Timeline for Is some level of radiation "good for you"?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
27 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Jun 7, 2020 at 15:19 | history | edited | Avery | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
explain who Coulter is to all the non-US audience
|
| S Jun 7, 2020 at 15:19 | history | suggested | smci | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
explain who Coulter is to all the non-US audience
|
| Jun 4, 2020 at 20:37 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jun 7, 2020 at 15:19 | |||||
| Jun 4, 2020 at 16:11 | history | protected | CommunityBot | ||
| Feb 23, 2013 at 9:02 | comment | added | Paul | Visible light is one form of radiation. Without any such solar radiation for photosynthesis and warmth , most life on Earth would end. So, sure, some level of radiation is good for you. The ambiguous nature of the term "radiation" can be misleading because it is used to label a number of phenomena, some harmless and some harmful. Radiation refers to particles or waves travelling in rays, not whether those particles or waves are harmful or are even related to nuclear reactions. Radiation can refer to sunlight or radio waves, just as well as the byproducts of a nuclear event. | |
| Apr 26, 2012 at 0:56 | history | post merged (destination) | |||
| Apr 26, 2012 at 0:55 | history | edited | Oddthinking♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Generalised the title.
|
| Apr 25, 2012 at 17:07 | answer | added | 410 gone | timeline score: 1 | |
| Apr 25, 2012 at 13:00 | comment | added | Jamiec♦ | Totally not a valid source, but interesting nonetheless - does cite a number of valid, scientific sources though! | |
| May 28, 2011 at 7:43 | comment | added | Lennart Regebro | @DVK: I admire your determination of trying to rationalize Anne Coulters rantings. I'm pretty sure you'll fail. :) | |
| Apr 27, 2011 at 18:32 | vote | accept | Monkey Tuesday | ||
| Apr 27, 2011 at 18:28 | vote | accept | Monkey Tuesday | ||
| Apr 27, 2011 at 18:31 | |||||
| Apr 27, 2011 at 18:28 | vote | accept | Monkey Tuesday | ||
| Apr 27, 2011 at 18:28 | |||||
| Apr 27, 2011 at 18:21 | comment | added | Monkey Tuesday | @jwenting that is probably true, but is only all the more reason to for us to stick to the science and examine the facts. | |
| Apr 27, 2011 at 7:19 | comment | added | jwenting | @MT you may not, but her political opponents have twisted her statements to state just that. So posting the actual statements prevents such things here. | |
| Apr 25, 2011 at 2:16 | comment | added | Monkey Tuesday | @DVK is my question phrased in such a way as to appear that I am implying she advocates wholesale irradiation of the general populous? I didn't mean to imply that, and I can edit as necessary if that's the impression people are getting from the question. Also, left wing/right wing political debate is unproductive. This question is solely about the evidence either for or against radiation hormesis. Cheers. | |
| Apr 24, 2011 at 12:37 | answer | added | Oliver_C | timeline score: 29 | |
| Apr 24, 2011 at 9:33 | comment | added | user5341 | @Monkey - also, she seems to treat this on a pretty nuanced level - "Although it is hardly a settled scientific fact that excess radiation is a health benefit, there's certainly evidence that it decreases the risk of some cancers -- and there are plenty of scientists willing to say so". She nowhere advocates for wholesale irradiating everyone - merely for stopping irrational anti-scientific "nuclear is Baaaaaad" for you media/left wing hysteria. | |
| Apr 24, 2011 at 9:32 | comment | added | user5341 | @Monkey - she also references a bunch of other studies, a lot of which dealt with what could be classified "uncontrolled, accidental environmental exposure" - e.g. shipyard workers working on nuclear reactors. | |
| Apr 24, 2011 at 8:58 | comment | added | Sklivvz | Please keep the comments on topic and avoid non-constructive discussions. Thanks. | |
| Apr 24, 2011 at 3:46 | answer | added | Lagerbaer | timeline score: 12 | |
| Apr 24, 2011 at 3:34 | answer | added | Brian M. Hunt | timeline score: 32 | |
| Apr 24, 2011 at 2:04 | comment | added | dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten | @Oliver: That's the correct answer. You should post it as such. | |
| Apr 24, 2011 at 0:09 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackSkeptic/status/61944770481758209 | ||
| Apr 23, 2011 at 23:37 | comment | added | Oliver_C | Here is a well referenced paper on "Radiation Hormesis", and here is a study. While there seems to be some evidence for radiation hormesis, Ann Coulter obviously doesn't understand how to interpret it correctly. Saying a nuclear disaster will probably reduce your cancer risk is just stupid. | |
| Apr 23, 2011 at 23:17 | answer | added | Chris Dennett | timeline score: 3 | |
| Apr 23, 2011 at 23:01 | history | asked | Monkey Tuesday | CC BY-SA 3.0 |