Ann Coulter: Radiation Is Healthy for Living Things
A friend asked for my comment on columnist Ann Coulter’s position that radiation is actually good for human health. He seemed quite upset that anyone could use a public position to suggest something so outrageous. And this is not an exaggeration or something taken out of context; Coulter’s position is quite clear (linked above).
I reply:
Let me ask you: Do you think for a minute that she honestly believes this? When I see well-educated people say things so obviously counter to the positions of the scientific community (in this case, as far as I can tell, the entirety of that community) I have to think that they do so only because they are pawns of a larger force, i.e., money! The correlation between radiation and cancer is as well-established a scientific fact as the idea that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning.
This is just trashy entertainment, and these are showpeople who, tragically, were born without a sense of shame. A century ago, it was P. T. Barnum with his bearded ladies and circus geeks. Do you remember the phrase by which we remember him? “There’s a sucker born every minute.” Now Barnum’s legacy is Fox News with circus barkers like Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck. My advice is that you should simply refuse to be this minute’s sucker.
A withering and devastatingly spot-on assessment, Craig.
Ann Coulter is of the same variety of lowly creature as the Yahoo finance commentator who soothed audience members with the cheery prognosis that the disaster in Japan would be good for the Japanese because of the contribution that reconstruction spending will make to their economy…
…Or the economist who assured readers that even the very worst predicted effects of climate disruption would have only limited fiscal impact because agriculture is only 3% of the economy…
…Or the government official who assured a freshly fracked resident that her flaming tap water was fit to drink – but refused to drink it.
At least Barnum’s clowns were funny, and he styled himself as nothing more than an organizer and purveyor of entertainments.
There is considerable evidence that normal background radiation does no harm. Normal background radiation varies considerably depending on location and, in spite of looking for it, there is no evidence that people living in areas with high normal background radiation experience any ill effects from it. Airplane pilots, when at high altitudes, receive considerably more radiation than they do at ground level, yet there is no evidence that they experience any negative effects.
Although there is some evidence that radiation levels somewhat above normal background radiation may be beneficial, the evidence, in my opinion, is insufficient to be conclusive. Moreover, the belief that radiation is beneficial could be used as an excuse to use inadequate caution to minimize radiation exposure.
Prudence dictates that we use reasonable care to minimize radiation exposure.
The nuclear industry subscribes to a policy of limiting radiation exposure to ALARA (as low as reasonably attainable). This is inspite of evidence cited by FRE that normal background radiation does not elevate incidence any form of cancer or other disease. It is quite interesting that the incidence of lung cancer in Colorado is statistically lower than that in coastal Eastern U.S. (Carolinas in particular from a report that I read a few years ago).
Now this does not prove hormesis even though the background radiation exposure from high altitude is far greater in Colorado than at sea level. The explanation lies in atmospheric pollution which accumulates at lower elevations. I wonder if recent improvements in air quality will level the playing field.
LL