Nope not trying to incite a riot here.  Overseas in many areas I have had irradiated foods including milk and meats.  Its a little strange being able to keep milk on the shelf for up to a year until you open it and having fresh as the day it was extracted.  Meats also, really nice steaks in vacuum pack but shelf stable.  In Australia and in the Philippines its common fare. I have not been able to find any in this country however.  The foods are irradiated with Cobalt.  In this country virtually all medical devices are now irradiated with Cobalt instead of sterilizing with steam or other heat methods.  Cobalt leave no particulate residue and you probably have a Cobalt facility near your home without even realizing it not to speak of all the medical facilities who use Cobalt for various things.  I know that I would enjoy being able to have great steaks on protracted trips.

SW,
Don't you find it peculiar that for being so technically savvy on so many levels when it comes to the "nuclear" option we are almost frozen with irrational fear?
 Every major country is developing nuclear power plants and using the technology to improve there way of life.
Yet, because of the hysteria caused by 3 mile island and the Chernobyl disasters we don't even want to consider it?
 Yes, there are hurdles and serious ones at that but I have a hard time believing that are concern for our citizens is so much greater than the country's you mentioned, that we ignore the technology??
I would like to see us at least have the CHOICE and let the market determine if it succeeds or fails?
I don't even eat much red meat but I can see the benefits in many other ways to the food industry and the related economy?
 Millions of tons of food are wasted every year due to spoilage and short shelf life's!
 I can't help but think irradiation should at least be a option?

I believe many of the Frozen, and Refrigerated meats in this country are irradiated, they just don't announce it. It is used as a back up pln for customer safety. Lysteria, and E Coli can be held at bay with good practices in manufacturing facilities. But there is always the chance that a couple slip through anytime you are working with live animals and dirt.

As for the shelf stability. I wasn't aware that this would work, now thats an interesting idea.

Chasinmendo wrote on Jul 7^th, 2007 at 7:23pm:

Nope not trying to incite a riot here.  Overseas in many areas I have had irradiated foods including milk and meats.  Its a little strange being able to keep milk on the shelf for up to a year until you open it and having fresh as the day it was extracted.  Meats also, really nice steaks in vacuum pack but shelf stable.  In Australia and in the Philippines its common fare. I have not been able to find any in this country however.  The foods are irradiated with Cobalt.  In this country virtually all medical devices are now irradiated with Cobalt instead of sterilizing with steam or other heat methods.  Cobalt leave no particulate residue and you probably have a Cobalt facility near your home without even realizing it not to speak of all the medical facilities who use Cobalt for various things.  I know that I would enjoy being able to have great steaks on protracted trips.

In my travels I have noticed many of the same things, also interesting packaging for condiments that lend themselves to a camping use.  I have not tried the meats yet because I did not have cooking facilities but maybe I will bring some home to test with.  Interesting options to augment the protein part of a meal.  Great idea SW

Wall-Mart has irradiated quarts of milk in the baking section.  Like you I first saw them in Europe.  You would think that with all the meat recalls lately it would be worth it to treat meat like this.

Like this was my first post Eh?  ;D

wrote on Nov 5^th, 2007 at 7:13pm:

Wall-Mart has irradiated quarts of milk in the baking section.  Like you I first saw them in Europe.  You would think that with all the meat recalls lately it would be worth it to treat meat like this. Like this was my first post Eh?  ;D

Good point and Welcome to one of the best canoe camping sites anywhere. I suspect that eventually we will get there but there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding and paranoia regarding radiation in the US.

Quote:

Good point and Welcome to one of the best canoe camping sites anywhere. I suspect that eventually we will get there but there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding and paranoia regarding radiation in the US.

I think the misunderstanding and paranoia gets a big boost from the media and the growth of "blogs" on the Web.
The mostly Liberal media never met a negative story that it didn't love :(
If it bleeds, it leads is a media commandment.
The blogging phenomenon has increased the paranoia factor by allowing ANYONE qualified or not to spread half-truths or outright lies to bolster there case for whatever position they hold.
I'm not discounting the danger of radiation or nuclear power but every single advance by man has came at price and with a learning curve.
That's the price we pay for progress and in developing new technologies.
The ability to engineer and monitor complex and potentially dangerous technologies has never been greater and while there is always the danger of the technology outdistancing the ability to control it or calculate its impact, that's not a good enough reason to just ignore its benefits to mankind.
Every generation has wrestled with its doubts and fears but progress means learning from past mistakes and learning to balance the risk with the reward.
I mean if the FRENCH can embrace the nuclear power option and they have a problem with just about everything, then WE should take the lead and give the best of America's engineering and scientific minds the funds and freedom to usher a new energy age in, both nuclear and renewable and set us free from the Arab fossil fuel teat ;D

I really hate to go into this because I'll probably be drawn and quartered but many moons ago I used to be a nuclear engineer for the Bechtel Corporation.  In those days we developed something called SNUPPS or the standard nuclear unit power plant system.  It was a pre-designed unit with all the documentation in a fill-in-the-blanks format.  I used to get together with the French and German counterparts to do the same in France and Germany.  Japan already had a program based on the Mitsubishi reactor on which I consulted at one time.  If anyone should fear nuclear power it should be Japan but they've embraced it completely becasue or their limited natural resources.  France and Germany both are building capacity all the time.  The US knuckled under to special intrest groups and stopped siting new power plants after 1972.  I keep hearing rumors that we may try again.  OK Let the flames fly!

I was sure $4.00/gall gas would get us building more nuc plants, wind plants.  Now i'm convinced I'm wrong.  Maybe $5/gall will?  Can't come soon enough in Wally's world.

Go nuclear!
Go solar!
Go wind!

(I've been hearing of major advances in thin film technology for solar panels with a sig cost decrease/watt generated.  Fact or Myth?  Anyone see the Spanish "solar" plant that puts out MEGA wattage?  Their building number two now I hear.)

SORRY....I'm good at derailing threads.  Yes, bring on the irradiated foods.  I'm all for it.

As long as the thread is already teetering on the rails, I'll ask a question that it sounds like we have folks who will know the answer.

Isn't there a major concern for the waste materials that are generated from running a nuclear power plant? I'm all for clean energy, but I seem to remember a show that was all about the long term storage issues invloved with spent fuel (?) from the plants.

"Isn't there a major concern for the waste materials that are generated from running a nuclear power plant? I'm all for clean energy, but I seem to remember a show that was all about the long term storage issues invloved with spent fuel (?) from the plants"

Nah, that's what they use to irradiate the food!  Problem solved.

You bet Chinook....just don't bury it in my backyard.  I think the "waste" has been a real political issue, being that it'll be "hot" for millenia.

I have watched a lot of NOVA/SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN shows dealing with the nuclear waste issue.
I like to think that as we commit to SOME kind of nuclear energy program that the incentive(financially/ environmentally) will drive a answer to the problem of getting rid of the spent fuel rods?
I saw plans to "sling" the waste into orbit and then into the sun.
The wildest one was using some kind of microbe type thing to EAT the waste and somehow neutralize it?
Point is when there's a market for something then new technologies spring forth to improve or safe guard it.
Comparing the technology of today in the nuclear energy field is like comparing silicon chips to transistors.
Jane Fonda in The China Syndrome, did more to set back nuclear power than any REAL accident or terrorist strike :(
I don't know what was worse, her and the Leftist Hollywood establishment sensationalizing and fear mongering nuclear power or her visiting Hanoi during the 60's and posing for pictures with the enemy >:(

Research vitrification, I'm not getting involved in any more politically incorrect discussions on this board, many people aren't willing to consider anthing other than what they believe! I've been beat up and called a liar and I'm not doing it again!

I think $$ will cause most people to consider anything.

I thought this was very informative!

  (You need to Login or Register

Hey you found my former employer.  Hanford is a fast flux reactor, and their waste is a little more onerous in the types of isotopes produced than the vanilla type of reactor found in most power generating facilites. The dirty little secret is that Hanford was a test site for a new generation of reactor that used a very different fuel cycle from those of your typical reacotrs owned by utilities.  I designed parts of that project and the original name was the Hanford Fast Flux Test Facility. People forget that nuclear fuel is recycled and very little of the original fuel goes to waste.  Vitrification has proven to work and is used in other industrial nations in the world.  The greatest generator of nuclear waste in this country is medicine and the isotopes of Cobalt are some of the most dangerous. By the way Cobalt isotopes used in medicine are transported without any restriction in all communities of the US. You may be driving down the highway and its in the truck next to you. Any time you go near a hospital you are mere feet from radioactive materials.

Chasinmendo wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2007 at 12:58am:

The greatest generator of nuclear waste in this country is medicine and the isotopes of Cobalt are some of the most dangerous. By the way Cobalt isotopes used in medicine are transported without any restriction in all communities of the US. You may be driving down the highway and its in the truck next to you. Any time you go near a hospital you are mere feet from radioactive materials.

I bet that's not something the majority of people are aware of?
The nuclear genie is out of the bottle like it or not.
Modern medicine has reaped its benefits and we as a nation should be focused on developing and reaping the good that it can bring instead of obsessed with the bad. Whether your a producer or consumer we all have a stake in the health of the planet. IF the proponents/opponents of nuclear energy would put aside the rhetoric and work together to maximize the benefits and minimize the risks, MAYBE we could get off the foreign oil teat and set a course for alternative fuel sources by setting the greatest producers in the world, the American farmer loose to provide the raw materials needed to get us off the fossil fuel merry-go-round?
Along with solar/wind/tide technologies we could energize the economy and insure our national security.

Interestingly enough one of the issues on the tele here in London is the new Nuclear plants being built in several countries.  They have recognized that the energy produced by sun, wind, waves is not going to be enough to fuel the growth and the nuclear option is better than fossil fuels.  
I was suprised, however, it will be many years before any new plants are on line.

"Along with solar/wind/tide technologies we could energize the economy and insure our national security."

You might be interested in this article from our local newspaper regarding tidal/wavepower energy;

  (You need to Login or Register

It seems that no matter what, there are those who are against it.  When I first moved to this community in the 1980's we used to have an activist group called the CAVE people. CAVE stands for Citizens Against Virtually Everything.  They used to go to all the City council meetings and would oppose everything just on priniciple. I haven't seen them around lately.  :)  

The CAVE people probably can't afford to gad-fly around with the price of gas today ;D
No matter what energy plan is put forth, someone is going to have a problem with it.
Your damned if you do, damned if you don't :(
By the time the nay-sayers get on board, America will be playing catch-up instead of leading the pack.
I firmly believe that we need a national energy policy with the urgency and commitment similar to that which put us on the moon.
Millions of new jobs would be created, we could become energy independent and maybe start to rebuild the nations infrastructure which is badly in decay. That would energize the construction trades and stimulate the economy as well.
 I'm as tired of being held hostage to foreign oil as I am to seeing the Detroit Lions lose every year :'(
Fortunately I think we can solve the energy crisis ;)

wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2007 at 6:08pm:

...and the nuclear option is better than fossil fuels.   I was suprised, however, it will be many years before any new plants are on line.

A nuclear power plant does operate on a virtually CO2-free basis, it actually is about on a par with fossil-fuel generating plants when the carbon emissions needed to build the plant, process the ore, manufacture the fuel assemlies.  When the whole of the fuel cycle is considered nuclear isn't all that much better than burning fossil fuels.

CO2 sequestration seems to be the short-term answer.  We cannot wean ourselves off of the energy stored in carbon-based reserves fast enough to have an effect.

Another problem is the bulk of nuclear waste that has built up.  Yucca Mountain, once it finally gets to open, has enough material already waiting for burial to fill it up, with much, much more to spare.  Where is the waste currently being stored?  For nuclear power plants, it's on site.  That's right, the gov't taxes the companies for a storage site the gov't has yet to open, then forces the utilities to pay for facilities to store their spent fuel on site.  You don't hear of a second waste site being bantied about, have you?

Energy gains can be made through making the delivery sytem more efficient.  Much of our grid is old and wastes a lot of energy.  Lighting is a large percentage of our energy usage, so small gains there translate into big savings.  Ideas like these need to be promoted because they provide the biggest return on the dollar.

Large public works projects, spending large sums of gov't money (raised thru taxes), have had positive effects on the quality of the economy.  Eisenhower's interstate plan, the TVA, Rural Electrification Act are examples.  We need to finance more such projects.

Energy is an illustration of but one of the problems facing this country.  Much of its infrastructure needs upgrading or replacement.  The first segments of the interstate system are over 50 years old, bridges are into the twilight years of their anticipated life span.  The fabric of our country is full of holes.  It sorely needs replacing.

I'll speak for myself, but I'm sure that many others agree.  As for us scientist and engineers, we could solve many of the problems both on the production side and the waste side if:  POLITICS GOT OUT OF THE PICTURE.

But, that's not going to happen.

  A long time ago there was pretty good data that radon was not in fact bad for you at household levels but actually good for you.  Just to swing the discussion in an unexpected direction I give you ..

  (You need to Login or Register

"Approximately 10,000 people occupied these buildings and received an average radiation dose of 0.4 Sv,
unknowingly, during a 9-20 year period. They did not suffer a higher incidence of cancer mortality, as the LNT
theory would predict. On the contrary, the incidence of cancer deaths in this population was greatly reduced – to
about 3 per cent of the incidence of spontaneous cancer death in the general Taiwan public. In addition, the
incidence of congenital malformations was also reduced – to about 7 per cent of the incidence in the general
public. These observations appear to be compatible with the radiation hormesis model."

there is an intial beneficial effect on lifespan with a certian amount of radiation exposure.

TwistTieCollector wrote on Dec 9^th, 2007 at 5:00pm:

wrote on Dec 3rd, 2007 at 6:08pm: ...and the nuclear option is better than fossil fuels.   I was suprised, however, it will be many years before any new plants are on line. A nuclear power plant does operate on a virtually CO2-free basis, it actually is about on a par with fossil-fuel generating plants when the carbon emissions needed to build the plant, process the ore, manufacture the fuel assemlies.  When the whole of the fuel cycle is considered nuclear isn't all that much better than burning fossil fuels. CO2 sequestration seems to be the short-term answer.  We cannot wean ourselves off of the energy stored in carbon-based reserves fast enough to have an effect. Another problem is the bulk of nuclear waste that has built up.  Yucca Mountain, once it finally gets to open, has enough material already waiting for burial to fill it up, with much, much more to spare.  Where is the waste currently being stored?  For nuclear power plants, it's on site.  That's right, the gov't taxes the companies for a storage site the gov't has yet to open, then forces the utilities to pay for facilities to store their spent fuel on site.  You don't hear of a second waste site being bantied about, have you? Energy gains can be made through making the delivery sytem more efficient.  Much of our grid is old and wastes a lot of energy.  Lighting is a large percentage of our energy usage, so small gains there translate into big savings.  Ideas like these need to be promoted because they provide the biggest return on the dollar. Large public works projects, spending large sums of gov't money (raised thru taxes), have had positive effects on the quality of the economy.  Eisenhower's interstate plan, the TVA, Rural Electrification Act are examples.  We need to finance more such projects. Energy is an illustration of but one of the problems facing this country.  Much of its infrastructure needs upgrading or replacement.  The first segments of the interstate system are over 50 years old, bridges are into the twilight years of their anticipated life span.  The fabric of our country is full of holes.  It sorely needs replacing.

I'd like to see your documentation regarding these "facts"

Transmission losses can be eliminated by the use of DC.  The fossil powered plant (built on a coal field with a dedicated electric rail line) at Delta Utah generates electricity largely for Southern Ca and transmits the power via DC where substations convert it to AC for local distribution.  DC being a potential difference has virtually no line losses when compared to AC. Some European countries have already established a policy of using mostly DC to transmit their power.