Nuclear device for the kitchen, yes really

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 ...

You should stick to engineering - you know something about that.

---------- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

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 being polite; you might find a job.

John

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.

Tell me something:

1. Whats the odds of the above happening? Multiply the number of deaths by the odds.

1. 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?

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

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?

Yes.. make smelly tasty cheese from boring milk!

Thomas

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

introduced a bill in

irradiated,

pass legislation

country to be

any such legislation

We all need to

quicker and more

sprout root than those done

for the seeds to

quicker than on the seeds

We did notice that the

couple of days longer

I used to be for irradiated meat, until I found out that it kills off all the benefits of eating meat , and if you eat your steak medium or rare then, yes it matters.

As for it being radioactive.. That's a bunch of bs.

The microwaved water thing is total bs, and I actually agree with cliff about it(cept for the snotty bits). i'm betting if you boiled water it would have the same effect, it has nothing to do with "radioactive" water.

water by it's nature.. is hard to get radioactive anyway.

shu

then,

non sequitur

My wife bought a steak for us as a treat. We cooked it and et it. Her comment, "We must be getting old and loosing our sense of taste." By coincidence, two things happened during the next week. While visiting my Father-in-law, the subject came up. He had just read an article claiming that, unlike vision and hearing, senses of smell and taste do not deteriorate with age unless there is some pathological problem in the individual. To add to the coincidence, my ranching sister-in-law came to town for a visit and brought some of their range fed beef steaks for us. What a difference!! The problem with the bought steak was not our "deteriorating sense of taste".

Some investigation turned up some interesting claims: Appearance and tenderness sell not taste. Cattle can be bred for tenderness. Hanging beef in controlled temperature and humidity for a sufficient time produces tender and tasty meat but is a very expensive process in captial investment, operating costs and held inventory.

Bread for tenderness and you can almost eliminate the extended hanging.

Draw your own conclussions.

Ted

Of course, if we fed domesticated herbivors herbs (aka grass) instead of meat byproducts, the problem would not arise.

Ted

For some reason, "technology" pictures always seem to be ancient thru-hole stuff. Maybe artsy types consider it to be more photogenic or something.

John

$100 a cow? These guys get $100 US for a burger:

Best regards, Spehro Pefhany

In message , John Larkin writes

Well, as it happens, I am doing at the moment

But I don't fill half a page with self advertising crap.

Ooh - getting rattled, are we ?

if

feeding

More completely than you know.

Politics exists in everything - climate change (where G Wanker refuses 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 ?

all

Just because you're ignorant/slow doesn't mean what I said was a non sequitur...

It's very simple.. irradiation not only kills off the Harmfull things, but it destroys enzymes (protiens) etc. that are Benficial to eat. these enzymes can also be destroyed if the meat is cooked well done, but if it's cooked rare they aren't destroyed(so much), and hence are a benfit to eat. Eating sterile meat is not a particularly healthy thing to do... Try feeding a dog Raw irradiated meat and see how well it does.

does that explain it better?

In message , John Larkin writes

Err ... that's because I'm posting in uk.d-i-y

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

In message , Jim Thompson writes

Yes, you do seem to have invaded uk.d-i-y, don't you