Since When is Bill O'Reilly So Level-Headed About Science?

By Chris Mooney | April 8, 2011 10:58 am

Answer: When he has Ann Coulter on the air, and somebody has to act responsible:

For a thorough debunking of Coulter, see here.

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Media and Science, Nuclear Power

Comments (9)

  1. Unbelievable. We should come out with a government report that excessive amounts of water could be bad for you. Maybe Coulter will drown herself.

  2. Alex

    Cue the barking…

  3. Chris Mooney

    @1 funniest comment i have read in a long time

  4. Dennis

    This is like the blind leading the blind.

  5. rp

    Excessive amounts of water is bad for you:

    of course it’s not just how much, it’s over what period of time.

  6. Jamesqf

    “Excessive amounts of water is bad for you:”

    Not just bad, it can actually be fatal. There was a case in Sacramento a few years ago where someone died as the result of a water-drinking contest (Hold your wee for a Wii”) sponsored by a radio station.

    However, without wishing attribute credibility to Ann Coulter in any way other than sheer accident, it does seem that there’s overwhelming evidence that the LNT model of radiation exposure is incorrect. And if it is correct, why do so few anti-nuclear types complain about the radiation emitted by coal-fired power plants?

  7. Ann is absolutely right that radiation is good for you. And she isn’t getting nearly as much as she should.

  8. Nullius in Verba

    Odd. The criticisms appear to be that, while technically correct, Ann Coulter hadn’t emphasised that this applied to low doses (albeit higher than the official safety limits), or that the research was contentious. Even while quoting Coulter saying in the article “Although it is hardly a settled scientific fact that excess radiation is a health benefit…” and in the interview hearing that what she was objecting to was the media claiming as fact that the tiniest does of radiation were something to worry about – which is equally unsupported by science.

    It sounds to me like people misunderstood what she was saying, and because it was Ann Coulter leapt on the first explanation that occurred to them. “She must be saying that unlimited amounts of radiation are safe. How crazy!” But is it any crazier than the implication that unlimitedly tiny doses of radiation must be deadly dangerous?

    Of course, low doses are exactly what are being experienced by the Japanese population, so Ann’s observation seems more relevant in context. Compared to everything else they’re experiencing – like freezing weather with no electricity – should the tiny risk of radiation really be their top priority? What the global media are getting most excited about?

    Amused by the comment about the deadliness of water – it reminded me of this.

  9. Brian Too

    Sorry but I just can’t bring myself to watch this. Watching Ann is like watching that creature in Species mate. Horrifying in context but ultimately a work of fiction.

    When you decide that you don’t care it gives you your power back.


Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

About Chris Mooney

Chris is a science and political journalist and commentator and the author of three books, including the New York Times bestselling The Republican War on Science--dubbed "a landmark in contemporary political reporting" by and a "well-researched, closely argued and amply referenced indictment of the right wing's assault on science and scientists" by Scientific American--Storm World, and Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future, co-authored by Sheril Kirshenbaum. They also write "The Intersection" blog together for Discover blogs. For a longer bio and contact information, see here.


See More

Collapse bottom bar