Sciencemadness Discussion Board - Amount of X-rays to induce useful mutations in seeds

Amount of X-rays to induce useful mutations in seeds

math - 30-3-2013 at 08:13

Hello,

I'd like to know what amount (as in keV, mA and milliseconds) of X-rays from a medical generator of "hard" X-rays would be required to induce useful/growable mutations in cacti and dicotyledon seeds.

Thank you

phlogiston - 30-3-2013 at 15:50

A. Define 'useful'. What are you trying to accomplish?

B. These are not the correct units to specify a dose of ionizing radiation. Read up on the units Grays, Sieverts, and rads.

I think you should:
1. use a very large number of seeds. 1000's at least.
2. irradiate them so much that only 0.1% - 0.001% will germinate and grow into a mature plant
3. Select from these plants the ones that have the mutation you desire.
4. Cross breed with healthy, non-irradiated plants and select the offspring that retains the desired property/mutation
5. repeat step 4 several (>3) times.

As an example (on E coli), see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1078806/?page=2

[Edited on 30-3-2013 by phlogiston]

pneumatician - 27-5-2013 at 19:01

read "Vegetable Teratology, by Maxwell T. Masters"

i think you don't need the radiactive shit for creating vegetal monsters.

amazingchemistry - 27-5-2013 at 19:38

Instead of trying it out with radiation (previous posters have already pointed out the difficulties with this) why not try a mutagenic chemical (like hydroxylamine or ethydium bromide or BrDU) while I can't remember the dosage protocols (my genetics class was ages ago) I'm sure the community will be able to help you. I will probably add more to this when I can get ahold of my old genetics text.

Solomon - 28-6-2013 at 09:05

You could just place a radioactive element in the soil like radium or americium couldn't you?

PickledPackratParalysis - 28-6-2013 at 10:10

Wo! I wonder if you could make animal creations like that too? I think I recall that somewhere there were frogs with like 20 legs or something caused by radiation or chemicals. It would be neat to make some 'monsters' that you could make a breeding population with!

Variscite - 28-6-2013 at 13:59

Id say go with the mutagenic chemical method, maybe only a perecentage of the seeds will grow or maybe theyll have some serious mutations. Who knows what will happen, I would be interested as to what happens in this if you decide to do it.

plante1999 - 28-6-2013 at 14:09

Use N-Nitrosodimethylamine. I think thats what you want to use to give mutation to something, not to much tough.

hyfalcon - 28-6-2013 at 16:40

Gibberellin will also induce mutations in plants.

Solomon - 28-6-2013 at 18:26

N-Nitrosodimethylamine costs almost $3,000 for 100 micro curries http://www.biotrend-usa.com/us/shop/search-query?itemid=ARC-... Also, do you guys have any sources that you could suggest containing high levels of radium (not clocks)? If so, could you tell about it's isolation.

plante1999 - 28-6-2013 at 18:37

Solomon, I meant the non-radioactive chemical... Which can be made from dimethyl amine and a nitrite salt.

Solomon - 28-6-2013 at 18:42

So just a quick mix of sodium nitrite and dimethyl amine?

Trotsky - 29-6-2013 at 11:11

There is difference though between a teratogen and a mutagen. You don't want to just cause "plant birth defects," you want to cause a mutation that can be passed down. Some of these things will indeed cause mutation-like malformation of the plant, but this will not be passed into subsequent generations.

phlogiston - 29-6-2013 at 16:03

Solomom and others, read a bit about n-Nitrosodimethylamine and think very well if you are equipped and educated enough to handle this safely before experimenting. Probably not. IMO, This is really not something you should play with in an amateur setting.

An X-ray tube or low level sealed radioactive sources are much safer to handle and there may be other chemicals that are less harmfull but can be used for the same purpose.

[Edited on 30-6-2013 by phlogiston]

Solomon - 29-6-2013 at 20:51

Radiation was used long ago in industry to produce genetically modified plants. Two plants are alive today that were accidentally made via radiation - The Rio star grapefruit and the Mentha Piperita peppermint. The rio star grapefruit is more red than any other grapefruit, and Mentha Piperita is resistant to fungus and is what is used to produce most modern mint oil. Godzilla was created via radiation

. Just like Nick totopolas (a.k.a. the worm guy) noticed a 17% increase in the size of the worms at Chernobyl, a nuclear enthusiast was able to created almond size peanuts via radiation. The peanut was the NC4x peanut.

[Edited on 6-30-2013 by Solomon]

grapefruit-pink-halved-rect400x320.jpg - 11kB

[Edited on 6-30-2013 by Solomon]

unionised - 30-6-2013 at 04:30

Xray tubes have the very great advantage that you can switch them off.
As for the dose, my guess is that theres a compromise between not enough to cause any mutation and so much that you kill the seeds.
If yo don't use enough nothing will happen. Too much will lead nowhere too.
I think the best bet might be a dose that kills roughly half the seeds.

Solomon - 30-6-2013 at 14:53

The old atomic gardens were a column of cobalt 60 (produced by neutron bombardment of cobalt 59) surrounded by circles and circles of plants. This produced a radiation gradient. The plants at the center usually died, the plants in the middle became botany's form of the radium girls, and the plants at the outside often had useful mutations.

[Edited on 6-30-2013 by Solomon]

pneumatician - 2-7-2013 at 12:53

go to fuckushima with your seeds, or get a fly to chile

http://rense.com/general96/shockingplanerad.html

bfesser - 2-7-2013 at 13:17

Quote: Originally posted by Solomon

You could just place a radioactive element in the soil like radium or americium couldn't you?

Don't listen to this nutter!

Quote: Originally posted by Solomon

Also, do you guys have any sources that you could suggest containing high levels of radium (not clocks)? If so, could you tell about it's isolation.

I hope that no one responds to this. It is both reckless and illegal.

Solomon, between these comments and your <a href="viewthread.php?tid=24798">worthless thread</a> on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modafinil" target=_blank">Modafinil</a> <img src="../scipics/_wiki.png" />, I'm beginning to see a trend. Allow me to be forthright and say, I don't like you. In fact, I strongly dislike you. I hope that you don't stick around for much longer, lest you endanger the lives of other members with more idiotic advice and give this forum a bad reputation.

[edit]
And let's not forget spam like this:

Quote: Originally posted by Solomon

Ammonium perchlorate and a blowtorch

[second edit]
The fact that AndersHoveland participated in your Modafinil thread could be held as proof of its lack of value.

[Edited on 7/9/13 by bfesser]

Variscite - 2-7-2013 at 13:30

I agree with Bfesser.

Solomon - 2-7-2013 at 20:55

I am not trying to offend anyone, just giving scientific information... the name of this website is sciencemadness.

[Edited on 7-3-2013 by Solomon]

Variscite - 2-7-2013 at 21:54

Based on your behavior and from what I can summarize about you from your posting, do not even think about trying to purify Radium from clock dials. You will poison/contaminate yourself, your workspace and possibly others. Im assuming you dont possess the proper equipment, insight or experience to safely work with it or its salts. Im pretty sure it is also illegal to perform that too.

Solomon - 2-7-2013 at 22:27

Science must advance even at the cost of my own safety. I will not be stopped! Science will not be hindered! The greatest scientists in history started as amateur scientists. EX: Gordon Moore, Michio Kaku, David Hahn, Werner Von Braun, Thomas Edison, David Packard and thousands of other scientists who have given their lives to create our modern world! Show some respect! We amateur scientists have helped many people and sacrificed ourselves to do it! You thank your "valiant soldiers who go to war" (I don't have a problem with that as my cousin is a soldier), but you persecute your scientists who put far more on the line. Soldiers can go to a whole army for backup, but an amateur scientist is usually alone! A soldier has about a 1 in 1500 chance of dying compared to amateur scientists having a much greater risk! If you don't have the courage to put your life in danger that's fine but respect those that do! I give my respect to Myfanwy94 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-g3EpSTiAO8) who was a member of this forum that was brave enough to attempt hydrazine synthesis! He died at age 15! RESPECT!

watson.fawkes - 3-7-2013 at 02:39

Quote: Originally posted by Solomon

I will not be stopped!

hyfalcon - 3-7-2013 at 02:44

Look what Marie Currie's curiosity did for her.

bfesser - 3-7-2013 at 06:29

Quote: Originally posted by Solomon

Science must advance even at the cost of my own safety. I will not be stopped! Science will not be hindered! The greatest scientists in history started as amateur scientists. EX: Gordon Moore, Michio Kaku, David Hahn, Werner Von Braun, Thomas Edison, David Packard and thousands of other scientists who have given their lives to create our modern world! Show some respect! We amateur scientists have helped many people and sacrificed ourselves to do it! You thank your "valiant soldiers who go to war" (I don't have a problem with that as my cousin is a soldier), but you persecute your scientists who put far more on the line. Soldiers can go to a whole army for backup, but an amateur scientist is usually alone! A soldier has about a 1 in 1500 chance of dying compared to amateur scientists having a much greater risk! If you don't have the courage to put your life in danger that's fine but respect those that do! I give my respect to Myfanwy94 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-g3EpSTiAO8) who was a member of this forum that was brave enough to attempt hydrazine synthesis! He died at age 15! RESPECT!

I'm at a loss for words. The best reply I can come up with: wot? I'm honestly unsure if you're serious or trolling.

hyfalcon, she has an element named in her honor (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curium" target="_blank">curium</a> <img src="../scipics/_wiki.png" />

!

[edit]
I wouldn't call <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Moore" target="_blank">Gordon Moore</a> <img src="../scipics/_wiki.png" /> a scientist, more of a tycoon. I respect <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michio_Kaku" target="_blank">Michio Kaku</a> <img src="../scipics/_wiki.png" />, but I wouldn't list him as one of "the greatest scientists in history"—especially considering that he's still living. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn" target="_blank">David Hahn</a> <img src="../scipics/_wiki.png" />, the "Radioactive Boy Scout", enough said. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun" target="_blank">Wernher von Braun</a> <img src="../scipics/_wiki.png" />, okay, maybe I can see that. But you couldn't even spell his name correctly. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Edison" target="_blank">Thomas Edison</a> <img src="../scipics/_wiki.png" /> was a liar, a thief, and a murderer (recklessly endangering the lives of his lab assistants, at least one of whom died as a direct result)—a true American capitalist. He was also more of an inventor/engineer than a scientist. As for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Packard" target="_blank">David Packard</a> <img src="../scipics/_wiki.png" />, like Gordon Moore, I don't see how he fits into the category of "greatest scientists".

[Edited on 7/9/13 by bfesser]

hyfalcon - 3-7-2013 at 16:18

I don't think I would want to have an element named after me if I had contaminated myself the way she had.

http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q535.html

bfesser - 3-7-2013 at 16:29

Her <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/Horizons/2011/1107/Marie-Curie-Why-her-papers-are-still-radioactive" target="_blank">notebooks</a> are still highly radioactive, and must be kept in a lead-lined vault. She won the 1903 Nobel Prize in Physics and the 1911 Nobel Prize in Chemistry—the only person to win a Nobel Prize in two sciences. I just <a href="viewthread.php?tid=18706#pid290634">posted</a>, in another thread, a good book about her discovery of radium.

GreenDao - 26-3-2014 at 05:40

Quote: Originally posted by Solomon

I'll tell you why you're NOT sacrificing yourself "to science" in your situation. You're not accomplishing anything new, you're just messing around with toxic compounds that are well researched. This "inspirational" paragraph you wrote is ridiculous, because you're not research anything, you're just hurting yourself or putting yourself at risk to do so! Essentially... you're fighting without a cause for something that leads to nothing. If you want to research chemistry, pharmacology, etc., do it to research, not to appear like some massive stoic hero, do it like a scientist. This means proper precautions, extreme preparation & competence *prior to experimentation* (because you're not going to accomplish much if you're just... doing it... you should justify but learn at the same time), all of that. I honestly can't imagine why you would willing to unnecessarily risk your physiological health except for delusional vile, vain reasons. It isn't "cool" to do that, it just makes you look ignorant.

eidolonicaurum - 30-4-2014 at 00:01

Darwin award

The Volatile Chemist - 7-5-2014 at 08:29

Back to the actual topic of the post, this is a general question, but does a microwave oven supply too much or too little radiation for mutation?

DraconicAcid - 7-5-2014 at 08:34

Quote: Originally posted by The Volatile Chemist

Back to the actual topic of the post, this is a general question, but does a microwave oven supply too much or too little radiation for mutation?

Microwaves are far too low-energy to cause mutation. You'd have a better chance of causing a mutation with sunlight.

Chemosynthesis - 7-5-2014 at 10:49

Quote: Originally posted by DraconicAcid

Microwaves are far too low-energy to cause mutation. You'd have a better chance of causing a mutation with sunlight.

This. Microwaves are non-ionizing, and merely energize water's rotational excitatory states, causing kinetic energy to release in the form of heat.
Seriously, if anyone wants to mutate bacteria, seeds, fungi, etc. just use a UV lamp. That's what I've done in labs that didn't want to bother with radioactive materials licensing, and it works.

The Volatile Chemist - 8-5-2014 at 08:08

Quote: Originally posted by Chemosynthesis

Quote: Originally posted by DraconicAcid

Microwaves are far too low-energy to cause mutation. You'd have a better chance of causing a mutation with sunlight.

Would Black Lamp Style be powerful enough?

Chemosynthesis - 8-5-2014 at 15:07

Quote: Originally posted by The Volatile Chemist

Would Black Lamp Style be powerful enough?

Good question. I'm not sure. I used a standard laminar flow hood's UV light for varying exposure intervals after consulting with an equipment person about the bulb. Based on some papers I had and their order specs, we decided it was good enough and it worked.

jwpa17 - 8-5-2014 at 17:24

"Black lights" output UV-A radiation, i.e., between about 330 nm and 400 nm wavelength. Mutations are caused by DNA damage. This requires UV-B or higher energy - wavelengths shorter than about 280 nm. So a black light would be nearly useless. You want a germicidal lamp or a short-wavelength UV source. Be sure to arrange things so you can't look at the lit lamp - can also cause eye damage.