Doctors Save Ohio Toddler By 'Printing' Him An Airway Tube

[Fred Brown]

Doctors Save Ohio Toddler By 'Printing' Him An Airway Tube

Next thing we know doctors will be printing babies. :))

Read more:
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/05/23/doctors-save-ohio-boy-by-printing-airway-tube/?intcmp=features#ixzz2U70ujn3D

[Chris Zakes]

There was a suggestion of "printable" food to help ease world hunger
(or, alternatively, to allow further population growth, since
populations have this annoying habit of expanding to the ragged edge
of their food supply.)
http://qz.com/86685/the-audacious-plan-to-end-hunger-with-3-d-printed-food/

-Chris Zakes
Texas
--

A properly balanced sword is the most versatile weapon for close quarters ever
devised... A sword never jams, never has to be reloaded, it is always ready.

-Oscar Gordon in "Glory Road" by Robert Heinlein

[invalidd]

Chris Zakes wrote:


>
> There was a suggestion of "printable" food to help ease world hunger
> (or, alternatively, to allow further population growth, since
> populations have this annoying habit of expanding to the ragged edge
> of their food supply.)
> http://qz.com/86685/the-audacious-plan-to-end-hunger-with-3-d-printed-food/
>
> -Chris Zakes
> Texas

"We already know that eating meat is environmentally unsustainable."
Heh! In that case the human race is doomed because we have evolved to
require meat as part of our diet.

There's a basic flaw in the food printing concept. Our food chain relies
on converting cellulose to something human stomachs can digest. The
printer isn't converting indigestible substances into digestible
substances so it isn't actually improving the situation.

[Tesseract]

On 23-May-13 5:40 AM, Chris Zakes wrote:
> On Thu, 23 May 2013 06:59:57 -0400, an orbital mind-control laser
> caused "Fred Brown" <fred...@nowhere.com> to write:
>
>> Doctors Save Ohio Toddler By 'Printing' Him An Airway Tube
>>
>> Next thing we know doctors will be printing babies. :))
>>
>> Read more:
>> http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/05/23/doctors-save-ohio-boy-by-printing-airway-tube/?intcmp=features#ixzz2U70ujn3D
>
> There was a suggestion of "printable" food to help ease world hunger
> (or, alternatively, to allow further population growth, since
> populations have this annoying habit of expanding to the ragged edge
> of their food supply.)
> http://qz.com/86685/the-audacious-plan-to-end-hunger-with-3-d-printed-food/
>
> -Chris Zakes
> Texas
>

"Contractor is agnostic about the source of the food-based powders his
system uses. " So I see an opening for Soylent Green.

--
Tesseract

[Frank McCoy]

Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 23 May 2013 06:59:57 -0400, an orbital mind-control laser
>caused "Fred Brown" <fred...@nowhere.com> to write:
>
>>Doctors Save Ohio Toddler By 'Printing' Him An Airway Tube
>>
>>Next thing we know doctors will be printing babies. :))
>>
>>Read more:
>>http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/05/23/doctors-save-ohio-boy-by-printing-airway-tube/?intcmp=features#ixzz2U70ujn3D
>
>There was a suggestion of "printable" food to help ease world hunger
>(or, alternatively, to allow further population growth, since
>populations have this annoying habit of expanding to the ragged edge
>of their food supply.)
>http://qz.com/86685/the-audacious-plan-to-end-hunger-with-3-d-printed-food/
>

"Remember grandma’s treasure box of recipes written in pencil on
yellowing note cards? In the future, we’ll all be able to trade
recipes directly, as software. Each recipe will be a set of
instructions that tells the printer which cartridge of powder to mix
with which liquids, and at what rate and how it should be sprayed, one
layer at time."

Um ... No.
Somebody confuses software with the data that software handles.
Software will run the printer.
The recipe will be ... a recipe for a printer instead of a cook.
Mainly an organized set of tables that software can read.
Rather like a recipe is a set of tables a cook can read.
Only these tables would specify not just WHAT went into the recipe and
how to cook it, but exactly how each tiny part would look and feel by
giving mixing-instructions down to the fraction-of-an-inch scale.

However, SOMEBODY is being VERY optimistic.
A good cook has *thousands* of selections to choose from, not just in
what major ingredients such as meat (protein and oils and such) and
potatoes (OK ... various starches and binders) along with
salt-and-pepper; but an incredible number of spices ... a lot of which
don't dry into powder very well; and thus need essential oils as well.

So, instead of having just four, five, or maybe even a dozen or so
selection of powders, and oils to mix with water, a good food-printer
would really need hundreds if not a thousand or more.

The mind boggles at all the things that could go wrong in such a
complicate piece of machinery in which one tiny blockage could
completely ruin a good dish. Sometime ask a person who maintains a
coin-operated coffee-machine usually dispensing hot-chocolate as well)
that only has about four or five powders NOT measured through tiny
tubes, but through relatively BIG measuring devices, how often he/she
has to clear blockages and fix the operating machinery.

The system is pretty much the same idea; except for the printer being
MUCH more complicated and the powders dispensed on a MUCH smaller
scale (and thus far easier to jam up either the dispensed material or
the machinery). Then think of all those hundreds of powders, oils,
and water all coming together in one very TINY print-head without ever
combining to produce a substance that has to be chiseled out, and ....

Without such variation, the food would become incredibly bland and
monotonous. Even your basic Farm-Boy "meat and potatoes" guy usually
likes more variation than just stew or steak or pizza.

Though, I'll admit to knowing some kids who it seems could subsist on
just pizza of the same kind for months on end. ;-{

Like I said above, methinks the inventor is being *incredibly*
optimistic.

But then, most inventors ARE. You might say they HAVE to be.

--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_

[Frank McCoy]

The idea is to reduce WASTE.
Which, if the printer could work reliably, it might do.
However, (see my previous response) I think such a printer would have
far MORE waste because of jam-ups and failures.
IMO, there are far better ways to reduce waste.
One of the best (that people just don't seem to want to accept) being
irradiated food.
For some reason, when buying FOOD, an incredible number of people
think that "irradiated food" means "radioactive food"; and that
they'll grow an extra head of die of cancer if they eat it.
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/factsheets/Irradiation_and_Food_Safety/index.asp
http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/food.htm
http://uw-food-irradiation.engr.wisc.edu/Facts.html
Then of course, there are the luddites who think that anything more
complex than cooking on an open flame over a campfire is bleeding
*dangerous* because their cave-dwelling grandfather Ug didn't use it:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/Irrad/irradfact.cfm
They conveniently IGNORE the fact that every complaint they make about
irradiation ALSO applies (often in Spades!) to ANY cooking method!
Especially those that Grandfather Ug used that apply high heat
directly to meat.
Also, pasteurization does much the same thing to dairy-products.

[Frank McCoy]

Oh yeah ... Thinking about it:
I do see a possible future for a much-simplified device like that:
The vending-machine that "prints" a specified pizza on-demand.
Well ... perhaps not. Would be way too incredibly slow.
A pizza-printer that lays out sauce, meat, and cheese by-selection
from a menu on the front ... Yeah, that might work.
But the cooking of it would be a problem in a world where people
expect *instant* product from a vending-machine.
Waiting *hours* while a real printer put down each tiny drop ....
Probably not acceptable even in a normal home.
Better, easier, and probably less waste to buy it frozen like we do
now; and then just "nuke it" in the microwave.

[invalidd]

Frank McCoy wrote:

>>
>>>There was a suggestion of "printable" food to help ease world hunger
>>>(or, alternatively, to allow further population growth, since
>>>populations have this annoying habit of expanding to the ragged edge
>>>of their food supply.)
>>>http://qz.com/86685/the-audacious-plan-to-end-hunger-with-3-d-printed-food/
>>>
>>> -Chris Zakes
>>> Texas

>

> The idea is to reduce WASTE.

The biggest waste, IMO, is people eating food that not only do they not
need but actually causes deleterious effects to their bodies.

[John W. Vinson]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 13:54:53 +0100, invalidd <inva...@invalidd.invalidd>
wrote:

>! In that case the human race is doomed because we have evolved to
>require meat as part of our diet.

Ummm...

I last ate meat (other than a couple of unintentional bites) in 1970. I'm not
dead yet.

Humans are omnivores, not obligate carnivores.
--

John the Wysard JVinson *at* Wysard Of Info *dot* com

[invalidd]

John W. Vinson wrote:

> On Thu, 23 May 2013 13:54:53 +0100, invalidd <inva...@invalidd.invalidd>
> wrote:
>
>
>>! In that case the human race is doomed because we have evolved to
>>require meat as part of our diet.
>
>
> Ummm...
>
> I last ate meat (other than a couple of unintentional bites) in 1970. I'm not
> dead yet.
>
> Humans are omnivores, not obligate carnivores.

I'm basing that on comparative studies of child health, looking at
vegetarian/vegan kids versus omnivores.

There are other cases too where intervention is needed to counteract
deficiencies in vegetarian/vegan diets - pregnant women and women with
heavy menstrual bleeds spring to mind.

There was a snippet in the health pages of my paper recently (no cite,
I'm afraid) where the expert claimed that small quantities of saturated
fat from red meat were good for health, which is about as contrary to
what most experts say as you can get. I have no idea what basis there is
for that claim.

[Jessica]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 10:45:13 -0500, Frank McCoy wrote:

> So, instead of having just four, five, or maybe even a dozen or so
> selection of powders, and oils to mix with water, a good food-printer
> would really need hundreds if not a thousand or more.

And that's not taking into account the sheer size of the hoppers of food
powder the printer will need in order to be commercially viable in
anything other than a one-person environment.

While we're at it, what about vulnerability to cross-contamination? Or
deliberate tampering? Poisoning an entire dining room was never easier.

[Frank McCoy]

The important term in the above sentence is: "small quantities".
It's amazing how acclimated the Human Body has become to NOT
manufacturing needed things that it *could* easily make, like other
animals do; and so has become dependent on getting same from
food-sources; simply because it's (usually) far easier and cheaper (in
energy terms) to EAT the needed ingredient; it being almost always in
most food people eat.

HOWEVER, we thus get "vitamins": proteins and sometimes even alkaloids
the body NEEDS in tiny quantities.

To a large extent, the fact that there are so MANY such items needed
in our diets (instead of only a very few) is because we are, as a
race, omnivores with an incredible range of food that we not only eat
but LIKE, to provide the otherwise "missing ingredients".

Most people just don't NEED to take vitamin pills or supplements!
We usually get FAR more than we need, just in our normal (or even
sometimes abnormal) diet.

However, once people go to extremes like vegan or all-meat diets, for
whatever reasons, then you just cannot EXPECT to get all needed
materials any more. Then you get the need for extra vitamins or
adding VERY special foods to said diet. The human body just isn't
built to be either vegetarian, or carnivore.

That doesn't mean we CANNOT subsist on such diets; simply that they
don't normally supply all of our body's needs. ("normally")

Thus we get "diseases" like Pellagra, Rickets, Scurvy, BeriBeri,
Iron-Deficiency-Anemia, and others. When you're a woman and pregnant
or having menstrual bleeding, your needs for some normally-carnivorous
foods can become extreme.

As a race, we really are NOT vegetarians OR carnivores.
We're omnivores; which means we eat just about anything.
And, our bodies have adapted to an eat-anything-diet.
Political-desires about not eating cute animals completely to one
side.

[Frank McCoy]

"Nunsense" ;-}

[Tim Merrigan]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 07:40:11 -0500, Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 23 May 2013 06:59:57 -0400, an orbital mind-control laser
>caused "Fred Brown" <fred...@nowhere.com> to write:
>
>>Doctors Save Ohio Toddler By 'Printing' Him An Airway Tube
>>
>>Next thing we know doctors will be printing babies. :))
>>
>>Read more:
>>http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/05/23/doctors-save-ohio-boy-by-printing-airway-tube/?intcmp=features#ixzz2U70ujn3D
>
>There was a suggestion of "printable" food to help ease world hunger
>(or, alternatively, to allow further population growth, since
>populations have this annoying habit of expanding to the ragged edge
>of their food supply.)
>http://qz.com/86685/the-audacious-plan-to-end-hunger-with-3-d-printed-food/
>
> -Chris Zakes
> Texas

Wouldn't do much for world hunger, it doesn't create new food, just
changes how it's prepared.

[Tim Merrigan]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 11:12:31 -0500, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com>
wrote:

More likely, a printer that prints out different shapes and sizes of
pasta, possibly (probably) some that can't be extruded from a pasta
press.

and similar simple foods

[Chris Zakes]

One of the articles I read said something about using insect-based
protein. Most people are kind of squeamish about eating bugs, but if
they're processed into generic protein for the food printer,
presumably that'd be more acceptable. If that happens, it *could*,
essentially, create a new food. (And,of course, the Luddites and
anti-GMO crowd would probably be up in arms aboupt that, too.)

[Jessica]

On Thu, 23 May 2013 19:59:37 -0500, Chris Zakes wrote:

> One of the articles I read said something about using insect-based
> protein.

Oho! You is meanink bog pie?
<http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php?date=20120702>

[Frank McCoy]

Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 23 May 2013 13:10:00 -0700, an orbital mind-control laser
>caused Tim Merrigan <tp...@ca.rr.com> to write:
>
>>
>>On Thu, 23 May 2013 07:40:11 -0500, Chris Zakes <dont...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 23 May 2013 06:59:57 -0400, an orbital mind-control laser
>>>caused "Fred Brown" <fred...@nowhere.com> to write:
>>>
>>>>Doctors Save Ohio Toddler By 'Printing' Him An Airway Tube
>>>>
>>>>Next thing we know doctors will be printing babies. :))
>>>>
>>>>Read more:
>>>>http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/05/23/doctors-save-ohio-boy-by-printing-airway-tube/?intcmp=features#ixzz2U70ujn3D
>>>
>>>There was a suggestion of "printable" food to help ease world hunger
>>>(or, alternatively, to allow further population growth, since
>>>populations have this annoying habit of expanding to the ragged edge
>>>of their food supply.)
>>>http://qz.com/86685/the-audacious-plan-to-end-hunger-with-3-d-printed-food/
>>>
>>> -Chris Zakes
>>> Texas
>>
>>
>>Wouldn't do much for world hunger, it doesn't create new food, just
>>changes how it's prepared.
>
>One of the articles I read said something about using insect-based
>protein. Most people are kind of squeamish about eating bugs, but if
>they're processed into generic protein for the food printer,

But, if so-processed, where's the need for the food-printer?
Look at what they presently do with soy-protein.

>presumably that'd be more acceptable. If that happens, it *could*,
>essentially, create a new food. (And,of course, the Luddites and
>anti-GMO crowd would probably be up in arms aboupt that, too.)
>

[kevi...@yahoo.com]

On Thursday, May 23, 2013 10:13:21 AM UTC-4, Tesseract wrote:
> "Contractor is agnostic about the source of the food-based powders his
>
> system uses. " So I see an opening for Soylent Green.

You remember the _Futurerama_ joke about Soylent Cola?

"How does it taste?'

"It varies from person to person."

[Tesseract]

As I don't usually watch that show, I missed that episode. Unfortunately.

--
Tesseract

[invalidd]

Chris Zakes wrote:

> (And,of course, the Luddites and
> anti-GMO crowd would probably be up in arms aboupt that, too.)

Huh?

I'm pro GMO.

I'm against introducing them into the ecosystem or food chain before
they've been thoroughly tested.

[Fred Brown]

"invalidd" <inva...@invalidd.invalidd> wrote in message
news:knlfbh$mh2$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

M&Ms happens to be a health food. :))

[Fred Brown]

"Frank McCoy" <mcc...@millcomm.com> wrote in message
news:6jfsp8t3odk3jgoa0...@4ax.com...

There is a machine that makes pizza to order, of course it dosen't
"print" them, It assembles the pizza from selected ingrediants and
then bakes it. Saw it on "How do they do that".

[Frank McCoy]

s/M&Ms/ALL chocolate/

[Frank McCoy]

Makes a lot more sense than printing them.

[Frank McCoy]

Define "thoroughly tested".

My gut-feeling is there will be a catch-22 in the definition
somewhere.

Something like:
A. They need to be *thoroughly* tested before humans eat them.
B. That means tested for at least fifty years.
C. You can't rely on laboratory studies.
D. You can't even rely on animal studies.
E. Only *human* studies are reliable enough.
F. See criterium 'A' above.

[invalidd]

Frank McCoy wrote:
> invalidd <inva...@invalidd.invalidd> wrote:
>
>
>>Chris Zakes wrote:
>>
>>
>>>(And,of course, the Luddites and
>>>anti-GMO crowd would probably be up in arms aboupt that, too.)
>>
>>Huh?
>>
>>I'm pro GMO.
>>
>>I'm against introducing them into the ecosystem or food chain before
>>they've been thoroughly tested.
>>
>
> Define "thoroughly tested".

To the same standards as pharmaceutical products is the usual rule of thumb.

>
> My gut-feeling is there will be a catch-22 in the definition
> somewhere.
>
> Something like:
> A. They need to be *thoroughly* tested before humans eat them.
> B. That means tested for at least fifty years.
> C. You can't rely on laboratory studies.
> D. You can't even rely on animal studies.
> E. Only *human* studies are reliable enough.
> F. See criterium 'A' above.

Criterion. From Greek, not Latin. Or perhaps, to be consistent, you say
rhododendrum.

[Frank McCoy]

invalidd <inva...@invalidd.invalidd> wrote:

>Frank McCoy wrote:
>> invalidd <inva...@invalidd.invalidd> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Chris Zakes wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>(And,of course, the Luddites and
>>>>anti-GMO crowd would probably be up in arms aboupt that, too.)
>>>
>>>Huh?
>>>
>>>I'm pro GMO.
>>>
>>>I'm against introducing them into the ecosystem or food chain before
>>>they've been thoroughly tested.
>>>
>>
>> Define "thoroughly tested".
>
>To the same standards as pharmaceutical products is the usual rule of thumb.
>

As I recall, they HAVE been tested to even more stringent standards.
http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/food-safety.aspx
Essentially the same sort of tests that "generic" drugs have to pass
to be considered equivalent (and thus sold as the same-thing) as the
original or patented drugs.
YOU want them to go through the type of safety-tests that the original
food never had to pass. Not exactly fair. Especially when the
original food just *might* fail! (By the testing-method, there's
about an equal chance of that, as the GMO food failing. With no found
differences, just like none found in generic drugs, the issue is
50/50.)

>>
>> My gut-feeling is there will be a catch-22 in the definition
>> somewhere.
>>
>> Something like:
>> A. They need to be *thoroughly* tested before humans eat them.
>> B. That means tested for at least fifty years.
>> C. You can't rely on laboratory studies.
>> D. You can't even rely on animal studies.
>> E. Only *human* studies are reliable enough.
>> F. See criterium 'A' above.
>

Like I said: Catch-22.

>Criterion. From Greek, not Latin. Or perhaps, to be consistent, you say
>rhododendrum.

I do. ;-}

[invalidd]

Frank McCoy wrote:
> invalidd <inva...@invalidd.invalidd> wrote:
>
>
>>Frank McCoy wrote:
>>

>>>
>>>Define "thoroughly tested".
>>
>>To the same standards as pharmaceutical products is the usual rule of thumb.
>>
>
> As I recall, they HAVE been tested to even more stringent standards.
> http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/food-safety.aspx
> Essentially the same sort of tests that "generic" drugs have to pass
> to be considered equivalent (and thus sold as the same-thing) as the
> original or patented drugs.
> YOU want them to go through the type of safety-tests that the original
> food never had to pass.

Yes.

The original food has passed the test of time and been consumed by
humans for many years.

> food never had to pass. Not exactly fair. Especially when the
> original food just *might* fail! (By the testing-method, there's
> about an equal chance of that, as the GMO food failing. With no found
> differences, just like none found in generic drugs, the issue is
> 50/50.)

I think the chances of any 'normal' food failing pharmaceutical grade
testing is negligible. For GMO food I haven't got a clue. Monsanto won't
do it, and they've bribed/bullied governments into letting their
products into the food chain unlabeled, so we have no way of knowing.

[Fred Brown]

"Frank McCoy" <mcc...@millcomm.com> wrote in message

news:3qlvp8p8j6jppu3op...@4ax.com...

I agree, squeezing sausage bits and pepperoni slices through the printer
nozzle might be a challange.

[invalidd]

One of the things humans enjoy about their food is the different textures.

One of the miracles of modern food processing is the way companies can
take crap and turn it into 'beefburgers', or mold and turn it into
'sausages'.

I would have thought it would be very expensive to incorporate that sort
of technology into a food printer.

[Tesseract]

Currently it is not a practical device but it is proof of concept. Using
bigger, specially designed, much faster printers would go quite a way
towards the Science Fiction concept of a food replicator. Practical
devices would probably also include nanotechnology to create proteins
and essential oils on demand.

--
Tesseract

[Jette Goldie]

On 25/05/2013 11:35, invalidd wrote:
> Frank McCoy wrote:
>> invalidd <inva...@invalidd.invalidd> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Frank McCoy wrote:
>>>
>
>>>>
>>>> Define "thoroughly tested".
>>>
>>> To the same standards as pharmaceutical products is the usual rule of
>>> thumb.
>>>
>>
>> As I recall, they HAVE been tested to even more stringent standards.
>> http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/food-safety.aspx
>> Essentially the same sort of tests that "generic" drugs have to pass
>> to be considered equivalent (and thus sold as the same-thing) as the
>> original or patented drugs.
>> YOU want them to go through the type of safety-tests that the original
>> food never had to pass.
>
> Yes.
>
> The original food has passed the test of time and been consumed by
> humans for many years.
>

There's something that's always puzzled me - some things are only edible
after processing - certain beans are poisonous unless boiled for a
certain length of time, for example.

How did our ancestors discover how to make them edible? :-)



--
Jette Goldie
jgold...@btinternet.com

Living in the Future!

[Frank McCoy]

Jette Goldie <jgold...@btinternet.com> wrote:

>On 25/05/2013 11:35, invalidd wrote:
>> Frank McCoy wrote:
>>> invalidd <inva...@invalidd.invalidd> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Frank McCoy wrote:
>>>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Define "thoroughly tested".
>>>>
>>>> To the same standards as pharmaceutical products is the usual rule of
>>>> thumb.
>>>>
>>>
>>> As I recall, they HAVE been tested to even more stringent standards.
>>> http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/food-safety.aspx
>>> Essentially the same sort of tests that "generic" drugs have to pass
>>> to be considered equivalent (and thus sold as the same-thing) as the
>>> original or patented drugs.
>>> YOU want them to go through the type of safety-tests that the original
>>> food never had to pass.
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> The original food has passed the test of time and been consumed by
>> humans for many years.
>>
>
>There's something that's always puzzled me - some things are only edible
>after processing - certain beans are poisonous unless boiled for a
>certain length of time, for example.
>

Taro.

>How did our ancestors discover how to make them edible? :-)

When you're hungry enough ....
Also, accidents.
"Hey! If you cook this taro-root with the pig, it comes out tasting
pretty GOOD. All the bitterness goes away."

[Chris Zakes]

Lots of trial-and-error, I expect.

[Fred Brown]

"Jette Goldie" <jgold...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:knr3v1$665$1...@dont-email.me...

Probably by accident, trial and error. Acorn nuts are high in protien
but have to be soaked in water to remove the tannic acid that would
make anyone who ingested them sick. Soak them in water and they
become edible. Someone ate some that had been soaking in water
and said, "Hey gang, guess what?"
Early man probably watched to see what the animals ate also.