Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

US Military Tested the Effects of a Nuclear Holocaust On Beer

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the money-well-spent dept.

Beer 215

pigrabbitbear writes "Is bottled beer nuclear bombproof? The United States government conducted a couple tests in the 1950s to find out—it exploded nuclear bombs with 'packaged commercial beverages' deposited at varying distances from the blast center to see if beer and soda would be safe to drink afterwards. The finding? Yep, surviving bottled and canned drinks can be consumed in the event of a nuclear holocaust, without major health risks."

cancel ×

215 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Aha! so that's what Indiana Jones was doing... (5, Funny)

xevioso (598654) | about 2 years ago | (#41406239)

in the refrigerator. Searching for beer!

Re:Aha! so that's what Indiana Jones was doing... (4, Funny)

Razgorov Prikazka (1699498) | about 2 years ago | (#41406349)

In the microwave. Searching for nuked beer!

Re:Aha! so that's what Indiana Jones was doing... (4, Funny)

Grayhand (2610049) | about 2 years ago | (#41406605)

in the refrigerator. Searching for beer!

After reading the script I would have been searching for a beer too.

Re:Aha! so that's what Indiana Jones was doing... (1)

Dragonslicer (991472) | about 2 years ago | (#41407209)

in the refrigerator. Searching for beer!

After reading the script I would have been searching for tequila too.

Fixed that for you.

But what about Nuka Cola? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41406251)

Too bad they didn't test Nuka Cola as well.

Re:But what about Nuka Cola? (5, Funny)

myowntrueself (607117) | about 2 years ago | (#41406315)

Too bad they didn't test Nuka Cola as well.

This is how you MAKE Nuka Cola.

Re:But what about Nuka Cola? (2)

kiriath (2670145) | about 2 years ago | (#41406755)

I have already started my bottle cap collection... when the big one hits, I'll be a billionaire.

Re:But what about Nuka Cola? (1)

jimmydevice (699057) | about 2 years ago | (#41407175)

Is that a reference to papa Yolk?

Re:But what about Nuka Cola? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41407369)

I have already started my bottle cap collection... when the big one hits, I'll be a billionaire.

Except in the 22nd century when they're worthless, a guy named Micky will get left in a dry well.
And it was actually all your fault.

Re:But what about Nuka Cola? (1)

Billlagr (931034) | about 2 years ago | (#41406825)

Quantum, all the way. Sunset Sarsparilla just isn't the same.

Re:But what about Nuka Cola? (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 2 years ago | (#41407341)

The Sunset Sarsparilla is for when you don't want a buzz from Nuka Cola.

Re:But what about Nuka Cola? (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 2 years ago | (#41407077)

You can keep your Cola, I'll take Roentgen Rum - the clear bottle lets it double as a dim lantern if you get stuck in an abandoned vault someplace.

Waste of money (-1)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 2 years ago | (#41406259)

First, beer surviving the holocaust is not something I see as a useful way to spend my tax dollars. Preventing the holocaust is. Second... duh? We irradiate our food to ensure its safety. Radiation is not a threat to food... at least not once its been picked or killed. Radioactive material is, of course.

Re:Waste of money (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41406333)

Were you paying taxes in 1955?

Re:Waste of money (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41406439)

Well I am paying the interest and principle on money borrowed in 1955.

Re:Waste of money (4, Informative)

Pseudonym Authority (1591027) | about 2 years ago | (#41406491)

Money borrowed in 1955 would have been paid off in 1985. Unless you want to claim that you still are because the debt was rolled over, at which point you need to start complaining about the horrible debts that were racked up putting down the Whiskey Rebellion by Washington too.

Re:Waste of money (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41406715)

The United State's national debt was completely paid off in January 1835. It only lasted a year though.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_public_debt#Early_history

Re:Waste of money (2)

artor3 (1344997) | about 2 years ago | (#41406937)

But if George Washington hadn't spent $100 of the national treasury on fake teeth and cherry trees, the country would have been $100 further in the black in 1835. And when we went back in debt, our debts would have been $100 less, all the way up until today, not accounting for interest & inflation.

The point is, it's silly to complain about relatively small expenditures from a long time ago.

Re:Waste of money (2)

lightknight (213164) | about 2 years ago | (#41407093)

Typically, being stuck with the bill from an earlier generation is reason to complain. But, if we have enough good left in us, we can pay off the bill so our children / successors do not.

Re:Waste of money (1)

mister_playboy (1474163) | about 2 years ago | (#41407203)

As long as we have a debt-based economy, the idea we can just "pay all our bills" is a fallacy.

Re:Waste of money (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 2 years ago | (#41407447)

How is it a fallacy that I can pay all outstanding debts on the first of the month?

Re:Waste of money (1)

JBMcB (73720) | about 2 years ago | (#41407161)

at which point you need to start complaining about the horrible debts that were racked up putting down the Whiskey Rebellion by Washington too.

Federal debt was completely eliminated in 1835.

Re:Waste of money (1)

ktappe (747125) | about 2 years ago | (#41406507)

Well I am paying the interest and principle on money borrowed in 1955.

The money spent in 1955 has long since been paid off. So...no you're not.

QFT! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41406887)

Well I am paying the interest and principle on money borrowed in 1955.

The money spent in 1955 has long since been paid off. So...no you're not.

Preach it! It's exactly like what will happen after 15 years when my interest-only mortgage is up. I will pay off the principal by taking out another interest-only mortgage, thus retiring that debt!

Or just like when I retire my credit card debt balance by rolling it over to a new credit card! That debt is now paid in full, hooray!

Seriously, man, rolling over debt isnt the same as paying it off. You can't argue that with a straight face. The debt has been increasing enormously, and deficits are surpassing inflation, so it's not really that unreasonable to say that at least some substantial portion of the debt was never paid off.

Re:Waste of money (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41406343)

From the summary: "The United States government conducted a couple tests in the 1950s to find out". Testing this was probably very relevant under the threat of the cold war to know what food and drink would be safe to consume.

Re:Waste of money (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41406499)

Why is this community so full of ...(input your own derogatory remark) they did a test on a whole town and the beer was part of the test you can test a whole pile of things at once with a nuke. but i can see the effects are just hitting a lot of slashdoties now.

Re:Waste of money (1)

edxwelch (600979) | about 2 years ago | (#41406459)

> Radiation is not a threat to food.
It is if it's irradiated with enough neutrons

Re:Waste of money (5, Insightful)

Maho Shoujo (2729697) | about 2 years ago | (#41406465)

The cost of throwing a few cases of cheap beer a round and then testing them is practically infinitesimal to the cost of setting of a nuclear weapon. It's not as if they blew the thing up just to test the drinks.

We irradiate our food to ensure its safety. Radiation is not a threat to food... at least not once its been picked or killed. Radioactive material is, of course.

That's a whole 'nother level. The radiation food is exposed to is also almost nothing compared to the radiation released in a nuke. Plus, in a nuclear blast, you have all sorts of particles flying around that are radioactive, but not the same high frequency beams used in industrial purposes.

Re:Waste of money (4, Informative)

demonbug (309515) | about 2 years ago | (#41406481)

How do you think we learned it is safe? Besides, I'm sure this wasn't a central reason for the testing, more like an add-on since they were setting off the nukes anyway.

Re:Waste of money (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41406483)

Radiation is not a threat to food... at least not once its been picked or killed. Radioactive material is, of course.

Perfect example of historian's fallacy [wikipedia.org] .

Unless you know something about time travel that I don't, the reason we know it's safe now is because in the 50s they did not know, and did the tests to find out.

Re:Waste of money (4, Interesting)

PPH (736903) | about 2 years ago | (#41406557)

Radiation is not a threat to food... at least not once its been picked or killed. Radioactive material is, of course.

Perfect example of historian's fallacy.

Unless you know something about time travel that I don't, the reason we know it's safe now is because in the 50s they did not know, and did the tests to find out.

But we don't know that, in spite of the testing done in the 1950s. By 'we', I include all the paranoid crybabies that get their panties in a bunch every time the FDA considers allowing irradiation as a food preservation method.

Re:Waste of money (5, Insightful)

Seumas (6865) | about 2 years ago | (#41406497)

The world (especially voters and politicians) believe in nutjob armageddon/rapture bullshit and are hell-bent on making sure it happens as soon as possible. I, for one, would love to know that beer will be safe to drink if I happen to be fortunate enough to still be alive after all the crazies have self-fulfilled their insane prophecies.

Re:Waste of money (5, Funny)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about 2 years ago | (#41406505)

First, beer surviving the holocaust is not something I see as a useful way to spend my tax dollars.

I have to disagree with you. It was a rather important first step to decide if it's even worthwhile trying to survive the holocaust.

Re:Waste of money (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41406531)

In the immediate aftermath of a nuclear holocaust, surviving still-sealed drinks would likely be the only available clean water not heavily contaminated with radioactivity. This would in fact be quite important before any efforts to cleanse contaminated water could get underway, which would take longer than one can survive without water intake to establish on any significant scale. In any case, I really doubt the "spending" on this went beyond some guy laying out drinks in a line away from another test and checking them afterwards.

That being said, glass and water don't suffer lasting neutron activation and we knew that even in 1955. That's why water can be used in nuke cooling loops and sodium is used in experimental FBRs so yes it's kind of superflous.

Re:Waste of money (1)

Anne_Nonymous (313852) | about 2 years ago | (#41406645)

>> not something I see as a useful way to spend my tax dollars

No shit. If they'd wanted to see the effects of a Holocaust on Beer, they could have just gone over to my brother-in-law's place on any Sunday afternoon during football season.

Re:Waste of money (1)

Greyfox (87712) | about 2 years ago | (#41406697)

They tested a lot of foodstuffs, not just beer. They wanted to make sure any survivors would be able to feed themselves for a while. They probably tested cigarettes, too. Those were viewed as "Healthy" back then.

Re:Waste of money (1)

Martin Blank (154261) | about 2 years ago | (#41406771)

By the mid-1950s, it was becoming common knowledge that smokers had a far higher chance of developing lung cancer. Within the scientific community, that had been known for a couple of decades. The tobacco companies fought it, of course, playing up the calming effects of smoking, but even their own researchers were starting to confirm the health hazards by then.

Re:Waste of money (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | about 2 years ago | (#41406727)

First, beer surviving the holocaust is not something I see as a useful way to spend my tax dollars.

Speak for yourself, toots!

I demand a new round of testing for whiskey, desserts and snacks! Having a post apocalypse campfire interrupted by the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man would be a total bummer!

And hookers! Together we can construct bomb proof, radiation proof, 200 proof hookers!

Re:Waste of money (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41406799)

Think of it this way: the world was just blown up. You'll need a beer after that. It would suck if it was poisoned.

Re:Waste of money (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41406809)

Radiation is not a threat to food

No, but fallout is.

Re:Waste of money (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41406907)

Ever hear of not putting all your eggs in one basket? They did prevent a holocaust. But that's in hindsight. At the time surviving a potential holocaust was pretty high on the list. We irradiate our food today, they likely had little understanding of the effects of this in the times of the testing.
 
But I'm glad that you have all the answers in 2012. I'm sure they would have loved your insights circa 1955.

Re:Waste of money (2)

sjames (1099) | about 2 years ago | (#41407145)

Preventing the holocaust is, naturally a top priority, but don't you think a plan B might be in order? Things like determining what can and cannot be consumed afterwards for survival for example.

Second... duh? We irradiate our food to ensure its safety. Radiation is not a threat to food... at least not once its been picked or killed.

And we know all about that because....(drum roll please) ...... the military researched it in the 1950's by irradiating foods and seeing what happened!

Re:Waste of money (2)

Immerman (2627577) | about 2 years ago | (#41407217)

Not all radiation is created equal - anything close to a nuclear blast will be subjected to high levels of both ionizing and neutron radiation, think sticking it within the shielding of a nuclear reactor for several days or weeks. Ionizing radiation is probably not directly a problem - just wait for the ionization to neutralize, but it could conceivably initiate chemical reactions that would make previously harmless food toxic - one of those things that's good to test. Neutron radiation on the other hand could be a real problem - anything exposed to it may undergo transmutation to become radioactive in its own right, with sufficient exposure this becomes the stuff we call low-level nuclear waste - you're typically safe enough handling it with some minimal shielding, but you probably don't want to eat it which incorporates the radioactive atoms directly into your tissues where they can do serious damage (think the Fukushima radioactive iodine scare)

Moreover this test was done back before we irradiated food - you can bet if they had found some horrible effects the whole irradiated food movement wouldn't have gotten off the ground.

Re:Waste of money (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41407273)

First, beer surviving the holocaust is not something I see as a useful way to spend my tax dollars.

Shut yer whore mouth. Beer is vitally important after a nuclear holocaust. If I'm going to survive getting radiated, I definitely want a drink afterwards.

Re:Waste of money (2)

onyxruby (118189) | about 2 years ago | (#41407421)

Beer = sealed unit that is covered to keep radioactive dust out. Water would have been exposed and open to radioactive dust. Radioactive dust is the biggest concern outside the immediate blast zone. I sincerely doubted the exploded a nuke just to test it's effect on beer. Probably a case of next nuke, throw a few cases downwind to see how they do.

The cost would be trivial and the knowledge would have been practical. Living in fear of a nuclear attack was quite real in those days. Remember this was back in the days of performing drills to duck and cover under desks in case of nuclear attack.

Using beer when water wasn't safe to drink is a tradition going back centuries. If you really want to get down to it, the founding of Plymouth was because the Pilgrims ran out of beer and needed to make more. The pilgrims were notable puritans of course. It actually makes a lot of sense to test it. I would imagine they also probably tested bottles of soda for the same reasons.

/besides, you know somebody enjoyed the opportunity to get drunk on the governments dime

Now if I survived nuclear blast, (2)

AbhiTheOne (2717543) | about 2 years ago | (#41406273)

I know how to celebrate it :-)

AH !! TWINKIES AND BEER !! WHAT A LIFE !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41406293)

Bring on nuclear armaggedon !! I shall walk the silver tightrope, and like it !!

That's a relief. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41406307)

Now I know I can have a prewar beer in The Mojave.

Re:That's a relief. (2)

tnk1 (899206) | about 2 years ago | (#41406835)

Since the beers were made in 2077, and you're in the Mojave in 2281, your biggest problem is going to be the born-on date.

And in the Mojave Wasteland, when they talk about skunky beer, they mean it has giant, two-headed, cybernetically enhanced, armor plated skunks... with lasers.
 

Research for Nerds. (1, Offtopic)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | about 2 years ago | (#41406309)

This might be a record, tests from the 1950s !?

See? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41406317)

Apocalypse averted.

Devil's Advocate here..... (0, Flamebait)

Cute and Cuddly (2646619) | about 2 years ago | (#41406321)

So, an organization that has as main purpose to kill people, that has been known to conduct illegal operations in numerous countries (And therefore does not have a moral leg to stand on) is telling us that something can be consumed with "no major health risks"? Have they defined what a "major health risk" is? Do respectable doctors agree with that definition? Does any respectable government agrees with that definition?

Re:Devil's Advocate here..... (1)

khallow (566160) | about 2 years ago | (#41406581)

an organization that has as main purpose to kill people

Your initial premise has yet to be satisfied.

Re:Devil's Advocate here..... (2)

Martin Blank (154261) | about 2 years ago | (#41406785)

It's an organization that has as its main purpose defending the nation. Back then, there was a lot of concern about nuclear holocaust and most people were certain that it was just a matter of time until one side or the other lit the fuse. Knowing what would be usable afterward and what would be dangerous was critical knowledge if society was to rebuild itself.

Re:Devil's Advocate here..... (2)

b4dc0d3r (1268512) | about 2 years ago | (#41406847)

If you're going for Devil's Advocate, you should understand that it means taking a position you don't necessarily agree with. I'm pretty sure you meant something else, so keep looking.

And the better way to be the whatever it was you hoped to be, is the normal nerdly way. We don't even have a published scientific report, and it's hardly peer reviewed. At best we have a "finding" which has yet to be validated and verified. It is not proof, nor does it pretend to be. As with most of the science that hits any news paper/aggregator/site.

Oh, I know what you were being. A troll. Cute and Cuddly Troll. Or person who spouts conspiracy theories for no real purpose. Cute and Cuddly and irrelevant. Either way, the answer to both is "no" and your post serves no purpose.

Re:Devil's Advocate here..... (2)

AK Marc (707885) | about 2 years ago | (#41407509)

If you're going for Devil's Advocate, you should understand that it means taking a position you don't necessarily agree with.

No, Devil's Advocate on Slashdot is not just taking a position you don't normally believe in (lying), but deliberately taking the most absurd counterpoint to not only argue against something but do so in a manner that makes both people look dumber for trying. "The War Department, paid to kill people, suggests food near a nuclear blast is safe." So should we take that to mean that it's safe, or that the War Department wants us to try and die?

Re:Devil's Advocate here..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41407439)

So, an organization that has as main purpose to kill people, that has been known to conduct illegal operations in numerous countries (And therefore does not have a moral leg to stand on) is telling us that something can be consumed with "no major health risks"? Have they defined what a "major health risk" is? Do respectable doctors agree with that definition? Does any respectable government agrees with that definition?

To play Devil's Advocate: in the event of a USA/USSR nuclear exchange, it was in the best interest of the US military and the US government to tell US citizens which foodstuffs, post-exchange, could be consumed with "no major health risks", where "major health risk" was defined in the context of the survivors of a nuclear exchange between superpowers.

Drinking beer out of sealed bottles that might have a little fallout on them does pose "no major health risks" compared to the risks of, say, drinking water. (Pathogens from the decomposition of millions of corpses upstream from your watering hole is the biggest risk, followed by radiological hazards whose effects probably won't show up until 10-20 years later. Because modern medicine will probably not be restored within that timeframe, you blow the dust off the beer, and have a drink. If there's no beer, you sterilize/boil the water and drink that. You'll die of a broken leg, infected wound, heart attack, pneumonia, cholera, or some other condition that was easily-treatable in prewar civilization, long before you get cancer from drinking lightly-contaminated water. Or don't drink the water and die of dehydration within 72 hours.)

old (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41406339)

We have known this. You just can't drink too much or you need the RadAway. I'm gonna start saving cola's in clear bottles now just in case there are actually benefits.

Re:old (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41406527)

You mean like using them as a light source in those dimly lit powerless fallout shelters within which your quest for the lostech needed to keep your own vault operating? :D

Fallout (3, Funny)

iive (721743) | about 2 years ago | (#41406347)

Who would want normal beer, when you can drink Nuka-Cola. Keep the caps.

Scary secret side effects (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41406353)

Once exposed to the radiation the American piss lagers turned into very complex high abv Belgium quads. And the pretzels became self aware and super-intelligent and are now secretly running the federal reserve.

Re:Scary secret side effects (1)

snspdaarf (1314399) | about 2 years ago | (#41406455)

Once exposed to the radiation the American piss lagers turned into very complex high abv Belgium quads. And the pretzels became self aware and super-intelligent and are now secretly running the federal reserve.

Boy, are you asking a lot from radiation! Although, it does explain the M&M ads lately...

Well, works for me (1)

Gazzonyx (982402) | about 2 years ago | (#41406357)

Looks like I'm going to be enjoying beer and Twinkies if we ever have a nuclear war. No worries; it's sustained me thus far.

Re:Well, works for me (1)

jbeaupre (752124) | about 2 years ago | (#41406477)

We often ran stuff through a Co-60 irradiation system to sterilize it. I considered hiding a Twinkie in amongst the other stuff. But the danger to the universe from rupturing time and space didn't seem worth it.

Good to know (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41406369)

Where you taxes are going.

Re:Good to know (1)

dpidcoe (2606549) | about 2 years ago | (#41406543)

I'm pretty sure that beer was just one of the many many different kinds of foods, clothes, bombshelters, vehicles, houses, and god knows what else they also placed around the test site to evaluate the effects of a nuke on them.
source:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nop3tfseBqU [youtube.com]

Re:Good to know (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41406725)

hey you taxes, where you going!

Mmmmmmm..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41406377)

Nucular Beer.

Feeeewwwww (2)

stevenfuzz (2510476) | about 2 years ago | (#41406381)

Thank god, that's been keeping me up at night.

Re:Feeeewwwww (1)

aliquis (678370) | about 2 years ago | (#41406857)

Duck and drink.

That's nice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41406405)

I'm more interested in knowing what would be *unsafe* to drink / eat. Water? Milk? Juice? Juice boxes? Wine? Macaroni and cheese?

Re:That's nice (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | about 2 years ago | (#41407533)

I'm more interested in knowing what would be *unsafe* to drink / eat. Water? Milk? Juice? Juice boxes? Wine? Macaroni and cheese?

A can of Spam turned into a giant monster that ravaged Tokyo for a few days.

Premature (1)

WinstonWolfIT (1550079) | about 2 years ago | (#41406411)

How would Twinkies fare?

Re:Premature (5, Funny)

rubycodez (864176) | about 2 years ago | (#41406861)

Twinkies, which last on the order of geological time, have these few main threats against their long term shelf life: 1. subduction under an adjacent tectonic plate 2. expansion of sun into red dwarf, though as the sun becomes less dense the earth and unconsumed twinkies may survive by increasing orbital axis 3. collision of earth with another major major astronomical body, eastimated to be on the order of every five billion years for event sufficient to destroy most or all twinkies 4. proton decay and/or quantum tunneling, 10^100 years or more

Great news! (1)

UltraZelda64 (2309504) | about 2 years ago | (#41406525)

Now I'm just waiting for a nuclear war. Anyone with me?
While I'm waiting, I think I'll go get a six-pack of craft beer.

One word: (1)

valentinas (2692229) | about 2 years ago | (#41406533)

Nuka-Cola

So that's how we make American beer! (1)

Penurious Penguin (2687307) | about 2 years ago | (#41406545)

I'd always wondered how something so simple as water, barley and hops could be subverted into such a horrendous fluid. Hell, now I know; just place some decent ale an appropriate distance from a few megatons of atomic fury, filter out everything but the alcohol, add some dye, diacetyl and propylene glycol, slap a label on it, print and distribute images of healthy men consuming it without immediately dying, airbrush in a few half naked women appearing to appreciate the situation, and behold the most mysterious industry in the universe unveiled!

Thankfully, some far-seeing Teutonic king thought of Reinheitsgebot, a law which prohibits the use of atomic warfare on beer.

Re:So that's how we make American beer! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41406681)

Reinheitsgebot? You mean the law designed to keep bread prices low by limiting brewers to barley that has since become the biggest marketing farce this side of Heineken's "green glass is better for freshness!"? You mean the one that many German manufacturers still claim on Weisse beers? Don't even get me started on the German habit of pouring anything they can find into their beer (orange soda!?) then complaining about shandies.

- Homebrewer with a German spouse

Re:So that's how we make American beer! (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 2 years ago | (#41407225)

I've heard that conspiracy theory but it doesn't hold water. There was/is no rule that prevented wheat beer production or sale. They just couldn't call it beer.

That said; nobody in their right mind would drink beer with wheat, corn or rice in it, if they had a good alternative. Most beer with added flavors in America is wheat beer, which is so sour it is improved by most things. Which isn't really a positive about wheat beer IMHO. It puts it in a class with Corona (lime to cover the flavor).

At least its better then yeast infected beer (Heffe). You've got to have some nasty beer if leaving the yeast in it makes it taste _better_.

Re:So that's how we make American beer! (3, Interesting)

pancake_lover (310091) | about 2 years ago | (#41407057)

The Reinheitsgebot isn't necessarily a good thing to follow. Many great British, Belgian, and American craft beers do not meet the sometimes odd rules of the Reinheitsgebot.

The list of "11 Reasons why the Reinheitsgebot is bollocks" explains it pretty well: http://patto1ro.home.xs4all.nl/reinheit.htm [xs4all.nl]

Re:So that's how we make American beer! (1)

Penurious Penguin (2687307) | about 2 years ago | (#41407269)

That's a finely written, very interesting article and it really does make some compelling points; but I think it a little harsh. Of course, it is obviously written by someone unscathed by the bemired talons of a certain Anheuser eagle, so I reserve my right to bitterness (no pun intended) and really do enjoy most Reinheitsgebot beers. However, while such a law may to some extent protect innocent Germans from the wrath of Natty Ice and the likes, I wouldn't argue that it sets the standard for all beers. Also, you must consider the jovial and novel value of the law to Americans; while some Presidents have been spotted wielding feisty pens at executive orders, we don't often get laws by decree of Kings around here.

Fallout (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41406561)

So then Nuke Cola would be alright to drink, excellent.

AHA! The Ultimate in WTF Research! (1)

johnwerneken (74428) | about 2 years ago | (#41406565)

ROTFFLMFAO. Amazing what can be done with public money!

already storing large amounts in our bomb shelters (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41406569)

thanks, but we're way ahead of ya. when there's a hurricane, the beer is the first thing to vanish. why should nuclear holocaust be any different? we're stockpiled with at least 4 months worth of budweiser ready to drink, plus we got brewing supplies in stock as well.

Re:already storing large amounts in our bomb shelt (2)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 2 years ago | (#41407233)

Sorry you couldn't find any beer.

A massive sigh of relief (4, Funny)

Grayhand (2610049) | about 2 years ago | (#41406595)

At least we know now the Irish can survive a nuclear attack

Re:A massive sigh of relief (4, Funny)

Penurious Penguin (2687307) | about 2 years ago | (#41406661)

Sorry mate; it only works on American beer. Try that shit on Guinness and not only will you defile it beyond repair, you'll infuriate a bunch of micks and be pullin' bits o' shoe and clover out yer teeth for a good long while too ;) Blighted taters is one thing, but don't mess with the drink.

Re:A massive sigh of relief (4, Funny)

Immerman (2627577) | about 2 years ago | (#41407263)

On the plus side Guinness is dense enough to block even high-energy neutron radiation, so only the first row of bottles will be ruined. As an added bonus the irradiated beer can still be distilled into a potent scotch that will give you superhuman alcohol consumption abilities, not that anyone will notice.

More info needed (2)

ghelmer (191783) | about 2 years ago | (#41406797)

From the '50s, beer would have been in rugged steel cans. How about today's thin aluminum cans?

Rugged is Archaic (4, Funny)

Penurious Penguin (2687307) | about 2 years ago | (#41407033)

Bahh. That was back in the day when "beer" meant beer. The strength of the old steel can was intended to compliment the beer with a sense of substance -- and it was built to last. This newfangled bubbling pansy fuddle is put into aluminium for morale. The poor excuse for men who feebly molest the frail cans of today need the extra confidence that the lightness of aluminium provides; it makes them feel strong and capable, like their ancestors. These modern milksop piss-containers couldn't survive fallout from a wet cherry-bomb.

it's nice how everyone (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41406839)

it's nice how everyone in the US got radiated by their own government, that was nice...
yup, everyone.

Who gives a shit? (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about 2 years ago | (#41406995)

Really, if I see a mushroom cloud and a 6-pack, the last thing on my mind will be "oh, I hope that's not irradiated." I'm getting WASTED!

All right! (1)

rush,overlord,rush! (1995452) | about 2 years ago | (#41407003)

Next time we'll try neutron bombs! A refrigerator [slashdot.org] won't save you.

Nice to know the important things are safe. (1)

cvtan (752695) | about 2 years ago | (#41407029)

After we all die in the nuclear furnace, the surviving cockroaches will be able to drink our beer in perfect safety. If they can get the tops off the bottles! Suck it roaches!!!!

Power Vacuum (3, Funny)

fragMasterFlash (989911) | about 2 years ago | (#41407045)

The world will be dearly in need of leadership after a nuclear war. I think these tests need to be repeated with politicians to see how they fare.

I am appalled (1)

Guru80 (1579277) | about 2 years ago | (#41407393)

...there are plenty of test monkeys and humans around to be testing your nuclear fallout on. For all that is holy, don't mess with the damn beer

finally (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 2 years ago | (#41407417)

valuable scientific research

Define "safe" (1)

erice (13380) | about 2 years ago | (#41407445)

The article did not report how they determined that the drinks were safe or in what quantities.

Chemical/biological issues from one or two bottles is probably going to be minimal.

Radioactivity from drinking nothing but nuked beer for months could be problem.

Beer.... (1)

Brad1138 (590148) | about 2 years ago | (#41407495)

Is there anything it can't do?

The real question ... (1)

sgunhouse (1050564) | about 2 years ago | (#41407519)

Of course now we need to find out if it will be safe after the zombie apocalypse!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>