Only flaw in the strawberry analogy is that the berry isn't treated with fungicide post harvest, it's sprayed in the field while still growing so the zapping it with gamma rays will not totally eliminate the presence of spray material residue. BTW, I am a farmer and fruit grower and deal with these problems on a daily basis. irradiating the berry post harvest will extend it's shelf life but there will still be some fungicide residue. Even organic berries have organic approved fungicides applied in the field. Usually a copper or sulfur containing compound. I'm not a big fan of heavy metal ingestion either.
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!
@@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.
Super high tech technology. Hits equipment with hammer. Pours liquid gas while protecting his hand with half of a Styrofoam cup.You have to admire the pragmatism.
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.
Amazing. I just found this channel a few days ago, and every single video is just gold. Thank you for posting these, it's sad that this content doesn't get more views.
@@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
I liked the low-tech parts, where the researcher was banging the cover plate locking pin in with a mallet and pouring the liquid nitrogen in with a funnel fashioned from a styrene cup.
My persistent issue is that handy waving explanation that starts around 545. First it not just "free radicals" it's what normal compounds get turned into. Gamma rays have hundreds of times the energy necessary to break any chemical bond. Those free radicals aren't just the ordinary hydroxyl, peroxy, superoxide radicals oh, but you're going to get carbo cation radicals, O+ radicals, n + radicals, s+ radicals, CL + radicals oh, that are going to produce a huge variety of random organic compounds derived from biologically important compounds such as nucleic acids, amino acids, vitamins and essential fatty acids. They're nothing like the kinds of chemical transformation that happens with cooking, or the kinds of chemicals that your digestive tract and liver routinely evolved to process. If it was just creating severed polymer strands that would be fine. Additionally there's the very important problem that there are a host of important micronutrients that will get depleted by exposure to high amounts of the more ordinary hydroxy, peroxy and superoxide radicals. Again this is not as much a problem with cooking but you can actually heavily deplete the nutrient value of food by cooking it too much or cooking the wrong ones. Now it's possible, that food irradiation is an acceptable trade-off in terms of food safety versus other current food safety methods. It's just that the circumstances that was passed under during the late 1980s was kind of shoddy. I was monitoring it at the time and there were some limited studies on food carcinogenesis it did not seem to have the same sort of rigor where we could detect the long-term health effects continuous exposure 2 food that's been irradiated over many years.
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.
The radiolytic products formed from food packaging are also very poorly understood. 21 CFR 179.45 lists the materials and doses permitted for packaging in contact with food during irradiation, and it's based on an alarming amount of hand-waving and guesswork.
I worked on a Gammacell blood irradiator a few years ago. Used Cs137 also. Interesting story because of the safety/ alarm mechanisms we had to disable to get the panels off and just who the alarm reported to.
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.
Love your videos - and the markers! You do a great job distilling complex topics into the key nuggets people need to understand. Helpful and entertaining - well done!
The next subject should be irradiation of human sewage in sewage treatment plants - Perhaps by using high level nuclear waste as the gamma and x-ray source? Love your series, sir!!
Could you please do video on induced radiation? I've always wondered why sometimes, things pick up radiation from exposure, and other times they don't. What Dr. Toshkov said about 1.3 MeV and 6 MeV was the first time I heard a hint of why that is. Would love to see you explain it more thoroughly.
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.
@@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.
I've been "reliably" informed that "the radiation stays in the food afterward". I've always replied, yeah, the light stays in my room after I turn it off to get into bed too. They run out of steam at that point. Alas, I still haven't beat the darkness to my bed.
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.
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.
What I want to see is how they scaled this up so they can irradiate large quantities of food. Using this machine would be incredibly expensive. So what does the production machine look like and how does it work?
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.
Be thankful that there aren't many radioactive sources that emit high energy gamma rays with at least around 6-10 million electron volts (or 6-10 megaelectron volts) of energy which make things radioactive by blasting nucleons (protons and neutrons) out of the nuclei of atoms.
I came here after watching a video about all the horrors of 5G. After seeing all that paranoid nonsense, it's refreshing to see a video with the truth in it told by someone that knows what he's talking about!
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).
I saw a farm machine that irradiated potatoes in a Scottish museum in Ayrshire, I can’t mind the years it operated on, it was either the thirties or the fifties. It looked like a wagon from the wild west in construction, hmm, “fifty tons of lead and what do you get”, excuse my frivolity. It amazes me that scientists are still trying to explain scientific effects/effectiveness to a what would seem an evermore expanding skeptical world population.
Food irradiation kill good bacteria also which are important for human health. Due to food irradiation we can face some health issue like constipation, protein and growth related issue.
Could the gamma ray irradiation cause the material to become slightly radioactive due to photodisintegration of nuclei? Or is the binding energy of the lighter elements too high?
What about rocks that glow after you shine light on them? There are some of those correct? I did a decade in the Navy and was very thankful we had irradiated food several weeks and even months into the cruise. Fruits, vegetables and even meats were very well preserved and tasty.
Back in the middle fifties, there was an article in the Baltimore then Evening Sun in which rats were feed a full diet of irradiated food. The reported effects on the development of and continued physical health was reported to be horrifying. I can understand that irradiation of spices would have negligible effect on health, if any. Has any more recent clinical tests of full diet shows that concerns in the mid fifties is no longer a concern?
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.
A doubt, Food irradiation make the germs in the food unable to reproduce, which means the bacteria dies soon and does not reproduce, but the spices are transferred in containers or left open at home, so other bacteria can come back in right away and start to live right? So is irradiation is only good for lengthening the shelf lives of foods and food that is to be eaten right away as soon as they are opened?
Very bad example at 0:39 some rocks do indeed continue to glow after the light is switched off, it is called "phosphorescence". Many childrens' toys, security signs, alarm clocks, magnetic compasses etc. have long after-glow pigments of which europium-doped strontium aluminate is the most common. Stalactites in caves show a phosphorescence of a few seconds visible afterglow when illuminated by a camera flashgun. Fortunately, the fluorescence of x- and gamma radiation is short-lived.
And how about things that have a high content of elements like iron, copper and other minerals? And irradiation can be done on all things or there is something that should not be irradiated
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.
I would ask if the mechanism that relates to protein damage via irradiation has any potential effect on the chance of prion formation? If so, what types of radiation would allow for higher chances of prion formation, and at what energy levels?Since the role of immunity in prion pathogenesis is still incompletely understood, it might also have a bearing (since a dead foodstuff has no immune system, but a recently picked one might still have enough of an immune response to have an effect, good or bad). I would also assume that the type of foodstuff being irradiated might also have an effect on this (not every protein can become prionic, only a specific subset; and that subset might only be affected only at specific energies and types of radiation). So many questions.... Thank you for these videos! Very informative!
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.
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.
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.
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.
I've never been concerned about the food being radioactive. But consider hydrogenation - the problem with creating hydrogenated fats is that these are not frequently occurring substances and don't seem to be very good for people. High energy irradiation of food is not a naturally occurring process; does it create substances that don't normally occur naturally?
Dry spices like black pepper has always had very long shelf life, long before food irradiation was even thought of. For those items it's more a safety issue to kill bacteria that come with birds shitting on the plants but that stuff is not related to shelf life. The bacteria don't multiply by time because of the lack of water.
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.
I have to admit to discomfort with irradiated food because of prior experience handling irradiated mail. When I worked for a secure site, all paper correspondence was scanned and sent in from an off-site location with physical papers following several days later after having been bathed in radiation to eliminate the risk of biological attack. The paper was degraded, brittle, crackled to the touch. Independent of whether irradiated food is safe, there is an open question in my mind as to whether it is as tasty after having the cells exposed to the same radiation that degrades bacteria.
I’m a big believer of irradiated foods. Regardless of the consumer misconception many foods, spices, medical devices, and even pet foods have all been irradiated in the US for decades. One point of correction to this video. The narrator said irradiation destroys viruses in food. It does not. Irradiation impacts the DNA of insects, parasites, bacteria and molds. The owners of this content need to correct/amend the video.
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.
The word "irradiate" means to expose to neutrons, so yes it would be radioactive after exposure. The terminology should be changed from "irradiate" to just radiation exposure or gamma exposure to avoid confusion.
Actually some "rock" will glow after you shine a light at it. My main concern is actually mishandled irradiation equipment shedding radioactive sources on the food.
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 .
I know that the argument against food iradiation is often times not fact based. But your explanation also sounded patronizing and simplistic. You said that food iradiation generates free radicals but so does chewing and digestion. I'm wondering how many electron volts are generated with each bite mark. When you fire a gamma ray at a piece of matter it is a wave shorter than UV, but as a particle, what is it like? Is it like an electron or a helium nuclei or a neutron? How many times do you have to bite a piece of lead until it transmutes into a piece of gold. Or the elements that make up a strawberry. Can I bite it with sufficient energy to turn a stable oxygen atom into a radioactive isotope of some other element? I doubt it. But the question remains, at least to me. I know that firing neurons at something turns it into something else. Usually a radioactive other element. I get the distinct feeling that you are patting me of the head and telling me anything. There is a lot of that going around these days. It's very popular with the trump administration. Tell us anything to keep us quiet.
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.
When I was stationed in Greece in the 80's I was horrified to see milk sitting on shelves unrefrigerated. A friend told me it was OK because it had been irradiated which I thought was very cool. Because I understand radiation. You're making it sound like it's a new thing so that would mean my buddy was wrong. But now... I think it would be great for those people who want whole unpasteurized milk. Not me. But some think it's the best. Can they wrap their heads around benevolent radiation?
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
And you wouldn‘t believe but your BBQ raises your risk of cancer much much more. The substances you create by heating are known cancerogenes, you can determine the amount easily.
So, when you irradiate food it doesn’t become radio active. But clothes of Chernobyl firefighters scattered around Pripyat today still are. Trying to wrap my mind around that. Anyone?
It is a research machine. In reality, what size and how many plants are needed to radiate millions and millions of tons of food produced? How fast do the machine feeders need to be for radiation? Because with that little feeder, things seem be eternal. Either they are installed near the storage centers or organizing all transportation to the plants is a logistical challenge and cost. For specialized uses I suppose ... as food for astronauts or slightly bulky as spices. Too bulky you need big plants. I think.
I wonder if people would be less afraid if it was called gamma sterilized vs 'irradiated'? Probably have people freaking out they'd turn green and angry...
My only complaint in your series of topics is you need to stop talking over your guests. It's annoying. Follow ups are fine but you have this habit of cutting them off mid sentence.
Where is the gama ray goes after it destroyed the bacteria insect or DNA What about any fruits that they irradiate can the seeds will grow? Sorry for the English grammar.
What about toxins. They are not alive so they can not be killed, and are very heat resistant. For example botulism. How does the radiation get rid of botulism?
Research into the effects of radiologic medicine on *chemical* medicines in the patient is interesting, but sticking a sample of medicine into an irradiation chamber isn't enough. I'd love to see radiation effects on its metabolites.
If only my university professors would have been so passionate and understandable. What a great series
Only flaw in the strawberry analogy is that the berry isn't treated with fungicide post harvest, it's sprayed in the field while still growing so the zapping it with gamma rays will not totally eliminate the presence of spray material residue. BTW, I am a farmer and fruit grower and deal with these problems on a daily basis. irradiating the berry post harvest will extend it's shelf life but there will still be some fungicide residue. Even organic berries have organic approved fungicides applied in the field. Usually a copper or sulfur containing compound. I'm not a big fan of heavy metal ingestion either.
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.
Super high tech technology. Hits equipment with hammer. Pours liquid gas while protecting his hand with half of a Styrofoam cup.You have to admire the pragmatism.
"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.
Amazing.
I just found this channel a few days ago, and every single video is just gold.
Thank you for posting these, it's sad that this content doesn't get more views.
You are really lucky for that hazard suit. Now back to the test chamberrr!
so thats how gordon got his phd
Stoyan Toshkov is a Bulgarian name, glad to see fellow national be a senior researcher in Illinois
"When digest it and eat it and chew it up and swallow it."
Hopefully not in that order!
LOL
Unless you're a fly.
Why couldn't they just get another cup?
"I'd much rather eat an irradiated strawberry"
~ Child of Atom 2287
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.
the power of knowledge - lots of people just refuse to possess it
@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.
Man, the TH-cam algorithm is on point, I love this guys lectures!
I liked the low-tech parts, where the researcher was banging the cover plate locking pin in with a mallet and pouring the liquid nitrogen in with a funnel fashioned from a styrene cup.
My persistent issue is that handy waving explanation that starts around 545.
First it not just "free radicals" it's what normal compounds get turned into. Gamma rays have hundreds of times the energy necessary to break any chemical bond. Those free radicals aren't just the ordinary hydroxyl, peroxy, superoxide radicals oh, but you're going to get carbo cation radicals, O+ radicals, n + radicals, s+ radicals, CL + radicals oh, that are going to produce a huge variety of random organic compounds derived from biologically important compounds such as nucleic acids, amino acids, vitamins and essential fatty acids.
They're nothing like the kinds of chemical transformation that happens with cooking, or the kinds of chemicals that your digestive tract and liver routinely evolved to process. If it was just creating severed polymer strands that would be fine.
Additionally there's the very important problem that there are a host of important micronutrients that will get depleted by exposure to high amounts of the more ordinary hydroxy, peroxy and superoxide radicals. Again this is not as much a problem with cooking but you can actually heavily deplete the nutrient value of food by cooking it too much or cooking the wrong ones.
Now it's possible, that food irradiation is an acceptable trade-off in terms of food safety versus other current food safety methods. It's just that the circumstances that was passed under during the late 1980s was kind of shoddy. I was monitoring it at the time and there were some limited studies on food carcinogenesis it did not seem to have the same sort of rigor where we could detect the long-term health effects continuous exposure 2 food that's been irradiated over many years.
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.
The radiolytic products formed from food packaging are also very poorly understood. 21 CFR 179.45 lists the materials and doses permitted for packaging in contact with food during irradiation, and it's based on an alarming amount of hand-waving and guesswork.
I worked on a Gammacell blood irradiator a few years ago. Used Cs137 also. Interesting story because of the safety/ alarm mechanisms we had to disable to get the panels off and just who the alarm reported to.
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.
Love your videos - and the markers! You do a great job distilling complex topics into the key nuggets people need to understand. Helpful and entertaining - well done!
This Professor finally convinced me. I therefore suggest to have a Caesium source in every home in future.
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
This is by far my favorite youtube channel.
The next subject should be irradiation of human sewage in sewage treatment plants - Perhaps by using high level nuclear waste as the gamma and x-ray source? Love your series, sir!!
Could you please do video on induced radiation? I've always wondered why sometimes, things pick up radiation from exposure, and other times they don't. What Dr. Toshkov said about 1.3 MeV and 6 MeV was the first time I heard a hint of why that is. Would love to see you explain it more thoroughly.
I am curious how much cheaper/more expensive it is than other ways of preserving food.
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.
I've been "reliably" informed that "the radiation stays in the food afterward". I've always replied, yeah, the light stays in my room after I turn it off to get into bed too.
They run out of steam at that point.
Alas, I still haven't beat the darkness to my bed.
Thank you for doing these, Professor. I've sent more than a few "Internet Scientists" to your videos in order to set them straight.
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.
Ha ha ha - east european researcher uses polystyrene cup to pour liquid nitrogen. Everyone else has to use thick gloves, safety glasses, etc.
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
What I want to see is how they scaled this up so they can irradiate large quantities of food. Using this machine would be incredibly expensive. So what does the production machine look like and how does it work?
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
Be thankful that there aren't many radioactive sources that emit high energy gamma rays with at least around 6-10 million electron volts (or 6-10 megaelectron volts) of energy which make things radioactive by blasting nucleons (protons and neutrons) out of the nuclei of atoms.
I came here after watching a video about all the horrors of 5G. After seeing all that paranoid nonsense, it's refreshing to see a video with the truth in it told by someone that knows what he's talking about!
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).
What a wonderful professor! Thank you!
I have become a big fan. Great demeanor !
I saw a farm machine that irradiated potatoes in a Scottish museum in Ayrshire, I can’t mind the years it operated on, it was either the thirties or the fifties. It looked like a wagon from the wild west in construction, hmm, “fifty tons of lead and what do you get”, excuse my frivolity. It amazes me that scientists are still trying to explain scientific effects/effectiveness to a what would seem an evermore expanding skeptical world population.
My uncle used to have a radiator shop.
lol🌞
Food irradiation kill good bacteria also which are important for human health. Due to food irradiation we can face some health issue like constipation, protein and growth related issue.
Could the gamma ray irradiation cause the material to become slightly radioactive due to photodisintegration of nuclei? Or is the binding energy of the lighter elements too high?
Many medical devices that are implanted are sterilized using irradiation, in addition to other complimentary methods.
What about rocks that glow after you shine light on them? There are some of those correct? I did a decade in the Navy and was very thankful we had irradiated food several weeks and even months into the cruise. Fruits, vegetables and even meats were very well preserved and tasty.
This guy is fantastic!
thank you for your explanation, you helped me on my essay
Can foods be irradiated after canning? What is the packet that steak is in made of?
Back in the middle fifties, there was an article in the Baltimore then Evening Sun in which rats were feed a full diet of irradiated food. The reported effects on the development of and continued physical health was reported to be horrifying. I can understand that irradiation of spices would have negligible effect on health, if any. Has any more recent clinical tests of full diet shows that concerns in the mid fifties is no longer a concern?
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.
love that there are citations
🤔...smh🤣😅😂 #irradiatedFood🤔🤔 what are my dear friends up to?🤔 thanks for the heads up😊
"This machine is foolproof and totally safe." Give it to a US Marine. In less than 30 minutes the machine will be pregnant, broken in half, and lost.
🤣🤣🤣🤣
The forbidden fleshlight
But the marine can be sure his crayons are safe to eat.
A doubt, Food irradiation make the germs in the food unable to reproduce, which means the bacteria dies soon and does not reproduce, but the spices are transferred in containers or left open at home, so other bacteria can come back in right away and start to live right? So is irradiation is only good for lengthening the shelf lives of foods and food that is to be eaten right away as soon as they are opened?
The wealthy and rich will never choose to eat irradiated food.
Very bad example at 0:39 some rocks do indeed continue to glow after the light is switched off, it is called "phosphorescence". Many childrens' toys, security signs, alarm clocks, magnetic compasses etc. have long after-glow pigments of which europium-doped strontium aluminate is the most common. Stalactites in caves show a phosphorescence of a few seconds visible afterglow when illuminated by a camera flashgun. Fortunately, the fluorescence of x- and gamma radiation is short-lived.
And how about things that have a high content of elements like iron, copper and other minerals? And irradiation can be done on all things or there is something that should not be irradiated
Very informative, if we radiate vegetables or fruits what will happened to it, is it will be cooked ?
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.
I would ask if the mechanism that relates to protein damage via irradiation has any potential effect on the chance of prion formation? If so, what types of radiation would allow for higher chances of prion formation, and at what energy levels?Since the role of immunity in prion pathogenesis is still incompletely understood, it might also have a bearing (since a dead foodstuff has no immune system, but a recently picked one might still have enough of an immune response to have an effect, good or bad). I would also assume that the type of foodstuff being irradiated might also have an effect on this (not every protein can become prionic, only a specific subset; and that subset might only be affected only at specific energies and types of radiation). So many questions....
Thank you for these videos! Very informative!
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.
Love to see a video with a large scale machine inside a food processing facility.
Look at how military MRE's are made.
Are U.S. MREs irradiated? They have ridiculously long shelf lives. I've heard of MRE's lasting for 20 years or longer.
Head over to bigclivedotcom or Ashen's channels to see some truly horrific old MREs being consumed, much much older than 20yrs 👀🤢
Thank you, very interesting
I irradiated a Twinkie 10 years ago and still haven't paid for any electricity.
Me next
I'm opposed to food irradiation because growing plants from your food is a good thing, and I should be able to.
Can food be activated, when irradiated with neutrons?
I wonder if irradiation with gamma rays would be useful for sterilizing surgical instruments before use during surgery would be effective?
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.
when you shine light on luminous paint it glows why?
12:53 Some scrap metal dealer in India died after handling one of those in 2010.
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.
Irradiation also kills ALL nutrient value. Like microwaved do.
12:57 if that was actually Cobalt-60 everyone in that room would already have received a lethal dose of gamma radiation.
I notice it does kill most of the fruit seeds. If you see a burn mark on an avocado seed, it won’t grow.
thanks for such information !
I've never been concerned about the food being radioactive. But consider hydrogenation - the problem with creating hydrogenated fats is that these are not frequently occurring substances and don't seem to be very good for people. High energy irradiation of food is not a naturally occurring process; does it create substances that don't normally occur naturally?
Can it irradiate shashlik, sir?
Dry spices like black pepper has always had very long shelf life, long before food irradiation was even thought of. For those items it's more a safety issue to kill bacteria that come with birds shitting on the plants but that stuff is not related to shelf life. The bacteria don't multiply by time because of the lack of water.
He said that after 6 MeV, the substances will start to get radioactive! Is that level of irradiation ever used for products?
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.
I have to admit to discomfort with irradiated food because of prior experience handling irradiated mail. When I worked for a secure site, all paper correspondence was scanned and sent in from an off-site location with physical papers following several days later after having been bathed in radiation to eliminate the risk of biological attack. The paper was degraded, brittle, crackled to the touch. Independent of whether irradiated food is safe, there is an open question in my mind as to whether it is as tasty after having the cells exposed to the same radiation that degrades bacteria.
I’m a big believer of irradiated foods. Regardless of the consumer misconception many foods, spices, medical devices, and even pet foods have all been irradiated in the US for decades.
One point of correction to this video. The narrator said irradiation destroys viruses in food. It does not. Irradiation impacts the DNA of insects, parasites, bacteria and molds. The owners of this content need to correct/amend the video.
I havent seen that mark in Sweden.
"But what are we going to do with all the nuclear waste?"
Uh, use it to irradiate all the food?
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.
Great video
Any thoughs on killing the good bacteria, as well as the harmful bacteria.
The word "irradiate" means to expose to neutrons, so yes it would be radioactive after exposure. The terminology should be changed from "irradiate" to just radiation exposure or gamma exposure to avoid confusion.
Is that the same type of machine that some Indian scrappers got sick from when they scrapped it?
I wish people would be properly educated about nuclear physics then we wouldnt have so much resistance to using it.
U could wash with baking soda & vinegar or use lemons from what I learned
Why would you want to do that?
One of those gammacell machines got scrapped on accident in some shithole and contaminated a bunch of people. Plainly difficult has a video of it
It's awful. You irradiate fish and it falls apart and is tasteless. Blueberries are even worse. Tasteless blueberries last for a month in the fridge.
Actually some "rock" will glow after you shine a light at it. My main concern is actually mishandled irradiation equipment shedding radioactive sources on the food.
It doesn't happen. The sources are sealed. The radiation gets out but not the actual bits of the sources
A whole new meaning to 'nuking' your food.
People in hiroshima in 1945 sure got the literal meaning of it
So the radioactive source must not have neutron emission
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 .
Is this what they mean by a mans man ? This dude rocks , backwards even
Don't eat irradiated food. Got it, glad I watched this lecture, I learned a lot from it.
I know that the argument against food iradiation is often times not fact based. But your explanation also sounded patronizing and simplistic.
You said that food iradiation generates free radicals but so does chewing and digestion. I'm wondering how many electron volts are generated with each bite mark.
When you fire a gamma ray at a piece of matter it is a wave shorter than UV, but as a particle, what is it like? Is it like an electron or a helium nuclei or a neutron?
How many times do you have to bite a piece of lead until it transmutes into a piece of gold. Or the elements that make up a strawberry. Can I bite it with sufficient energy to turn a stable oxygen atom into a radioactive isotope of some other element? I doubt it.
But the question remains, at least to me. I know that firing neurons at something turns it into something else. Usually a radioactive other element.
I get the distinct feeling that you are patting me of the head and telling me anything. There is a lot of that going around these days. It's very popular with the trump administration. Tell us anything to keep us quiet.
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.
Guy in line to use irradiater:
I just need to nuke my burrito for like a mi Ute...
When I was stationed in Greece in the 80's I was horrified to see milk sitting on shelves unrefrigerated. A friend told me it was OK because it had been irradiated which I thought was very cool. Because I understand radiation. You're making it sound like it's a new thing so that would mean my buddy was wrong. But now... I think it would be great for those people who want whole unpasteurized milk. Not me. But some think it's the best. Can they wrap their heads around benevolent radiation?
Watch from minute 4:50 ! They admits that it creates FREE RADICALS!!! If the irradiation is so good, why do they need to defend it so much???
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
Free radicals are very reactive, they react further and are gone.
And you wouldn‘t believe but your BBQ raises your risk of cancer much much more. The substances you create by heating are known cancerogenes, you can determine the amount easily.
Except maybe the fungus thats been growing on "the elephants foot."
So, when you irradiate food it doesn’t become radio active. But clothes of Chernobyl firefighters scattered around Pripyat today still are. Trying to wrap my mind around that. Anyone?
It is a research machine.
In reality, what size and how many plants are needed to radiate millions and millions of tons of food produced?
How fast do the machine feeders need to be for radiation? Because with that little feeder, things seem be eternal.
Either they are installed near the storage centers or organizing all transportation to the plants is a logistical challenge and cost.
For specialized uses I suppose ... as food for astronauts or slightly bulky as spices.
Too bulky you need big plants. I think.
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.
More bull - if it's irradiated then logically it CANNOT be the same as it was before. You have changed the molecules.
Yep, bacteria. Get a clue!
I wonder how glow in the dark materials would be affected by it.
They would glow, and same with x-rays and UV.
"In Soviet Union. Food irradiate you."
Great content. The symbol looks a bit too cute n fuzzy, much prefer a traffo with rays and a stick figure with big smile eating something.
Notice he said 'conveyer belt' and then proceeds to use a chamber... hmm. Hiding something like a course of action?
Irradiation does some damage to the food; but much less than e.g. cooking food.
Define 'damage.'
@@seanwatts8342 Randomly slashing bonds, degrading vitamins, oxidizing fats etc.
@@soylentgreenb Sunlight does FAR MORE than that...
What if all these bacteria in food are essential to our health ?
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.
I wonder if people would be less afraid if it was called gamma sterilized vs 'irradiated'? Probably have people freaking out they'd turn green and angry...
None of my spices have that symbol.
My only complaint in your series of topics is you need to stop talking over your guests. It's annoying. Follow ups are fine but you have this habit of cutting them off mid sentence.
What about vitamins?
They're a lot less complicated than fungus or bacteria. Use your imagination.
Hahaha, you've sold me. You're positive there is no neutron radiation, right?
Where is the gama ray goes after it destroyed the bacteria insect or DNA
What about any fruits that they irradiate can the seeds will grow? Sorry for the English grammar.
What about toxins. They are not alive so they can not be killed, and are very heat resistant. For example botulism. How does the radiation get rid of botulism?
Research into the effects of radiologic medicine on *chemical* medicines in the patient is interesting, but sticking a sample of medicine into an irradiation chamber isn't enough. I'd love to see radiation effects on its metabolites.