A Glowing Report On Radiation
That’s the title of Ann Coulter’s column today. It’s another priceless knockdown of liberal cant. She says:
As The New York Times science section reported in 2001, an increasing number of scientists believe that at some level — much higher than the minimums set by the U.S. government — radiation is good for you. “They theorize,” the Times said, that “these doses protect against cancer by activating cells’ natural defense mechanisms.”
I guess good radiation stories are not as exciting as news anchors warning of mutant humans and scary nuclear power plants — news anchors who, by the way, have injected small amounts of poison into their foreheads to stave off wrinkles. Which is to say: The general theory that small amounts of toxins can be healthy is widely accepted –except in the case of radiation.
Every day Americans pop multivitamins containing trace amount of zinc, magnesium, selenium, copper, manganese, chromium, molybdenum, nickel, boron — all poisons.
Before anyone accuses Ann Coulter of being a crackpot they might like to read her column for the authorities she cites to back up her thesis, and then consider that Colorado has more than double the U.S. average background radiation of around 7 milliSieverts (700 milli-Roentgen) a year; Leadville, Colorado at an elevation of 10,000 feet above sea level has background radiation of 50 times that or more. According to predictions by the government Colorado should have higher cancer rates than places with low background radiation. Reality is exactly the opposite — Colorado has a lower cancer rate than those places.