User talk:Dieter E

Radura, Raddapertization etc.
Thnak you for providing background information on the Radura and on terms like Raddapertization etc. I thought it was appropriate to move the information to the existing articles on the subject to make sure that a secondary article does not contain more information on the topic of a primary article. Please see Radura, Radappertization, Radicidation, and Radurization to find your contributions. RayosMcQueen 14:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:RADURACX.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:RADURACX.JPG. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 11:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this help. Copyright question submitted. Dieter E (talk) 17:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:RADURAcx.JPG
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:RADURAcx.JPG. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 15:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:RADURAcx.JPG)
Thanks for uploading Image:RADURAcx.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

A link to the article 'food irradiation' has been established. Dieter E (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Danger of Free radicals
After a long absence, it is found the page about food irradiation is as silly as ever. My comments on the main page were of course removed immediately. There is some mention of changed food chemistry after irradiation. My comment was that the fact that food chemistry is NOT altered IS the main danger. It is well known that the chemistry of atoms and molecules is determined by the outermost electron shell, whereas irradiation will alter the inner electron shells, enabling uptake of chemically normal, but perturbed, atoms or molecules into the body chemistry. Palomaris (talk) 05:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palomaris (talk • contribs) 05:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I have included the comments by Palomaris to demonstrate it is clearly vandalism, and to allow others to dispute his claims. I have also changed the heading of this section to be more constructive and less insulting. These perturbed atoms are called free radicals (there is a section for them) and it is proven that after the molecules are excited they can bond in different ways then they would be able to without being excited. In other words the ionisation acts as a catalyst. BTW Dieter was a published researcher and author on the topic. His word came from authority. It is behavior like yours that cost us his help.

(Palomaris here, vandalizing this ridiculous page again. It is well known that irradiation does not change the food molecular chemistry, but that fact is the insidious fault with irradiation.  The ionized molecules behave chemically as normal, but are abnormal because their inner electron structure has been ionized, which means they behave differently in the metabolism other than chemically. They are accepted in the chemistry but they are not normal. FYI please be aware that ionization means changing the electronic structure of atoms below the outer electron shell.  The outer shell determines the chemistry.  Please prove that wrong if you can.  LOL, this page is more a joke than ever after being away from it for a long time.  LOL LOL.  Hey Dieter, are you stil there? LOL) 104.2.168.238 (talk) 23:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Food Irradiation help
The Food Irradiation page fell into disrepair. It was clearly abandoned by all editors, as the content was disjoint and made contradictory claims. I have done all I can to fix it (and pretty much finished 1 year ago), but I am not an expert in the topic. I know (based upon the quality of the article I started with) that some information must be incorrect do to my misinterpretation and rewording, and due to bogus claims. I would like to reduce the size and complexity of the article, verify its content, and improve the citations (especially in the sections that describe the irradiation process). Please help. 2602:304:415C:5399:2C40:7E88:E22D:B772 (talk) 20:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for this alarm! Much of this article goes back to input, I have made over the years; a number of recognised colleagues have joint me. However, there has been much vandalism; also attacks by ideological opponents to this technology. Many of the small comments, additions, corrections are exactly what I expect from the WIKI-community. Before correcting your input and changes to this article, a few comments:

This article did not at all fell into 'disrepair'; and it was never abandoned by 'all editors'. At present, I have an overload by preparing the publication of a special issue devoted to food irradiation. Just I have seen your alarm.

It is not at all true that the actual content is disjoint and makes contradictory claims. However, it regularly occurs that some other editor introduces arguments which are false, not based on science, pure ideology etc. In general, this article has become quite balanced, also reporting the claims and accusations of the opponents to radiation processing of food. There are no 'bogus claims'.

As the topic is complex, it would be impossible to reduce size and complexity of this article. If you wish to include more references to describe the 'irradiation process', please let me know what is lacking in your opinion. There are already many references describing this technology.

Obviously, as you prefer to remain anonymous, I cannot send my comments directly to you. But you will see several changes to your changes to this article. Dieter E Dieter E (talk) 19:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comment, good to see you are doing well.
 * The old content had contradictory claims, especially in the old controversies section, or at least the proper deference was not given to expert references. I think all those are weeded out with the exception of the danger of 2ABC's. Upon a second look, that has been removed as well. I did my best to put the conflicting claims next to each other and to demonstrate which had more veracity. I think we are good with that now, I am glad you like my work on this part.
 * As for reducing the content, I may have been unspecific in my wording, but the wording can be tightened up a bit so that people can understand more while reading less. Some of this can be a little wordy. I imagine the average reader skims the articles. It would be good if they could pick up as much info from this as possible
 * For the process section, a step by step process on how the materials are treated would be helpful, along with citations for these few sentences.

:In some gamma irradiators the radioactive source is under water at all times, and the hermetically sealed product is lowered into the water. The water acts as the shield in this application.[citation needed] Because of the lower penetration depth of electron irradiation, treatment to entire industrial pallets or totes is not possible.[citation needed] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:415C:5EE9:2C40:7E88:E22D:B772
 * (talk) 20:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)