Any reason to run her yap is OK with Annie. So, I agree with Bill. I will now have to commit Harakiri.
Any reason to run her yap is OK with Annie. So, I agree with Bill. I will now have to commit Harakiri.
2
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
PSA:
ok everyone, when the background count gets up above 130cpm..
..everyone together now..
BREATH DEEP…
-cant ya just feel that wonderful energy shredding your dna to nothingness..
-aah.. smells like..victory..
(this psa is brought to you by the gates “kill the bottom feeders” / “stop the ascension” foundation. call now for free brochure)
Don’t forget to drink lots of Milk!
(muhahhhahhahhahaaaa)
silly Hoomans
-s
#24,
It’s because Mahar taught Colture not to talk with her mouth full.
The established “safe” number is arbitrary. There is no known safe amount of radiation. The government “safe” number was determined to be a reasonably attained level at an economical cost.
You probably end up with around 300 mrem a year, perhaps more, if you take a lot of airplane flights, or have a lot of medical x-rays or nuclear medicine procedures.
In 1957, the occupational limit was lowered to a maximum of 5,000 millirems per year from 25,000 at the end of WW-II.
The highest recommended limit for radiation exposures is for astronauts – 25,000 millirems per Space Shuttle mission, principally from cosmic rays.
I don’t know what the average dosage is for those that have stayed for months on board Mir or the ISS.
At any rate, I don’t think I’ll be going to an Ann Coulter radiation spa anytime soon.
If radiation causes cancer, than why do they bombard cancer patients with radiation?
Besides, there is a safe dose of radiation. We get bombarded by cosmic rays all night from the stars and solar radiation all day from the sun. (Actually we probably get cosmic radiation during the day from the stars we can’t see.)
Ann Coulter complaining about “the media” is like all those conservative politicians complaining about “the government.”
>> Mr. Fusion said, on March 18th, 2011 at 2:53 pm
>> The established “safe” number is arbitrary. There is no known safe amount of radiation.
Really? No known safe amount? How about normal levels of background radiation?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Y7S_XWuKpHc
any one else want to see Dan Akroyd Counterpoint this Coulter woman?
>> Benjamin said, on March 18th, 2011 at 3:43 pm
>> If radiation causes cancer, than why do they bombard cancer patients with radiation?
There are LOTS of things that can be good in appropriate amounts but lethal if too much.
Food, for instance.
But, if Ann Coulter is saying it, it’s almost certainly wrong.
I want to thank Ann for striking a serious blow against conservative logic. Her argument is effectively that we shouldn’t have invaded Iraq to destroy Saddam’s nukes, we needn’t take an interest in any nuke R&D by the Iranians or Kim Jong Il, and it’s no longer necessary to take any precautions against terrorists armed with suitcase nukes or dirty bombs. In fact, all out nuclear war will be just like treating the whole world to a day spa. Let’s go!
I think she would look good sucking my dick, just like Sarah Palin, but god forbid I should ever have to listen to her.
#39
Iv’e got this. Before my father died of esophigeal cancer we was getting radiation along with his chemotherapy. The purpose of the radiation was to kill the cells that were targeted, in an attempt to prolong his life. By carefully targeting the radiation, whichever type it was, I am uncertain, and taking multiple shots, they could triangulate a place inside his body that received a lethal dose of radiation while the rest of the tissue that was hit was merely traumatized.
However, it is my understanding, that it is a desperation treatment, that you do when you want a couple more months of life, and sometimes, you can kill enough of the cancer cells, and trigger the body to reject all that tissue and cure the cancer.
However in my fathers case, it was the radiation sickness that ultimately killed him. I learned after his death that it was a hail marry pass because he could not have survived another surgery to reduce the tumor.
#15: “# 7 – you prefer CIA spooks over libertarians, figures.”
Since Buckley actually had a mind, and Coulter doesn’t (neither do most Libertarians, there’s a reason why they never get elected), given the chance I’d prefer to talk to Buckley.
Comments reinforce my original comment.
Radiation as being nutritious is an ill description McCullough. But that radiation is a natural part in the being of mankind is without doubt. She is actually right. The official radiation limit in the US is low. In Oslo, Norway the accepted level is 5 times higher and why? The radon gas from the alun shale that the city sits on. The city has been there for a 1000 years and no specific high deaths or unusual cancer statistics can be shown. Pretty safe with other words.
Point is, that Ann Coulter is not telling people to ‘eat’ radiation as indicated, and what she say is not ‘strange’. What she reports is the facts. With a tiny bit of basic physics aboard, her reports from scientific evidence should be interesting. The strange thing is the Fox Hound’s inability to grasp the idea and refer to the current standards as coming from the fountain of wisdom. And the 911 comparison was totally of of context. What a jerk.
When did Charlie Sheen dye his hair blonde?
#45 has it right. Anne is parroting other physicists who say that the GOV’T’s recommendations are too low, and that the media isn’t reporting it. She always does this kind of thing. BillO jumps to the other extreme right away (irresponsibly) and finds irrelevant counter examples to make a valid point that there *is* a level that is always bad. I saw the video. The take-away I got from it is that we probably shouldn’t be scared of low levels of radiation, like getting X-ray pics taken periodically. Radon detectors…are they beneficial? She’s not saying to stand in front of Chernobyl…and BillO agrees with that, but doesn’t want people to jump to the wrong conclusions like he did on purpose.
The bias of many of the comments presented here is mind-boggling. Once again the discussion content of the video clip is overshadowed by visceral hatred towards its participants.
Must everything be a polarized team sport? Would the same comments appear if a nonamed transcript were published here instead? I think not.
Greg Allen
>> Mr. Fusion said, on March 18th, 2011 at 2:53 pm
>> The established “safe” number is arbitrary. There is no known safe amount of radiation.
Really? No known safe amount? How about normal levels of background radiation?
Who said they were “safe”? They are what we accept because that is the minimum we are capable of.
Everything has some danger to it. Mostly, the danger is very minimal. Going to your doctor’s office has the danger of an auto accident, Godzilla smacking you with his tail, a meteor hitting you, etc. Minimal, but still existent. Yet we will accept that these dangers are so minimal to ignore them.
Radiation is the same, as are mercury and lead. There will always be some degree of exposure. At the lowest dose we could receive, there is still some danger. Yet that doesn’t mean it is non existent, only that the probability is so low we may safely ignore it. So with limits we balance the cost to the safety to find some acceptable level.
what makes the limits arbitrary is who is doing the balancing. A CEO removed from the scene will not worry as much about the safety of the limit while someone exposed to the radiation (lead or mercury) will downplay the cost. Limits of 0.0 are obviously unobtainable. So a limit has been decided upon by trying to balance cost vs safety.
A.C. wouldn’t be on Tv if she were a dried up old prune (Barbara Walters excluded, cause she’s connected). It wouldn’t matter if she were some kind of genius. Without the looks, no job on cable. So the corollary to that is, if someone is a grade A class moron, it doesn’t matter so long as they’re an attractive young female. Because it’s all about getting ratings. And they’re pretty sure that a majority of America males will watch anything, no matter how vacuous and stupid. As long as they’re a pretty face and voice, on the screen. Congratulation A.C. fans. Your hormones rule your minds. Your sex drive dictates your intellect. Happy? Not you can all fry a nuclear death, knowing that at least Ann Coulter approves of radiation. SICK!!
She gives Conservatives a bad name!
Ann Coulter, speaking from Fox News’ lead and concrete bunker, defends nuclear power, no matter how bad it gets, so the mega-billion dollar power companies get to have more plants built. And keep using Plutonium, instead of Thorium. Because nuclear weapons material refiners don’t want the expense of retooling for Thorium. In fact, it’s likely they’d need a whole different facility to process Thorium, so as not to contaminate it with Plutonium residue. And so, it’s weaponizable nuclear reactor fuel, or nothing. And I’m sure FOX has an undisclosed interest (always) in the future of Nuclear Power profitability. Like most of the GOP does.
“Ann Coulter, Neocon Fembot”? Hey, you’re probably right. She is likely to be a nuclear power android. And more radiation who just make it easier for her to reproduce and take over the world. And we’d become her fembot army’s slaves. Hot waxing and polishing their perky butts all day. At least until we cook to death. Got mixed feelings about that.
Should we presume Ms. Coulter would support more research in this area?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States#Human_radiation_experiments
Researchers in the United States have performed thousands of human radiation experiments to determine the effects of atomic radiation and radioactive contamination on the human body, generally on people who were poor, sick, or powerless.[50] Most of these tests were performed, funded, or supervised by the United States military, Atomic Energy Commission, or various other US federal government agencies.
The experiments included a wide array of studies, involving things like feeding radioactive food to mentally disabled children or conscientious objectors, inserting radium rods into the noses of school children, deliberately releasing radioactive chemicals over U.S. and Canadian cities, measuring the health effects of radioactive fallout from nuclear bomb tests, injecting pregnant women and babies with radioactive chemicals, and irradiating the testicles of prison inmates, amongst other things.
#55. Yes, but that was just the “good” radiation. So, no prob.
# 23 1873 Colt said:
“I love how you lefties just HATE smart women.”
Not at all. Eleanor Roosevelt, Barbara Jordan, Bella Abzug, Ann Richards, Coretta Scott King, Amy Klobuchar, Blanche Lincoln, Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, all well-regarded powerful women. Who have you got? Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Michele Bachmann?
Scary…
Why do you label Ann Coulter a neo-con? Last I checked she was against the war in Afghanistan.
Once again, a message that may merit further examination is tainted by a messenger who doesn’t know the meaning of “reasonable” or “cautious.”
Many things that are highly toxic in large doses can actually be beneficial in small amounts, such as watching FOX News. Brief exposure to this segment, with Bill O’Reilly as the voice of reason, may be the highlight of my day. But watching FOX News for 4 or 5 hours straight would surely make my head explode. Correct dosage is critical.
However, my possibly unhealthy attraction to Ann Coulter remains undiminished. Something about her is strangely hot, and I think I first noticed it about the time I found out she was a big fan of the Grateful Dead.
#59
Undoubtedly you have sexuality issues you have yet to explore. Ann Coultier is quite clearly a man living as a woman with a full sex change.
Somehow it is visible to me in every thing she does. She walks and sits like a man. She talks like a man. She moves like a man. She has the face of a man.
Yes, undoubtedly she now he lives as a woman, but I would be willing to place money that a genetic evaluation of Ann Coultier would reveal XY chromozones.
She is an irresponsible twit seeking publicity for her crap books that are so boring and filled with paper thin rants, I can’t even begin to tell you just how boring. Yes, she is a cartoon character but these whackos like Bill Orielly and ALL of the Right Wing AND Left Wing media give this idiot a platform. She has stated herself she is jealous of Sarah Palin’s ability to generate attention. It is no one’s fault but our own that we watch and promote these trashy hacks and other hacks like Bill Maher and Micheal Moore.