In her interview with O’Reilly, she was quoting the NY Times.
She picks and chooses from sources which last week she railed against.
And from her article.....
In 1983, a series of apartment buildings in Taiwan were accidentally constructed with massive amounts of cobalt 60, a radioactive substance.
What exactly is a “massive amount”. One would think someone supposedly fiaxed on facts would back up a term with actual hard numbers. She doesn’t.
Ann is full of BS. You are free to follow her right over the cliff.
Not me thanks.
Ann is certainly less precise than science would demand. However, her purpose was not to educate on specific radionuclides but to attack a fundamental misconception that has been gleefully perpetuated by uber-enviro-weenies for political purposes.
In short, radiation is not conceptually equivalent to poison, as in “always under all circumstances harmful to human life.” It simply isn’t so, and her article is designed specifically to dislodge that misconception, and it succeeds at that.
There are conditions where anything can be “poisonous” and conditions where that same thing can be very healthy. Water, for example, in hyper-hydration, becomes a poison to the brain. But there is no political advantage to fear-mongering about overindulging in water, so it’s not an issue.
But whosoever controls the energy resources of a society controls that society with an iron grip. This means that highly efficient sources of energy would be a prime target for any efforts to exert dictatorial control. If energy is too easy to get, people can do what they want, and economies can grow. So from the left’s perspective, nuclear *has* to be demonized, otherwise we would have too much control over our own destiny. Tying us down to foreign oil, or worse still becoming sole source suppliers of a dribble of green energy, only enslaves us.
So Coulter may not have scientific precision as her forte, but that’s OK, because it is irrational fear grounded in false overgeneralization she is attacking that is the real enemy, and that because, unlike Cobalt-60, but rather more like “Kryptonite,” it is being used to make us weak.
I see the current political scene as a battleground of words and ideas, and I don’t think “we” do ourselves any good by tearing down those that are on “our side”.
That applies to Rush, or Beck, or Coulter, or Savage, or Gingrich, or Levin, or Palin, or Bachman, or Romney, or any in a long list of others.
I may not agree with everything they say or do, but I think that attacking any of them would be self defeating, even though they all have, at one time or another, said or done something that does not fit my “ideal” of what they should project.
They are human beings just like me and they are not perfect; but I sincerely believe these people are on “my side”.
I save my attacks for the opposition, and I don’t shoot at the guys who share my foxhole.
When you say “Ann Coulter is a hack and a media whore.”;
(your post in #10 on this thread)
or “Ann is full of BS. You are free to follow her right over the cliff.”;
(your #53 on this thread)
what is that supposed to accomplish?