Nuclear device for the kitchen, yes really
big...@meeow.co.uk
Can one sterilise food using a beta emitter? I assume alpha would not
have the necessary penetrating power. Where could one get such beta
emitter, if anywhere?
Or might xrays be better?
The application is to extend food storage times in 3rd world countries,
and reduce bacterial contamination.
If its workable to put an emitter in a box with a lead or conrete lid,
with attached tongs to enable food to slde in and out without getting
fingers in there, it might possibly be a way to sterilise food with no
run cost and no energy use.
However... the probable showstoppers are:
how much beta emission would be needed?
where can it be got from, if anywhere?
is the output level low enough to make it handleable in this way?
I think the answer is no to all of those, but worth asking :)
X rays are certainly more available, but a 25-50kV driver to power it
is not ideal. Could this be an option? A TV could produce +&- 24kV for
the job, not sure what sort of tube to go for though.
Thanks, NT
Jim Thompson
It's already being done here in the U.S., at least for military meals.
Seal in plastic, then irradiate.
I don't know what type of radiation is being used.
Of course it's being resisted for use in public consumption by the
loonie greenies, but it's certainly the correct answer for food
preservation AND stopping food-borne illness.
I sometimes think there should be a bounty offered for loonie
greenies, after all they ARE a terrorist group ;-)
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
John Larkin
In the US, spices are commonly zapped to kill bugs, and some other
foods, I think. They use either gammas from an radioisotope source, or
electrons from an accelerator. Google 'food irradiation' or something.
Zapping chicken and certain seafoods would probably save a thousand
lives for every cancer produced.
John
Rick
A device to do this has been made, and was published a few years back,
but the feeling was that the UK market was not ready for food treaded
in such a way.
I belive a seach of New Scientest will find the article for you, but
it was a while ago, so it may be a different magazine.
Rick
raden
<thegr...@example.com> writes
>>X rays are certainly more available, but a 25-50kV driver to power it
>>is not ideal. Could this be an option? A TV could produce +&- 24kV for
>>the job, not sure what sort of tube to go for though.
>>
>>
>>Thanks, NT
>
>It's already being done here in the U.S., at least for military meals.
>Seal in plastic, then irradiate.
>
>I don't know what type of radiation is being used.
>
>Of course it's being resisted for use in public consumption by the
>loonie greenies, but it's certainly the correct answer for food
>preservation AND stopping food-borne illness.
>
>I sometimes think there should be a bounty offered for loonie
>greenies, after all they ARE a terrorist group ;-)
>
Should fit in well with Eco-terrorists like G Wanker Bush then
... and people who don't understand sig separators !
--
geoff
Jim Thompson
And to WHAT are you referring? ------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
My sig separator seems to be working perfectly with other responders.
John Larkin
>A device to do this has been made, and was published a few years back,
>but the feeling was that the UK market was not ready for food treaded
>in such a way.
There are lots of commercial food irradiation systems, and some are in
regular use. There are obvious public health benefits, especially in
developing countries, and massive political problems.
>I belive a seach of New Scientest will find the article for you, but
>it was a while ago, so it may be a different magazine.
>
>Rick
I call it New Shrieker Magazine. What twaddle... a 'scientific'
version of Mother Jones. If you deleted the anti-US propaganda and the
stupid collages and the whitespace and the dinosaur stuff, there
wouldn't be anything left but ads. It's rare to find an issue that
doesn't mention George Bush half a dozen times.
When my renewal notice arrived, I wrote pretty much the above across
it and sent it back. The damned thing just keeps coming!
John
Lobster
> On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 18:02:26 GMT, raden <ra...@kateda.org> wrote:
>>... and people who don't understand sig separators !
>
>
> And to WHAT are you referring? ------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> My sig separator seems to be working perfectly with other responders.
Dunno, works fine for me, even if the sig is just a TAD long??!
David
john jardine
<big...@meeow.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1119199777.8...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> It may not sound like a serious question, but it is.
>
About 10 years ago, prior to their stock market flotation,
www.isotron.com/home.htm were being hailed by market brokers as the next
license to print money. Isotron's food irradiation technology was going to
be the enabling means for the big food providers to massively reduce wastage
and increase their profits.
Fortunately, just before flotation, the U.K. government took onboard the
advice of it's scientists and made food irradiation illegal. Isotron had to
quickly scramble into other areas.
Hasn't though stopped a number of scumbag operators who irradiate food
declared 'unfit for human consumption' and feed it back into our food chain.
Irradiation is particularly effective when used on rotting seafoods, (eg
Prawns). The usual process is to ship the stuff out to Holland (irradiation
is legal) irradiate it and then bring it back into UK.
Every couple of months a case come before the courts.
If irradiating is illegal, I still can't figure out (as an experiment) why a
punnet of Tesco's or Morrisons' 'fresh Strwaberries' can spend 3 weeks
outside in the garden and yet not rot.
regards
john
Jim Thompson
Sounds like the AARP stuff. It just keeps coming and coming and
coming. On the last batch that I sent back I said, "If it doesn't
stop, I will file a USPS Form 1500 (unwanted sexually oriented
advertising) against AARP".
And I will, too. That's how I permanently got off of Fingerhut's
mailing list ;-)
Jim Thompson
In case you haven't noticed, I'm in business, and I get a fair number
of responses from the sig, and from people surfing into my website.
Andy Dingley
>... and people who don't understand sig separators !
Well his .sig is twice as long as is generally accepted, looks rubbish
with a proportional font, but the separator seems OK.
--
Cats have nine lives, which is why they rarely post to Usenet.
Andy Dingley
>Can one sterilise food using a beta emitter?
No. At least you _could_, but not so it's edible afterwards.
You need gamma.
You're unlikely to get gamma sources that are usable in kitchens. For
one thing, a suitable gamma source and castle has a minimum weight of a
couple of tons - bit hard on the worktops!
There's also the issue of nutritional quality, and the legality of doing
this in the UK.
raden
>On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 18:02:26 GMT, raden <ra...@kateda.org> wrote:
>
>>In message <hp8bb1hr591bd66nn...@4ax.com>, Jim Thompson
>><thegr...@example.com> writes
>>>>X rays are certainly more available, but a 25-50kV driver to power it
>>>>is not ideal. Could this be an option? A TV could produce +&- 24kV for
>>>>the job, not sure what sort of tube to go for though.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Thanks, NT
>>>
>>>It's already being done here in the U.S., at least for military meals.
>>>Seal in plastic, then irradiate.
>>>
>>>I don't know what type of radiation is being used.
>>>
>>>Of course it's being resisted for use in public consumption by the
>>>loonie greenies, but it's certainly the correct answer for food
>>>preservation AND stopping food-borne illness.
>>>
>>>I sometimes think there should be a bounty offered for loonie
>>>greenies, after all they ARE a terrorist group ;-)
>>>
>>
>>Should fit in well with Eco-terrorists like G Wanker Bush then
>>
>>... and people who don't understand sig separators !
>
>And to WHAT are you referring? ------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>My sig separator seems to be working perfectly with other responders.
>
> ...Jim Thompson
the name goes below it
--
geoff
Tam/WB2TT
"Jim Thompson" <thegr...@example.com> wrote in message
news:hp8bb1hr591bd66nn...@4ax.com...
> On 19 Jun 2005 09:49:37 -0700, big...@meeow.co.uk wrote:
>
>>It may not sound like a serious question, but it is.
>>
>>Can one sterilise food using a beta emitter? I assume alpha would not
>>have the necessary penetrating power. Where could one get such beta
>>emitter, if anywhere?
>>
>>Or might xrays be better?
>>
>>The application is to extend food storage times in 3rd world countries,
>>and reduce bacterial contamination.
>>
>>If its workable to put an emitter in a box with a lead or conrete lid,
>>with attached tongs to enable food to slde in and out without getting
>>fingers in there, it might possibly be a way to sterilise food with no
>>run cost and no energy use.
>>
>>However... the probable showstoppers are:
>>how much beta emission would be needed?
>>where can it be got from, if anywhere?
>>is the output level low enough to make it handleable in this way?
>>
>>I think the answer is no to all of those, but worth asking :)
>>
>>
>>X rays are certainly more available, but a 25-50kV driver to power it
>>is not ideal. Could this be an option? A TV could produce +&- 24kV for
>>the job, not sure what sort of tube to go for though.
>>
>>
>>Thanks, NT
>
> It's already being done here in the U.S., at least for military meals.
> Seal in plastic, then irradiate.
>
Jim,
I have heard references to gamma rays (makes sense) and electron beams
(doesn't make sense). There is a food store about 10 miles from me that
sells irradiated meat.
Tam
Andrew Gabriel
"john jardine" <jo...@jjdesigns.fsnet.co.uk> writes:
>
> <big...@meeow.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1119199777.8...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> It may not sound like a serious question, but it is.
>>
> [..]
>
> About 10 years ago, prior to their stock market flotation,
> www.isotron.com/home.htm were being hailed by market brokers as the next
> license to print money. Isotron's food irradiation technology was going to
> be the enabling means for the big food providers to massively reduce wastage
> and increase their profits.
> Fortunately, just before flotation, the U.K. government took onboard the
> advice of it's scientists and made food irradiation illegal. Isotron had to
It's not illegal in the UK (see my other posting, although it
only went to uk.d-i-y).
> quickly scramble into other areas.
> Hasn't though stopped a number of scumbag operators who irradiate food
> declared 'unfit for human consumption' and feed it back into our food chain.
> Irradiation is particularly effective when used on rotting seafoods, (eg
> Prawns). The usual process is to ship the stuff out to Holland (irradiation
> is legal) irradiate it and then bring it back into UK.
> Every couple of months a case come before the courts.
>
> If irradiating is illegal, I still can't figure out (as an experiment) why a
> punnet of Tesco's or Morrisons' 'fresh Strwaberries' can spend 3 weeks
> outside in the garden and yet not rot.
They were packed with a piece of bubble wrap, filled
with slow release sulphur dioxide most likely.
I don't know about strawberries in particular, but irradiation
actually doesn't work on some soft fruits -- a few days later
they are a pile of mush. Cucumbers are an example.
--
Andrew Gabriel
Malcolm Stewart
>
> >It may not sound like a serious question, but it is.
> >
> >Can one sterilise food using a beta emitter? I assume alpha would not
> >have the necessary penetrating power. Where could one get such beta
> >emitter, if anywhere?
> >
> >Or might xrays be better?
30 years ago it used to be gamma radiation - harder than X-rays.
My daughter, who had a serious blood disorder and had lost all her immunity
to bacteria, was fed on it for a few months. It was mainly used for items
like jam etc. which were normally served cold. Other food such as meat
stews and potatoes were considered sufficiently sterile by being boiled,
recently. Despite these precautions she still suffered from massive fungal
infections in her mouth and throat.
--
M Stewart
Milton Keynes, UK
http://www.megalith.freeserve.co.uk/oddimage.htm
John Larkin
Metaclue: you can do anything you want on usenet.
John
John Larkin
<t-tammaru@c0mca$t.net> wrote:
>I have heard references to gamma rays (makes sense) and electron beams
>(doesn't make sense).
Very first Google hit...
http://www.ebeamservices.com/food_irradiation.htm
John
Richard Henry
> Sounds like the AARP stuff. It just keeps coming and coming and
> coming. On the last batch that I sent back I said, "If it doesn't
> stop, I will file a USPS Form 1500 (unwanted sexually oriented
> advertising) against AARP".
Isn't it a felony to file a false report? To say nothing of the libel.
Richard Henry
"Malcolm Stewart" <malcolm...@megalith.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
message news:d94hch$hm$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> "Jim Thompson" <thegr...@example.com> wrote in message
> news:hp8bb1hr591bd66nn...@4ax.com...
> > On 19 Jun 2005 09:49:37 -0700, big...@meeow.co.uk wrote:
> >
> > >It may not sound like a serious question, but it is.
> > >
> > >Can one sterilise food using a beta emitter? I assume alpha would not
> > >have the necessary penetrating power. Where could one get such beta
> > >emitter, if anywhere?
> > >
> > >Or might xrays be better?
>
> 30 years ago it used to be gamma radiation - harder than X-rays.
Sometimes. It depends on the gamma source.
Jim Thompson
wrote:
That's not a false report. It is MY personal decision to decide what
is sexually explicit. Besides, doesn't AARP stand for American
Association of Retired Pussies ?:-)
(And a Form 1500 applies ONLY to MY receipt... forces them to remove
me from their mailing list.
Jim Thompson
Does not. Oh Clueless One, I leave my name only (without the sig
stuff) behind to identify that it was I doing the talking. How many
posts do you see where you have no clue as to who said what?
Jim Thompson
<din...@codesmiths.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 18:02:26 GMT, raden <ra...@kateda.org> wrote:
>
>>... and people who don't understand sig separators !
>
>Well his .sig is twice as long as is generally accepted, looks rubbish
>with a proportional font, but the separator seems OK.
Do Internet-savvy people use a proportional font in their newsreader
?:-)
BigWallop
micro-wave them? Micro-waves will heat the food to the point of killing the
germans (sorry, germs), then the air-tight bag will stop anything else
getting in to the food. Sterile enough or what?
Jim Thompson
Suppose I want a fresh, uncooked, tomato?
BigWallop
> >>
> >Wouldn't it be so much simpler to put the food in air-tight bags, then
> >micro-wave them? Micro-waves will heat the food to the point of killing
the
> >germans (sorry, germs), then the air-tight bag will stop anything else
> >getting in to the food. Sterile enough or what?
> >
>
> Suppose I want a fresh, uncooked, tomato?
>
"irradiating" the food, when all this really means, in the real world
anyway, is running it through a micro-wave oven for a minute or two. The
only thing that really gets "irradiated" to sterilise it, is fruit fly
larvae. But that a different type of sterilisation all together. :-)
bill....@ieee.org
a bit optimistic.
IIRR enough irradiation to kill all the bugs was enough to give a
detectable change in flavour, but I can't remember where I saw that
particular claim.
-----------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
bill....@ieee.org
the science right, but insist of presenting it in an "entertaining"
way.
Their politics isn't right wing enough for the likes of John Larkin and
Jim Thompson, but the "New Scientist" is a British (and Australian)
based weekly - moving far enough to the right to pick up the right-wing
American market would alienate most of their domestic buyers (like me).
For pro-Dubbya propagada you want something title "Old Fundamentalist".
---------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
raden
<thegr...@example.com> writes
>>>>>I sometimes think there should be a bounty offered for loonie
>>>>>greenies, after all they ARE a terrorist group ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Should fit in well with Eco-terrorists like G Wanker Bush then
>>>>
>>>>... and people who don't understand sig separators !
>>>
>>>And to WHAT are you referring? ------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>
>>>My sig separator seems to be working perfectly with other responders.
>>>
>>> ...Jim Thompson
>>Clue ...
>>
>>the name goes below it
>
>Does not. Oh Clueless One, I leave my name only (without the sig
>stuff) behind to identify that it was I doing the talking. How many
>posts do you see where you have no clue as to who said what?
>
usually obvious
And a 3 line sig is normally what's reasonable
m'kay ?
--
geoff
John Larkin
<din...@codesmiths.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 18:02:26 GMT, raden <ra...@kateda.org> wrote:
>
>>... and people who don't understand sig separators !
>
>Well his .sig is twice as long as is generally accepted,
Generally accepted by whom? And what happens to a sig that's not
generally accepted?
Next, I suppose you'll be lecturing us on "good engineering practice."
John
raden
<jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> writes
--
geoff
raden
bill....@ieee.org writes
>"New Scientist" is a British based popular science weekly. They do get
>the science right, but insist of presenting it in an "entertaining"
>way.
Seconded
It's there to give a broad idea of what's going on, not a forum for
scientific papers.
>
>Their politics isn't right wing enough for the likes of John Larkin and
>Jim Thompson, but the "New Scientist" is a British (and Australian)
>based weekly - moving far enough to the right to pick up the right-wing
>American market would alienate most of their domestic buyers (like me).
>
>For pro-Dubbya propagada you want something title "Old Fundamentalist".
>
--
Geoff x...@IEEE.org or something
Dave
> On 19 Jun 2005 09:49:37 -0700, big...@meeow.co.uk wrote:
>
>
>>It may not sound like a serious question, but it is.
>>
>>Can one sterilise food using a beta emitter? I assume alpha would not
>>have the necessary penetrating power. Where could one get such beta
>>emitter, if anywhere?
>>
>>Or might xrays be better?
Wasn't this found to be detrimental to humans many years ago?
Quite how it would affect us second hand, I have no idea.
>>The application is to extend food storage times in 3rd world countries,
>>and reduce bacterial contamination.
A good idea.
> It's already being done here in the U.S., at least for military meals.
> Seal in plastic, then irradiate.
>
> I don't know what type of radiation is being used.
Typical! Would you stand for local nuclear radiation? It might be used
to stop men from fathering any new children.
> Of course it's being resisted for use in public consumption by the
> loonie greenies, but it's certainly the correct answer for food
> preservation AND stopping food-borne illness.
Try buying fresh, local organic foods (if they exist there) and you will
change your mind.
> I sometimes think there should be a bounty offered for loonie
> greenies, after all they ARE a terrorist group ;-)
Not as dangerous as the loonies that accept change that the chem-co's
want to impose on our foods. GM crops are not natural and the US will
never change the UK mind.
Dave
Jim Thompson
And you can be ignored or plonked in return ;-)
Jim Thompson
Nope! That's MY own personal soapbox ;-)
Jim Thompson
Irradiation IS NOT the same as genetically modified. How many times
do I have to say that?
Irradiation at low levels simply kills bacteria inside a sealed
package.
raden
<thegr...@example.com> writes
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Should fit in well with Eco-terrorists like G Wanker Bush then
>>>>>>
>>>>>>... and people who don't understand sig separators !
>>>>>
>>>>>And to WHAT are you referring? ------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>>
>>>>>My sig separator seems to be working perfectly with other responders.
>>>>>
>>>>> ...Jim Thompson
>>>>Clue ...
>>>>
>>>>the name goes below it
>>>
>>>
>>>Metaclue: you can do anything you want on usenet.
>>>
>>You can, but you can also get flamed for doing so
>
>And you can be ignored or plonked in return ;-)
>
--
geoff
raden
<thegr...@example.com> writes
>On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 15:07:53 -0700, John Larkin
><jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 19:59:24 +0100, Andy Dingley
>><din...@codesmiths.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 18:02:26 GMT, raden <ra...@kateda.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>... and people who don't understand sig separators !
>>>
>>>Well his .sig is twice as long as is generally accepted,
>>
>>Generally accepted by whom? And what happens to a sig that's not
>>generally accepted?
>>
>>Next, I suppose you'll be lecturing us on "good engineering practice."
>>
>>John
>>
>
>Nope! That's MY own personal soapbox ;-)
>
as would you
--
geoff
Andy Dingley
<jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>Well his .sig is twice as long as is generally accepted,
>
>Generally accepted by whom?
The Cabal.
Of which there isn't one.
big...@meeow.co.uk
gassing them at packing time will extend their life a fair bit.
NT
big...@meeow.co.uk
> have the necessary penetrating power. Where could one get such beta
> emitter, if anywhere?
>
> Or might xrays be better?
>
> and reduce bacterial contamination.
>
> with attached tongs to enable food to slde in and out without getting
> fingers in there, it might possibly be a way to sterilise food with no
> run cost and no energy use.
>
> However... the probable showstoppers are:
> how much beta emission would be needed?
> where can it be got from, if anywhere?
> is the output level low enough to make it handleable in this way?
>
> I think the answer is no to all of those, but worth asking :)
>
>
> is not ideal. Could this be an option? A TV could produce +&- 24kV for
> the job, not sure what sort of tube to go for though.
>
>
> Thanks, NT
Thanks you for everyones input, most informative. It looks like its a
no-goer, as I expected. Guess I'll have to stick to threading the
noodles thru the smoke alarm chamber one at a time :/
NT
Jamie
Hmm
i thought there was a difference between X-rays and Micro-Waves (R.F.) ?
irradiation units give off X-rays which is a byproduct.
the massive electronics when expose to air generate OZ,(Ozone). when
Ozone hits a little moisture, it creates a little toxic acid that is
very irritating to the skin.
now, think about the moisture that is in the food, you hit it with
irradiation, it generates Ozone. and it goes on.
am i missing something here?
let me see, i think the toxin is nitrous oxide?. i could be wrong there.
raden
<jamie_5_not_vali...@charter.net> writes
>BigWallop wrote:
>
>> "Jim Thompson" <thegr...@example.com> wrote in message
>> news:0mnbb1du8eo1e1bb7...@4ax.com...
>>
>>>On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 21:05:49 GMT, "BigWallop"
>>><spam.guard@_spam_guard.com> wrote:
>>>
>> <<<snipped>>>
>>
>>>>Wouldn't it be so much simpler to put the food in air-tight bags,
>>>>then
>>>>micro-wave them? Micro-waves will heat the food to the point of killing
>> the
>>
>>>>germans (sorry, germs), then the air-tight bag will stop anything
>>>>else
>>>>getting in to the food. Sterile enough or what?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Suppose I want a fresh, uncooked, tomato?
>>>
>> Then don't micro-wave it for so long. Most people here are talking
>>about
>> "irradiating" the food, when all this really means, in the real world
>> anyway, is running it through a micro-wave oven for a minute or two. The
>> only thing that really gets "irradiated" to sterilise it, is fruit fly
>> larvae. But that a different type of sterilisation all together. :-)
>>
>Hmm
> i thought there was a difference between X-rays and Micro-Waves (R.F.) ?
What's a few orders of magnitude between friends ?
> irradiation units give off X-rays which is a byproduct.
>the massive electronics when expose to air generate OZ,(Ozone). when
>Ozone hits a little moisture, it creates a little toxic acid that is
>very irritating to the skin.
> now, think about the moisture that is in the food, you hit it with
>irradiation, it generates Ozone. and it goes on.
> am i missing something here?
> let me see, i think the toxin is nitrous oxide?. i could be wrong there.
>
Which NG are you posting from ?
--
geoff
Jim Thompson
GFY ;-)
Jim Thompson
Jim Thompson
With Sulfur Dioxide, forming Sodium Bisulfite, of which I am very
allergic... ba-a-a-ad headaches. Asthmatics can die from exposure to
Sodium Bisulfite, that's why it is prohibited from salad bars in the
US.
Wines have some naturally, but I only seem to react to the additive
variety.
john jardine
<big...@meeow.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1119225916.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> big...@meeow.co.uk wrote:
> Thanks you for everyones input, most informative. It looks like its a
> no-goer, as I expected. Guess I'll have to stick to threading the
> noodles thru the smoke alarm chamber one at a time :/
>
>
> NT
>
military radios. Guaranteed to give a scary scream on the Geiger counter :)
raden
>On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 23:25:06 GMT, raden <ra...@kateda.org> wrote:
>
>>In message <mktbb1lttq7t2k8ij...@4ax.com>, Jim Thompson
>><thegr...@example.com> writes
>>>On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 15:07:53 -0700, John Larkin
>>><jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 19:59:24 +0100, Andy Dingley
>>>><din...@codesmiths.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 18:02:26 GMT, raden <ra...@kateda.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>... and people who don't understand sig separators !
>>>>>
>>>>>Well his .sig is twice as long as is generally accepted,
>>>>
>>>>Generally accepted by whom? And what happens to a sig that's not
>>>>generally accepted?
>>>>
>>>>Next, I suppose you'll be lecturing us on "good engineering practice."
>>>>
>>>>John
>>>>
>>>
>>>Nope! That's MY own personal soapbox ;-)
>>>
>>They'd be much better in a redneck septic NG, I'm sure
>>
>>as would you
>
>??? PLONK!
>
redneck
--
geoff
raden
<thegr...@example.com> writes
>>> I don't know about strawberries in particular, but irradiation
>>> actually doesn't work on some soft fruits -- a few days later
>>> they are a pile of mush. Cucumbers are an example.
>>
>>gassing them at packing time will extend their life a fair bit.
>>
>>NT
>
>With Sulfur Dioxide,
Sulphur dioxide
> forming Sodium Bisulfite,
bisulphate
>of which I am very
>allergic... ba-a-a-ad headaches. Asthmatics can die from exposure to
>Sodium Bisulfite,
Just do it
Mike Monett
[...]
> With Sulfur Dioxide, forming Sodium Bisulfite, of which I am very
> allergic... ba-a-a-ad headaches. Asthmatics can die from exposure to
> Sodium Bisulfite, that's why it is prohibited from salad bars in the
> US.
>
> Wines have some naturally, but I only seem to react to the additive
> variety.
>
> ...Jim Thompson
Isn't it the other way round? I thought Sodium Bisulfite makes Sulfur
Dioxide when added to water. And it is common in commercial wines. Here's
a brief description:
Sodium bisulfite
Chemical Formula: NaHSO3
Synonyms
Monosodium sulfite, Sodium hydrogen sulfite, Sodium sulhydrate, Sulfurous
acid, sodium salt
Description
Clear or milky white liquid with a sulfurous odor.
Uses
Sodium bisulfite is used in almost all commercial wines, to prevent
oxidation and preserve flavor. Sodium bisulfite releases sulfur dioxide
gas when added to water or products containing water. The sulfur dioxide
kills yeasts, fungi, and bacteria in the grape juice before fermentation.
When the sulfur dioxide levels have subsided (about 24 hours), fresh
yeast is added for fermentation. Sodium bisulfite (usually with an acid
like citric acid to make it produce gas faster) is used to sterilize
winemaking equipment.
It is later added to bottled wine to prevent oxidation (which makes
vinegar), and to protect the color of the wine from oxidation, which
causes browning. The sulfur dioxide displaces oxygen in the bottle and
dissolved in the wine. Oxidized wine can turn orange or brown, and taste
like raisins or cough syrup.
In fruit canning, sodium bisulfite is used to prevent browning (caused by
oxidation) and to kill microbes.
http://sci-toys.com/ingredients/sodium_bisulfite.html
Of course, the wines in your price class wouldn't dare have microbes:)
Mike Monett
nightjar
<big...@meeow.co.uk> wrote in message
> It may not sound like a serious question, but it is.
>
> have the necessary penetrating power. Where could one get such beta
> emitter, if anywhere?
>
> Or might xrays be better?
>
> The application is to extend food storage times in 3rd world countries,
Isotron PLC do electron beam irradiation. It is used by one cosmetics
manufacturer who likes to claim, truthfully if somewhat misleadingly, that
the cosmetics contain no preservatives. Of course, many of them quickly go
rancid after being opened, but they keep well on the shelves and it all
helps sales. Apparently, the company prefers electron beam as being
'greener' than gamma irradiation in that it has no residue to dipose of
later.
The dose of radiation required depends on the initial bioburden and the
level of confidence that you want to have that the product is sterile. For
medical devices the usual dose is 25-35kGy. That is, however, considerably
more than most other applications require.
Colin Bignell
Jim Thompson
I'm no chemist, hated the course so much that, at the end of Freshman
year, we went out to the middle of Harvard Bridge and dumped our
chemistry books into the Charles ;-)
Regret it to this day. Those notes were far better than any chemistry
book I've tried to use to aid me thru some electro-chemistry issues
:-(
However, SO2 is a _gas_, and is used to preserve fruit, like dried
raisins, prunes and apricots.
My understanding is that this forms NaHSO3 on the surface of the
fruit.
NaHSO3 is added to wines, shows on every label.
Maybe a chemistry major will jump in here and elucidate us.
I'll ask my daughter in the morning if she knows anything about it
(she runs the Phoenix water labs), but bisulfite might not be in her
repertoire.
Dave Holford
Dave wrote:
------------->
> Typical! Would you stand for local nuclear radiation? It might be used
> to stop men from fathering any new children.
>
>---------------------
>
> Dave
You mean those radioactive injections they used to diagnose my heart might
make me sterile - and I thought the doctors were on my side.
Another Dave
John Larkin
>"New Scientist" is a British based popular science weekly. They do get
>the science right, but insist of presenting it in an "entertaining"
>way.
>
>Their politics isn't right wing enough for the likes of John Larkin and
>Jim Thompson, but the "New Scientist" is a British (and Australian)
>based weekly - moving far enough to the right to pick up the right-wing
>American market would alienate most of their domestic buyers (like me).
>
>For pro-Dubbya propagada you want something title "Old Fundamentalist".
>
>---------
>Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Why the hell should a science magazine have politics?
John
John Larkin
>The claim that irradiation doesn't change the taste of the food may be
>a bit optimistic.
>
>IIRR enough irradiation to kill all the bugs was enough to give a
>detectable change in flavour, but I can't remember where I saw that
>particular claim.
>
>-----------
>Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Some other mathods of preserving food also are known to change the
flavor. Pickling, smoking, canning, jerking, curing, and grinding up
and mixing with nitrites come to mind.
John
John Larkin
Exactly.
John
John Larkin
>In message <hmibb1d3d75va7u8s...@4ax.com>, John Larkin
><jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> writes
>>On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 19:02:58 GMT, raden <ra...@kateda.org> wrote:
>>
>>>In message <a6dbb19thct1p4plf...@4ax.com>, Jim Thompson
>>><thegr...@example.com> writes
>>>>On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 18:02:26 GMT, raden <ra...@kateda.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In message <hp8bb1hr591bd66nn...@4ax.com>, Jim Thompson
>>>>><thegr...@example.com> writes
>>>>>>>X rays are certainly more available, but a 25-50kV driver to power it
>>>>>>>is not ideal. Could this be an option? A TV could produce +&- 24kV for
>>>>>>>the job, not sure what sort of tube to go for though.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Thanks, NT
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It's already being done here in the U.S., at least for military meals.
>>>>>>Seal in plastic, then irradiate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I don't know what type of radiation is being used.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Of course it's being resisted for use in public consumption by the
>>>>>>loonie greenies, but it's certainly the correct answer for food
>>>>>>preservation AND stopping food-borne illness.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I sometimes think there should be a bounty offered for loonie
>>>>>>greenies, after all they ARE a terrorist group ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Should fit in well with Eco-terrorists like G Wanker Bush then
>>>>>
>>>>>... and people who don't understand sig separators !
>>>>
>>>>And to WHAT are you referring? ------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>
>>>>My sig separator seems to be working perfectly with other responders.
>>>>
>>>> ...Jim Thompson
>>>Clue ...
>>>
>>>the name goes below it
>>
>>
>>Metaclue: you can do anything you want on usenet.
>>
>You can, but you can also get flamed for doing so
And your point is...?
John
Mike Monett
[...]
> I'm no chemist, hated the course so much that, at the end of Freshman
> year, we went out to the middle of Harvard Bridge and dumped our
> chemistry books into the Charles ;-)
>
> Regret it to this day. Those notes were far better than any chemistry
> book I've tried to use to aid me thru some electro-chemistry issues
> :-(
Too bad. Now, as you continue your studies of fine wines, you are doomed
to spend the rest of your days in trial and error experiments.
Such a life:)
> However, SO2 is a _gas_, and is used to preserve fruit, like dried
> raisins, prunes and apricots.
>
> My understanding is that this forms NaHSO3 on the surface of the
> fruit.
Wouldn't the fruit have to supply NaOH, sodium hydroxide? That would
probably discourage some germs by itself:)
> NaHSO3 is added to wines, shows on every label.
>
> Maybe a chemistry major will jump in here and elucidate us.
>
> I'll ask my daughter in the morning if she knows anything about it
> (she runs the Phoenix water labs), but bisulfite might not be in her
> repertoire.
>
> ...Jim Thompson
Maybe one of her employees might know.
Mike Monett
sren...@yahoo.com
> Irradiation IS NOT the same as genetically modified. How many times
> do I have to say that?
>
> Irradiation at low levels simply kills bacteria inside a sealed
> package.
The situation is a little bit more complicated than that. Ionizing
radiation (IE: UV, X-ray, gamma, nuclear radiation) has enough energy
to
break chemical bonds, displace atoms, etc.
Radiation kills bacteria by virtue of breaking chemical bonds that make
up
the bacteria's DNA. If the damage is sufficient the bacteria will not
be
able to repair itself, nor will it be able to continue functioning, so
it
will inevitably die.
Ionizing radiation however is not tremendously descriminating. That
is, the
radiation will also damage the DNA of the food you are irradiating.
The
radiation will break chemical bonds, leaving "dangling bonds" in it's
wake
which then look around for other atoms to bond with. Ultimately the
chemical structure of the food can be slightly modified if it is
irradiated
sufficiently to kill all of the germs on/in it.
This gives rise to at least a theoretical hazard. What if some of the
hydrocarbon compounds that compose your food get modified into some
other
form which is either somehow toxic or perhaps carcinogenic? Gasoline
is a
hydrocarbon compound substance just like the food you eat, but that
doesn't
mean it is safe to drink gasoline.
So far as I am aware there has been no credible experimental evidence
that
shows irradiated food is carcinogenic or otherwise hazardous for human
consumption. The problem is, no matter how hard anyone tries you
cannot
really prove that the food isn't carcinogenic and won't result in
increased
risk of cancer many years in the future.
In my opinion a risk versus benefit judgement needs to be made. The
benefits of irradiating food are obvious and demonstrated, the food
lasts
much longer in storage while the consumer has less chance of suffering
from
food poisening. The risk has so far not been demonstrated (at least to
the
best of my knowledge), but in theory one may conceivably exist so some
provision needs to be taken to consider it.
In my personal opinion the known benefits outweigh the possibility of
any
future risk, therefore we should not hesitate to use it. This is
especially
true in third world countries where starvation/malnutrition and food
poisening are very real and tangible risks that regularly kill (or is a
complicating factor in killing) large quantities of people. There are
many
things a person can and should be worried about in today's world, but I
wouldn't personally put irradiated or even genetically modified foods
anywhere near the top of that list. The economic and sociological
concerns
of peak oil are far greater and represent a much more imminent and
probable
risk:
Terry Given
> In message <ucmbb11man15ftvgk...@4ax.com>, Jim Thompson
> <thegr...@example.com> writes
>
>>>>>> greenies, after all they ARE a terrorist group ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Should fit in well with Eco-terrorists like G Wanker Bush then
>>>>>
>>>>> ... and people who don't understand sig separators !
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And to WHAT are you referring? ------^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>
>>>> My sig separator seems to be working perfectly with other responders.
>>>>
>>>> ...Jim Thompson
>>>
>>> Clue ...
>>>
>>> the name goes below it
>>
>>
>> stuff) behind to identify that it was I doing the talking. How many
>> posts do you see where you have no clue as to who said what?
>>
> Mine get nested, and if correctly posted and properly snipped it's
> usually obvious
>
> And a 3 line sig is normally what's reasonable
>
> m'kay ?
>
This must be true. years back I did a postgrad information systems
management paper (because I had to). Our lecturer proudly informed us
that all IT theorems had 3 parts, so 3 is clearly a mystical IT number.
Hence it must be the cosmically ordained limit for signature length
Cheers
Terry
He who must be obeyed
And cannot count to three successfully.
Terry Given
<snort>
Cheers
Terry
Tim Shoppa
> in this way?
Cobalt-60 is the standard way of irradiating food to kill stuff.
In the US there is pretty good tracking of Cobalt-60 sources (lotsa
paperwork etc.) but in third world countries the handling is a lot
morre shoddy (many newspaper articles about how some piece of medical
equipment using it turned up in dumps, folks took the metal and made
furniture like beds, then died, etc.)
> X rays are certainly more available
The USPS/government offices use electron beam accelerators for
irradiating incoming mail.
There's lots of fun things you can do with electron beams (all the beam
jockeys I worked with had really colorful distorted coke bottles made
by sticking them in an electron beam). Typical power levels are in the
kilowatts though.
Tim.
Zak
> If irradiating is illegal, I still can't figure out (as an experiment) why a
> punnet of Tesco's or Morrisons' 'fresh Strwaberries' can spend 3 weeks
> outside in the garden and yet not rot.
Well, the irradiating folks say that irradiating only kills bacteria but
hardly changes anything else. They probably are right.
I don't like irradiation because the result will be food as safe or
dangerous as it is now, but produced in a much more disgusting and
unhygienic ways (as the irradiation will clean it all up...)
I guss your strawberries are coated with some chemical or wax.
Thomas
Andy Dingley
>Well, the irradiating folks say that irradiating only kills bacteria but
>hardly changes anything else.
>They probably are right.
Why ? Does the concept of "vested interest" have any meaning for you ?
The people (? lizards from Zeta Reticulli ?) who make American cheese
will tell you that it's a foodstuff and that it's healthy. However it
tastes like soap. Do _not_ trust the aesthetic or culinary judgement of
food multi-nationals. They exist to sell you things, not to make your
life better.
Chris Bacon
> Zak wrote:
>
>>Well, the irradiating folks say that irradiating only kills bacteria
>>but hardly changes anything else.
>
>>They probably are right.
>
They are right (the "irradiating folks"), but I agree with Zak's other
comments:
>> I don't like irradiation because the result will be food as safe or
>> dangerous as it is now, but produced in a much more disgusting and
>> unhygienic ways (as the irradiation will clean it all up...)
and don't like the idea for other reasons, too.
What reason have you for thinking the "irradiating folks" are wrong?
Jim Thompson
wrote:
Go to the FDA site. They seem to think that irradiation is to be used
in addition to "clean' food processing.
Mark Zenier
<big...@meeow.co.uk> wrote:
>It may not sound like a serious question, but it is.
>
>Can one sterilise food using a beta emitter? I assume alpha would not
>have the necessary penetrating power. Where could one get such beta
>emitter, if anywhere?
Skip the nuclear part and just get a big electron gun. That's what
they're using for things like mangos and papayas in Hawaii. And
the neighbors are a lot happier to not have a big lump of radio-cobalt
sitting in a pit down the road. They use them on the US Mail in
the Washington, DC area, too.
Mark Zenier mze...@eskimo.com Washington State resident
Rich Grise
> On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 09:59:09 -0700, Jim Thompson
>>I don't know what type of radiation is being used.
>
> In the US, spices are commonly zapped to kill bugs, and some other
> foods, I think. They use either gammas from an radioisotope source, or
> electrons from an accelerator. Google 'food irradiation' or something.
>
> Zapping chicken and certain seafoods would probably save a thousand
> lives for every cancer produced.
What connection does eating sterilized food have to do with cancer?
Do you think we're talking about making food radioactive? That's not
the way it works, any more than cooking food over a fire means you're
eating fire.
It would save thousands of lives, period.
Thanks,
Rich
Pig Bladder
> In message <hmibb1d3d75va7u8s...@4ax.com>, John Larkin
>>Metaclue: you can do anything you want on usenet.
>>
> You can, but you can also get flamed for doing so
Well, there's flames and then there's flames. I've been "flamed" by
people who were so lame that it was actually more of a compliment!
--
Cheers!
The Pig Bladder from Uranus, still waiting for that
hot babe to ask what my favorite planet is. ;-j
Pig Bladder
>
> "Jim Thompson" <thegr...@example.com> wrote in message
> news:52ebb1pr9gqm5heg8...@4ax.com...
>
>> Sounds like the AARP stuff. It just keeps coming and coming and
>> coming. On the last batch that I sent back I said, "If it doesn't
>> stop, I will file a USPS Form 1500 (unwanted sexually oriented
>> advertising) against AARP".
>
> Isn't it a felony to file a false report? To say nothing of the libel.
Who said anything about a false report? Jim Thompson finds himself
sexually aroused by geriatric-oriented literature. He's completely
within his rights.
--
Flap!
John Larkin
>In message <mktbb1lttq7t2k8ij...@4ax.com>, Jim Thompson
><thegr...@example.com> writes
>>On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 15:07:53 -0700, John Larkin
>><jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 19:59:24 +0100, Andy Dingley
>>><din...@codesmiths.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 18:02:26 GMT, raden <ra...@kateda.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>... and people who don't understand sig separators !
>>>>
>>>>Well his .sig is twice as long as is generally accepted,
>>>
>>>Generally accepted by whom? And what happens to a sig that's not
>>>generally accepted?
>>>
>>>Next, I suppose you'll be lecturing us on "good engineering practice."
>>>
>>>John
>>>
>>
>>Nope! That's MY own personal soapbox ;-)
>>
>They'd be much better in a redneck septic NG, I'm sure
>
>as would you
Hey, raden, designed any interesting electronics lately? Or is your
expertise limited to sig file protocols?
John
John Larkin
raden
<jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> writes
>>>>Generally accepted by whom? And what happens to a sig that's not
>>>>generally accepted?
>>>>
>>>>Next, I suppose you'll be lecturing us on "good engineering practice."
>>>>
>>>>John
>>>>
>>>
>>>Nope! That's MY own personal soapbox ;-)
>>>
>>They'd be much better in a redneck septic NG, I'm sure
>>
>>as would you
>
>Hey, raden, designed any interesting electronics lately?
Well, as it happens, I am doing at the moment
But I don't fill half a page with self advertising crap.
>Or is your
>expertise limited to sig file protocols?
>
Ooh - getting rattled, are we ?
--
geoff
raden
<jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> writes
>On 19 Jun 2005 14:49:22 -0700, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>
>>"New Scientist" is a British based popular science weekly. They do get
>>the science right, but insist of presenting it in an "entertaining"
>>way.
>>
>>Their politics isn't right wing enough for the likes of John Larkin and
>>Jim Thompson, but the "New Scientist" is a British (and Australian)
>>based weekly - moving far enough to the right to pick up the right-wing
>>American market would alienate most of their domestic buyers (like me).
>>
>>For pro-Dubbya propagada you want something title "Old Fundamentalist".
>>
>
>
to acknowledge it's existence, despite overwhelming evidence), location
of a fusion reactor (who's going to get it, japan or who), whaling etc
How can you escape it ?
--
geoff
John Larkin
No, it's just that I haven't seen you post in s.e.d. before, and it's
almost universal that newbies are the ones who flame about spelling
and grammar and off-topicality and stuff.
So, what are you working on?
John
John Larkin
By sticking to science? New Scientist is, like most 'popular science'
mags, is run by journalism majors, hence the emphasis on dinosaurs and
cuddly animals, and idiotic graphics in lieu of photos of actual
apparatus and phenomena or - horrors - actual graphs and stuff.
Scifotainment.
John
Jim Thompson
John, Please lose Raden and leave him to invisible status.
John Larkin
I was just wondering if he really designed electronics.
John
Jim Thompson
<jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
Have you noticed how dirt-bag incompetents seem to descend on the
group in bunches?
I guess grammar school is out for the summer and they can't get enough
pot to keep themselves subdued ;-)
bill....@ieee.org
Physics Today?
Both of them show signs of the influence of journalism majors, and
neither sells in anything like the volume that New Scientist manages
...
You should stick to engineering - you know something about that.
----------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
John Larkin
>So, you want them to publish something closer to IEEE Spectrum or
>Physics Today?
>
>Both of them show signs of the influence of journalism majors, and
>neither sells in anything like the volume that New Scientist manages
>...
>
I was thinking more along the lines of Scientific American, especially
the classic years.
Science News is nicely balanced, but is just a weekly summary, with
very short articles.
>You should stick to engineering - you know something about that.
You should stick to being polite; you might find a job.
John
raden
<thegr...@example.com> writes
>>>>
>>>>No, it's just that I haven't seen you post in s.e.d. before, and it's
>>>>almost universal that newbies are the ones who flame about spelling
>>>>and grammar and off-topicality and stuff.
>>>>
>>>>So, what are you working on?
>>>>
>>>>John
>>>
>>>John, Please lose Raden and leave him to invisible status.
>>>
>>> ...Jim Thompson
>>
>>
>>I was just wondering if he really designed electronics.
>>
>>John
>
>Have you noticed how dirt-bag incompetents seem to descend on the
>group in bunches?
>
--
geoff
raden
<jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> writes
>>>Hey, raden, designed any interesting electronics lately?
>>
>>Well, as it happens, I am doing at the moment
>>
>>But I don't fill half a page with self advertising crap.
>>
>>
>>>Or is your
>>>expertise limited to sig file protocols?
>>>
>>Ooh - getting rattled, are we ?
>
>No, it's just that I haven't seen you post in s.e.d. before, and it's
>almost universal that newbies are the ones who flame about spelling
>and grammar and off-topicality and stuff.
Err ... that's because I'm posting in uk.d-i-y
>
>So, what are you working on?
>
Well, there are a couple of things, but until they're a bit further down
the line, and as one of them is very "sensitive", I'd rather not make
them public, although http://www.sstltd.com/ should point you in the
general direction
--
geoff
raden
bill....@ieee.org writes
>So, you want them to publish something closer to IEEE Spectrum
>or
>Physics Today?
>
>Both of them show signs of the influence of journalism majors, and
>neither sells in anything like the volume that New Scientist manages
Although it's free, I don't think I've read Spectrum for ages, NS on the
other hand gets read every week.
>...
>
>You should stick to engineering - you know something about that.
>
--
geoff
Terry Given
> In message <1119304543....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> bill....@ieee.org writes
>
>> So, you want them to publish something closer to IEEE Spectrum
>> or
>> Physics Today?
>>
>> Both of them show signs of the influence of journalism majors, and
>> neither sells in anything like the volume that New Scientist manages
>
>
> Although it's free, I don't think I've read Spectrum for ages, NS on the
> other hand gets read every week.
bingo. Its just a shame NS is science-lite
Terry Given
> On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 16:03:26 +0100, Chris Bacon <chris...@thai.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Andy Dingley wrote:
>>
>>>Zak wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Well, the irradiating folks say that irradiating only kills bacteria
>>>>but hardly changes anything else.
>>>
>>>>They probably are right.
>>>
>>>Why ? Does the concept of "vested interest" have any meaning for you ?
>>
>>They are right (the "irradiating folks"), but I agree with Zak's other
>>comments:
>>
>>
>>>>I don't like irradiation because the result will be food as safe or
>>>>dangerous as it is now, but produced in a much more disgusting and
>>>>unhygienic ways (as the irradiation will clean it all up...)
>>
>>and don't like the idea for other reasons, too.
>>
>>What reason have you for thinking the "irradiating folks" are wrong?
>
>
> Go to the FDA site. They seem to think that irradiation is to be used
> in addition to "clean' food processing.
>
> ...Jim Thompson
Ten bucks says thats wishful thinking.
Cheers
Terry
big...@meeow.co.uk
> In the US there is pretty good tracking of Cobalt-60 sources (lotsa
> paperwork etc.) but in third world countries the handling is a lot
> morre shoddy (many newspaper articles about how some piece of medical
> equipment using it turned up in dumps, folks took the metal and made
> furniture like beds, then died, etc.)
Tell me something:
1. Whats the odds of the above happening? Multiply the number of deaths
by the odds.
2. Now how many lives could such a machine save? How much food that was
going to spoil could be made to last long enough to feed people? How
many lives could that food be expected to save in Africa?
> The USPS/government offices use electron beam accelerators for
> irradiating incoming mail.
> by sticking them in an electron beam). Typical power levels are in the
> kilowatts though.
Kilowatts can be done, upto a point, but voltages of 5-10MV are a real
problem. If something like a medical xray machine were needed, that
could be made, but unfortunately the dosage required is many orders of
magnitude higher. That makes construction unworkable, handling
seriously dangerous.
Maybe we could kill 2 birds with one stone and build a nuclear power
plant? :)
NT
John Larkin
For some reason, "technology" pictures always seem to be ancient
thru-hole stuff. Maybe artsy types consider it to be more photogenic
or something.
http://www.sstltd.com/automatedtest.asp
John
big...@meeow.co.uk
> In message <i4deb1permr7rlvjs...@4ax.com>, Jim Thompson
> <thegr...@example.com> writes
> >Have you noticed how dirt-bag incompetents seem to descend on the
> >group in bunches?
> Yes, you do seem to have invaded uk.d-i-y, don't you
Oh dear. I feel somewhat responsible for all this, as I began this
topic crossposted to both uk.d-i-y and sci.electronics.design, as I
expected both to have a fair bit of expertise in different ways, and
both to be quite relevant to this one.
It seems you two wont be getting married after all...
NT
bill....@ieee.org
John Larkin wrote:
> On 20 Jun 2005 14:55:43 -0700, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>
> >So, you want them to publish something closer to IEEE Spectrum or
> >Physics Today?
> >
> >Both of them show signs of the influence of journalism majors, and
> >neither sells in anything like the volume that New Scientist manages
> >...
> >
>
> I was thinking more along the lines of Scientific American, especially
> the classic years.
That is a monthly, and - at least in the classic years - the articles
were written by scientists, then intensively edited. We knew the late
Vicki Fromkin, who wrote such an article (on Speech Errors) some thirty
years ago. New Scientist comes out every week, and concentrates on
topical issues, which makes such a leisurely approach impractical.
Havig said that, the only one of our acquaintances who regularly wrote
for the New Scientist - Susan Blackmore - was originally an academic
and is still associated with the University of Weatern England at
Bristol.
> Science News is nicely balanced, but is just a weekly summary, with
> very short articles.
>
> >You should stick to engineering - you know something about that.
>
> You should stick to being polite; you might find a job.
If you've got one to offer, I'll be spectacularly obsequious.
--------
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Zak
> Andy Dingley wrote:
> > Zak wrote:
> >
> >>Well, the irradiating folks say that irradiating only kills bacteria
> >>but hardly changes anything else.
> > Why ? Does the concept of "vested interest" have any meaning for you ?
>
> They are right (the "irradiating folks"), but I agree with Zak's other
> comments:
> What reason have you for thinking the "irradiating folks" are wrong?
My comment also has to be read in the context of strawberries that keep
well in the garden for 3 weeks. I believe that irradiation cannot cause
that, though some chemical products wil definitely be formed.
Thomas
Robert Latest
On 2005-06-19, Jim Thompson <thegr...@example.com> wrote:
> Of course it's being resisted for use in public consumption by the
> loonie greenies, but it's certainly the correct answer for food
> preservation AND stopping food-borne illness.
Aren't you a real conoisseur of good food, and all of a sudden a
fierce supporter of nuked TV dinners?
robert
Robert Latest
> Zapping chicken and certain seafoods would probably save a thousand
> lives for every cancer produced.
Eating fresh food will save lives.
robert
Robert Latest
> Some other mathods of preserving food also are known to change the
> flavor.
But nobody claims they didn't.
robert
Robert Latest
> My daughter, who had a serious blood disorder and had lost all her immunity
> to bacteria, was fed on it for a few months. It was mainly used for items
> like jam etc. which were normally served cold. Other food such as meat
> stews and potatoes were considered sufficiently sterile by being boiled,
> recently. Despite these precautions she still suffered from massive fungal
> infections in her mouth and throat.
Bacteria and fungi are two different things altogether. Many
fungus spores can't be killed by cooking, and probably need a
higher radiation dose as well. Apart from that, bacteria will
re-settle on an originally sterile surface within minutes because
they are everywhere, especially in hospitals.
robert
John Larkin
<im...@miniac.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 18:53:07 -0700, John Larkin
><jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>>So, what are you working on?
>>>>
>>>Well, there are a couple of things, but until they're a bit further down
>>>the line, and as one of them is very "sensitive", I'd rather not make
>>>them public, although http://www.sstltd.com/ should point you in the
>>>general direction
>>
>>
>>For some reason, "technology" pictures always seem to be ancient
>>thru-hole stuff. Maybe artsy types consider it to be more photogenic
>>or something.
>>
>>http://www.sstltd.com/automatedtest.asp
>>
>>
>
>How right you are :
>
>"The DAC will need an output op-amp, but alas the trusty old
>(cheap) NE592 is no longer available"
>
>From a random website.
>
>DG
And I bet the Utilogic drivers sounded great, too.
John
raden
<jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> writes
>>>
>>Well, there are a couple of things, but until they're a bit further down
>>the line, and as one of them is very "sensitive", I'd rather not make
>>them public, although http://www.sstltd.com/ should point you in the
>>general direction
>
>
>For some reason, "technology" pictures always seem to be ancient
>thru-hole stuff. Maybe artsy types consider it to be more photogenic
>or something.
>
>http://www.sstltd.com/automatedtest.asp
>
My other engineering business has a turnover of $650,000, so I must be
doing something right
--
geoff