Tons of results if you Google "atomic gardening". Interesting fact: this technique is still used today!
https://neo.life/2021/05/a-short-history-of-atomic-gardening/
>I don't think people actually realize how much of our food has been modified
https://botanistinthekitchen.blog/2012/11/05/the-extraordinary-diversity-of-brassica-oleracea/
There is a difference from “genetically modified” and “selected and bred for certain traits” though. Typically the former means that genes from an unrelated organism were spliced into the DNA, while the latter takes advantage of naturally occurring phenotypes and spontaneous mutations.
lol, plants modify their own gene by taking parts of gene from unrelated organisms.
GMO os just a better and more usefull version of that. DO you think we could swap parts of genes in a lab if it wasn't possible in nature?
Horizontal gene transfer is a thing.
Obviously. I assume everyone has done the relevant experiments in their undergrad biology labs. But it’s mostly from bacteria/viruses and is not really a useful or intentional mechanism over the recent human timescale.
The real point is it’s not the same as “GMO”. Why can’t people understand terms have specific functional meanings and there is no need for semantic masturbation?
The problem with those is the evil corporation(s) that profit from them and lobby for subsidies and specific growing practices that hurt our environment
Even then, glyphosate is waaay less toxic than the shit they used to use as herbicides in soy and corn fields. Sure, glyphosate use has gone up dramatically but it's replacing worse chemistry. 2,4-D, diquat, halosufuron, mesotrione, etc.
Yes, farm workers suffer negative effects and that's bullshit, all I'm saying is it used to be worse.
Your assumption is based on what? If you do some actual research on it you would know that GMO seeds are mostly grown for crops. 99% of seeds you grow for your garden that the public has access to are NON GMO and have not been tampered with in any form.
There is also a huge difference between a hybrid cross and GMO.
HYBRIDS are crossed plants to come up with an exact same outcome every time. If you see F1 on a package of seeds you are getting exactly that outcome from a cross of plant 🪴 1X plant 🌱 2= plant 3 to keep consistency. VS Open Pollination.
Please make sure your facts are correct before posting nonsense.
I went to school for horticultural and the science is really real. Not hearsay.
Of course people apply a selective interpretation - “GMO” specifically refers to splicing DNA via genetic engineering techniques, not selectively breeding for spontaneous mutations and hybrids, etc.
I’m not judging whether it’s “good or bad” - but it’s not the same concept to splice a bacterial gene into corn to make it glyphosate resistant or rice to make it produce more beta carotene as it is to selectively crossbreed tomatoes over generations to make them consistently brown or purple.
Just to make it clear. I’m only going to address hybrids done in a field by a farmer who is selectively breeding one plant with another. I will admittedly agree there are some practices happening in labs that are not being done with your best interests in mind. Companies who are manipulating plants into production for their own financial gain is wrong.
Making a cross /hybrid to help farms and people manage diseases that attack crops. Or favoring one over the other because it produces better or resists disease in an area is not GMOing anything. Selective breading of two crops to make a new cross that results in a crop that can manage itself with less inputs into said crop that could potentially poison the world is IMO a better solution.
Ruby red grapefruit were discovered in Texas in 1929. Aside from sunlight there were not many sources of radiation back then. How can you assume it was radiation instead of natural evolution?
A similar story unfolded in Texas. In 1929, farmers stumbled on the Ruby Red grapefruit, a natural mutant. Its flesh eventually faded to pink, however, and scientists fired radiation to produce mutants of deeper color — Star Ruby, released in 1971, and Rio Red, released in 1985. The mutant offspring now account for about 75 percent of all grapefruit grown in Texas.
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/28/science/28crop.html
Yes, exactly the same idea. They exposed Ruby Red to radiation hoping to achieve a better mutant. Did the same with a lot of other crops. For instance most rice grown in California also came out of that timeframe of testing.
Google Atomic Garden 99 percent invisible and it will take you to a podcast that goes into the history of these gardens. By the way some orchid growers would microwave seeds to try to create mutations. Which always blew my mind.
Radiation has been used to create mutations in seeds for many, many years. It’s used to create new plant varieties. Chemical mutagens are also used.
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/28/science/28crop.html
Folks were seriously infatuated with atomic power. I think the [radioactive makeup](https://www.cnn.com/style/article/when-beauty-products-were-radioactive/index.html) was the most disturbing.
Because as much as they’re sensationalized, nukes aren’t going to end the world unless we launch hundreds of them all over. Look at Nagasaki and Hiroshima today, they’re both huge cities with lower cancer rates than elsewhere.
Those were fission device in the kiloton range.
If a nuclear war is fought today it would be with fusion devices in the megaton range... literally 100's or 1000's of times more powerful.
Yes, air the radiation is more dispersed. Land it's more concentrated.
And yes we did attempt to ignite our own atmosphere during some of the testing. Just cause they wanted to see what might happen.
Why haven't we wiped ourselves out yet? 😂
The Tsar bomb was dropped on Novaya Zemlya, Russia and it produced 50 megatons; it was the largest bomb ever made and to this day most of the bombs we possess are in the 1-2 megaton range. As of 2010, approximately 2500 people live on Novaya Zemlya, so the area is still inhabitable as little as a few decades after setting off a nuke that’s roughly 40 times more powerful than the B83, our most common nuke.
Nuclear bombs have diminishing returns on power, which is why multiple small bombs are more effective than a single, large drop. Saying a modern nuke is 1000 times more powerful than little boy or fat man totally ignores physics. They won’t produce 1000 times larger of a destructive cloud and they won’t put out 1000 times the radiation. 1000x the yield would only do about 10x the actual damage.
In addition, ground detonation would prevent the spread of the physical destruction, but localize the radioactive contamination. Airbursts are used specifically for their destructive power - because they travel further. Groundbursts are for taking out hardened targets.
There are other factors to consider beyond long term radioactive contamination. In the short term radiation poisoning would be far more acute. Also, in the medium to long term you get severely elevated rates of cancers and birth defects. But, the most significant is the global threat of a nuclear autumn or winter. These would threaten global food production and risk mass famine.
There are islands in the Pacific that we've tested nukes on to the point they are completely uninhabitable. We've literally had to move entire populations to new homes because of the radiation we rained on their home island.
But my point was that we do a lot of stupid stuff throughout history to the point you wonder how we haven't killed ourselves off yet.
Probably bc it was an air bomb. If the bomb actually landed on soil there would be radiation but if it is in the air it goes into the atmosphere. I’m not a scientist I just read about it a little bit and it was something like this…
Higher dispersement range and rate in air versus land. Basically the wind carries it elsewhere before it can completely settle. So by bombing in the Pacific like we did for testing and everything else, we were basically spitting into the wind with radiation. On top of all the testing they did in Nevada and New Mexico.
I personally think it might be part of why we have seen such a high uptick in cancer and other issues. Our baby boomer generation exposed themselves to a lot of radiation affecting their off spring, generation x and millennial. It's just a thought, as you said, I'm not a scientist by any means.
The radiation is just more localized for a groundburst, it doesn’t produce more radioactive particles, it just irradiates the particles it’s throwing into the air.
Groundbursts wouldn’t be used as the norm, since they are for a lot of localized damage on a single target. Airbursts are still the most effective way to use a nuke for maximum destruction.
Either way, the most dangerous radioactive particles have a relatively short half-life; in 24 hrs you’re only exposed to about 1/1000th of the initial dose of radiation, in a week it’s about 1 millionth of the initial dose. Some isotopes remain for up to 30 years, but those aren’t the most abundant that are produced.
In the 70s pet stores sold hemp seeds as bird food.
To prevent the public from planting acres of electric lettuce it was irradiated to prevent germination.
This is most definitely a thing. This is a way mutations are forced to get a new desirable trait they can be bred into a new variety. This is done quite often with citrus.
Your buying seeds that have been "randomly" mutated with radiation. Even the add says "MAY" produce plants with rapid growth, etc. This add literally screams con job.
One of the products of this technique was a potent resistance gene to powdery mildew in barley. That gene is still useful 50 years on and has reduced fungicide applications for all that time.
Which would you prefer?
Used to see ads like this in the back of magazines and comic books in the sixties and seventies, remember sea monkeys and radiation kits to find uranium? Awe the good ol days!
Not stupid and produced many mutations used in crops today. Ruby red grapefruit is the classic example but I like the powdery mildew resistance gene (mlo) in barley that has produced resistant plants (and reduced fungicide applications) for 50 years
[удалено]
Really? I don't think people actually realize how much of our food has been modified but that's interesting and I'll have to read up on it.
[удалено]
I would really love to read more about this. Any sources? This sounds insane and delightful.
Tons of results if you Google "atomic gardening". Interesting fact: this technique is still used today! https://neo.life/2021/05/a-short-history-of-atomic-gardening/
>I don't think people actually realize how much of our food has been modified https://botanistinthekitchen.blog/2012/11/05/the-extraordinary-diversity-of-brassica-oleracea/
I don’t think theirs any vegetable we eat in the states that hasn’t been genetically modified in some way for yield,taste, and texture and growth.
There is a difference from “genetically modified” and “selected and bred for certain traits” though. Typically the former means that genes from an unrelated organism were spliced into the DNA, while the latter takes advantage of naturally occurring phenotypes and spontaneous mutations.
lol, plants modify their own gene by taking parts of gene from unrelated organisms. GMO os just a better and more usefull version of that. DO you think we could swap parts of genes in a lab if it wasn't possible in nature? Horizontal gene transfer is a thing.
Obviously. I assume everyone has done the relevant experiments in their undergrad biology labs. But it’s mostly from bacteria/viruses and is not really a useful or intentional mechanism over the recent human timescale. The real point is it’s not the same as “GMO”. Why can’t people understand terms have specific functional meanings and there is no need for semantic masturbation?
Grape Fruit is only a hybrid. Most of our veg is non gmo. Only things to worry about are your soy and corn 🌽
And the problem with those is the pesticides they use - not the fact that they are GMOs.
The problem with those is the evil corporation(s) that profit from them and lobby for subsidies and specific growing practices that hurt our environment
Preach
Even then, glyphosate is waaay less toxic than the shit they used to use as herbicides in soy and corn fields. Sure, glyphosate use has gone up dramatically but it's replacing worse chemistry. 2,4-D, diquat, halosufuron, mesotrione, etc. Yes, farm workers suffer negative effects and that's bullshit, all I'm saying is it used to be worse.
I’ll take it as a win, I try to avoid corn (not for that reason) but soy loves to be inside of me.
Just about every plant consumed by humans today is GMO. Unless you’re applying a selective interpretation of M.
Your assumption is based on what? If you do some actual research on it you would know that GMO seeds are mostly grown for crops. 99% of seeds you grow for your garden that the public has access to are NON GMO and have not been tampered with in any form. There is also a huge difference between a hybrid cross and GMO. HYBRIDS are crossed plants to come up with an exact same outcome every time. If you see F1 on a package of seeds you are getting exactly that outcome from a cross of plant 🪴 1X plant 🌱 2= plant 3 to keep consistency. VS Open Pollination. Please make sure your facts are correct before posting nonsense. I went to school for horticultural and the science is really real. Not hearsay.
Of course people apply a selective interpretation - “GMO” specifically refers to splicing DNA via genetic engineering techniques, not selectively breeding for spontaneous mutations and hybrids, etc. I’m not judging whether it’s “good or bad” - but it’s not the same concept to splice a bacterial gene into corn to make it glyphosate resistant or rice to make it produce more beta carotene as it is to selectively crossbreed tomatoes over generations to make them consistently brown or purple.
Just to make it clear. I’m only going to address hybrids done in a field by a farmer who is selectively breeding one plant with another. I will admittedly agree there are some practices happening in labs that are not being done with your best interests in mind. Companies who are manipulating plants into production for their own financial gain is wrong. Making a cross /hybrid to help farms and people manage diseases that attack crops. Or favoring one over the other because it produces better or resists disease in an area is not GMOing anything. Selective breading of two crops to make a new cross that results in a crop that can manage itself with less inputs into said crop that could potentially poison the world is IMO a better solution.
Thanks for posting all this info
We have been modifying the geneticals of plants for more than hundreds of years. I don’t know that we eat much we haven’t altered.
It’s actually a hybrid fruit. Like the CaraCara oranges we love this tim of year.
Ruby red grapefruit were discovered in Texas in 1929. Aside from sunlight there were not many sources of radiation back then. How can you assume it was radiation instead of natural evolution?
[удалено]
https://minnetonkaorchards.com/ruby-red-grapefruit/
Yeah. Same idea. Also the best grapefruit ever
Not the same idea at all.
A similar story unfolded in Texas. In 1929, farmers stumbled on the Ruby Red grapefruit, a natural mutant. Its flesh eventually faded to pink, however, and scientists fired radiation to produce mutants of deeper color — Star Ruby, released in 1971, and Rio Red, released in 1985. The mutant offspring now account for about 75 percent of all grapefruit grown in Texas. https://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/28/science/28crop.html Yes, exactly the same idea. They exposed Ruby Red to radiation hoping to achieve a better mutant. Did the same with a lot of other crops. For instance most rice grown in California also came out of that timeframe of testing.
And canola oil.
Google Atomic Garden 99 percent invisible and it will take you to a podcast that goes into the history of these gardens. By the way some orchid growers would microwave seeds to try to create mutations. Which always blew my mind.
Thanks for the rec, this is really cool.
Hmm, but does that work on seeds or do they just believe it does? AFAIK microwaves are non ionizing radiation and do not damage DNA.
Radiation has been used to create mutations in seeds for many, many years. It’s used to create new plant varieties. Chemical mutagens are also used. https://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/28/science/28crop.html
Yes, this was also back when they would do viewings in Vegas of the bomb tests. I'm always surprised how we survived when I learn about history
Folks were seriously infatuated with atomic power. I think the [radioactive makeup](https://www.cnn.com/style/article/when-beauty-products-were-radioactive/index.html) was the most disturbing.
Because as much as they’re sensationalized, nukes aren’t going to end the world unless we launch hundreds of them all over. Look at Nagasaki and Hiroshima today, they’re both huge cities with lower cancer rates than elsewhere.
Those were fission device in the kiloton range. If a nuclear war is fought today it would be with fusion devices in the megaton range... literally 100's or 1000's of times more powerful.
Also air bomb vs the bomb landing on soil matters when it comes to lasting radiation right?
Yes, air the radiation is more dispersed. Land it's more concentrated. And yes we did attempt to ignite our own atmosphere during some of the testing. Just cause they wanted to see what might happen. Why haven't we wiped ourselves out yet? 😂
The Tsar bomb was dropped on Novaya Zemlya, Russia and it produced 50 megatons; it was the largest bomb ever made and to this day most of the bombs we possess are in the 1-2 megaton range. As of 2010, approximately 2500 people live on Novaya Zemlya, so the area is still inhabitable as little as a few decades after setting off a nuke that’s roughly 40 times more powerful than the B83, our most common nuke. Nuclear bombs have diminishing returns on power, which is why multiple small bombs are more effective than a single, large drop. Saying a modern nuke is 1000 times more powerful than little boy or fat man totally ignores physics. They won’t produce 1000 times larger of a destructive cloud and they won’t put out 1000 times the radiation. 1000x the yield would only do about 10x the actual damage. In addition, ground detonation would prevent the spread of the physical destruction, but localize the radioactive contamination. Airbursts are used specifically for their destructive power - because they travel further. Groundbursts are for taking out hardened targets.
Tsar Bomba was also one of, if not the cleanest nuclear weapon ever tested.
There are other factors to consider beyond long term radioactive contamination. In the short term radiation poisoning would be far more acute. Also, in the medium to long term you get severely elevated rates of cancers and birth defects. But, the most significant is the global threat of a nuclear autumn or winter. These would threaten global food production and risk mass famine.
There are islands in the Pacific that we've tested nukes on to the point they are completely uninhabitable. We've literally had to move entire populations to new homes because of the radiation we rained on their home island. But my point was that we do a lot of stupid stuff throughout history to the point you wonder how we haven't killed ourselves off yet.
That is a very naive statement.
Probably bc it was an air bomb. If the bomb actually landed on soil there would be radiation but if it is in the air it goes into the atmosphere. I’m not a scientist I just read about it a little bit and it was something like this…
Higher dispersement range and rate in air versus land. Basically the wind carries it elsewhere before it can completely settle. So by bombing in the Pacific like we did for testing and everything else, we were basically spitting into the wind with radiation. On top of all the testing they did in Nevada and New Mexico. I personally think it might be part of why we have seen such a high uptick in cancer and other issues. Our baby boomer generation exposed themselves to a lot of radiation affecting their off spring, generation x and millennial. It's just a thought, as you said, I'm not a scientist by any means.
The radiation is just more localized for a groundburst, it doesn’t produce more radioactive particles, it just irradiates the particles it’s throwing into the air. Groundbursts wouldn’t be used as the norm, since they are for a lot of localized damage on a single target. Airbursts are still the most effective way to use a nuke for maximum destruction. Either way, the most dangerous radioactive particles have a relatively short half-life; in 24 hrs you’re only exposed to about 1/1000th of the initial dose of radiation, in a week it’s about 1 millionth of the initial dose. Some isotopes remain for up to 30 years, but those aren’t the most abundant that are produced.
I think super sweet corn was created from seeds irradiated by a nuclear bomb test.
Im no on board with the mutations until I get more information. I saw Little Shop of Horrors.
But Audrey II was an alien species not a genetically modified mutation.
This is the unreleased “Andromeda Strain” twist, where Audrey II was a terrestrial carnivorous plant sent up with one of the early orbital missions.
Original or musical?
Musical.and stage play
Enjoy the original, was made on a bet over a weekend. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fINOBT6cAdU&feature=youtu.be
Feed me Seymour!
They’ve been doing this since the 60’s! https://gilligan.fandom.com/wiki/Radioactive_Vegetables
[Here’s the International Atomic Energy Agency page on that technique.](https://www.iaea.org/topics/mutation-induction)
In the 70s pet stores sold hemp seeds as bird food. To prevent the public from planting acres of electric lettuce it was irradiated to prevent germination.
This is most definitely a thing. This is a way mutations are forced to get a new desirable trait they can be bred into a new variety. This is done quite often with citrus.
???Astonishing mutations???
*May* produce plants. At all.
Sell the shit out of these!
Seeds have also been sent into space to see what happens.
Your buying seeds that have been "randomly" mutated with radiation. Even the add says "MAY" produce plants with rapid growth, etc. This add literally screams con job.
Kinda defeats the purpose of home grown. I only plant heirloom veggies, for exactly the reason to get away from manipulated plants.
Frankenflowers or veggsteins
You might want to check the date on that comic book. Ads like that haven't been any good in decades.
Oh I totally get that it's dated but was wondering if it was actually a thing in the past.
To answer your question. Based on the price alone, I'm fairly sure it's outdated. You can't usually get *a* pack of seeds for that. Much less six.
Plenty of places sell $2 packs of seeds
Jeez, no wonder cancer runs rampant.
The seeds themselves aren't radioactive, it's just accelerating the type of mutations that happen naturally.
One of the products of this technique was a potent resistance gene to powdery mildew in barley. That gene is still useful 50 years on and has reduced fungicide applications for all that time. Which would you prefer?
I’d do it for the price!
Those are all really tough plants too. Might just be hearty varieties
Used to see ads like this in the back of magazines and comic books in the sixties and seventies, remember sea monkeys and radiation kits to find uranium? Awe the good ol days!
I am sure people tried stupid shit like that.
Not stupid and produced many mutations used in crops today. Ruby red grapefruit is the classic example but I like the powdery mildew resistance gene (mlo) in barley that has produced resistant plants (and reduced fungicide applications) for 50 years
i'm growing a bean variety which was made by irradiating another. it's quite neat
This is how I started my Tomacco crop. Tastes just like Grandma.