mean ionizing radiation is always harmful.
Posted by: Zugswang
|
March 18, 2011 4:04 PM
#20 - That could very well be...but maybe if we give lower doses of vaccines to our kids, it will make them resistant to autism AND disease all at once! And cancer! It's almost like homeopathy!
Posted by: Alverant
|
March 18, 2011 4:06 PM
When I first saw this headline my first thought was how sunlight (solar radiation) is used to make Vitiman D. It was one of those "technically true once you add exactly the right context" things the anti-science crowd says. But I was wrong and Faux is still in the business of conveniently leaving out the details that run against their agenda.
I'd love to see both of them show how much confidence they have her claim by going to Japan and doing food runs for the actual heroes trying to shut down the reactor.
Posted by: Larry
|
March 18, 2011 4:12 PM
A wise, nuclear plant owner named C. Montgomery Burns, once said
Maybe this is the science Ann is thinking of?
Posted by: sue.welsh
|
March 18, 2011 4:13 PM
Clearly a prank. This silly moo makes a completely ludicrous claim to get on TV to argue about it with a total farkwit charlatan.
Then, anyone vaguely sensible spends hours debunking it all, thusly wasting a huge amount of time.
So for the price of a couple of minutes of craziness they have tied up the Consciousness of the Cream of Humanity, and prevented more Science!
Anyone who watches that stuff isn't in the business of reasoned debate. They just want frothing and shouting.
Just look away, kids.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
March 18, 2011 4:18 PM
No, they just tied me up for a half hour, and a hundred thousand people will now read that and see that Ann Coulter is a fraud.
Which they knew already, so it was only an incremental reinforcement. But that's ok.
Posted by: mcb
|
March 18, 2011 4:19 PM
Coulter is certainly qualified to speak on is how become a venomous neocon celebrity...science, not so much.
Posted by: anthony gebhard
|
March 18, 2011 4:20 PM
Thanks PZ! I'm not sure if my email had anything to do with you posting this, but I'm glad that you wrote a response to Coulter's nonsense.
Tony
Posted by: Lynna, OM
|
March 18, 2011 4:22 PM
Art Robinson, Tea Party candidate from Oregon, has a whole schtick based on the fact that other scientists are wrong, and only he is right.
His rightness includes the healthy benefits of radiation.
http://www.independentscientist.com/
Art Robinson also thinks that it might be a good idea to enhance drinking water in Oregon with radioactive water from California.
http://whoisartrobinson.defazioforcongress.org/2010/08/27/radioactive-water/
Here's an episode of the Rachel Maddow show in which Art Robinson is interviewed: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#39566412
In this episode, Maddow shows that an ad supporting Robinson as a "research scientist" come from an anonymous group (later tied to the Koch brothers).
Posted by: Rog
|
March 18, 2011 4:24 PM
Holy crap! A debate about a science topic where Bill is the voice of reason! The world ends now?
Posted by: Dude... Real Men Watch Ponies!
|
March 18, 2011 4:25 PM
@Alverant
#26
Or you know, get them to lie in radiation therapy bed for a prolong exposure in low dose of radiation.
Posted by: daveau
|
March 18, 2011 4:26 PM
So, Coulter wouldn't have any problem with, say, an uncontrolled nuclear reaction in her back yard?
Posted by: marieannickscott
|
March 18, 2011 4:30 PM
Cue homeopaths claiming that this study supports them in 3...2...1...
Posted by: Tobinius
|
March 18, 2011 4:31 PM
As public figures go, I don't think you can get much lower than Ann Coulter - I mean, how many people are able to make a guy like O'Reilly seem to be a reasonable interviewer and caring human being.
While I found the interview very entertaining, as a canadian, I must admit that I did cringe when she referred to a canadian study to support her ignorant opinion. So I am very grateful to PZ for "wasting" time and energy in debunking her madness.
Posted by: colluvial
|
March 18, 2011 4:41 PM
I expect we'll see Coulter making a trip to Japan just so she can bask in the cancer-vaccinating radiation? No?
But maybe her point is, if the dose is high enough you'll never get cancer. Or anything else.
Posted by: Yoav
|
March 18, 2011 4:46 PM
If she's so sure that radiation exposure is good for you why don't she hop across the pacific, walk into the reactor building and attach the water hoses to refill the spent fuel storage pools.
Posted by: Greta Christina
|
March 18, 2011 4:47 PM
Is there anyone else who had "Repo Man" immediately pop into their head?
"Radiation. Yes, indeed. You hear the most outrageous lies about it. Half-baked goggle-box do-gooders telling everybody it's bad for you. Pernicious nonsense. Everybody could stand a hundred chest X-rays a year. They ought to have them, too. When they canceled the project it almost did me in. One day my mind was full to bursting. The next day -- nothing. Swept away. But I showed them. I had a lobotomy."
Posted by: Alverant
|
March 18, 2011 4:48 PM
@UberFubarius #34
Nah, have them be gophers for the technicians. That way they can do something actually useful for the first time in their lives and stop perverting science.
That's the real harm in what she's doing. With every effectively bogus claim she makes about what "science says", science itself looses credibility. It will become "just another opinion" without validity.
Posted by: Hurin, Nattering Nabob of Negativism.
|
March 18, 2011 4:56 PM
Mental note: be sure to send Anne Coulter some radium chloride bath salts this year. They might help vaccinate her against some nasty disorders like aplastic anemia or multiple myeloma.
Posted by: Pliny
|
March 18, 2011 4:57 PM
Ann Coulter has to be one of the most successful trolls ever to walk the earth. It's really best just to laugh and not take her seriously, she certainly doesn't.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
March 18, 2011 5:04 PM
Yes, like we did when George W. "I have the IQ of a boot-scraper" Bush was elected. The years 2000 through 2008 were a fucking laugh riot. A hundred thousand Iraqis split their sides over the joke. What fun!
Posted by: feralboy12, der Ken-Puppe Sie außerhalb in 1983 verlassen
|
March 18, 2011 5:06 PM
I've had this worrisome cough the past few days, so I took a powerful laxative.
Now I don't dare cough.
Baddum psssh.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
March 18, 2011 5:08 PM
Spraying a solution of liquidised Ann Coulter on the reactors is the solution!
Hell, I'd settle for her standing in front of reactor 3 with a bullhorn for a few hours, telling all the frantic workers trying to keep the situation under control that everything is all good.
Oh, and of course, she shouldn't be wearing any protective gear. That would block the healthy radiation!
Posted by: carolw
|
March 18, 2011 5:08 PM
Listening to the two of them reminds me of the sounds of my neighbor's dog howling at the fire truck siren.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
March 18, 2011 5:10 PM
With every effectively bogus claim she makes about what "science says", science itself looses credibility. It will become "just another opinion" without validity.
has anyone ever considered that maybe that is exactly what she is paid to do?
I just did.
Posted by: Dan L.
|
March 18, 2011 5:14 PM
Coulter + O'Reilly...hmmm...
Can stupid reach critical mass?
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
March 18, 2011 5:15 PM
I mean, how many people are able to make a guy like O'Reilly seem to be a reasonable interviewer and caring human being.
Overton Window
these people understand how to manipulate viewpoints. It is her JOB to make people like Limbaugh and O'Rly? seem reasonable.
Posted by: Agent Smith
|
March 18, 2011 5:18 PM
This guy may have just got his first real life disciple.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
March 18, 2011 5:22 PM
I radiated Ann C*ulter in the thyroid, hard.
Posted by: onion girl, OM - Social Workers: Fixing Fuck-ups Since 1880
|
March 18, 2011 5:23 PM
I know, the Cabrese quote may have been a little dense for most.
Just a bit. I recognized all the words but started losing the meaning about three sentences in.
But the ice analogy makes sense! :)
Coulter, on the other hand, is so far from sense the light hasn't reached us yet.
Posted by: DeePhlat
|
March 18, 2011 5:24 PM
She meets both of her common goals with this interview, which is the case with most of her articles/interviews:
1. Upset the liberal shockosphere.
2. Find an unsupported excuse to say something xenophobic, which is tightly linked to American exceptionalism and often latent racism.
(she wouldn't say this if it had happened in the US)
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
March 18, 2011 5:25 PM
There's a reason I keep promoting cannibalism as a solution to right-wing batshittery.
You all look less murderously crazy by comparison.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
March 18, 2011 5:28 PM
I radiated Ann C*ulter in the thyroid, hard.
HA!
Posted by: Snickersnack
|
March 18, 2011 5:31 PM
Ann Coulter, eh? Who'd do her? I'd do her.
Posted by: Primewonk
|
March 18, 2011 5:33 PM
Just like 0 degrees Kelvin is defined as absolute zero, I had always thought that on the Batshit crazy scale, the "Bachmann" was the absolute value. Apparently, I was wrong?
Posted by: toomanytribbles
|
March 18, 2011 5:35 PM
dangnabbit, the video's been set to private.
Posted by: Peter Ashby
|
March 18, 2011 5:36 PM
Well we all know that when you get cancer the doctors will often treat you with radiation to kill the cancer. So it obviously follows that any radiation will kill cancer, right? Because it's obvious that all radiation is the same, don't let those ignorant scientists confuse you with complicating talk about alpha particles, gamma rays and stuff.
Being sensible though, when it comes to radiation causing cancer it does seem that if you are going to be irradiated then from the sole p.o.v. of your cancer risk you want the dose to err on the larger side. You will of course have to survive the radiation sickness, but your cancer risk will be less, so that's alright.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
March 18, 2011 5:36 PM
no, not wrong. Coulter mostly PLAYS dumb. she's just plain evil, really.
Bachmann otoh... really IS dumb.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
March 18, 2011 5:39 PM
Ann Coulter, eh? Who'd do her? I'd do her.
*slap*
come to your senses!
With an ugly a mind as Coulter has, it's like you're saying you'd have sex with a rotten tree.
man, you must be pretty fucking desperate.
Posted by: BilBy
|
March 18, 2011 5:44 PM
Seriously, what an excellent article. Your students should appreciate what a good lecturer they have.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
March 18, 2011 5:44 PM
Let's try to get through a thread on Ann C without a discussion about her suitability as an object of sexual gratification.
Just once? Please?
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawlLwD2cP-PuLFKNJs77xvJ98PhimYdE5kM
|
March 18, 2011 5:46 PM
She's probably getting it from these nuke industry shill loons:
http://www.radscihealth.org/RSH/index.html
"Government agencies suppress data, including radiation hormesis, and foster radiation fear. They support extreme, costly, radiation protection policies; and preclude using low-dose radiation for health and medical benefits that apply hormesis, in favor of using (more profitable) drug therapies."
Posted by: Nij
|
March 18, 2011 5:47 PM
Nice analogy with the ice driving, really explains the idea of hormesis in a way somebody without a science background could understand.
Funny about that alcohol effect though; ha! "Drinking minute amounts before the game is actually good for you, it helps your performance" I told them, after reading of the effect in a journal. Now I have a name to put to it! I would like a better explanation of what precisely the good effects are in humans, if any (just putting it out there, ignore as you choose).
But what a fucking moron C**lt*r is. Not only is the effect only a small one and only applicable to very very low doses (where it actually exists, that is) but there is not sufficient evidence to convince many of the world's top bodies on radiation that there is indeed such an effect for radiation. I would suppose that this is because any potential effects are so small, as PZ said, that without multiple large tightly-controlled studies we simply cannot tell, and hence different bodies will look to different research finding different answers, all probably depending on what their preexisting views are.
A solution! These idiots and their followers can volunteer for the first major study! We'll gradually move them closer and closer to a significant source of radiation, say Fukushima or the Sun, and test them every so often to check whether there is a hormesis effect occurring. We can gather valuable information and raise the collective intelligence at the same time!
Posted by: Shadow
|
March 18, 2011 5:47 PM
A C should sunbathe in a cyclotron -- for health reasons.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
March 18, 2011 5:50 PM
Please. Everyone who sexualizes Ann Coulter in their criticisms isn't hurting her at all, but they are tainting sex by association. So stop it!
Posted by: daijoboukuma
|
March 18, 2011 5:51 PM
Essentially "low doses have a beneficial result." So is Ms. Coulter advocating some radioactive form of homeopathy?
Daffyd ap Morgen
Posted by: Daz
|
March 18, 2011 6:09 PM
blf #17
Just 'cause it's a Godwin, doesn't mean it's untrue.
Posted by: chigau (◦_◦)
|
March 18, 2011 6:19 PM
I tried to post this earlier but got ScienceBlogBorked and now it's too late.
oh well, what the hell
Is there an Ann Coulter equivalent to Godwin?
Any time she appears in a thread it is almost certain to cause sexual/sexist comments.
Posted by: Agent Smith
|
March 18, 2011 6:32 PM
chigau@71
Of course, when, let's say, Sam Harris's ideas are up for discussion, everyone would think sexualizing him was incredibly stupid. Including those who make such comments about Coulter.
Posted by: The Sailor
|
March 18, 2011 6:34 PM
"I just checked, and I can't get potassium iodine tablets ANYWHERE."
That's because USians have bought the supply up. The USian gov't is trying, nicely, to suggest they send them to Japan where they are needed. (Citations provided upon request.)
++++++++++++++++++++++
Primewonk @ 58 - See Einstein, stupidity v. Universe.
++++++++++++++++++++++
Greta Christina, it hadn't occurred to me but now I feel compelled to watch Repo Man again ... and again.
That's not a bad thing;-)
++++++++++++++++++++++
Oh, Sven, your comment made me laugh out loud. But I still think you're an *.
Posted by: Snickersnack
|
March 18, 2011 6:39 PM
Yes, well, Sam Harris hasn't appealed to plastic surgery. He doesn't spend between one and two hours tending to his hair every day. He doesn't constantly flash his legs. I don't think it's surprising that Ann Coulter turns out to be hotter than Sam Harris.
Posted by: Krebiozen
|
March 18, 2011 6:42 PM
It is possible that low levels of ionizing radiation may be more dangerous than higher levels. If a dividing cell gets a high dose of radiation it is likely to die. A lower dose may cause DNA damage that triggers cancer, which is dangerous for the whole organism. I can't find the page where I read a detailed discussion of this but it makes a sort of counterintuitive sense to me.
Radiation hormesis is one of those areas where there is a wide range of opinion - rooting around in noise often leads to this I think.
Posted by: TheCalmOne
|
March 18, 2011 6:42 PM
Only tangentially relevant, but when I worked as an engineer in the automotive industry I occasionally heard it said that we were actually increasing the risk of road accidents by making cars safer, since drivers feel more secure and isolated from danger surrounded by crumple zones, air bags, stability control, anti-lock disc brakes and the rest of it.
It's a running joke in the industry that we could probably reduce the road toll by forcing everybody to drive a Morris Minor with drum brakes and a large steel spike pointing from the steering wheel boss towards the driver's chest - people would then drive very carefully indeed...
Posted by: Jarred C.
|
March 18, 2011 6:45 PM
A lab-mate of mine once told me that the hormesis effect is why homeopathy works. I wasn't able to convince him that he was wrong; mainly because he was a grad student and I was a mere undergrad at the time, and obviously he know more about it than I. (We were both toxicology students).
Posted by: AlisonS
|
March 18, 2011 7:07 PM
What a tool. Does she not realize that all the early pioneers in radium died of exposure, except my grandfather who somehow survived a very serious bout of radiation poisoning. He did eventually die of cancer at 80. But in her 'black is white' world facts are just inconvenient items.
Posted by: The Sailor
|
March 18, 2011 7:22 PM
Hey, Sarah Palin made the news this week, so did Coultergeist, so did the Grinch of Newt and Sharon Angle ... gosh, none of these people have anything but notoriety.
One would almost think they just say shit to get in the news ... oh look, something sniny ...
What was I saying?
Posted by: Thanny
|
March 18, 2011 7:23 PM
"The data are weaker"
"the data gets harder to collect"
"interpreting these data"
Plural, mass noun, plural. Within a few sentences of each other.
When will scientists stop pretending to speak Latin, and simply accept that "data" is a mass noun? Slip-ups like the above show that many (if not most) of them have to consciously pluralize the surrounding grammar.
Regarding the post topic, I think it goes without saying that if Ann Coulter says something about science, it's wrong.
Posted by: It'spiningforthefyords
|
March 18, 2011 7:27 PM
On the one hand, I feel we just HAVE to acknowledge that Ann Coulter's comic performance, sustained for so long at such an intense level, demands respect: Cohen's "Borat" and Andy Kaufmann's work pale in comparison - and they were great!
On the other hand, the sooner AC ends this VERY, VERY bitter, VERY, VERY dark comedy bit (she makes Montgomery Burns look like Richard Dawkins), the better.
It's all a matter of how she chooses to kill the character off, and if she decides to admit the whole thing was a put-on.
I'm of the opinion that she can't bring herself to give up the role, and will die in Bela Lugosi fashion: still in costume.
May it be soon, suitable absurd, and horrific.
Posted by: The Sailor
|
March 18, 2011 7:28 PM
@ # 80 "I think it goes without saying that if Ann Coulter says something it's wrong."
FIFY.
Posted by: Timberwoof
|
March 18, 2011 7:30 PM
As though we needed any more confirmation that Anne Coulter is an idiot, this made my ears perk up: she apparently believes that there are government-mandated minimum daily requirements for radiation exposure. From the video…
"…what the government says are the minimum amounts you should be exposed to…"
"…five times what the government says is the minimum you should be hit with…"
Once may have been misspoken, but twice, with different wording but the same meaning?
Posted by: The Sailor
|
March 18, 2011 7:32 PM
Simple answers to simple questions: Will radiation hormesis protect us from exploding nuclear reactors?
No.
This has been another edition of Simple Answers To Simple Questions.
Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM
|
March 18, 2011 7:44 PM
*nn C**lt*r is like a villain from an Edward Abbey novel. This is Dudley Love swallowing a bit of uranium in Hayduke Lives!: A Novel.
Posted by: Kieranfoy, Faerie Godfather of Death, GMKSC, OED
|
March 18, 2011 7:45 PM
Um.
Wat?
Sam Harris is totally do-able!
I mean, man, come on! Look at him!
Posted by: Krebiozen
|
March 18, 2011 7:48 PM
I found the article I mentioned above about the Burlakova response, that may lead to a biphasic dose-response curve at low levels of exposure to low level ionizing radiation.
On Internal Irradiation and the Health Consequences of the Chernobyl Accident
Here's a useful debunking of radiation hormesis:
Radiation Hormesis & Zero Risk Threshold Dose: Two Scientifically Refuted, But Stubborn Myths
BTW, you can even buy radioactive stones for "healing purposes", which I think most people would agree is simply crazy.
Posted by: CitizenJoe
|
March 18, 2011 7:57 PM
Lynna,
Thanks for noting the Art Robinson nuttiness. I am in Oregon, in the congressional district where this nutjob ran. There were tons of AR signs up, and he came closer to beating Peter DeFazio than anyone has in a long time.
Joe
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
March 18, 2011 8:01 PM
Jebus, the sexiest part of the female is the brain. And AC decided to become a dumb blond for money. Just can't see her in any sexual fantasy, in spite of the degrees. Apologize for mentioning her in that fashion.
Posted by: It'spiningforthefyords
|
March 18, 2011 8:03 PM
Likely enough, Ann is so dry radiation cannot harm her. Someone, preferably named Dorothy, needs to throw a bucket of water on her.
Posted by: timgueguen
|
March 18, 2011 8:40 PM
Coulter's statements on radiation are evidence that she is likely a disgusting slime alien who is powered by radiation, and who uses psychic powers to project a human image. The crew of Moonbase Alpha had problems with a group of them some years back.
http://www.space1999.net/catacombs/main/epguide/t41bow1.html
http://www.space1999.net/catacombs/main/epguide/t42bow2.html
Where's John Koenig when we need him?
Posted by: fordiman
|
March 18, 2011 8:40 PM
Coulter's an idiot, and anyone with significant radiation damage (like members of the Fukushima 50) is going to be sick from it. Period.
That said, bad as the event in Japan with Fukushima Daiichi is, the radiation releases there are not a large hazard to the public of Fukushima. The risk of exposure will be altogether over within 6 months, during which time, stable iodine saturation treatment of the population will keep the public safe.
The only way we're going to avoid climate change is by expanding our nuclear power generation such that it supplants coal and natural gas, as well as expands our electricity generation to support the migration of the transportation sector to electric vehicles. Solar and wind are too intermittant and too diffuse. Hydroelectric is nearly saturated at only 7% of our current consumption. We need nuclear.
Still, we should be doing it smarter; we're not recycling the waste, despite the fact that 99% of the fuel is reusable. That's a problem, and it's one the NRC should be addressing.
Posted by: dezinerau
|
March 18, 2011 8:49 PM
I saw a commenter on an Australian news website blog use hormesis as a reason why the radiation would be good instead of bad. But this was on a blog surrounded by equally deluded posts about bananas and sunlight (not to mention AGW-denial, racism, homophobia, and severe cases of Christian Persecution Complex — yes, it’s a conservative blog).
My first thought (and comment) was that we know things are bad when homeopaths are telling us things are good for us.
I guess these people don’t realise that ultra-violet radiation isn’t really radiation in the nuclear sense, and that beta- decay (in bananas) isn’t the same the neutron decay of nuclear fission. But then what would I know?
P.S. If anybody saw my previous post on this blogger, I had confused the SMH with the Herald Sun (where this particular blogger trolls). It won’t happen again.
Posted by: dannystevens.myopenid.com
|
March 18, 2011 9:14 PM
Isn't that level of stupid illegal in the US?
Honestly, it would be interesting to test her actual belief in what she is saying. Set up a lead lined room, wear the outfits and hand her a sealed box with orders to open it only after you have left and resealed the room. Inside is a slip of paper saying "Holy fuck we didn't think you were stupid enough to really open this! We thought you were kidding!".
Posted by: Mike Crichton
|
March 18, 2011 9:36 PM
It's the same principle behind medieval beer and wine drinking — it was healthier than the water because the alcohol killed the germs.
Common misunderstanding. It was the brewing process itself that killed the germs, the alcohol level in medieval beverages was far too low to kill anything.
Posted by: Primewonk
|
March 18, 2011 9:39 PM
As we used to say in high school (in Iowa - many many many years ago) - I wouldn't fuck her with your dick!
Posted by: audri.h
|
March 18, 2011 9:54 PM
Lynne: I also thank you for linking Art Robinson. I caught his interview on Maddow, and it was clear he was a nutter. He's the only other person I've heard espouse the "radiation=good" hypothesis. The interview is worth a watch.
Posted by: Kevin
|
March 18, 2011 10:12 PM
And Coulter is supposed to be the "smart one"?
Wow. Just. Wow.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/O.jullMj0I2VvJaxMMVeNKSfOPf73voLSxJAe9PdlOWwi8Y-#258ec
|
March 18, 2011 10:57 PM
I think she is doing what she always does she is is just speaking for the rich and powerful she perceives that the rich and powerful want to make money on nuclear power plants so she is just saying to dampen the fear that her audience has of them. She usually is pushing fear of the things that her audience fears so they will go along with policies that are against their own interests. she is just a mouth piece for the powerful reactionary wealthy republicans
mr bill
and a fool
Posted by: Protoplasmoid
|
March 18, 2011 11:09 PM
Internet kudos to Bill O Reilly!!
Huh.
I can't figure out Billo somedays.
It's almost like on air he is simply trolling until he finds someone genuinely offensive to give cover for him to attempt to be reasonable.
Words fail me with Ann though.
Posted by: adam.yakaboski
|
March 18, 2011 11:29 PM
Jesus christ on a pogo stick. Doesn't anyone of know how the FDA got its power in the first place? Its because of idiots like Art Robinson who peddled this crappy idea to the point where people's jaws started falling off.Posted by: Phalacrocorax, not a particularly smart avian
|
March 19, 2011 12:03 AM
Thanks for the article, I just learned a new word and a new phenomenon. I'll have forgotten the word by the morning, but probably will still remember the concept.
You know, today I heard a person saying that without background radiation we would all die. He was a physicist, and this means he thought he knew everything about biology.
Posted by: tedhohio
|
March 19, 2011 12:46 AM
Let us not forget that according to Ann, the full body scanners used by TSA are a potential radiation hazard. Well that was her position 5 months ago on Sean Hannity. (Ann Coulter is Two Faced has a link to the video) Funny how a body scanner is a potential hazard, but a runaway nuclear reaction is good for the Japanese people. Does she live on the same planet as the rest of us?
Posted by: thermos26
|
March 19, 2011 3:01 AM
I found a source for good radiation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxRgNnue-zk&feature=channel_video_title
Posted by: lazarus
|
March 19, 2011 5:05 AM
It is good and rather worrying to see Bill O'Reilly actually be the voice of sanity for a change.
Posted by: serendipitydawg
|
March 19, 2011 10:11 AM
First thought: "You try it, Anne, I'll wait a few years to see what happens to you."
Also, I have to say that she has one of the single most annoying voices I have ever encountered. At least she doesn't get interviewed on TV in the UK (unlike Sarah Palin, who had an entire segment on "Newsnight"... WTF?)
Posted by: btbarnes
|
March 19, 2011 10:12 AM
Ann, feel free to tell all us liberals how treasonous we are, but keep your nose out of science; you're way out of your league.
Posted by: grudgedk
|
March 19, 2011 10:13 AM
Ah the Incredible Hulk theory of radiation exposure. The only reason you won't get cancer from massive amounts of radiation poisoning, is because you won't live long enough. People exposed to the kind of radiation happening in a critical mass fission reaction die shortly thereafter.
This isn't Japans first encounter with nuclear radiation. I'd say that if any nation fully understands the consequences of ionizing radiation, and the long-lasting effects of radiation on large civilian populations, Japan is probably at the top of that list.
Posted by: serendipitydawg
|
March 19, 2011 10:26 AM
Good point. She probably figures that if enough of her kind expose themselves then one is guaranteed to become a superhero.
I would still take the cautious approach, as tested by Peter Parker, and expose spiders that are then permitted to bite me.
Posted by: mangocats
|
March 19, 2011 12:07 PM
Thank you for a rational explanation.
I worked for a time with a PhD radiotherapist, and he obviously bought in somewhat to the concept of hormesis - small doses didn't scare him.
He worked with a PhD candidate who did dosimetry measurement studies for his thesis - he worked in and around radiotherapy devices for a couple of years gathering his data. This PhD candidate tragically died of a rare bloodborne cancer in his early 20s. It's not science, proof or anything, just a single datapoint observation - if that PhD candidate accidentally received some radiation during his work, it certainly didn't save his life.
Posted by: serena.boyte
|
March 19, 2011 12:15 PM
Wait a minute. "Studies from Canada"? I thought Coulter didn't believe in Canada?
Posted by: imokyrok
|
March 19, 2011 5:33 PM
These claims of beneficial health effects popped up on discussion forums regarding the Fukishima incident very quickly - always being pushed by posters with a known pro nuclear, pro big business conservative bias. I've discovered there are 'scientists' going from one nuclear industry conference to another making exactly these claims and declaring the disastrous health effects from Chernobyl to be 'scams' and 'frauds'. (Where have we heard that before?) TD Luckey is one such fan of radiation hormesis. As is Jerry M Cuttler. I suspect we will be hearing from them a lot over the next year or so as they are hauled out to gloss over the risks associated with Nuclear Incidents.
Posted by: Kevin W.
|
March 19, 2011 7:15 PM
Now that I bothered to read her article, I think you are simply misrepresenting what she wrote. If the harm from a small amount of radiation is outweighed by the benefit of increased defense mechanisms, I think we'd need to say that small amounts of radiation can be net beneficial.
She wrote:
"Although it is hardly a settled scientific fact that excess radiation is a health benefit, there's certainly evidence that it decreases the risk of some cancers ...
Which is to say: The general theory that small amounts of toxins can be healthy is widely accepted --except in the case of radiation."
I think her opener about Japan was just a horribly misguided attempt at being light-hearted. The above quote seems completely coherent with your own explanation of hormesis. I don't think she is claiming to know what amount of radiation is okay, since she claims right there that it isn't even settled that any excess radiation is a health benefit.
Posted by: Loren Petrich
|
March 19, 2011 9:57 PM
I have a proposal for Ann Coulter. That she go scuba diving in a swimming-pool nuclear reactor. She ought to swim toward a beautiful cerulean glow in it -- it's just the place for her.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnI6lz7ZbVRpwBn30vUU_G6fnMlowY5VTE
|
March 19, 2011 10:06 PM
I think Ann Coulter should volunteer to go to Japan in her black tank dress and stilettos and help plug the reactor leaks.
Posted by: Kevin W.
|
March 19, 2011 10:09 PM
Did I miss her saying that radiation is generally good for you? Can anyone point out where she said or wrote that? That is what she is getting pilloried for, but I am wondering how I failed to see it.
Posted by: Boyd
|
March 20, 2011 12:07 AM
Facts are just a liberal conspiracy to make the baby Jesus cry.
Posted by: NicoleDream
|
March 20, 2011 9:22 AM
I... I...
did Ann Coulter (...just typing her name is painful) just say that radiation is a cancer vaccine?
Well, damn, there goes my faith in humanity again.
Posted by: Joe Durnavich
|
March 20, 2011 11:23 AM
Sounds like fun!
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07018/754860-96.stm
Posted by: Meathead
|
March 20, 2011 4:09 PM
Coulter and O'Reilly. Lies go in, lies go out, no misunderstandings.
Posted by: blf
|
March 20, 2011 4:59 PM
Yes.
Last line of Pee Zed's quote:
Posted by: the bill
|
March 20, 2011 7:41 PM
This little brown squishy bit is just one little nugget in a veritable poo-slide of disinformation that got going almost immediately uopn the discovery of the problem at Fukushima.
Find any online article on the topic that has comments attached and you're virtually guaranteed to also find an aggressive troop of pro-nuke zealots splattering-up the place with comments such as these (another favourite is that Chernobyl 'only' killed 50 - sometimes 65 - people, utilizing that wonderful weasel-word 'directly'.)
These people truly are fanatics. It's also worth remembering George Monbiot's recent warnings re professional astroturfers online.
We may well need to have a debate about whether the dangers of this industry actually outweigh the risks associated with AGW - but with such complex systems these risks will always be there, and things will always go wrong, with potentially dire consequences. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either a liar, a loon, or trying to sell you something. Or all of the above.
What we don't need is to attempt any dialogue with a bunch of militant fantasists who always claim the latest incarnation of their beloved monster is 'completely harmless'!
Posted by: Kseniya
|
March 20, 2011 9:24 PM
And of course she cites Tom Bethell, who (predictably) claims that evolution is a pseudo-science, AGW is a scam, and that HIV doesn't cause AID.
Bingo, anyone?
Posted by: Kseniya
|
March 20, 2011 9:38 PM
(I meant AIDS, of course.)
Posted by: mm
|
April 5, 2011 11:17 PM
Reading the above comments, I wonder how you people can stomach your own insufferable arrogance. Must be kind of like a snake being immune to its own venom, or how Al Gore doesn’t bore himself to sleep when he talks. I’m soooo glad I didn’t opt for a career in academia.
Um, does 3rd grade level name calling, and nasty invective really constitute intelligent debate? Dust off your Logic 101 texts, children—it’s called “ad hominem” argument, an informal fallacy.
Clearly Ann Coulter referred to actual studies on radiation hormesis—I don’t know how accurately. I didn’t have the stomach to read all of these posts, but I didn’t see a single one of you geniuses making any reference to actual science on the subject. Dr. Myers at least drew an analogy to hormesis with alcohol, but it seems like I recall from Chemistry 101 that alcohol isn’t normally radioactive, not clear how well the analogy applies. Geniuses that you all are, I’m underwhelmed with your scientific analysis. Sans the hateful invective, all you’ve demonstrated is your “faith” in your beliefs.
Posted by: Old_Health_physicist
|
April 12, 2011 3:40 PM
Unfortunately for my mental state, Ann Coulter may actually have a fact or two correct. (Ouch that hurt!}
There is a lot of evidence that Hormesis exists for radiation. The book "Radiation Hormesis" by
T. D. Luckey was published about 1983. It contains hundreds of references that, when taken as a group, sort of indicate that there may be something there. A Wiki article has some information as a reasonable place to start thinking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis
Remember, just because she is wrong on so many things, does not mean she is wrong here.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/GYy0LP1oi5Iu1oI6B6k.jcrtSgm5smuD#df64b
|
June 17, 2011 9:28 AM
Knee-jerk reaction much?
A very rational quote from her article:
"Although it is hardly a settled scientific fact that excess radiation is a health benefit, there's certainly evidence that it decreases the risk of some cancers -- and there are plenty of scientists willing to say so."
Which she demonstrates by quoting scientists from Johns Hopkins, U. of Pittsburgh, and Harvard, as well as numerous scientific studies.
Meanwhile, we look as this scientific quote from your article:
"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?"
So, no sunlight for anyone, right? I even read your page with the hope that you had something informed or intelligent to add to the discussion.
To help put radiation in perspective:
http://xkcd.com/radiation/
You and your fellow "scientists" deserve this article:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=42477