While manufactured “arguments” continue to wage about topics such as climate change and evolution, Anne Coulter has stepped up the game, adding the benefits of radiation to the pot:
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. “They theorize,” the Times said, that “these doses protect against cancer by activating cells’ natural defense mechanisms.”
Among the studies mentioned by the Times was one in Canada finding that tuberculosis patients subjected to multiple chest X-rays had much lower rates of breast cancer than the general population.
And there are lots more!
A $10 million Department of Energy study from 1991 examined 10 years of epidemiological research by the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health on 700,000 shipyard workers, some of whom had been exposed to 10 times more radiation than the others from their work on the ships’ nuclear reactors. The workers exposed to excess radiation had a 24 percent lower death rate and a 25 percent lower cancer mortality than the non-irradiated workers. … Although reporters love to issue sensationalized reports about the danger from Japan’s nuclear reactors, remember that, so far, thousands have died only because of Mother Nature. And the survivors may outlive all of us over here in hermetically sealed, radiation-free America.
Here’s the issue with this kind of material. The evidence of absence, and so on. I’m not a scientist. It’s possible that, despite what we’ve heard all these years, a bit of radiation is good for us, like a glass of red wine. But as the “myths of science” continue to build up, it may be good to add a healthy dose of skepticism in with our U-235 tablets, and wonder just how far this can be taken? How many rides are we being taken on right now?