Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Fujitsu Is Growing Radiation-Free Lettuce In Japan's Fukushima Prefecture

Posted by samzenpus on from the just-eat-it dept.

Taffykay (2047384) writes "Tech giant Fujitsu has opened an organic lettuce farm in Japan's Fukushima prefecture. Blending agriculture, technology, and medicine in a former microchip factory, the company has developed a new variety of organic lettuce that is not only lower in potassium and nitrates than standard varieties, but is also radiation-free."

146 comments

  1. Sure! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    They'll be saying something different when a 300 foot radioactive lettuce monster is attacking Tokyo....

    1. Re:Sure! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They'll be saying something different when a 300 foot radioactive lettuce monster is attacking Tokyo....

      Holy crap!!! thats some funny stuff

    2. Re:Sure! by JDeane · · Score: 2

      Biollante VS Godzilla?

    3. Re:Sure! by davester666 · · Score: 1

      The footage will be more exciting than the current Gozilla movie.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    4. Re:Sure! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We need to create a 300 foot zombie to counter it!

    5. Re:Sure! by JDeane · · Score: 1

      After the last one with Mathew Broderick I pretty much gave up on the whole Godzilla thing.... I love the older ones (Well maybe the stuff from the 60's is a bit too cheesy.)

      I had hope that the new one was better? I mean it couldn't be worse? (Maybe if it had Justin Beiber as Ultraman or something....)

      I should stop writing before Hollywood see's this and says "Ohhh lets make that!"

    6. Re:Sure! by davester666 · · Score: 0

      It's just lame. It's stupidly focused on the protagonist, a navy officer who just happens to specialize in dismantling nuclear weapons. Just like that lame Raymond Burr Godzilla film, where they just inserted him for the US version, because obviously, the movie would be crap without him. Godzilla is just a supporting actor, helping the protagonist get the job done.

      Spoiler alert.

      For example, the first 'monster battle', we see Godzilla and a MOTU approach each other, lunge, and cut to the protagonist doing jack shit. Next shot of Godzilla we see, he's swimming after the MOTU, who is flying to San Francisco, nuclear hotbed of north america. No mention of what the hell happened, like 5 minutes were just cut from the film to make it shorter.

      Another MOTU attacks a train carrying two nuclear warheads. Eats one but completely misses the other one somehow [yet they can home in on these things from hundreds of miles away]. The other MOTU later finds it later of course and gives it to the first one.

      And I guess it's just SOP for foot soldiers to be issued handguns and rifles, even after the military commanders know that the military previously tried and failed to kill Godzilla back in the 50's with multiple atomic weapons. It took forever for somebody to think, hey, let's try a bazooka. Missiles? Hell no, those are for human on human battles.

      Then there was the nuclear weapon they were going to try to destroy all three monsters with, one of which could emit an EMP which would knock out all electric items in a fairly large radius. So what do they replace the computer trigger for the bomb with? An electric one. Which should be disabled by said EMP [of course, via movie magic, it doesn't].

      And somehow a suspension bridge with two (2) 'suspenders', one of which is completely cut through, somehow the bridge surface stays level and stable enough for people to drive on, even with a bunch of tanks on it..

      And somehow radiation can be transmitted in streams, because the eggs/embryos of the MOTU aren't globbed around the food source [the nuclear weapon], but rather, in long strings of eggs, operating along the lines of "take a bit of radiation for yourself, and pass the rest along".

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    7. Re:Sure! by liamoohay · · Score: 1

      I for one welcome our new crunchy green overlords.

  2. Yeah... by HideyoshiJP · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Fukushima's a pretty big prefecture (13,782.54 km2/5,321.47 sq mi). It's ranked third by area. I'm sure there's plenty of safe land there.

    1. Re:Yeah... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah, and why would you want a lettuce low in potassium and nitrates anyway? You need those things to live!

      People think Japan is basically 90% uninhabitable because of nuclear holocaust. I want to move out of the US to escape the stupidity.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    2. Re:Yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No radiation, but the lettuce has two heads. (j/k)

    3. Re:Yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I want to move out of the US to escape the stupidity.

      Come to Canada, eh?

      No wait... Dictator Harper is still in command.

      Move along.

    4. Re:Yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you doing on slashdot? Shouldn't you be paying homage to Queen Victoria today by dressing up in leather and gluing random stressed gears together to make impossible builds?

    5. Re:Yeah... by Charliemopps · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's a little over 50 miles away if you just Google the address. It's just outside the exclusion zone set by the US government for US citizens.

      It's INSIDE what was once the companies clean room. So it's distance from the reactor is irrelevant. The point of what they're doing is that they can grow food irrelevant of the conditions outside. Year round. The plants they are growing are specialized for people who have kidney diseases. The lower potassium makes them easier on the liver and the lower nitrates make them for palatable to children and likely people undergoing chemo. i.e. It costs a lot to grow food this way, so they picked a food people were more willing to pay a premium for.

    6. Re:Yeah... by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1

      Potassium yes, nitrates no.

      Most people in developed countries eat way to much nitrates via sodium nitrate which is used as a preservative in things like hot dogs, sausages, beef jerky, ground beef (pink slime).

    7. Re:Yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why would you want a lettuce low in potassium and nitrates

      It's explained in the article

    8. Re:Yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a little over 50 miles away if you just Google the address. It's just outside the exclusion zone set by the US government for US citizens.

      It's INSIDE what was once the companies clean room. So it's distance from the reactor is irrelevant. The point of what they're doing is that they can grow food irrelevant of the conditions outside. Year round. The plants they are growing are specialized for people who have kidney diseases. The lower potassium makes them easier on the liver and the lower nitrates make them for palatable to children and likely people undergoing chemo. i.e. It costs a lot to grow food this way, so they picked a food people were more willing to pay a premium for.

      Uh, "more willing"?

      Seems with applications related to feeding people undergoing chemo, this "food" will become medicine very quickly. That premium you speak of will be "premium" alright...at about a 10,000% markup.

      I don't know how "willing" people will be to pay for that. Guess it depends on the price.

    9. Re:Yeah... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      It's explained in the article

      Your point being?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    10. Re:Yeah... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The study that originally connected nitrates with cancer risk and caused the scare in the first place has since been discredited after being subjected to a peer review. There have been major reviews of the scientific literature that found no link between nitrates or nitrites and human cancers, or even evidence to suggest that they may be carcinogenic. Further, recent research suggests that nitrates and nitrites may not only be harmless, they may be beneficial, especially for immunity and heart health.

      Amusing stuff. More nitrate from vegetables than from like 500 hotdogs. 90% of your nitrite exposure comes from internal manufacture.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    11. Re:Yeah... by laie_techie · · Score: 1

      Potassium yes, nitrates no.

      Most people in developed countries eat way to much nitrates via sodium nitrate which is used as a preservative in things like hot dogs, sausages, beef jerky, ground beef (pink slime).

      Not all ground beef is pink slime.

    12. Re:Yeah... by interkin3tic · · Score: 2
      Even MORE importantly

      The trial vegetable farm was set up in a clean room of a renovated semiconductor fabrication plant and is totally free of chemicals.

      How the hell are they growing anything without chemicals such as oxygen, carbon dioxide, and water?!?

      Serious answer: the article mentions the low potassium as good for people with chronic kidney disease. Nitrate free means less bitter. But if you need such expensive facilities to do so, then it's kind of stupid marketing. It doesn't sound like growing plants without nitrates or potassium is shocking scientifically.

    13. Re:Yeah... by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      It's explained in the article

      Your point being?

      To RTFA?

    14. Re:Yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There have been major reviews of the scientific literature that found no link between nitrates or nitrites and human cancers, or even evidence to suggest that they may be carcinogenic. Further, recent research suggests that nitrates and nitrites may not only be harmless, they may be beneficial, especially for immunity and heart health.

      Right, because it's an indirect link via nitrosamines. One think I know, John Galardi's death might be a warning to everyone.

    15. Re:Yeah... by diamondmagic · · Score: 1

      If everything is a chemical, why would they bother using the term?

      The only place I've seen someone refer to carbon dioxide as a "chemical" is in chemical equations. Water even less so.

      --
      Wonder what the public key field is for?
    16. Re:Yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're not very bright, are you?

    17. Re:Yeah... by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1

      very interesting, thanks for the link. imma go eat more beef jerky now, I love that stuff xD

    18. Re:Yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not all ground beef is pink slime

      Think you can guarantee that not all pink slime is ground beef

    19. Re:Yeah... by chuckugly · · Score: 1

      If everything is a chemical, why would they bother using the term?

      Because they are borderline retards.

    20. Re:Yeah... by nitehawk214 · · Score: 2

      In many vegetables, potassium is the most radioactive part.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    21. Re: Yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've seen raw ground beef in colours of brown or green, but as a general rule it needs to be pink.

    22. Re:Yeah... by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      Go on....

      http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr...

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    23. Re:Yeah... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      The problem is that in order to escape stupidity, you must leave the planet entirely.

    24. Re:Yeah... by nojayuk · · Score: 1

      They're not using any pesticides or herbicides as they would have to in the "wild". There are no caterpillars, no fungus or microbial antagonists or weed seeds that could destroy or deplete the crop, they're kept at bay because the facility is a clean-room setup with filtered air and water. That's the big "no chemicals" deal with this greenhouse.

    25. Re:Yeah... by FictionPimp · · Score: 1

      Yet the EPA wants to warn me my well water is board line unsafe because of nitrates. So...... do I need to buy a system to remove nitrates or not??

    26. Re:Yeah... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      It's got electrolytes!

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    27. Re:Yeah... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Yes, you concentrate them and convert it into nitroglycerin, just like any red blooded, paranoid - psychotic would do.

      Thus the EPA feeds the ATF and the cycle of American life is complete!

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    28. Re:Yeah... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      I would imagine if you consumed 1000 times more nitrates than is considered safe in food, you may have issues. Toxicology is about dosage. Our river water is borderline unsafe because of sodium chloride.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    29. Re:Yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're sincere about your knowledge about nitrates, you might want to look a bit deeper than a paleo advocate. For starters, there are many different types of nitrates...if you compare the ones in veggies (or saliva) to the ones in meats, you might find there's a chemical difference, and then look into the effects that particular compound has. So yes, SOME nitrates have no connection to cancer. I doubt they've ruled out ALL nitrates.

    30. Re:Yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well duuuuuuuuh! It's what plants crave!

    31. Re:Yeah... by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

      People think Japan is basically 90% uninhabitable because of nuclear holocaust. I want to move out of the US to escape the stupidity.

      That's uninformed and ridiculous; the area affected by that is only about 5%. The other 85% is accounted for by the recurring giant monster attacks.

    32. Re:Yeah... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      It's the dose that makes the poison. - Paracelsus

      If you have a problem with the current ppm, or the science they use to come to tat number, then state it and we can talk. idiotic statements that make it sound like you can't think about things in a complex way are beneath you.

      http://water.epa.gov/drink/con...

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    33. Re:Yeah... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      It's important when selling things as chemical free, and trying to use 'chemicals' to sound like that are sciency and thus bad, unlike the natural organic stuff that contain no chemicals.

      herp, derp.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    34. Re:Yeah... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      The problem is that in order to escape stupidity, you must leave the planet entirely and not take a mirror.

      Everyone does stupid things, and most things the seem stupid aren't, you are just missing information,

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    35. Re:Yeah... by faffod · · Score: 1

      You must be new around here...

    36. Re:Yeah... by antifoidulus · · Score: 2

      Yeah, but that doesn't mean people are eating the vegetables grown there. There are ads on the train all the time where idol groups advertise Fukushima vegetables. Many consumers in Japan still won't eat them(the prefecture/country of origin is shown when you buy fresh produce in Japan).

      This of course is just amplifying the pain that Fukushima prefecture is experiencing. The population of Fukushima dropped by about 3% from 2010 to 2005, and that was BEFORE the earthquake. The population has dropped another 3% or so just in the past 3 years, and is continuing to plummet as younger people leave the prefecture partially due to fears about radiation, but mostly due to a complete lack of economic opportunities. Things are looking pretty grim for Fukushima

      --
      Monstar L
    37. Re:Yeah... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Potassium yes, nitrates no.

      Not quite so fast. Nitrates on their own are pretty benign. It is when they are subjected to heat that they form nitrosamines, which are potent carcinogens.

      Cold foods that contain nitrates (within reason of course), as long as they were also cold-processed (cold smoked or cold cured), are generally of very small concern. It is that crispy bacon and burnt barbecue hot dogs you should be concerned about.

      That is why bacon cooked in the microwave -- and especially not overcooked to crispiness -- is a lot healthier.

    38. Re:Yeah... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The study that originally connected nitrates with cancer risk and caused the scare in the first place has since been discredited after being subjected to a peer review. There have been major reviews of the scientific literature that found no link between nitrates or nitrites and human cancers, or even evidence to suggest that they may be carcinogenic.

      That's because those studies were of nitrates, not the high-temperature products of cooking nitrate-laden organics like beef: as nitrosamines.

      As I posted in another link above: nitrates themselves are known to be pretty benign. But there is plenty of good evidence over a period of decades that cooking nitrate-cured food (like hot dogs) produces nitrosamines that are well-known (and long studied) carcinogens.

      Nitrates themselves are probably not much concern. In fact nitrates are known, often-prescribed vasodilators. (Know anybody who takes nitroglycerine for heart problems?)

      As with so many other things, nitrates are not necessarily evil. It is what you do with them that counts.

    39. Re:Yeah... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      It doesn't sound like growing plants without nitrates or potassium is shocking scientifically.

      Lots of people here are missing the point. While nitrogen and nitrates may be controversial, lack of potassium in their lettuce is a big deal in the Fukushima region because potassium 40 is radioactive. You don't want your lettuce to absorb an extra neutron here and there and become even more radioactive. That probably would not market well.

    40. Re:Yeah... by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Nothing tortures everyday terminology more than a marketing department. "Organic" is an abbreviation of "organic chemistry", ie: something made from chemicals containing the element carbon (such as crude oil, bacon, carrots, etc). In other words the set of all chemicals includes the set of all organic chemicals. It's little wonder people are confused about the terminology when they have had "organic=good, chemical=bad" shoved down their throat for the last 30-40yrs by people selling everything from condoms to cauliflowers. Even if (as TFA intended) you interpret "organic" to be an abbreviation of "organic food", ie: food grown without man made fertilizer or (pest/herb)isides, how does one grow organic shampoo and what does it taste like?

      When you sit down and think about the definition of the word organic that I was taught in 1970's HS, the organic chemistry happening inside internal combustion engines and coal fired generators is by far the greatest health threat to the greatest number of people in the modern world.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    41. Re:Yeah... by HiThere · · Score: 1

      It's not just cooking. You got it right the first time, it's high temperature cooking. Boiled hot dogs don't have increased nitroseamines. (Not sure about microwaved hot dogs.) Grilled hot dogs do. So do fried hot dogs. Steamed hot dogs are safe (except for some brands that add nitroseamines in ahead of time to improve the flavor).

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    42. Re:Yeah... by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      Uh, "more willing"?

      Seems with applications related to feeding people undergoing chemo, this "food" will become medicine very quickly. That premium you speak of will be "premium" alright...at about a 10,000% markup.

      I don't know how "willing" people will be to pay for that. Guess it depends on the price.

      They don't have to eat lettuce. If they want to eat lettuce, they need fancy lab grown lettuce that costs a lot.

    43. Re:Yeah... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Steamed hot dogs are safe (except for some brands that add nitroseamines in ahead of time to improve the flavor).

      Microwaving has been shown to minimize the formation of nitrosamines. I'm not claiming that it eliminates them entirely.

    44. Re:Yeah... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Love your tagline, by the way.

    45. Re:Yeah... by Archtech · · Score: 1

      "A study led by King’s College London found that the combination of olive oil and salad holds the key to keeping the risk of high blood pressure down. A large salad with a simple dressing combines the necessary unsaturated fats with nitrate-rich vegetables".

      http://www.independent.co.uk/l...

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    46. Re:Yeah... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Yes but we know that well-done meat increases stomach cancer. If you're charring, you deserve your gutrot. It takes 19 seconds to cook a steak properly.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    47. Re:Yeah... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and why would you want a lettuce low in potassium

      Because potassium is the source of something like a third of your daily radiation dose. Didn't you know that?

      and nitrates anyway?

      Nitrogen reacts with electrons to form carbon-14, which is not only radioactive death for everyone who ever even hears about it, but it's also the work of Satan because Evil-utionists use it to prove that dinosaurs are cool and make Baby Jesus cry.

      I want to move out of the US to escape the stupidity.

      Communist!

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  3. But do they have radiation free raindeer meat? by JumpSuit+Boy · · Score: 0

    Reno's Radiation Free Reindeer Steaks!

    Man I loved that movie.

    --
    Oh really?
  4. New improved formula! Radiation Free! by Kevin+Fishburne · · Score: 1

    Is this the world we live in now? Sad.

    --
    Buy your next Linux PC at eightvirtues.com
    1. Re:New improved formula! Radiation Free! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is this the world we live in now?

      Close enough.

    2. Re:New improved formula! Radiation Free! by boaworm · · Score: 2

      Actually it used to be the other way around. Radiation was a great additive :-) Toothpaste, Underwear. Mineral water. Watches (the arms glows nicely in the dark).

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities.
      Aristotele
    3. Re:New improved formula! Radiation Free! by boaworm · · Score: 3, Informative

      Here is a good summary of many excellent products with Radium added for extra marketability.

      http://io9.com/seriously-scary...

      --
      Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities.
      Aristotele
    4. Re:New improved formula! Radiation Free! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Underwear? Yikes.!

    5. Re:New improved formula! Radiation Free! by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      Radiation is still a great additive. You can seal and sterilize things just like canning, but without having to boil it. Now radioisotopes.. those aren't such great additives....

    6. Re:New improved formula! Radiation Free! by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      More appropriate XKCD showing the amonut of radiation in one banana: http://xkcd.com/radiation/

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    7. Re:New improved formula! Radiation Free! by Kevin+Fishburne · · Score: 1

      For many, radioactive underwear is probably still a good idea, at least for the rest of us.

      --
      Buy your next Linux PC at eightvirtues.com
  5. NOTHING is radiation free by Akaihiryuu · · Score: 5, Informative

    Nothing in existence is "radiation free". There is no such thing. There are MANY MANY MANY naturally occuring radioisotopes. A major one is Carbon-14, which ALL organic materials contain to some degree. I can't determine if the people making this "radiation free" lettuce are either very stupid, or very smart and cleverly marketing to stupid people.

    1. Re:NOTHING is radiation free by sconeu · · Score: 4, Funny

      Reminds me of back in '81, when I was at WUSTL.edu, during the height of the "No Nukes" movement. Some idiot had been quoted in the student newspaper as saying, "any amount of radiation is dangerous".

      So I and a bunch of friends started the SOTS movement. "Stamp Out The Sun... Because ANY Amount of Radiation is Dangerous".

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    2. Re:NOTHING is radiation free by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      Yup, just a marketing ploy to charge more for lettuce.

    3. Re:NOTHING is radiation free by Akaihiryuu · · Score: 1

      Apparently, the REAL story (once you get by the "radiation free" hype and get to the real story) is that the lettuce has much lower levels of potassium than normal lettuce. This, of course, does not make it "radiation free" by any means, since naturally occuring radioisotopes of both potassium and carbon will be present in it to a measurable degree...but, the much lower levels of potassium make it an alternative for people with kidney issues that make them sensitive to potassium.

    4. Re:NOTHING is radiation free by Altus · · Score: 1

      Ever since the beginning of time, man has yearned to destroy the sun...

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    5. Re:NOTHING is radiation free by monkeyhybrid · · Score: 2

      A small level of radiation is one thing; it's the dihydrogen monoxide I worry about.

    6. Re:NOTHING is radiation free by ColdWetDog · · Score: 0

      Actually, the REAL story is that Slashdot web designers have finally found a web site worse than beta.

      The goggles! They do nothing!

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    7. Re:NOTHING is radiation free by Extremus · · Score: 1

      So...

      1) Buy lots of radiation-free lettuce
      2) Prove that there was radiation in the lettuce (natural occurring, but who cares?)
      3) Sue the company for misrepresentation
      4) Profit!

    8. Re:NOTHING is radiation free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing in existence is "radiation free". There is no such thing. There are MANY MANY MANY naturally occuring radioisotopes. A major one is Carbon-14, which ALL organic materials contain to some degree. I can't determine if the people making this "radiation free" lettuce are either very stupid, or very smart and cleverly marketing to stupid people.

      It is logical thinking in the sense that they are able to use the word "radiation" within context and 99% of the audience know exactly what they are referring to (i.e. artificially created radiation sources).

      As opposed to the 1% of "smart" readers who manage to take this to the extreme in a vain attempt to make the rest of the planet look stupid and ignorant.

      I've also found that "smart" people often suck at common sense, so I'm not surprised...

    9. Re:NOTHING is radiation free by oobayly · · Score: 1

      Bah, you have to drink gallons of that for it to have a detrimental effect. Now Hydrohydroxic acid, that's what you should be worried about.

    10. Re:NOTHING is radiation free by sconeu · · Score: 2

      Believe it or not, we actually got approval to post our flyers all over campus.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    11. Re:NOTHING is radiation free by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      It reminds me of advertisements like this. Every one of their products have chemicals in them.

      Most "(enter substance here) FREE" campaigns are marketing ploys.

    12. Re:NOTHING is radiation free by rasmusbr · · Score: 1

      A small level of radiation is one thing; it's the dihydrogen monoxide I worry about.

      Don't worry, TFA says that it's totally free of chemicals.

    13. Re:NOTHING is radiation free by David_Hart · · Score: 1

      I've heard that it can eat through solid rock, given enough time.

    14. Re:NOTHING is radiation free by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      As usual the English translation leaves a lot to be desired. I can't find the original Japanese article I read now (I'm on my phone), but what they actually meant was that the plant was just outside the exclusion zone where there is still a considerable amount of contamination that is slowly being cleaned up. Despite that none of the radioactive isotopes known to have been released by Fukushima Daiichi found their way into the clean room, due to the heavy filtration in place.

      But hay, at least this version let you have your little rant...

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    15. Re:NOTHING is radiation free by fnj · · Score: 1

      vain attempt to make the rest of the planet look stupid and ignorant

      No attempt is necessary to make most people "look" stupid and ignorant. Most people ARE stupid and ignorant, and it is apparent to to anyone who is moderately intelligent and informed.

      Just check the results of any national election for example.

    16. Re:NOTHING is radiation free by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      But why do this? Why try to grow plain ol simple veggies in one of mankind's most complex artificial environments? We know we can run clean rooms that filter all manner of things out. We know you can do closed cycle hydroponics. So now you can do it close to a polluted zone (or Trenton, New Jersey, if you are desperate).

      Woot.

      Is the low potassium / nitrate that much of an advantage?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    17. Re:NOTHING is radiation free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *ahem* Excuse me while I kiss the sky! *air guitar*

    18. Re:NOTHING is radiation free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How many times do I have to tell you: We didn't start the fire! It was always burning since the world's been turning.

    19. Re:NOTHING is radiation free by geekoid · · Score: 1

      The sun is dangerous. Who told you it isn't?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    20. Re:NOTHING is radiation free by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Everyone is ignorant of most things.
      Very few people are actually stupid.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    21. Re:NOTHING is radiation free by geekoid · · Score: 1

      For the people with kidneys issues this was developed for, yes, yes it does have an advantage.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    22. Re:NOTHING is radiation free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It really only takes about half a cup... just inhale it.

    23. Re:NOTHING is radiation free by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      If you've only got half a cup does that mean you only need one girl?

    24. Re:NOTHING is radiation free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Parent is modded funny, but that is the official position of most government agencies. The US NRC and EPA both use the linear no-threshold (LNT) model that says at any level, a doubling of ionizing radiation doubles your cancer risk.

      LNT is established and usually considered a conservative model, and so a great amount of evidence would be required to replace it.
      That evidence is hard to gather at low levels of exposure, partly because 1/4 of Americans die from cancers anyway.

    25. Re:NOTHING is radiation free by Zombie · · Score: 1
      TFA doesn't stop at that: "[...] the production is chemical-free [...]".

      That proves that things really are as bad as the mockery in this cartoon suggests.

    26. Re:NOTHING is radiation free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What kind of idiot operates an unshielded fusion reactor?

    27. Re:NOTHING is radiation free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same for potassium, which is one of the major sources of natural radiation exposure and which is an essential nutrient. When I first read that the lettuce was "low potassium", I was thinking that it was silly, because while it would be less radioactive it would be less nutritious and you'd have to make up the potassium deficiency with some other food. But from reading the article, the lower potassium is intentional for medical reasons (for people with kidney disease).

      Anyway, the lettuce isn't "radiation free", because no food is, but it would presumably be free of the artificial isotopes that would be an issue with agriculture around Fukushima such as 137Cs. It's an interesting approach to use clean room facilities to grow food and avoid local radioisotopes, but it must be crazy expensive.

    28. Re:NOTHING is radiation free by Graydyn+Young · · Score: 1

      The article is vague, but it sounds like they've reduced the radioactivity by growing it without potassium. Unfortunately, potassium is a very important nutrient, and most people are not meeting their recommended daily intake of it.

  6. Not radiation free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If it has potassium in it, which is natural, it's not radiation free. duh

    1. Re:Not radiation free by Megane · · Score: 1

      Yes, but it's low in potassium, so it's got less radiation than normal lettuce!

      Obligatory link: Periodic Table Table: Potassium

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    2. Re:Not radiation free by Akaihiryuu · · Score: 1

      But it doesn't have less carbon than normal lettuce. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

    3. Re:Not radiation free by maxwells_deamon · · Score: 2

      I was thinking that the only way they could do this would be mass spec processing to remove all the radioactive elements (like carbon 14) from the soil and air before supplying this to the plants, They would be the most expensive plants ever harvested but in theory possible.

      Then I noticed the plants were being grown in a building that is "totally free of chemicals" must be virtual food or uneducated people writing the article.

    4. Re: Not radiation free by Badblackdog · · Score: 1

      I will be impressed when they can grow a whole salad in that place.

    5. Re:Not radiation free by Megane · · Score: 1

      But it doesn't have more, either. So with the same carbon and less potassium, you can do the math.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  7. Why is this newsworthy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They're growing lettuce in hydroponic trays inside a "clean room" of what used to be a semiconductor plant. It's not really surprising that plants grown in so-called "clean room" conditions in water that isn't from an irradiated area would not contain radiation. Hydroponic gardening has been around for hundreds of years. So, what exactly is the "news" here?

    1. Re:Why is this newsworthy? by Akaihiryuu · · Score: 1

      The real news (once you get past the "radiation free" hype that is basically a lie, is that the lettuce contains MUCH lower than normal levels of potassium, making it an alternative for people with kidney issues (or any other disease really) that makes them sensitive to potassium. A VERY niche market to be sure. But the point is, the lettuce is not "radiation free". It has carbon in it, therefore it has carbon-14 in it.

  8. Re:When will it be ready by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The other Fukushima lettuce growers have that covered.

  9. It's just vertical farming by Animats · · Score: 1

    There's a whole cult of "vertical farming". With LED lighting, it's much more cost-effective. Not only is the power consumption down, but the plants can be racked much more closely without overheating. Phillips has some special-purpose farming LEDs with spectra chosen for growing specific crops.

    So far, most of the enthusiasm for this comes from the organic "farmer's market" crowd, not production-scale farmers.

    1. Re:It's just vertical farming by sl149q · · Score: 1

      Do they have LEDS with the correct spectra to sell in Washington and Colorado states?

      Could be a huge cash market for smuggling those North to BC and South to Mexico.

  10. Godzilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's somehow a Godzilla tie in.

    Don't know how - but it is.

  11. Wow! by The+Real+Dr+John · · Score: 2

    Radiation-free lettuce... what will they think of next?

    --
    A brain is a terrible thing to waste... Mind? That's debatable.
    1. Re:Wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Radiation-free uranium!

    2. Re:Wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two-eyed fish.

    3. Re:Wow! by Akaihiryuu · · Score: 1

      Dehydrated water. Just add water! I actually can't take credit for that, I got it from the "survival kit" from the first Space Quest game which included a can of dehydrated water with those instructions.. But it's still funny.

  12. Radiation Free Reindeer Steaks by babylon93 · · Score: 0

    Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... First thing I thought of.

  13. Organic AND worse for the Environment! by 517714 · · Score: 1

    Perhaps using the sun to grow the plants rather than using lights that contain mercury, powered by nuclear and coal fired generating stations would be a more sensible way to provide a piece of lettuce. Something tells me this organic lettuce will find its way to expensive restaurants in New York so the rich and famous will be able to pay a huge premium to eat it and then turn around and condescendingly tell the 99% how important eating organic, animal rights, and the environment are.

    --
    The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
    1. Re:Organic AND worse for the Environment! by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      Are they using florescent lamps? I thought I read somewhere they were using LEDs. LEDs typically contain no mercury.

      The actual Fujitsu link is almost a year old original press release and has about as much information.

      I'm not sure where I got the LED reference from, though, as looking back I don't see it in either the release or the article. Maybe I skimmed it in a previous comment.

    2. Re:Organic AND worse for the Environment! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why we call it "ecological", and not "organic", in sane zones of the world. Just saying...

  14. YOU DON'T KNOW? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HOLY FUCK MAN! You didn't know? Dihydrogen Monoxide is killing millions every day!

  15. Organic, radiation-free food by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's no scientific evidence that the organic label is better for the environment. Radiation free food means higher risk for bacteria to infect the end consumer. Radiating food ensures safety and poses no risk to consumers.

    http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/dueling-narratives-on-organic-farming/

  16. That remind me of the glutamate scare by aepervius · · Score: 2

    People fearing MSG because it is everywhere. I tried to explain calmly, that glutamate as amino acid is something around 7% (IIRC) prevalence in protein, so unless you are eating no protein whatsoever , you will eat a lot of glutamate. Also the body internally itself produce 90% (IIRC) of the glutamate for protein creation. But no matter the argument , I could not convince the person that MSG is harmless especially considered the very low quantity.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:That remind me of the glutamate scare by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      You sig tells me you're a genuine skeptic. :)

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    2. Re:That remind me of the glutamate scare by HiThere · · Score: 1

      And the sodium in MSG isn't worrisome?

      Now I'll grant you that most people eat so much salt that they shouldn't be bothered by that increased dosage, but others are (and have reason to be) more careful. Glutamate is useful and important, but the added sodium is concerning, and needs to be carefully counted into ones daily sodium intake.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    3. Re:That remind me of the glutamate scare by quenda · · Score: 1

      It is not added sodium. Adding MSG to food reduces the need for common salt. So you should end up with less sodium.
      As for those people who bury their meal in salt before even tasting it, well, they deserve a heart attack.

    4. Re:That remind me of the glutamate scare by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      People fearing MSG because it is everywhere. I tried to explain calmly, that glutamate as amino acid is something around 7% (IIRC) prevalence in protein, so unless you are eating no protein whatsoever , you will eat a lot of glutamate.

      Oh yeah? What percentage of it is monosodium glutamate?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:That remind me of the glutamate scare by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      The concern is "Chinese Restaurant Syndrome", a disease caused by neurotoxic brain damage from MSG. ... not really. But that's what the news papers said: MSG causes brain damage.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    6. Re:That remind me of the glutamate scare by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      There's plenty of glutimate salts in pork and sea kelp, including monosodium glutamate. The sodium ion breaks off in the same way as table salt; it reacts away eventually, and is metabolized as glutamate.

      Biologically, it's harmless. Pharmacologically, we do this all the time: dexamphetamine sulfate is a sulfur salt of dextrorotary amphetamine, which is itself a vapor at room temperatures; naproxen similarly isn't readily available--it's insoluble in water--and so we use the sodium salt.

      More complex, particularly stable, molecules can be problematic. GABA can't cross the blood-brain barrier; but, by attaching a phenyl group, we can make it readily cross the blood-brain barrier, where it breaks down into GABA and a free Phenyl group. This is like valium, but stronger, and 10 times as addictive. This isn't a concern with MSG because glutamate already crosses the blood-brain barrier readily, and because adding a sodium ion doesn't make it cross the blood-brain barrier any better.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    7. Re:That remind me of the glutamate scare by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I note that the answer to my actual question was not forthcoming.

      My response could also be boiled down to you can drown in one inch of water, and too much or too little salt in your body will literally kill you. And I note that when you ask about natural levels of nitrates or MSG, you start to get prevarication back.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:That remind me of the glutamate scare by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Sorry, short version: It doesn't actually matter.

      The question, "How much of the glutamate is monosodium glutamate," is meaningless. The relevant considerations are how much sodium and how much glutamate are present, as monosodium glutamate is, nutritionally and toxicologically, equivalent to sodium and glutamate.

      In other words: if you have 1 gram of MSG, versus an identical amount of sodium (in some other non-toxic form, such as sodium chloride) and glutamate, you have the same things. This is unlike, say, sodium chloride versus straight sodium and some other chloride--where the free sodium is toxic.

      You could ask what percentage of something is cheesy egg, when referring to eggs, and reach the same issue: eggs and cheese separate are the same as eggs and cheese mixed.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
    9. Re:That remind me of the glutamate scare by HiThere · · Score: 1

      No. There *IS* no need for added salt. None. The salt that is normally present, if you eat a reasonable quantity of ocean fish, is sufficient. You don't need any more.

      My wife has been on a strictly limited diet since her extreme youth, and (outside of results from a congenital heart problem) has no trouble with a salt free diet. I will admit that those who physically labor in a hot environment have additional need for salt. Usually, however, this is not expected to be addressed via spicing of food.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    10. Re:That remind me of the glutamate scare by quenda · · Score: 1

      No. There *IS* no need for added salt.

      That depends what you mean by "need". I once made bread and forgot the salt. Edible, but surprisingly unpleasant, not just bland.
      I suppose you could get used to it, but why? Moderation can be both healthy and tasty.
      The problem is very high salt levels in processed and take-away food, not the half-teaspoon added to the pot at home.

      if you eat a reasonable quantity of ocean fish, is sufficient.

      Isn't that for iodine, rather than sodium?

    11. Re:That remind me of the glutamate scare by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I have frequently made bread without salt. This caused no major problems, though one did need to adapt the recepie. Just use other spices. A good one is curry. (The curry I use is salt-free.) Another is Italian Herb mix. I should try Chinese 5-spice, but I never have. Tomato sauce, however, tends to produce bread with large, hard, sharp bubbles. I could probably tinker with the recipie to improve it, but I haven't. There are MANY alternatives that yield quite good bread.

      OTOH, making bread is a lot of work, so I've basically stopped doing it. I'm not really interested in cooking.

      Whether the only problem is the high salt content of processed foods depends on your body. Some people need to be a lot more restrictive than that. Some people actually need extra salt.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    12. Re:That remind me of the glutamate scare by quenda · · Score: 1

      Yuck. I mean, each to his own.
      Tomato, BTW is naturally loaded with glutamate.

    13. Re:That remind me of the glutamate scare by HiThere · · Score: 1

      But I wasn't concerned about glutamate. Only salt. And I used salt-free tomato sauce. I think it was the sugar in to tomato sauce that caused the bubbles to be so large, I don't know what made them hard. If this is so, however, I could have solved the problem by growing some yeast in the tomato sauce before I used it.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  17. Long shelf-life is a big selling point by KNicolson · · Score: 1

    I saw coverage of this on Japanese TV last weekend, and the hype is over the fact that since it is grown in a clean room, there is no bacteria, so it can be kept in an airtight bag at room temperature for a long, long time without going brown or losing its crispness.

    The program had three month old lettuce that they tasted and they said it was just as good as the freshly-picked stuff.

    1. Re:Long shelf-life is a big selling point by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      Irradiated food behaves the same. It's like canning, but you don't have to boil it.

    2. Re:Long shelf-life is a big selling point by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      The only problem is that I can't get a home food irradiation kit, but home canning kits and supplies are easy to come by.

      --
      Time to offend someone
  18. Radiation free Lettuce .. by lippydude · · Score: 1

    It would be radiation free considering it's in a clean room. A relevant question is do they use the local water.

    1. Re:Radiation free Lettuce .. by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      You would have to filter out all the CO2, since that would contain a percentage of radioactive Carbon-14, but then that would suffocate the plants.

  19. I assume they mean ... by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

    I assume they mean ... radioactivity-free, not "radiation free"?

  20. Cost too much to tear down... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These are the old fabs on the south side of town, next to the former FASL/Spansion flash chip plants. Fujitsu had another plant on the east side of town, which they hollowed out sending all the fab gear to a Chinese fab, then tore down. The local rumor mill said they discovered the site was so contaminated that no one would buy the land. In the end, they handed the land over to the city, which built a charter school on the site after the topsoil was replaced (this was before the tsunami/accident). The remaining site on the south side was just as bad allegedly, so the cost to tear down and remediate it would be horrendous, so they decided that the clean room might be still usable after they shipped out the fab equipment to china again, so they got around to building a hydroponics rig to grow specialty vegetables, such as low phosphorous vegetables for hospital patients with special medical needs, as that is a captured market that will pay well. This is partly a pork move, as the fabs in the area employ a lot of off season farmer folks to work the clean rooms. The town still hosts the big former Spansion fabs though, one on the south side of town, and the newer one over on the north side of town right smack dab in the middle of the valley near the highway offramp.

  21. Not a bug, it's a feature. by hoboroadie · · Score: 1

    Why would you want a lettuce low in potassium and nitrates anyway?

    Wassa matter, you don't eat Flintstones Vitamins?

    --
    They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
  22. Ringing in my head when I read this by TuxWithoutPants · · Score: 1

    I don’t want to set the world on fire, I just want to start, A flame in your heart. In my heart I have but one desire, And that one is you, No other will do. I’ve lost all ambition for worldly acclaim, I just want to be the one you love, And with your admission that you feel the same, I’ll have reached the goal I’m dreaming of. Believe me, I don’t want to set the world on fire, I just want to start, A flame in your heart.

  23. less nitrates and potassium by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 1

    than standard varieties? WOW! AMAZING! They made a form of lettuce that has even LESS nutritional value than regular lettuce! Which has practically none! Amazing!

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    1. Re:less nitrates and potassium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      than standard varieties? WOW! AMAZING! They made a form of lettuce that has even LESS nutritional value than regular lettuce! Which has practically none! Amazing!

      Grown specifically for people with kidney problems, either permanent or temporary due to cancer treatment etc.
      Sometimes it helps to actually read more than the headline.....

  24. It's lettuce, Jake by CmdrTamale · · Score: 1

    It's lettuce. You know, greenish crunchy water.

    Made in a mothballed semiconductor factory Must not be much K in mothballs.

    Have they tested the lettuce for contamination by the kinds of toxic chemicals used in semi-conductor fabs?
    --
    Fruit or vegetable? If your mother forced you to eat it, it was a vegetable.

  25. I live in Japan and... by kazekirifx · · Score: 1

    ...I eat vegetables from Fukushima all the time. Just bought some Fukushima broccoli the other day.