Ann Coulter On Riots In England

[Guest lazyphil]

yeah, i forgot, its our collective fault.

[unit731]

Ann Coulter? you mean the "higher radition is good for your health" Ann Coulter?

Here her comment after Fukushima...

http://youtu.be/0FNFF61E_Dg

 

I am glad that neither in the UK nor in Germany the media have crazy radicals like her in the center of the conservative discourse. This seems to be a US speciality.

 

Does anyone sell contaminated radiation? I'd like to spread some about the flat. So that I don't get no cancers.

[Bangkoktraveler]

Does anyone sell contaminated radiation? I'd like to spread some about the flat. So that I don't get no cancers.

 

 

If You buy Sarah Palin's latest book, there is a little bag taped to the inside cover that has contaminated radiation dust. There is even a recipe on how to make a super drink using the contaminated radiation dust.

[Specialist]

Ann Coulter? you mean the "higher radition is good for your health" Ann Coulter?

Here her comment after Fukushima...

http://youtu.be/0FNFF61E_Dg

 

I am glad that neither in the UK nor in Germany the media have crazy radicals like her in the center of the conservative discourse. This seems to be a US speciality.

Kamui, you (and others) might find this interesting.

 

http://www.ecolo.org/documents/documents_in_english/taiwan-cobalt-60-apartmt-04.htm

 

http://www.jpands.org/vol9no1/chen.pdf

 

Someone in a Taiwan hospital screwed up ROYALLY, and some cobalt-60 radiation sources got mixed in with the general trash. They were subsequently melted down (as scrap steel), made into rebar, and the rebar went into apartment buildings. For twenty years, people lived in those buildings, including having and raising children. Those people received radiation doses FAR higher than the legal maximums.

 

When it was discovered, the occupants (ALL of them) were tracked down, told of the situation, and examined. They will be followed closely for the rest of their lives. "Cancer rates of people who had lived in those highly radioactive buildings are down to 3.6 per cent of prevailing Taiwanese rates."

[Coss]

A salutary point.

"Cancer rates of people who had lived in those highly radioactive buildings are down to 3.6 per cent of prevailing Taiwanese rates."

Surely they mean 3.6% higher than prevailing? 3.6% of prevailing is very low indeed and infers that living in the contaminated buildings confers some protection on the inhabitants.

But my point is, even a 3.6% higher rate is a small number. A higher risk for sure. but...

I am not going to argue smoking does/nt cause cancer, but take the following into account: If "lung cancer accounts for 2% of the annual deaths worldwide and 3% in the US." - doubling the risk of getting lung cancer means that, should all risk be fulfilled, 96 of 100 people wont get lung cancer every year, world wide and 94 of 100 in the states.

Doubling your risk sounds good dramatic, but when you are dealing with small numbers, not much changes...

JMHO

[kamui]

A salutary point.

 

"Cancer rates of people who had lived in those highly radioactive buildings are down to 3.6 per cent of prevailing Taiwanese rates."

Surely they mean 3.6% higher than prevailing? 3.6% of prevailing is very low indeed and infers that living in the contaminated buildings confers some protection on the inhabitants.

But my point is, even a 3.6% higher rate is a small number. A higher risk for sure. but...

I am not going to argue smoking does/nt cause cancer, but take the following into account: If "lung cancer accounts for 2% of the annual deaths worldwide and 3% in the US." - doubling the risk of getting lung cancer means that, should all risk be fulfilled, 96 of 100 people wont get lung cancer every year, world wide and 94 of 100 in the states.

Doubling your risk sounds good dramatic, but when you are dealing with small numbers, not much changes...

JMHO

 

But this Ann Couller was talking about Fukushima. I wonder how many of the low paid clean up workers at Fukushima will grow old with out a higher cancer e.g. rate (see Chernobyl).

 

 

 

[Guest lazyphil]

shes on the money about the uk riots and society kamui, may not be on the japan tsunami, but trust me, correct on the uk.

[Specialist]

A salutary point.

"Cancer rates of people who had lived in those highly radioactive buildings are down to 3.6 per cent of prevailing Taiwanese rates."

Surely they mean 3.6% higher than prevailing? 3.6% of prevailing is very low indeed and infers that living in the contaminated buildings confers some protection on the inhabitants.

No, Coss, they meant 3.6% of prevailing.

 

From the Abstract in the PDF:

"Based on the observed seven cancer deaths, the cancer mortality rate for this population was assessed to be 3.5 per 100,000 person-years."

"The average spontaneous cancer death rate in the general population of Taiwan over these 20 years is 116 persons per 100,000 person-years."

 

They went on to say:

"Assuming the age and income distributions of these persons are the same as for the general population, it appears that significant beneficial health effects may be associated with this chronic radiation exposure.

 

The researchers were as flabbergasted as you are at these results.

 

"The findings of this study are such a departure from expectations, based on International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) criteria, that we believe that they ought to be carefully reviewed by other, independent organizations and that population data not available to the authors be provided, so that a fully qualified, epidemiologically valid analysis can be made. Many of the confounding factors that limit other studies used to date, such as those of the A-bomb survivors, the Mayak workers, and the Chernobyl evacuees, are not present in this population exposure. It should be one of the most important events on which to base radiation-protection standards."

 

This is real data, from real-world human subjects. It is data that could never have been gotten experimentally, because no ethics committee anywhere on the planet would ever have approved such an experiment on living subjects.