 |
|
| UK diy (uk.d-i-y) For the discussion of all topics related to diy (do-it-yourself) in the UK. All levels of experience and proficency are welcome to join in to ask questions or offer solutions. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#121
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message oups.com... "New Scientist" is a British based popular science weekly. They do get the science right, but insist of presenting it in an "entertaining" way. 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 |
|
#122
|
|||
|
|||
|
"John Larkin" wrote in message ... Why the hell should a science magazine have politics? 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 |
|
#123
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Pig Bladder" wrote in message news  On Mon, 20 Jun 2005 10:19:34 +0100, Christian McArdle wrote: Why the hell should a science magazine have politics? Suggesting that the evidences states that global warming may actually be happening is apparently political. Christian. Only when it fudges the numbers to get a foregone conclusion. Or maybe also when they dismiss the evidence that states the exact opposite. Oh yes, "they" always do that, don't "they". It's a good job "we" know the truth... bah! -- JJ |
|
#124
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message oups.com... Tim Shoppa wrote: 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? 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 |
|
#125
|
|||
|
|||
|
"John Larkin" wrote in message ... http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/WEBONLY...aug03/irr.html That article sums it up for me. The problem is one of beefburgers and 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 |
|
#126
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jason Judge wrote:
So, irradiating now means the the food can be even more mistreated, 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. -- Ian White |
|
#128
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jason Judge wrote:
wrote in message oups.com... "New Scientist" is a British based popular science weekly. They do get the science right, but insist of presenting it in an "entertaining" way. 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. They have a rather lefty bias, and fairly sloppy gosh wow reporting, but it is worth a read now and again. -- JJ |
|
#129
|
|||
|
|||
|
In message , Jason Judge
writes wrote in message roups.com... "New Scientist" is a British based popular science weekly. They do get the science right, but insist of presenting it in an "entertaining" way. 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. Yup ... -- geoff |
|
#130
|
|||
|
|||
|
In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes Jason Judge wrote: wrote in message oups.com... "New Scientist" is a British based popular science weekly. They do get the science right, but insist of presenting it in an "entertaining" way. 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. They have a rather lefty bias, Put the capitalists up against the wall (except me, of course) and fairly sloppy gosh wow reporting, It's popular science, it's not trying to emulate Nature but it is worth a read now and again. It's what I read during my morning "sit" oops missed the "h" -- geoff |
|
#131
|
|||
|
|||
|
In message , Jason Judge
writes wrote in message roups.com... Tim Shoppa wrote: 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? 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 ;-) The new boi has now made several exceedingly sensible posts Welcome sir -- geoff |
|
#132
|
|||
|
|||
|
In message , Ian White
writes Jason Judge wrote: So, irradiating now means the the food can be even more mistreated, 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. Jason Judge mode People have been using dried herbs and spices for thousands of years without any problem .... what problem ? -- geoff |
|
#133
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jason Judge wrote:
wrote in message oups.com. 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? 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? Every country suffers loss from food spoilage, and food poisoning. Africa is especially bad on food poisoning because people can not aford to throw food away, so the risks taken are much higher than here. Radiation can reduce that considerably. The lack of domestic fridges doesnt help either. Rad can also sterilise food that was diseased to start with, again much reducing deaths, by killing bacteria and stopping further production of toxins. Africa is a continent with a meat-rich diet, very little in the way of health and safety controls, almost no domestic fridges or freezers, and a population desperate for food. A combination of factors leading to relatively high risks of food poisoning. On the other hand, how quickly does dried fruit in a dry atmosphere go rotten enough to kill people? That isnt whats going to get irradiated, because that isnt the problem. What on earth did Africa do before? Were they really all getting ill from their traditional diet? dying, in massive numbers. Why? Primarily because there isnt enough food. Also infections from food to a lseser extent. At least today with modern foods and technologies things have greatly improved. Today 0.8 billion out of 6 billion is in poverty, in 1930 it was 2 billion out of 3 billion. Could the problem actually be new foods that we are selling to these countries, that turn out to be totally unsuitable for the climate? no, that has nothing to do with it Are we trying to fix a problem that should not be there in the first place? What does should have to do with it? The question is what is. What is is food shortage. 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? No, it only helps people to get to eat. I think we really need to understand the real problems being faced around the world. obviously I just wanted to inject some sanity, as I see it, here ;-) Food shortage is one of the biggest problems, one of many of course. Plenty die from lack of food there. Most people have to work more than full time there just to eat. Maybe you need to do some reading. NT |
|
#134
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jason Judge wrote:
I'll just tackle your one worst sentence here. If food is grown, stored, processed and cooked properly, it poses very little risk to start with. Firstly its entirely untrue, reality is masses of people get ill and die from food that has been grown stored processed and cooked properly. Radiation does not eliminate all causes of this, but it does eliminate some, thus reducing deaths. Secondly a lot of food gets spoiled and ditched before it reaches the table. Again with radiated food less of it goes off within a given time period, so there is less food lost this way. 3rd, and possibly biggest of all, your implication that the solution to Africas food problem is to grow, store, process and cook food properly is truly unrealistic. They do not have the means to do it, or even come close. Its simply a non-starter suggestion. 4th, if radiation can reduce imported food costs, as it can, again that means more food for all in countries that just dont have enough to eat today. Radiation does not prevent all food poisoning or loss, but it does reduce it. NT |
|
#136
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Jim Thompson" wrote in message ... On 19 Jun 2005 09:49:37 -0700, wrote: It's already being done here in the U.S., at least for military meals. Seal in plastic, then irradiate. Because the requirements are that the stuff can be stored for 30 years and still be edible - and whatever risk there might be in eating it is probably small compared to the daily risks of the soldier. They only live off those field rations when actually IN the field - the normal food is prepared the normal way. I don't know what type of radiation is being used. Beta - it's easier to make and control. 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. What you are saying is that we need to go lowest common denominator and all live off preserved food because a limited few, including processing plants, do not have the skills to handle real foodstuff. You go right ahead and live on that crap if you like it so much; Freedom of choice and all. I much prefer that the "problem" was solved by quality staff who wash their hands after going to the toilet and do not pick their nose or fondle their genitals while working (i.e. no fastfood ;-), fresh raw materials that were handled properly, and good kitchen skills - including the use of ones nose and eyes. I can do that so why should my quality of life be diminished by tainting the food to benefit those who cannot? One of the few places sterilisation of food has merit to consumers I.M.O. is in Spices - presently Methylene Bromide is used, a thoroughly nasty chemical, to kill the germs in the bat **** and whatnot that comes with the Curry. But that is about it - during the summer, I use fresh spices anyway. Besides - Radiation will not remove Toxins, f.ex. shellfish gone a bit off then "rejuvenated" by a dose of radiation to stop the rotting & the stink that tells you that you better not eat this, will still give you an extended stay in the old john. This has happened here in Europe - beware of the tasteless shrimp with funny texture!!! I sometimes think there should be a bounty offered for loonie greenies, after all they ARE a terrorist group ;-) Like Salman Rushdie? |
|
#137
|
|||
|
|||
|
Frithiof Andreas Jensen wrote:
why should my quality of life be diminished by tainting the food to benefit those who cannot? You're missing the point- processed food and nookler power are articles of faith in some quarters, like gnus for the NMRA (how I hate those bare- armed railroad buffs!) One of the few places sterilisation of food has merit ..to kill the germs in the bat **** and whatnot that comes with the Curry. That's what cooking is for. Nowt wrong with bat ****, adds to the taste. A few years ago, a friend was going through my brother's curry spices, and came across a jar of brown powder. Inspecting it, she asked "why do you keep henna in the spice cupboard?" He didn't know what it was, and had been adding half a teaspoon full to most curries for the previous 10 years. No ill effects, if you count him as normal normally. Paul Burke |
|
#138
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Paul Burke" wrote in message ... You're missing the point- processed food and nookler power are articles of faith in some quarters, like gnus for the NMRA (how I hate those bare- armed railroad buffs!) *gnus*?? well, it is probably some sort of beef ;-) .... or a clever anagram not to attract a certain crowd that will be summoned by certain trigger words. Like when dropping someting in the Kitchen will always attract The Dog who knows *exactly* the sound of the kitchen floor - even in deep sleep. One of the few places sterilisation of food has merit ..to kill the germs in the bat **** and whatnot that comes with the Curry. That's what cooking is for. Nowt wrong with bat ****, adds to the taste. Aiiii: The Dust - when throwing it in the pot you will inhale it, somtimes we drop spices into salads and chip-dip and the cooking will not kill all spores. Them Anthrax are hard germs to get rid off. A few years ago, a friend was going through my brother's curry spices, and came across a jar of brown powder. Inspecting it, she asked "why do you keep henna in the spice cupboard?" He didn't know what it was, and had been adding half a teaspoon full to most curries for the previous 10 years. No ill effects, if you count him as normal normally. Double Aiiii: Dumping unknown substances in ones food is tempting Darwin, Henna is a bad allergen; maybe disgruntled former wife left it there believing it was rat-poison? |
|
#139
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message oups.com... 1. Whats the odds of the above happening? Multiply the number of deaths by the odds. Probability 1.0 ... That's the deal with third-world countries. Since nobody bothers with cause of death and barely counts dead people, we cannot quote 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? A Negative Number, It will go the way it always does: Vital Parts would be stolen immediately and food would pile up and spoil outside waiting to be irradiated. After many months new parts will arrive under armed escort, but the contract of the engineer responsible for fitting them, will have expired. Nobody else knows what to do and there will be an election in the donor country anyway so the issue will not make it past even the personal letters in any media. Meanwhile the local government would declare that it was a conspiracy of the Whites/Jews/Christians/Opposition/USA to keep the food away from the people while selling the spoiled food in opposition areas causing disease and malnutrition there. Eventually the UN would send some more dry food, which would end up on the market and push more local farmers out of business increasing the need. I wonder if all this "saving lives" business is not simply delaying the point where Africa will start to deal with it's own problems, instead of being bailed out by "the west" time after time (and whining about that too). |
|
#140
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 10:10:48 +0200, "Frithiof Andreas Jensen"
wrote: "Jim Thompson" wrote in message .. . [snip] 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. What you are saying is that we need to go lowest common denominator and all live off preserved food because a limited few, including processing plants, do not have the skills to handle real foodstuff. You go right ahead and live on that crap if you like it so much; Freedom of choice and all. [snip] No. The food in the grocery does not meet my definition of fresh. It does not taste as if it were picked at optimum ripeness yesterday. In fact it is substantially tasteless since it was picked weeks ago while still green. Irradiation of a fruit or vegetable at optimum ripeness stops the progression on into rot, thus giving me the opportunity to enjoy "fresh" again. ...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. |
|
#141
|
|||
|
|||
|
Paul Burke wrote:
Frithiof Andreas Jensen wrote: why should my quality of life be diminished by tainting the food to benefit those who cannot? You're missing the point- processed food and nookler power are articles of faith in some quarters, like gnus for the NMRA (how I hate those bare- armed railroad buffs!) One of the few places sterilisation of food has merit ..to kill the germs in the bat **** and whatnot that comes with the Curry. That's what cooking is for. Nowt wrong with bat ****, adds to the taste. A few years ago, a friend was going through my brother's curry spices, and came across a jar of brown powder. Inspecting it, she asked "why do you keep henna in the spice cupboard?" He didn't know what it was, and had been adding half a teaspoon full to most curries for the previous 10 years. No ill effects, if you count him as normal normally. In the days when I took sugar in my coffee, contamination of the sugar by coffee granules from the spoon was to be expected, but when I found undissolved mouse turds when I drained my cup I asked my girlfriend to take more care when making the coffee. No ill effects, but the dregs didn't taste too good ! |
|
#142
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 13:11:07 +0200, Frithiof Andreas Jensen wrote:
"Paul Burke" wrote in message ... You're missing the point- processed food and nookler power are articles of faith in some quarters, like gnus for the NMRA (how I hate those bare- armed railroad buffs!) *gnus*?? well, it is probably some sort of beef ;-) Not quite. ... or a clever anagram not to attract a certain crowd that will be summoned by certain trigger words. ^^^^^^^ Interesting choice! Like when dropping someting in the Kitchen will always attract The Dog who knows *exactly* the sound of the kitchen floor - even in deep sleep. The toast will always land jelly-down. The dog is irrelevent here. One of the few places sterilisation of food has merit ..to kill the germs in the bat **** and whatnot that comes with the Curry. That's what cooking is for. Nowt wrong with bat ****, adds to the taste. Aiiii: The Dust - when throwing it in the pot you will inhale it, somtimes we drop spices into salads and chip-dip and the cooking will not kill all spores. Them Anthrax are hard germs to get rid off. Hey, if he want's to eat congessional mail (bat**** and all)... A few years ago, a friend was going through my brother's curry spices, and came across a jar of brown powder. Inspecting it, she asked "why do you keep henna in the spice cupboard?" He didn't know what it was, and had been adding half a teaspoon full to most curries for the previous 10 years. No ill effects, if you count him as normal normally. Double Aiiii: Dumping unknown substances in ones food is tempting Darwin, Henna is a bad allergen; maybe disgruntled former wife left it there believing it was rat-poison? Too bad. Didn't work. Darwin escaped. -- Keith |
|
#143
|
|||
|
|||
|
raden wrote:
In message . com, writes Jason Judge wrote: Africa is a continent with a meat-rich diet, very little in the way of health and safety controls, almost no domestic fridges or freezers, and a population desperate for food. Which is different from other "third world" countries, how ? thats relevant how? On the other hand, how quickly does dried fruit in a dry atmosphere go rotten enough to kill people? That isnt whats going to get irradiated, because that isnt the problem. IMO, you're ****ing in the wind You are talking of a massive population no, I wasnt. But you can. How many machines, and at what cost are you expecting to have to produce ? I was looking at one, finding out whether it was possible, afordable, and if it would be worthwhile. Due to its size and the safety complications, it isnt. You need to be looking at cheap, low tech solutions, not expensive hi-tech ones youre confusing 2 things, cost and technology level. Obviusuly low cost is necessary, but low tech is not. The need around technology is that the unit work long term. This can be achieved in a number of possible ways: 1. use low tech repairable locally 2. use high reliability high tech so it wont need repair 3. use multiple small devices so that the expected failure rate does not kill the project 1 requires low etch, 2 and 3 can use low, high, medium or astronomic, it makes no difference. What on earth did Africa do before? Were they really all getting ill from their traditional diet? dying, in massive numbers. Why? Primarily because there isnt enough food. That's to a large extent a political problem, water being the main culprit sure its politically caused, but with respect Im not planning a coup d'etat. I was looking to see what could be done within the system, not to change the system. I'll leave the mass invasion to you. Also infections from food to a lseser extent. And inf4ections from AIDS to a larger extent yep, been looking a bit at that too. Tough nut to crack though. Theres no cure for aids. Kids are already educated on prevention, but behave recklessly anyway. Until the political situations are sorted, the problems with food will continue to exist that much is obvious. But like I said, Im not getting into a coup. Do you really think that you're going to end up with a product which is a) affordable if anything goes ahead, it only does so if it were affordable. This isnt difficult to work out. and b) will get distributed to those who need it I was looking at portable sterilisation for post distribution, not pre. and c) won't get used as a political weapon by those in power ? The risk of that is acceptably low with a portable steriliser. 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? No, it only helps people to get to eat. You've never lived in a "third world" country have you I'm talking about a country that is not at war, has not been at war for some time, and does not suffer floods. You seem to be thinking of something else. Food shortage is one of the biggest problems, one of many of course. Plenty die from lack of food there. Most people have to work more than full time there just to eat. But we're talking about staple foods like maize and rice - what good is irradiation going to do ? no we're not, or I'm not. Its primarily meat that needs irradiating. Maybe you need to do some reading. Maybe you need to get out there and discover the real problems. Already have someone whos done that. I think the problem is youre thinking about the messier countries like the congo, and Im talking about the more stable ones. NT |
|
#144
|
|||
|
|||
|
Frithiof Andreas Jensen wrote:
I wonder if all this "saving lives" business is not simply delaying the point where Africa will start to deal with it's own problems, instead of being bailed out by "the west" time after time (and whining about that too). Sure it needs to change, but I dont see any likely mechanism by which countries will change by themselves. So, predictably, very few have. NT |
|
#145
|
|||
|
|||
|
In message . com,
writes raden wrote: In message . com, writes Jason Judge wrote: Africa is a continent with a meat-rich diet, very little in the way of health and safety controls, almost no domestic fridges or freezers, and a population desperate for food. Which is different from other "third world" countries, how ? thats relevant how? In that low tech traditional solutions have done and do work the main problem is drought - lack of water, not lack of food (other than a consequence of drought) On the other hand, how quickly does dried fruit in a dry atmosphere go rotten enough to kill people? That isnt whats going to get irradiated, because that isnt the problem. IMO, you're ****ing in the wind You are talking of a massive population no, I wasnt. So who are you trying to help then ? a select few ? But you can. That's the reality of the situation How many machines, and at what cost are you expecting to have to produce ? I was looking at one, finding out whether it was possible, afordable, and if it would be worthwhile. Due to its size and the safety complications, it isnt. You need to be looking at cheap, low tech solutions, not expensive hi-tech ones youre confusing 2 things, cost and technology level. Obviusuly low cost is necessary, but low tech is not. No I'm not The need around technology is that the unit work long term. This can be achieved in a number of possible ways: 1. use low tech repairable locally By whom ? 2. use high reliability high tech so it wont need repair optimistic 3. use multiple small devices so that the expected failure rate does not kill the project 1 requires low etch, 2 and 3 can use low, high, medium or astronomic, it makes no difference. There is enough food to feed them, what is lacking is the political will to do so What on earth did Africa do before? Were they really all getting ill from their traditional diet? dying, in massive numbers. Why? Primarily because there isnt enough food. That's to a large extent a political problem, water being the main culprit sure its politically caused, but with respect Im not planning a coup d'etat. T'would be a better way of spending money I was looking to see what could be done within the system, not to change the system. I'll leave the mass invasion to you. See above Also infections from food to a lseser extent. And inf4ections from AIDS to a larger extent yep, been looking a bit at that too. Tough nut to crack though. Theres no cure for aids. Kids are already educated on prevention, but behave recklessly anyway. Until the political situations are sorted, the problems with food will continue to exist that much is obvious. But like I said, Im not getting into a coup. Sorry, but it's all down to political will Do you really think that you're going to end up with a product which is a) affordable if anything goes ahead, it only does so if it were affordable. This isnt difficult to work out. So who will pay for it ? and b) will get distributed to those who need it I was looking at portable sterilisation for post distribution, not pre. But that's not the problem and c) won't get used as a political weapon by those in power ? The risk of that is acceptably low with a portable steriliser. 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? No, it only helps people to get to eat. You've never lived in a "third world" country have you I'm talking about a country that is not at war, has not been at war for some time, and does not suffer floods. You seem to be thinking of something else. So where in africa are you thinking of where the above is not applicable? Food shortage is one of the biggest problems, one of many of course. Plenty die from lack of food there. Most people have to work more than full time there just to eat. But we're talking about staple foods like maize and rice - what good is irradiation going to do ? no we're not, or I'm not. Its primarily meat that needs irradiating. Maybe you need to do some reading. Maybe you need to get out there and discover the real problems. Already have someone whos done that. I think the problem is youre thinking about the messier countries like the congo, and Im talking about the more stable ones. I'm talking in general Believe me, people can survive if given the opportunity You seem to be missing what is obvious to me -- geoff |
|
#146
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#147
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#148
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article , Pooh Bear wrote:
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 a 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. Just read this one. Food irradiation has been used before. I recall horror stories about 'nearly off' prawns that would otherwise have been rejected being irradiated and then sold. It killed the bacteria but left the toxins aleady there. Cobalt 90 was used ( whatever that gives off ) and it needed plenty of lead screening ! Most bacteria don't produce toxins, and food-spoiling toxin-producing bacteria make food obviously spoiled or at least "off" when there are enough toxins to make the food inedible. Cooking also does not destroy at least many toxins produced by bacteria. Otherwise spoiled food would always be made safe by cooking it. - Don Klipstein ) |
|
#149
|
|||
|
|||
|
raden wrote:
writes Jason Judge wrote: You are talking of a massive population no, I wasnt. So who are you trying to help then ? a select few ? Im not taking on a whole continent! Or planning a coup! But you can. That's the reality of the situation its simply what youre looking at. There are many ways to tackle problems. 2. use high reliability high tech so it wont need repair optimistic high reliabilty tech is well established in the west, and is sometimes practical. A radioactive source is normally long term reliable for example. There is enough food to feed them, what is lacking is the political will to do so If you want to get into fighting with governments, go for it. Im not interested. sure its politically caused, but with respect Im not planning a coup d'etat. T'would be a better way of spending money I was looking to see what could be done within the system, not to change the system. I'll leave the mass invasion to you. See above Not very sensible answers, given that I'm not a general. Also infections from food to a lseser extent. And inf4ections from AIDS to a larger extent yep, been looking a bit at that too. Tough nut to crack though. Theres no cure for aids. Kids are already educated on prevention, but behave recklessly anyway. since you suggested it, I imagined you thought there was a solution to offer. Until the political situations are sorted, the problems with food will continue to exist that much is obvious. But like I said, Im not getting into a coup. Sorry, but it's all down to political will your solution is, yes. I'm still not interested in it! Do you really think that you're going to end up with a product which is a) affordable if anything goes ahead, it only does so if it were affordable. This isnt difficult to work out. So who will pay for it ? funding is already addressed. and b) will get distributed to those who need it I was looking at portable sterilisation for post distribution, not pre. But that's not the problem it is a problem. Sorry to disappoint you by not offering to get into mililtary action, overthrow all African governments and establish benign dictatorship, establish political education then after a few years, grow democracies. What can I say, I'll leave that to you and your troops. I'm talking about a country that is not at war, has not been at war for some time, and does not suffer floods. You seem to be thinking of something else. So where in africa are you thinking of where the above is not applicable? place in South Africa Maybe you need to do some reading. Maybe you need to get out there and discover the real problems. Already have someone whos done that. I think the problem is youre thinking about the messier countries like the congo, and Im talking about the more stable ones. I'm talking in general youre simply talking about something else. Places like Congo are not like SA etc, one can not generalise for them all. You seem to be missing what is obvious to me you seem to me to be talking about something Im simply not interested in getting involved in. Lead your own coup if you wish, try the futile exercise of reasoning with them if you wish, try to coerce them if you wish... its not for me, and its not reality. NT |
|
#151
|
|||
|
|||
|
In message .com,
writes raden wrote: writes Jason Judge wrote: You are talking of a massive population no, I wasnt. So who are you trying to help then ? a select few ? Im not taking on a whole continent! Or planning a coup! As it happens, there's a program on the TV at the moment about aid to Africa. Currently they're talking about food aid being diverted and being sold in the markets etc... and the neediest people are in areas being controlled by the most corrupt governments and at this moment, about a village with three water pumps, none of them working because they can't get the spare parts At the end of the day, the problems are overwhelmingly political as I said before, they've survived for thousands of years without the need for aid If you could get such a device working, and it actually managed to do what was required (see other peoples' posts questioning this, and you could manage to power the device, and you were able to maintain them, they still need to be able to get, and afford the food Cooking and instantly sealing fresh food strikes me as being a much simpler and straightforward low tech solution which would be just as effective -- geoff |
|
#152
Posted to uk.d-i-y,free.uk.diy.nuclear-device,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nuclear device for the kitchen, yes really
raden wrote:
In message , John Larkin writes On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 19:02:58 GMT, raden wrote: In message , Jim Thompson writes On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 18:02:26 GMT, raden wrote: In message , Jim Thompson 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 ****** 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 Or (to get back on topic) irradiated ;-) -- Vj |
|
#153
Posted to uk.d-i-y,free.uk.diy.nuclear-device,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nuclear device for the kitchen, yes really
On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 00:53:29 GMT, "Vødkäjéllÿ"
wrote: raden wrote: In message , John Larkin writes On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 19:02:58 GMT, raden wrote: I'm sure this thread was interesting (well, perhaps not that sure) but really, responding to an 8 month old post and crossposting to a new newsgroup is a bit much innit? -- The three most dangerous things are a programmer with a soldering iron, a manager who codes, and a user who gets ideas. |
|
#154
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gully Foyle
Gully Foyle wrote:
I'm sure this thread was interesting (well, perhaps not that sure) but really, responding to an 8 month old post and crossposting to a new newsgroup is a bit much innit? The *new* news group must be as old as the replied to post as nothing was changed, and was cancelled before you replied due to the inadvertant crossposting. No response is necessary. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Wiring kitchen ring query when kitchen part installed | UK diy | |||
| Cabinet, Furniture Design Software, Autodesk QuickCAD v8.0, Punch Software Home Design Architectural Series 18 v6.0, SOLID V3.5 - CABINET VISION, Cabinet Design Centre v7.0 - Cubit, 20-20 Kitchen Design V6.1,Cabinet Vision Solid, Planit Millennium II | Woodturning | |||
| Planit Millennium II [2 CDs] new !, and other Kitchen Design 3D programscheap software for fitted kitchen design | Woodworking | |||
| Planit Millennium II [2 CDs] new !, and other Kitchen Design 3D programscheap software for fitted kitchen design | Woodworking | |||
| Kitchen Fitter Standards | UK diy | |||
Linear Mode
