Nuclear device for the kitchen, yes really

[Mike Monett]

[...]

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.

course, the wines in your price class wouldn't dare have microbes:)

Mike Monett

[john jardine]

(Or, if you've guests coming, I'll lend you one of my glow-in-the-dark WW2 military radios. Guaranteed to give a scary scream on the Geiger counter :)

[nightjar]

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.

...Jim Thompson

[Dave Holford]

------------->

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

[Jamie]

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.

[John Larkin]

Why the hell should a science magazine have politics?

John

[John Larkin]

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

[Mike Monett]

[...]

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:)

Wouldn't the fruit have to supply NaOH, sodium hydroxide? That would probably discourage some germs by itself:)

Maybe one of her employees might know.

Mike Monett

[Mac]

Well, that is an excellent question. Since I am not a lawyer, I won't try to answer it.

But reading back through this thread, I don't see it as an allegation. Do you think the AARP could or would bring suit as a result of this thread?

You don't have to answer if you don't want to. ;-)

--Mac

[Richard Henry]

Mr. Thompson threatened to file a USPS document claiming that the AARP material is "sexually oriented advertising". Unless he genuinely holds that opinion of the AARP material, he would be filing a false report. (BTW, I'm not sure whether USPS forms are considered to be government documents anymore.) I am not in a position to determine AARP's opinion of such a filing.

As for the AARP, I want to know where they get their information. My first piece of AARP advertising (unwanted, but not sexually oriented in the least, in my opinion) arrived promptly on my 50th birthday.

[srentacow]

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:

[Christian McArdle]

Suggesting that the evidences states that global warming may actually be happening is apparently political.

Christian.

[Derek Geldard]

I think I saw it in New Scientist many 20+ years ago.

FWIR oxidation by the free radicals generated was the problem, proteins took on a slightly "burnt" off taste, fats developed rancidity.

In fact slightly reminiscent of the "Sterilised" milk that used to be sold in tall bottles with a crown cork.

DG

[Tim Shoppa]

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.)

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]

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]

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]

Andy Dingley wrote: > Zak wrote: >

They are right (the "irradiating folks"), but I agree with Zak's other comments:

and don't like the idea for other reasons, too.

What reason have you for thinking the "irradiating folks" are wrong?

[Jim Thompson]

Go to the FDA site. They seem to think that irradiation is to be used in addition to "clean' food processing.

...Jim Thompson

[Mac]

If a person says "I am going to file a false report to the USPS alleging that the AARP sends sexually explicit material to me," how is that libel? It makes no allegation against the AARP. But it does sound like a false report.

On the other hand, if a person says "The AARP is sending me sexually explicit material and I am going to complain to the USPS," there might be a case for libel, but I SERIOUSLY doubt the AARP would bother to go after it. And if the person finds the material to be sexually explicit, who is the USPS to say that the material is NOT sexually explicit? So it might be hard to prove that it is a false report.

Do you now see my position? If the report is acknowledged to be false, then there is no libel. If the report is NOT acknowledged to be false, then the grounds for proving a false report is problematic.

I'm not 50 yet, but the same thing happened to my Mom at some point. It was like someone turned on a switch. I think it was well after her 50th, though.

--Mac