radiation mutagenesis, plants
Inducktion, Tue Apr 12 2016, 05:35PMHi everyone
So this is probably going to be my next project for a while. I recently read an article about GMO's, and came across something called radiation mutagenesis. It's a way of creating new/different traits in plants by bombarding either a mature plant with radiation or seeds with radiation. One such method is called atomic gardening (click to see the wiki) where the plants are arranged in a circle, and the radiation source is placed in the center of the room. Closest plants would typically just outright die, second layer of plants would have large amounts of growth abnormalities (tumors, etc) and the third layer would be the plants that survive the best, and have differing traits.
This was actually the method used to create Ruby Red grapefruit. Question is, would it be viable on a small scale, and what sort of radiation source would be the best, what kind of dosage, protection, etc would be required?
Articles I've read on the subject state that gamma rays or X-rays were most commonly used, but with the atomic gardening style a cobalt-60 source was used. Obviously obtaining a radioactive element like that would be difficult (and I assume considerably more dangerous) than an electronically controlled source like an x-ray tube.
Also, another potential idea would be to use super high wavelength UV sources, but I'm unsure if it would produce any results given the energy differences between UV and X-rays and gamma rays.
Re: radiation mutagenesis, plants
klugesmith, Wed Apr 13 2016, 03:18AM
klugesmith, Wed Apr 13 2016, 03:18AM
Inducktion wrote ...
Also, another potential idea would be to use super high wavelength UV sources...
What super high wavelength UV range are you thinking of? Also, another potential idea would be to use super high wavelength UV sources...
Re: radiation mutagenesis, plants
Inducktion, Wed Apr 13 2016, 04:20PM
Okay I guess after re-reading what I said it probably wasn't the best choice of words....
I was thinking something in the range of UV-C, which i think is wavelengths between 100–280 nm. But I think air would probably attenuate most of the energy before it can even reach the plants. X-rays honestly sound like the best option here.
Inducktion, Wed Apr 13 2016, 04:20PM
klugesmith wrote ...
Inducktion wrote ...
Also, another potential idea would be to use super high wavelength UV sources...
What super high wavelength UV range are you thinking of? Also, another potential idea would be to use super high wavelength UV sources...
Okay I guess after re-reading what I said it probably wasn't the best choice of words....
I was thinking something in the range of UV-C, which i think is wavelengths between 100–280 nm. But I think air would probably attenuate most of the energy before it can even reach the plants. X-rays honestly sound like the best option here.
Re: radiation mutagenesis, plants
Sulaiman, Wed Apr 13 2016, 06:16PM
for a small scale experiment you could try seeds on an americium smoke alarm source
... lots of alpha, quite a lot of gamma
to be 'scientific' you should record the doses and estimated errors
maybe time, date(season), temperature, humidity etc. also,
or randomly mutate seeds and see what you get.
data from Chernobyl and especially Fukushima mutations should give clues.
Sulaiman, Wed Apr 13 2016, 06:16PM
for a small scale experiment you could try seeds on an americium smoke alarm source
... lots of alpha, quite a lot of gamma
to be 'scientific' you should record the doses and estimated errors
maybe time, date(season), temperature, humidity etc. also,
or randomly mutate seeds and see what you get.
data from Chernobyl and especially Fukushima mutations should give clues.
Re: radiation mutagenesis, plants
Proud Mary, Thu Apr 14 2016, 05:52PM
Brookhaven National Laboratory plant mutation experiment (1962) using a Co-60 gamma source within the central pipe.
Proud Mary, Thu Apr 14 2016, 05:52PM
Brookhaven National Laboratory plant mutation experiment (1962) using a Co-60 gamma source within the central pipe.
Re: radiation mutagenesis, plants
Inducktion, Fri Nov 04 2016, 06:47AM
So I'm actually coming back to this again, after quite a while.
I bought an EPROM eraser to try and see if I can get any results using UV-C.
If that doesn't seem to work (it might just end up killing the seedlings!), do you guys think just modifying the eraser with an X-ray tube system would be better? I just need to have something that I can fill with seeds, and then blast them with radiation to induce mutations. Would harder X-rays, or softer X-rays be better for causing mutation?
The EPROM eraser seemed like a good choice, but again, worried the UV would just end up killing the seeds vs. causing mutation.
Inducktion, Fri Nov 04 2016, 06:47AM
So I'm actually coming back to this again, after quite a while.
I bought an EPROM eraser to try and see if I can get any results using UV-C.
If that doesn't seem to work (it might just end up killing the seedlings!), do you guys think just modifying the eraser with an X-ray tube system would be better? I just need to have something that I can fill with seeds, and then blast them with radiation to induce mutations. Would harder X-rays, or softer X-rays be better for causing mutation?
The EPROM eraser seemed like a good choice, but again, worried the UV would just end up killing the seeds vs. causing mutation.
Re: radiation mutagenesis, plants
klugesmith, Fri Nov 04 2016, 05:14PM
Good to see you here again.
I bet the EPROM eraser won't do much except kill mold on the outside of the seeds. But it would be a great starter experiment, just to see how much exposure it takes to affect the germination rate.
You should have some control seeds that get the same elevated temperature treatment without the UV. Things in the tray might also get slightly ozonated, depending on how much 185 nm radiation escapes from the germicidal lamp tube. Active ventilation could mitigate those particular stray variables.
Considering the whole spectrum of EM energies, UVC and vacuum UV are about the _least_ penetrating rays of all. For mutagenesis, you'd probably have better luck with x-rays, maybe softish ones. X-ray diffraction tubes are Coolidge tubes with fixed water-cooled anodes. But ordinary dental tubes can deliver some serious sieverts to objects up close, using currents low enough for continuous operation. Please don't be cavalier about radiation safety!
klugesmith, Fri Nov 04 2016, 05:14PM
Good to see you here again.
I bet the EPROM eraser won't do much except kill mold on the outside of the seeds. But it would be a great starter experiment, just to see how much exposure it takes to affect the germination rate.
You should have some control seeds that get the same elevated temperature treatment without the UV. Things in the tray might also get slightly ozonated, depending on how much 185 nm radiation escapes from the germicidal lamp tube. Active ventilation could mitigate those particular stray variables.
Considering the whole spectrum of EM energies, UVC and vacuum UV are about the _least_ penetrating rays of all. For mutagenesis, you'd probably have better luck with x-rays, maybe softish ones. X-ray diffraction tubes are Coolidge tubes with fixed water-cooled anodes. But ordinary dental tubes can deliver some serious sieverts to objects up close, using currents low enough for continuous operation. Please don't be cavalier about radiation safety!
Re: radiation mutagenesis, plants
Inducktion, Fri Nov 04 2016, 08:52PM
Oh believe me, radiation scares the snot out of me. That's actually part of the reason why I'm so hesitant to start out with X-rays, since they're a tad more difficult to contain and use safely.
Unfortunately though because I'm tight on money (as I usually am) I won't be able to actually move forward on the X-ray testing since it would require shielding and a geiger counter or some sort of method of measuring radiation, to ensure my own safety.
I did read up on some lab reports about using UV-C on various varieties of seedlings and plants, and it seems like the most common "result" was just...basically killing the seeds outright vs. causing any mutations. I think one paper said they got one plant to actually mutate, and all it did was just produce a "hairless" plant where the normal one typically has fur. This was out of a few hundred seedlings too so it doesn't sound too promising sadly.
But, we'll see what kind of results I can get, if any. The experiments I read about also typically used actual seedlings, and not seeds themselves so maybe that'll produce different results.
But either way, I really don't feel like dying of cancer so young or experiencing radiation sickness. :p I might try digging out a small testing area in my backyard as a spot for radiation testing, and then use a long remote to turn off and on the system with a geiger counter near the x-ray source to confirm its operation. I really want to be safe, and also don't want to hurt anyone else around me either. But, it'll be fun certainly! Actually using radiation and creating something new and different is pretty cool I think.
Inducktion, Fri Nov 04 2016, 08:52PM
Oh believe me, radiation scares the snot out of me. That's actually part of the reason why I'm so hesitant to start out with X-rays, since they're a tad more difficult to contain and use safely.
Unfortunately though because I'm tight on money (as I usually am) I won't be able to actually move forward on the X-ray testing since it would require shielding and a geiger counter or some sort of method of measuring radiation, to ensure my own safety.
I did read up on some lab reports about using UV-C on various varieties of seedlings and plants, and it seems like the most common "result" was just...basically killing the seeds outright vs. causing any mutations. I think one paper said they got one plant to actually mutate, and all it did was just produce a "hairless" plant where the normal one typically has fur. This was out of a few hundred seedlings too so it doesn't sound too promising sadly.
But, we'll see what kind of results I can get, if any. The experiments I read about also typically used actual seedlings, and not seeds themselves so maybe that'll produce different results.
But either way, I really don't feel like dying of cancer so young or experiencing radiation sickness. :p I might try digging out a small testing area in my backyard as a spot for radiation testing, and then use a long remote to turn off and on the system with a geiger counter near the x-ray source to confirm its operation. I really want to be safe, and also don't want to hurt anyone else around me either. But, it'll be fun certainly! Actually using radiation and creating something new and different is pretty cool I think.
Re: radiation mutagenesis, plants
radiotech, Mon Nov 14 2016, 07:47AM
The pseudoscience of Hieronymus might be a neat experiment.
UVV ( 185 nM) produces ozone. So does a Tesla discharge in air.
Plant group 1 (control) exposed to daylight.
Plant group 2 (test) exposed to the ozone, from a ionization wire. (Hieronymus used the wire in the dark connected to
an aerial)
Check if/how much greening in in leaves/shoots occur.
radiotech, Mon Nov 14 2016, 07:47AM
The pseudoscience of Hieronymus might be a neat experiment.
UVV ( 185 nM) produces ozone. So does a Tesla discharge in air.
Plant group 1 (control) exposed to daylight.
Plant group 2 (test) exposed to the ozone, from a ionization wire. (Hieronymus used the wire in the dark connected to
an aerial)
Check if/how much greening in in leaves/shoots occur.
Re: radiation mutagenesis, plants
Inducktion, Thu Feb 09 2017, 11:38PM
So, an update, and some questions;
The UV test didn't do anything as expected; I'm assuming the energy of the photons werent enough to actually penetrate the seed and their coatings, essentially just sterilizing the outside of the seed.
I've already put together a relatively simple flyback driver, using a UC3525 as a PWM source and a single mosfet to drive my flyback in its standard mode of operation for maximum voltage output.
Now, my questions;
I've got 0.925 inches of iron (it's a big ass heavy pipe) to use as radiation shielding; I'll also line the inside of the pipe with aluminum foil to stop soft x-rays.
Coupled with a decent amount of distance, I'm hoping this will be enough to protect myself from accidentally giving myself cancer, but I just want to be sure and ask everyone here what their thoughts are.
Additionally, with my flyback transformer, do I need to put any additional capacitance on the output of the flyback?
Do I need to make sure my flyback transformer puts out a specific voltage?
I modified a buck converter board I scavenged from a powerful PSU, and changed it so the voltage output can be change from 12.6 volts down to 7. Should that be a decent enough change to control the radiation output from my tube?
And as for my tube itself, I'm planning on using a standard HV rectifier diode. Is there any special things i need to keep in mind when using this?
For additional safety I've put together a long lead (I think it measures at least 10 feet, but I'll have to actually measure it to be sure) with a switch inside, which controls a relay which controls the voltage input to the flyback transformer. Does this sound like enough safety, or should I add something more?
Thank you everyone, and I appreciate any advice or comments on how to do this safely, and correctly.
Inducktion, Thu Feb 09 2017, 11:38PM
So, an update, and some questions;
The UV test didn't do anything as expected; I'm assuming the energy of the photons werent enough to actually penetrate the seed and their coatings, essentially just sterilizing the outside of the seed.
I've already put together a relatively simple flyback driver, using a UC3525 as a PWM source and a single mosfet to drive my flyback in its standard mode of operation for maximum voltage output.
Now, my questions;
I've got 0.925 inches of iron (it's a big ass heavy pipe) to use as radiation shielding; I'll also line the inside of the pipe with aluminum foil to stop soft x-rays.
Coupled with a decent amount of distance, I'm hoping this will be enough to protect myself from accidentally giving myself cancer, but I just want to be sure and ask everyone here what their thoughts are.
Additionally, with my flyback transformer, do I need to put any additional capacitance on the output of the flyback?
Do I need to make sure my flyback transformer puts out a specific voltage?
I modified a buck converter board I scavenged from a powerful PSU, and changed it so the voltage output can be change from 12.6 volts down to 7. Should that be a decent enough change to control the radiation output from my tube?
And as for my tube itself, I'm planning on using a standard HV rectifier diode. Is there any special things i need to keep in mind when using this?
For additional safety I've put together a long lead (I think it measures at least 10 feet, but I'll have to actually measure it to be sure) with a switch inside, which controls a relay which controls the voltage input to the flyback transformer. Does this sound like enough safety, or should I add something more?
Thank you everyone, and I appreciate any advice or comments on how to do this safely, and correctly.
Re: radiation mutagenesis, plants
Inducktion, Wed Feb 22 2017, 07:24PM
It's been a few weeks since I've posted this, and no one's responded;
I would really love to get started on this project but I want some more opinions before I continue, to make sure I'm safe.
Inducktion, Wed Feb 22 2017, 07:24PM
It's been a few weeks since I've posted this, and no one's responded;
I would really love to get started on this project but I want some more opinions before I continue, to make sure I'm safe.
Re: radiation mutagenesis, plants
Sulaiman, Wed Feb 22 2017, 10:41PM
I suspect that we all do not want to make recommendations based on little experience :)
on the assumption that you will be using a crt flyback transformer,
the supply to your x-ray tube will be <= 35 kV at a couple of mA,
the lower end of 'hard' x-rays, and low power ... ten feet of air is probably enough,
if worried, put up a concrete slab >= 1" thick as a shield.
(lead has about 200x the absprbtion of air, so 10ft. air = 15mm lead = more than enough.)
I recently bought a 1.4mm thick, 223mm x 330mm sheet of lead for GBP 6.16 incl. p&p
enough for some nice underpants ;)
what kind of amateur scientist does not have lead sheeting handy ?
Sulaiman, Wed Feb 22 2017, 10:41PM
I suspect that we all do not want to make recommendations based on little experience :)
on the assumption that you will be using a crt flyback transformer,
the supply to your x-ray tube will be <= 35 kV at a couple of mA,
the lower end of 'hard' x-rays, and low power ... ten feet of air is probably enough,
if worried, put up a concrete slab >= 1" thick as a shield.
(lead has about 200x the absprbtion of air, so 10ft. air = 15mm lead = more than enough.)
I recently bought a 1.4mm thick, 223mm x 330mm sheet of lead for GBP 6.16 incl. p&p
enough for some nice underpants ;)
what kind of amateur scientist does not have lead sheeting handy ?
Re: radiation mutagenesis, plants
Conundrum, Thu Feb 23 2017, 07:40AM
Has a UV tube here, pretty sure it still works.
Yes, X-rays will work but please be VERY careful. I learned the hard way that even low levels can be harmful to equipment and people, you can get skin lesions even down to 9keV but never did find out if it was the vacuum pump oil (HF contamination) or the tube(s).
Conundrum, Thu Feb 23 2017, 07:40AM
Has a UV tube here, pretty sure it still works.
Yes, X-rays will work but please be VERY careful. I learned the hard way that even low levels can be harmful to equipment and people, you can get skin lesions even down to 9keV but never did find out if it was the vacuum pump oil (HF contamination) or the tube(s).
Re: radiation mutagenesis, plants
johnf, Mon Feb 27 2017, 06:55AM
You do not mention how much voltage you are going to use on your x-ray tube
x-ray tubes output max energy at around 2/3 the voltage so 100kv applied gives a peak at 60kV with a little energy at your max Voltage
x-ray energy gets more penetrating with voltage 60kV x-rays make iron transparent needing a higher Z material to shield
A few watt seconds of x-ray energy is not going to turn you green.
You say you are going to use a flyback so this limits you to around a 100watts max.
ps a standard chest x-ray is 90kV at 0,3 amp for 0.3 sec which can penetrate through the chest area (thickest part of body) other areas use less voltage
johnf, Mon Feb 27 2017, 06:55AM
You do not mention how much voltage you are going to use on your x-ray tube
x-ray tubes output max energy at around 2/3 the voltage so 100kv applied gives a peak at 60kV with a little energy at your max Voltage
x-ray energy gets more penetrating with voltage 60kV x-rays make iron transparent needing a higher Z material to shield
A few watt seconds of x-ray energy is not going to turn you green.
You say you are going to use a flyback so this limits you to around a 100watts max.
ps a standard chest x-ray is 90kV at 0,3 amp for 0.3 sec which can penetrate through the chest area (thickest part of body) other areas use less voltage
Print this page