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.
A very astute observation. Did you ever wonder why liberals and leftists and socialists seem to favor "renewable" energy sources? It isn't out of any concern for the environment, or "the children", believe me. It is because they know those energy sources are inherently limited, and cannot meet the energy demands of a growing economy and a technologically-based society, where individual liberty and freedom are valued, and the means are available to safeguard and assure that freedom and liberty. So, if the available energy resources cannot meet demand, what happens? Why, rationing, of course. And who controls rationing, ultimately? The government. So the end result is more government control of individual choice, a reduction in individual liberty and freedom to live as one chooses within their means.