Reminds of the Fawlty Towers sketch about fresh orange juice: "Yes, it is freshly opened!"
Tim.
Reminds of the Fawlty Towers sketch about fresh orange juice: "Yes, it is freshly opened!"
Tim.
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
Who said anything about a false report? Jim Thompson finds himself sexually aroused by geriatric-oriented literature. He's completely within his rights.
Only when it fudges the numbers to get a foregone conclusion. Or maybe also when they dismiss the evidence that states the exact opposite.
Ten bucks says thats wishful thinking.
Cheers Terry
Tell me something:
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
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
Aren't you a real conoisseur of good food, and all of a sudden a fierce supporter of nuked TV dinners?
robert
Eating fresh food will save lives.
robert
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
But nobody claims they didn't.
robert
I found it sexually oriented, as in "screw them!". ;-) BTW, my wife started getting the stuff six months before her 50th. I haven't gotten any yet. I keep telling her that she's old! ;-)
The idea is that the magazine presents cross-discipline science and technology, in a way that any scientist (or inquiring mind) can pick up and read. It comes across as 'entertaining' through the need to appeal to a very wide audience. It is spot-on IMO.
-- JJ
It doesn't have "politics" in the way that most Americans understand the subject. It's not about taking sides and discrediting the other side, and pushing strong views one way or the other. It does, however, tackle opinion on a wide range of subjects that affect us all. In that respect - 'politics' is something that cannot be avoided.
-- JJ
Oh yes, "they" always do that, don't "they". It's a good job "we" know the truth...
bah!
-- JJ
Something that has not been considered in this thread, is whether this is really a good approach: trying to find some highly technical solution to some problem that may or may not exist. Are we saying that people in Africa are dying because they are consuming big globs of rancid fat, gone off in the heat? On the other hand, how quickly does dried fruit in a dry atmosphere go rotten enough to kill people?
What on earth did Africa do before? Were they really all getting ill from their traditional diet? Could the problem actually be new foods that we are selling to these countries, that turn out to be totally unsuitable for the climate? Are we trying to fix a problem that should not be there in the first place?
How does irradiated beefburgers help the millions dying of AIDs? What about the millions displaced by war? Diseases spread by parasites and sewage and floods? Does irradiated food help them?
I think we really need to understand the real problems being faced around the world. I just wanted to inject some sanity, as I see it, here ;-)
-- JJ
similar convenience and mass-produced foods, giving people food poisoning in the West. If people eat this crap, cooked for them by spotty teenagers on a few dollars and hour, then what do they expect? So, irradiating now means the the food can be even more mistreated, and poison fewer people?
If food is grown, stored, processed and cooked properly, it poses very little risk to start with.
-- JJ
That is where the UK would like to draw the line, and say no to using irradiation for that purpose - not because it is unsafe, but on principle.
Unfortunately there seems to be no way within the EU to prevent certain products like prawns being exported to the Netherlands, where irradiation is allowed, and then re-imported to the UK.
When reading about the claimed benefits of food irradiation, you always need to check who's writing. People who want to sell irradiation plants will obviously talk up the benefits... but the cost means that remarkably few food producers want to buy them. (As others have said, the vast majority of irradiation plant capacity is used for sterilizing medical products.)
Where the UK does allow irradiation is for things like herbs and spices. Given the cost of an irradiation plant - particularly in the countries where such products are grown - it's something nobody would do for the fun of it. It seems fair to presume there is a particular problem about herbs and spices that has no better solution.
Bullshit. Rather than exporting yet another expensive, complicated to maintain and possibly dangerous (if radioactive isotopes are involved) technology, the thirld world must find back to proper farming and food handling practises.
robert
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.