You know there's a problem when...

[lilphil1989]

Bill O'Reilly has to give you a science lesson!

[downbeatplumb]

She is an idiot, cherry picking statistically insignificant instances to try and deny the truth.
The effects of radiation at all levels is very well understood, it has been subject to decades of research and has had several large scale tests of the effects of radiation, chernobyl, nagasaki, hiroshima, three mile island, nuclear test veterans the list goes on and on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_poisoning

[theVOID]

What the fuck? Hey guys, let's obliterate our cells with photons, it's good for lung cancer!

[HeyItsZeus]

Only on Fox News...

[orogenicman]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model

In recent years, the accuracy of the LNT model at low dosage has been questioned. Many believe that when radiation is distributed evenly enough, so that the levels are comparable to the natural levels, it has no harmful health effects.

In the scientific community, expert panels are often convened to consider and write reports on the most important and controversial topics of the day. Several of these expert panels have been convened on the topic of the Linear no-threshold model.
In 2004 the United States National Research Council (part of the National Academy of Sciences) supported the linear no threshold model and stated regarding Radiation hormesis:[7][8]

The assumption that any stimulatory hormetic effects from low doses of ionizing radiation will have a significant health benefit to humans that exceeds potential detrimental effects from the radiation exposure is unwarranted.

the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (a body commissioned by the United States Congress).[9] endorsed the LNT model in a 2001 report that attempted to survey existing literature critical of the model.
the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) wrote in its most recent report[10]

Until the [...] uncertainties on low-dose response are resolved, the Committee believes that an increase in the risk of tumour induction proportionate to the radiation dose is consistent with developing knowledge and that it remains, accordingly, the most scientifically defensible approximation of low-dose response. However, a strictly linear dose response should not be expected in all circumstances.

However, other organisations disagree with using the Linear no-threshold model to estimate risk from environmental and occupational low-level radiation exposure. The French Academy of Sciences (Académie des Sciences) and the National Academy of Medicine (Académie nationale de Médecine) published a report in 2005 (at the same time as BEIR VII report in the United States) that rejected the Linear no-threshold model in favor of a threshold dose response and a significantly reduced risk at low radiation exposure, they wrote:[11][12]

In conclusion, this report raises doubts on the validity of using LNT for evaluating the carcinogenic risk of low doses (< 100 mSv) and even more for very low doses (< 10 mSv). The LNT concept can be a useful pragmatic tool for assessing rules in radioprotection for doses above 10 mSv; however since it is not based on biological concepts of our current knowledge, it should not be used without precaution for assessing by extrapolation the risks associated with low and even more so, with very low doses (< 10 mSv), especially for benefit-risk assessments imposed on radiologists by the European directive 97-43.

The Health Physics Society's position statement first adopted in January 1996, as revised in July 2010, states:[13]

In accordance with current knowledge of radiation health risks, the Health Physics Society recommends against quantitative estimation of health risks below an individual dose of 5 rem in one year or a lifetime dose of 10 rem above that received from natural sources. Doses from natural background radiation in the United States average about 0.3 rem per year. A dose of 5 rem will be accumulated in the first 17 years of life and about 25 rem in a lifetime of 80 years. Estimation of health risk associated with radiation doses that are of similar magnitude as those received from natural sources should be strictly qualitative and encompass a range of hypothetical health outcomes, including the possibility of no adverse health effects at such low levels.

The American Nuclear Society recommended further research on the Linear No Threshold Hypothesis before making adjustments to current radiation protection guidelines, concurring with the Health Physics Society's position that [14] :

There is substantial and convincing scientific evidence for health risks at high dose. Below 10 rem (which includes occupational and environmental exposures) risks of health effects are either too small to be observed or are non-existent.

Several scientists also disagree with the Linear No Threshold Hypothesis. In the extreme case, some authors promote Radiation hormesis, the idea that some radiation is good for people. Others simply regard the LNT as conservative or even completely wrong for predicting the effect of low doses of radiation. As an example, Dr John DeSesso, academic expert in teratology writes,[15]


When conducting risk assessments, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not currently consider the beneficial effects from exposure to concentrations of agents below the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL). If such benefits were observed, and if the beneficial and toxicological mechanisms of action were identical, this would probably be represented as a ‘j–shaped’ hormetic dose–response curve. If such data are available, they should be considered when assigning uncertainty factors for safe exposure calculations.

A book Radiation and Reason by Professor Wade Allison argues that linearity is not appropriate in biology, or in any scientific context where correction or feedback is significant. He shows that data on therapeutic radiation, exposure to elevated natural radiation (the presence of radon gas in homes), the diseases of Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors and other data are consistent with the expected non-linearity. Consequently he suggests that new radiation safety levels be established that reflect a more reasonable balance of risk between personal medical and public environmental radiation exposures. Such a change would have major effects on the acceptability and costs of nuclear technology.[16] Professor Bernard Cohen of the University of Pittsburgh arrived at a similar conclusion in his comparison of the effects from differing levels of environmental radon in 1601 U.S. counties.[17]
______________________
So what she did was present one side of a controversy that hasn't been decided yet in professional circles within which she has no qualifications whatsoever. But hey, at least she is no longer accusing Clinton of being gay just because he isn't hitting up on her boney ass.