Food Irradiation 

That’s something we all want to just not think of, yikes

interesting and informative comment! gotta be double sure to wash my fruits and veggies!

Well copper isn't too bad, the body actually even needs a very small quantity. The organic compounds are usually the real concern with those kind of agents. But thanks for pointing this out!

He did say "or" as in "one 'or' the other"

@@gefulltetaubenbrust2788 indeed, copper deficiency can result in the lose of the sense of smell. Zinc is one metal, of a few, that's required for proper immune function. The dose makes the poison, for even pure oxygen can be toxic.

"See? This is an Earth crayon! I bet you Gems are used to super-advanced space crayons, but we make do." - Steven Universe

I was watching that wholly expecting his hand to get dowsed when he sloshing it about to get it into the chamber. Then again, he's Soviet era Russian, the liquid nitrogen was probably afraid it would be frozen instead.

@@icthulu Have you ever seen those videos where people slap/briefly touch molten metal with their bare wetted skin and come out unharmed? That same effect would protect a reasonably dry hand from a small liquid nitrogen splash.

Exactly what I'd expect from a russian sounding nuclear scientist.

He is Russian. That's why.

You are really lucky for that hazard suit. Now back to the test chamberrr!

so thats how gordon got his phd

LOL

Unless you're a fly.

Why couldn't they just get another cup?

Now watch a vid on growing your own strawberries from store bought

ionizing radiation has no side effects.

@@TheBelrick Still prefer nonionizing, because the last time I bought some there was no charge. :P ... I'll see myself out.

@@TheBelrick Oh - really? Try to spread that narrative in Chernobyl or Fukushima Daiichi.

@@OttoDeCalumnias my man you're comparing EXPLODING NUCLEAR REACTIONS to what amounts to a camera flash of gamma ray. Talk about unfair comparison lmao.

@mad ass Yes, very safe - far, far safer than coal, for both direct and indirect hazards. Yes, easily stored spent fuel - dry cask storage is safe and effective, and after 600 years of storage, the fuel is "cool" enough to be cheaply reprocessed to retrieve the fissile components. Cheap, well, it depends on how you do the accounting. If you just ignore the storage requirements of solar and wind, it is very expensive. If you ignore the external cost of CO2 emission, it is very expensive compared to coal and natural gas. Hydro is cheap, but has horrendous environmental impacts on the rivers system, and most of the good locations for hydro have already been developed. So, yes, nuclear power stations are safe, cheap, and produce an easily stored waste (especial compared with coal.)

@mad ass Cheap? F***K no. Safe? Absolutely!!! About the waste - at least you know where it is, and if you don't want to, you don't have to breath it. Just educate yourself and think carefully. Once this is done... It just makes sense

The power of propaganda, a lot of people refuse to see it.

It took me a minute to think through your hint but I think I've got it; I assume anyone messing about trying to get into the internals out of one of these without approval will be quickly be immobilized and asked WTF he/she is up to by a SWAT team! On a related note, this did make me think about the case of the worker in Russia who overrode the safety interlocks on an industrial food irradiator and got the full hit while inside; apparently the workers did it routinely because the equipment was unreliable and they had to make their numbers! He died an excruciating death some time afterwards.

It's all about conservation, and conservation always has trade offs. The best conservation we currently have is reduced temperature. It has the lowest impact on the foods composition and purely relies on lowering reaction speeds of all kinds of chemical and biological reactions. That's why "frozes fresh from the field" usually is the best food you can get your hands on. The second best option is pasteurisation. Heating food up is killing bacteria and other microbiology, but it also denaturates some proteins and destroys some vitamins. It's more intrusive then simply cooling foods. The next best thing in line is irradiation. It achieves the same goal as pasteurisation, but with some side effects that were mentioned in you post. But also can be applied to products that do not tolerate heat well, which makes it much more versitile. The next best option is conservation through oxigen deprivation. The most common use of that is in alcoholic beverages, where there is no oxigen available, leading to microbiology creating alcohol to survive until they also die off and prevent anything else from living there. This method works fine for long periods of time, but it also relies on the microbiology to just use up all oxigen by digesting the food you tried to preserve, so it doesn't work with all foods. Drying is next in line, just removing all water stops most biological reactions, as water is the common solution in which all reactions happen. Removing water however is a very damaging process to foods and significantly alters the taste, texture and appeal of a food and is therefor usually reserved for dried fruits or potato chips, where low moisture is desirable. Now on the low end of conservation, we enter the realm of chemical additives. Adding sugar or salt are probably the oldest form of preservatives for foods used by humans, and nowadays modern chemistry has added some more to the table. These usually significantly alter the taste, texture, feel and smell of the good that is preserved and should be avoided in daily cooking. High sugar intake or high salt intake can lead to several severe health conditions such as obesity or heart disease, while the chemical solutions from the labs have lower impacts than sugar or salt, they still pose some risk to as least the taste of your meal. So remember - get the stuff as fresh as possible, eat it fast, only stock for long shelf durations what you actually have to and stay away from high salt or high sugar conservated products.

Cherry Bacon ...uhhh

@Chris Kelley There is exactly a case on what could go wrong if the ignorant public gets access to cobalt60: the Goiânia accident.

​@@theophrastusbombastus8019It was a cesium salt, not cobalt

I half expected him to say "This is how we fix things in Russia!" :-)

Just dont get the liquid nitrogen on you and your are fine. Use you brain and you will be fine.

You can get liquid nitrogen on you and you'll be just fine. I get it on my hands and arms all the time.

Yes, I have played with liquid nitrogen too. Just don't dip your hand into it, at least not for long... pouring it on your hand is like pouring water on a hot plate, it forms droplets that roll around on a cushion of evaporating nitrogen.

Make sure you use the right glove or no glove at all or the ln2 might soak the glove and give you burn

Horrors of 5G? you mean like poor signal strength, high battery consumption, ability to track your location(because the signal strength means stations must be close together), and no speed benefit over 4G for any website and operating system that isn't complete garbage or actively mining data and loading ads in the background?

5G is bad for you, so is 4G, so is wifi. Do some actual research, not youtube videos. We have literally 135 years of data and 10's of thousands of papers published internationally. Something to get you started. ht t p:/ / ww w. m e d ia f ire .c om /f o ld er/ dj 87 5cd10yb7 2/EMF Refer to "-Documents, links, information (Read First).txt" Remove the spaces obviously. I'm only being a bit blunt to defuse a bit of your ignorant arrogance. Do the work. Read. You people are aiding in criminal activity, and you're going to get us killed or worse.

If wifi caused cancer there is no possible way cancer rates could be declining. Cancer rates are declining. There is a negative correlation between the omnipresence of non ionic radiation and cancer, despite a widespread increase in cancer awareness and diagnosis.

@@onetwothree4148 Cancer rate is not declining. In the case of the brain, most tumor types are declining, but glioblastoma multiforme and acoustic neuroma are both rising. The literature on low intensity pulsed RF even back in the 80's predicted this, RF is much more likely to damage and outright kill cells than initiate and promote tumor formation and in the case of the CNS there's a few reasons for this. Refer to the work of Adey and Phillips in 2000 or so at UCLA's brain research institute for a good entry point on this. Everything Bawin and Adey wrote is a gateway into the real breadth of this field.

@@Acetyl53 I will read that. I look forward to learning how non-ionic radiation of a wavelength that can barely penetrate the skull could possibly be responsible for that (unless you are exposed to ridiculous power levels that literally cook you thermally, like a microwave).

ironic . given how corrupt science has become, i understand your contempt but bear in mind that internet scientists aren't fcking over the entire human populace unlike real scientists are.

As far as i know, there are rooms with a conveyor belt running through them on which your material to sterilize goes through. The Co60 source then can radiate the food or other items on a continuous basis. For maintenance or emergencies, the radiation source can be lowered into a pool of water or something that can block the radiation. That's also why they don't use the Cs137 anymore. There was an incident where the water soluble Cs137 compound was dropped into the water which obviously can be very dangerous. But as you said it is very expensive and because of that only used by bigger enterprises (think pharma, foods, and so on). The postal service might do it too, but idk about that.

​@@timecode37the postal service does it with x rays for letters sent to government offices

It probably would not be a fair comparison because rarely is the choice between preserving something through irradiation vs some other means. Usually the choice is between preserving something through irradiation vs not preserving it at all. Take, for example, strawberries. You could preserve strawberries by cooking and adding sugar turning them into jam or by freezing them. But if you want fresh strawberries and someone hands you a jar of strawberry jam, you're not getting what you asked for. Irradiation can double the shelf life of strawberries. Estimates are that the cost of irradiation amount to a few cents per pound, but that extra cost would likely be diminished from the reduction of waste. Remember, when you buy fresh fruits and vegetables the cost of throwing away all the produce that goes bad before anyone buys it is part of the price you pay.

shelf stable milk is made this way.

@@MrMorbo420 nope, shelf stable milk is UHT processed, Ultra High Temperature Processing technology gives us that famously stable milk. I try to keep a half dozen quarts on hand for both summer, when who wants to go out in the hot and winter, rather than dragging my nuts through the snow.

lol🌞

Look at how military MRE's are made.

🤔...smh🤣😅😂 #irradiatedFood🤔🤔 what are my dear friends up to?🤔 thanks for the heads up😊

Me next

If you mean will it be cooked as in a microwave oven, no, that's a different kind of radiation. Irradiated raw foods are still raw.

They're still raw, but any living organism or tissue (like germ cells in seeds) are killed. Gamma radiation causes DNA to degrade in several ways, and the cells being irradiated are overwhelmed and can't make proteins, and so die. So you couldn't plant an irradiated strawberry and grow a new plant, but it won't get moldy in the fridge quite as soon.

Heating instruments up in an autoclave is much cheaper while having the same effectiveness. The difference between surgical instruments (made of metal) and food is, the instruments are still fine after exposure to 134°C steam but the strawberry would be strawberry jam. ;) There is no need to sterilize surgical instruments during a surgery. Part of the sterilization is the packaging. Everything gets packaged before it is sterilized. The heat (or gamma rays) will go through the packaging and does its job. The outside of the packaging can then be contaminated again, the inside will be fine. The packaging will be opened only immediately before the instruments are used and this will happen in a way that the instrument never touches the outside.

It is actually used to sterilize surgical equipment in medicine. Also needles, etc. Not during surgery but before.

leseten01: If medical equipment isn't heat sensitive, it is put in an autoclave. Gamma irradiators are rare devices (~200 sterilization facilities that offer gamma irradiation worldwide), equipment that has to be sterilized has to be carried to and from them. This makes the method time consuming and expensive. An autoclave is a device anybody can buy and doesn't contain restricted materials.

Irradiated food, or **radioactive** food?

I believe that the article was discussing irradiated food. Obviously, radioactive food would give rise to the horrifying effects. I still believe that it would be prudent to to do long term full diet irradiated foods on rats to provide assurance of safety.

@@lcarliner I know irradiation can degrade some vitamins and nutrients in food, but I can't imagine the total effect would be any different or worse than if you simply barbequed everything. Still, as you said, precaution is always warranted when health and safety is on the line.

🤣🤣🤣🤣

The forbidden fleshlight

But the marine can be sure his crayons are safe to eat.

It shouldn't be much different from the chemical changes that occur in cooking.

Also, most plants dont have the same immune system you are thinking about... Prions are something that form in living animals and only in highly specific conditions.

My educated guess is that it wouldn't cause susceptible proteins to misfold, since radiation breaks covalent bonds and not S-S or hydrogen bonds. I could be wrong though I don't know of any prions that cause diseases besides TSE's though, so I guess avoid brains and strange acting game.

Head over to bigclivedotcom or Ashen's channels to see some truly horrific old MREs being consumed, much much older than 20yrs 👀🤢

No. Radioactivity is generally transferred by neutron radiation, and food irradiators don't emit those.

A bit of a language barrier with mr. Toshkov, but what he wanted to communicate was that after approximately 6 MeV you start getting induced radiation via process called photodisintegration -- meaning that the energies of individual photons in your radiation beam exceed the binding energy of subatomic particles (i.e. protons and neutrons) in the irradiated material, which can be either your food or the surrounding shielding or structural materials. Essentially, the photons pack enough punch to knock neutrons or protons out of the core of an atom. This nuclear transmutation has the potential of rendering that atom radioactive. Using high energy radiation doesn't serve any purpose, and it is significantly harder and more expensive to do. 1 MeV photons have more than enough energy and Co-60 is very easy to produce.

They would glow, and same with x-rays and UV.

Typically its Cobalt 60 to irradiate things. Its not waste, but it can be made in a standard reactor. Cesium also works, but its water soluble. Many irradiators "shut down" by dropping the source into a water pool. If the tube that the radioactive material is sealed in fails you now have thousands of gallons of radioactive water. Cobalt is not water soluble,. Source - work at a commercial irradiator.

Most waste would not be suitable for irradiating foods because they produce things other than gamma rays. Some waste isotopes give off neutrons or decay into other radioactive isotopes which give off neutrons. Neutrons can make other isotopes they hit radioactive. Some decay products are radioactive but are gases (like radon) which can make containment an issue. Like gadget73 said, cobalt 60 is generally used. Cobalt 60 is great because it decays into stable Nickle 60 without giving off any neutrons. Nickle 60 is not radioactive and is also a metal so it does not escape containment. Cobalt 60 also has a relatively short half life (5.27 years) and the gamma rays it produces are pretty strong which reduces the amount of cobalt 60 you need to have on hand to produce the required dose. Plus it is all one thing so the dose of radiation delivered is very predictable. Nuclear waste is a mixture of a lot of different radioactive things all of which have different decay rates and daughter products making the dose at any given time unpredictable.

Most waste is not very radioactive. Most of it is just U-238, some U-235 and some actinides. These are all nuclear fuel, not "waste". By waste I mean the "undesirable" fission products. These can be separated, and many of them are very good gamma sources.

There is usually a shield that would block the neutrons, but the gamma rays get through.

@@jbarker2160 What kind of shielding would be effective for that without also shielding most of the gamma?

aleksander suur there isn’t. Neutrons would penetrate anything gammas would. But Gamma emitters are very different from neutron emitters. Gammas are mostly from fission products, cobalt,cesium. Neutrons from alpha decay, plutonium, polonium .

Why would you want to do that?

www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/expatnews/7709668/Indias-waste-disposal-failures-exposed-by-radiation-death.html

They open the device without hot room

you should read the IAEA report on this! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident

other people have gone into industrial sized irradiation chambers when the source is above the water. not a good outcome.

It was in Goiania, Brazil and they opened a caesium cancer treatment device left in an abandoned clinic. Four people died, including the scrap-dealer's wife and child, a dozen others were sick but survived and over a hundred badly contaminated. A huge clean-up was required to get most but not all of the stuff.

They're a lot less complicated than fungus or bacteria. Use your imagination.

It doesn't happen. The sources are sealed. The radiation gets out but not the actual bits of the sources

People in hiroshima in 1945 sure got the literal meaning of it

It’s a photon. It has just a bit more energy than visible light. Free radicals are not isotopes. They are chemicals with and electron imbalance. Yes chewing your food creates them... in your jaw muscles. Every thing your body does creates free radicals some of them are very essential to life. You seem to fear something that you do not even know what it is.

Type in "steris gamma irradiation" in the search.

@@Nozomu564 thks

This is not new, this has been done since the 1980 despite what you think about the machine, and this video is propaganda.

Define 'damage.'

@@seanwatts8342 Randomly slashing bonds, degrading vitamins, oxidizing fats etc.

@@soylentgreenb Sunlight does FAR MORE than that...

Yeah it's odd, I see way more information trying to defend it & talking about how safe it is instead of spending any time at all on the potential risks. Bordering on propaganda at times

Yep, bacteria. Get a clue!

The nutritional properties of food are essential, there is no way irradiation doesn't decimate the nutrients.

all the bacteria you need is already in your gut

@@AldrigEmber But children who grow up in too much sanitized environments often developp allergies and other things.