AnnCoulter says Radiation is good for you

faethor

faethor

Active Member
Moderator
Joined
Aug 25, 2005
Messages
5,144
Reaction score
1,243
Even Bill O'Reilly doesn't believe her.

"Radiation, yes indeed! You hear the most outrageous lies about it. Half-baked goggle-boxed 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 'em too" -- Repo Man
 
miss coulter should run off to japan right now and stand in the center of the rods.

really.
 
I can't help but wonder if this chick ever knows what she's talking about. She even makes O'Reilly look wise and rational.
 
I've heard this before.

A few years back there were studies done around Chernobyl and they were rather surprised to find a seemingly healthy population of animals around the plant where there shouldn't be any. So, they decided to find out what's going on.

There were studies on the impact of radiation on humans during nuke tests but these have all been done at high radiation levels. From these you get tables of how much radiation does how much damage. There were no studies at lower exposure levels so it's always just been assumed the relationship is linear. For lower levels they just extrapolated the measurements from higher levels, they're not based on actual measurements.

It turns out we have anti-radiation genes and low levels of radiation can activate them giving health benefits. By the sounds of it there's been a lot more studies recently and they're confirming this.

So, now someone has actually bothered studying it instead of making assumptions. It appears low levels of radiation might actually be good for you.


Isn't science wonderful :-)
 
minator said:
I've heard this before.

A few years back there were studies done around Chernobyl and they were rather surprised to find a seemingly healthy population of animals around the plant where there shouldn't be any. So, they decided to find out what's going on.
Click to expand...
It turned out that the initally exposed animals mutated and died. Many of the birds living in the area seem to be fine. When studied their life spans were shorter and produce less off spring. Also, don't forget different animals have different impacts from radiation. For example there's the Cockroach claim that they can survive 300 times the exposure of humans. Chernobyl today is an area in the world people cannot live without negative impact.

It turns out we have anti-radiation genes and low levels of radiation can activate them giving health benefits. By the sounds of it there's been a lot more studies recently and they're confirming this.

So, now someone has actually bothered studying it instead of making assumptions. It appears low levels of radiation might actually be good for you.

Isn't science wonderful :-)
Click to expand...
Are you referrring to Hormesis? Radiation itself is damaging to DNA always. The body, of course, has an ability to heal. Very short term exposure of very low levels might have some short term healing potential. Research is fairly minimal on this and hard to determine from the background noise. And of course being healthy to start with is always a positive. The very young, old, and sick will likely respond less positively to exposure to damaging elements. Their condition of a weaker defense and healing mechanisms makes their acceptable exposure levels even lower.
 
Many foods are naturally radioactive, and bananas are particularly so, due to potassium-40. One medium-sized banana contains about 450 mg of potassium. 40K is 0.0117% of the total, or about 53 ?g, which produces 14 Becquerel (Bq), or 0.37 nCi of radiation, which you eat every time you eat a banana.

eating a banana is about 0.01 mrem of ingested radiation

Other foods that have above-average radioactive levels are potatoes, kidney beans, nuts, and sunflower seeds. Brazil nuts are one of the most naturally radioactive foods, with activity levels that can exceed 444 Bq/kg (12 nCi/kg)


Solar radiation exposure varies with altitude & latitude. Solar ultraviolet radiation is carcinogenic, but sunlight exposure has health benefits.

And beware standing in the sporting goods isle, those lantern mantles are radioactive, they make nice test sources for your Geiger counter! Lots of other common household items are also high in radioactive thorium. Start checking pottery & ceramics with your Geiger counter.

:roll:
 
metalman said:
Many foods are naturally radioactive, and bananas are particularly so, due to potassium-40. One medium-sized banana contains about 450 mg of potassium. 40K is 0.0117% of the total, or about 53 ?g, which produces 14 Becquerel (Bq), or 0.37 nCi of radiation, which you eat every time you eat a banana.

eating a banana is about 0.01 mrem of ingested radiation

Other foods that have above-average radioactive levels are potatoes, kidney beans, nuts, and sunflower seeds. Brazil nuts are one of the most naturally radioactive foods, with activity levels that can exceed 444 Bq/kg (12 nCi/kg)


Solar radiation exposure varies with altitude & latitude. Solar ultraviolet radiation is carcinogenic, but sunlight exposure has health benefits.

And beware standing in the sporting goods isle, those lantern mantles are radioactive, they make nice test sources for your Geiger counter! Lots of other common household items are also high in radioactive thorium. Start checking pottery & ceramics with your Geiger counter.

:roll:
Click to expand...

Don't forget granite counter tops.
 
Everything has an exposure quantity and timeframe element. A person's body responds based on size, healthiness, and tissue types. This chart may not be prefect but it's fairly close and provides a good graphical representation of ionizing radiation. link

Radiation produces breaks in DNA. This destroys the cells. Radiation is clearly not a nutrient which would be a building block of our bodies. Any 'good' effect appears to be hormesis effects.
 
Um, yes, radiation is everywhere. The point of this thread is that talking about radiation as if it's a good thing while watching people flee from a reactor meltdown is a pretty stupid thing to do. Granite counter tops are totally out of context here as we should all know that nuclear meltdowns release more then just small amounts of radiation, but also toxic elements like uranium and plutonium. It's like saying water is good for you while watching the Titanic go down.
 
Glaucus said:
Granite counter tops are totally out of context here as we should all know that nuclear meltdowns release more then just small amounts of radiation, but also toxic elements like uranium and plutonium.
Click to expand...

http://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/news/2 ... for-danger

At issue is whether some granite countertops emit dangerous levels of radiation, especially the gas radon, which is the second leading cause of lung cancer after smoking.

Experts agree that most granite countertops emit some radon and even other types of radiation. The question is whether they do so at levels that can impact cancer risk.

New York State Health Department research scientist Michael Kitto, PhD, says only a small fraction of the granite samples he has tested have emitted radon at levels that were over those considered safe.

But he added that a few of his samples showed levels that were high enough to alarm him.

“I wouldn’t have them in my house,” Kitto tells WebMD.
Click to expand...
 
Granite releasing radiation from uranium is interesting. Don't forget that laminate counter tops off gas Volatile Organic Compounds from the glue. These are chemicals that can also impact quality of life for the home owner. VOC's in the home can easily be higher than outdoor air. In severe cases exposure can effect kidney's and the liver.

I wonder how limestone, marble, and stainless steel are for pollutants.
 
faethor said:
Are you referrring to Hormesis?
Click to expand...

Looks like it.

Radiation itself is damaging to DNA always.
Click to expand...

Sure, but it's what those damaged cells do next that will cause the ill effects. Maybe there is some built in mechanism that kills off the damaged cells but it is for some reason normally dormant.
 
redrumloa said:
"Sorry this video is private"
Click to expand...
aside: I wish I could figure out a way to make just segments of a video private so that youtube would announce "Sorry this video has private parts".

he he... um.. sorry, I really have nothing serious to add to this thread.
 
minator said:
Sure, but it's what those damaged cells do next that will cause the ill effects. Maybe there is some built in mechanism that kills off the damaged cells but it is for some reason normally dormant.
Click to expand...
What we do know is when a cell is damaged the body rushes to repair. There's nothing we know of that's dormant and only springs into being once exposed to radiation. The hormesis effect is the body produces more repairing then needed. The problem becomes a scaling problem as this relationship doesn't exist over all duration or all exposure levels.
 
Recently the ground water under the Nuke Plant was tested at levels 10K times higher than the recommended safe dose for a human.

Ann Coulter said bathing in the radioactive water would be healthy. Perhaps she should arrange a group bath for her fellow Fox News talking heads.
 
faethor said:
Recently the ground water under the Nuke Plant was tested at levels 10K times higher than the recommended safe dose for a human.

Ann Coulter said bathing in the radioactive water would be healthy. Perhaps she should arrange a group bath for her fellow Fox News talking heads.
Click to expand...

There are three facets to radiation doses: time, distance and intensity of exposure. If the dose is low enough, or the distance is high enough, the other two become irrelevant.

The half-life of iodine-131 is slightly over 8 days

Radiation Dose Chart

Not on the chart but the backscatter x-ray scanners expose individuals to 0.03 to 0.1 µSv per scan = eating 1 banana

bfec_1.JPG

Uranium Glass in black light


During the early 19th century glass makers in Central Europe started to use uranium as a good way to make yellow and green glass. In 1789 Martin Klaproth in Germany had first recognised uranium as a chemical element, and is said to have added it to glass as a colourant. But it was 50 years later that glassmakers in Bohemia, seeking new colours in a highly competitive market for glass, started to use uranium. If you shine an ultra-violet light onto it, you will get a fluorescent green glow, like the picture above. Two pounds of uranium oxide were typically added to around 184 pounds of other constitutents. Tests conducted have shown that the radiation levels from even large quantities of uranium glass at close quarters are no more harmful than those associated with television sets or microwave ovens. ... Josef Reidel is usually credited with inventing uranium glass in 1830 under the names "Annagrun" for uranium yellowish- green glass, and "Annagelb" for uranium yellow glass, naming them after his wife Anna Maria. His factory, Dolny Polubny in Bohemia, made these kinds of uranium glass from 1830 to 1848. ... Uranium was a common source of yellow and green colouring for over a hundred years. Boyd Glass and Fenton Art Glass are two USA companies that produce uranium glass items for collectors today.

radium-jar.jpg
 
metalman said:
faethor said:
Recently the ground water under the Nuke Plant was tested at levels 10K times higher than the recommended safe dose for a human.

Ann Coulter said bathing in the radioactive water would be healthy. Perhaps she should arrange a group bath for her fellow Fox News talking heads.
Click to expand...
There are three facets to radiation doses: time, distance and intensity of exposure. If the dose is low enough, or the distance is high enough, the other two become irrelevant.

The half-life of iodine-131 is slightly over 8 days
Click to expand...
If Coulter doesn't get there soon she'll miss the radiation. Her 'more' is better attitude only has a few days left.

Half life is the # of days for half of the nuclei to decay. In 8 days the 10K times is reduced to 5K times (half). If my math is correct the recommended safe dose will be reached in about 3 and half months, we could say 4 for a bit of safety.
 
faethor said:
metalman said:
There are three facets to radiation doses: time, distance and intensity of exposure. If the dose is low enough, or the distance is high enough, the other two become irrelevant.

The half-life of iodine-131 is slightly over 8 days
Click to expand...
If Coulter doesn't get there soon she'll miss the radiation. Her 'more' is better attitude only has a few days left.

Half life is the # of days for half of the nuclei to decay. In 8 days the 10K times is reduced to 5K times (half). If my math is correct the recommended safe dose will be reached in about 3 and half months, we could say 4 for a bit of safety.
Click to expand...

in 6 half lives (48 days) it has decayed to 1/64th of original intensity
in 7 half lives (56 days) it has decayed to 1/128th
in 8 half lives (64 days) it has decayed to 1/256th

bath3.jpg


"These porous paper envelopes, containing a mixture of sulfur and clay (kaolin), are distributed by the Yuze Hotel in Japan, located at a hot mineral spring reputed to have therapeutic properties. Radioactive Thorium is in high concentration in the kaolin clay. These packets are added to warm bathing water to give the benefits of a Radioactive mineral water (onsen) bath in the home"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top