page-loading-spinner

Podcast

by Denis Korn

 align=While owner of AlpineAire Foods in the early 1990’s, I conducted significant research and study into the excellent and very effective technology of oxygen absorbers. Developed in Japan, oxygen absorbers insure a very low residual oxygen level in appropriate storage containers. Through this research and the development at AlpineAire foods, I brought the large scale use of oxygen absorbers into the emergency food and outdoor recreational foods industries.

At that time the goal to achieve for the canning of shelf-stable dried foods was a residual oxygen level of 2% or below.  This was the level required by military specifications for long term foods.  Oxidation and an atmosphere inhibiting microbial growth were significantly reduced at these low levels.  The military specified the #10 can for their long term storage of dried products.  By utilizing the appropriate size oxygen absorber, the residual oxygen levels could be reduced to 0.1% or less – a significant drop in oxygen levels.

The premier manufacturer of oxygen absorbers, and the one I use, is Mitsubishi Gas Chemical Company, Inc. which produces the “Ageless” brand oxygen absorber.  While there are numerous types of absorbers for varied packaging conditions, the appropriate “Ageless” absorber for use with dried foods is type Z.

It is important to note that oxygen absorber sachets were designed to be used by industrial manufacturers and packers of food products with the necessary expertise in working with the absorbers.  While simple to use, if not handled properly or sized correctly you have wasted your time and money and have not achieved the expected outcome.  I have seen and heard of numerous situations where individuals have inappropriately utilized oxygen absorbers and they will unfortunately not accomplish the results anticipated.  If you are going to use these devices, I recommend following the instructions in this article and talk to those who are educated in their proper use.

Using & About Oxygen Absorbers
by Denis Korn

 align=While owner of AlpineAire Foods in the early 1990’s, I conducted significant research and study into the excellent and very effective technology of oxygen absorbers. Developed in Japan, oxygen absorbers insure a very low residual oxygen level in appropriate storage containers. Through this research and the development at AlpineAire foods, I brought the large scale use of oxygen absorbers into the emergency food and outdoor recreational foods industries.

At that time the goal to achieve for the canning of shelf-stable dried foods was a residual oxygen level of 2% or below.  This was the level required by military specifications for long term foods.  Oxidation and an atmosphere inhibiting microbial growth were significantly reduced at these low levels.  The military specified the #10 can for their long term storage of dried products.  By utilizing the appropriate size oxygen absorber, the residual oxygen levels could be reduced to 0.1% or less – a significant drop in oxygen levels.

The premier manufacturer of oxygen absorbers, and the one I use, is Mitsubishi Gas Chemical Company, Inc. which produces the “Ageless” brand oxygen absorber.  While there are numerous types of absorbers for varied packaging conditions, the appropriate “Ageless” absorber for use with dried foods is type Z.

It is important to note that oxygen absorber sachets were designed to be used by industrial manufacturers and packers of food products with the necessary expertise in working with the absorbers.  While simple to use, if not handled properly or sized correctly you have wasted your time and money and have not achieved the expected outcome.  I have seen and heard of numerous situations where individuals have inappropriately utilized oxygen absorbers and they will unfortunately not accomplish the results anticipated.  If you are going to use these devices, I recommend following the instructions in this article and talk to those who are educated in their proper use.

by charleshughsmith

The Transition to a Post-Friction Economy

by Charles Hugh Smith, contributing editor
Tuesday, November 1, 2011

Executive Summary

  • Entrenched interests keep our markets from being free
  • We’re living in a fool’s paradise (but for how much longer?)
  • The forced choices headed our way
  • What the post-friction economy will look like
  • 2012-2105: The Era of Transformation begins

Part I – How Much of the US Economy Is Friction

If you have not yet read Part I, available free to all readers, please click here to read it first.

Part II – The Transition to a Post-Friction Economy

In Part I, we pursued the idea that much of the US economy is, in essence, unproductive friction that is overcome with vast borrowing — itself a form of friction — and the importing of fossil fuels. We also noted that the Central State/cartel “capitalism” partnership has greatly expanded the unproductive, uncompetitive “friction” segments of the economy and has limited consumer “choice” to purposely-selected menus designed to appear like a “free market” while benefiting State fiefdoms and private-sector cartels.

Entrenched Interests Keep Our Markets From Being Free

Looking at the sources and costs of friction gives us some insight into issues that are often seen as political — for example, the costs and benefits of borrowing trillions of dollars into existence every year and the costs/benefits of State regulation. Once we recognize how rising systemic friction will eventually freeze the system, then we also recognize that the path we’re on is unsustainable, and the political “rightness” or “wrongness” of increasing debt to fund the forces of friction becomes irrelevant.

The same can be said of State regulation. Given that one of the purposes of government is to protect the nation’s “commons” — air, water, public lands, and other shared resources — then some regulation is necessary to limit exploitation and predation of the commons by either private parties or the State itself. 

But we have confused productive regulation with regulation that achieves little beyond diverting funds to unproductive segments of the economy. There are hundreds, if not thousands of examples in every sector from criminal justice to farm subsidies to health care.

How about the enormous expense of the “war on drugs” and the resulting prison complex and criminal justice system? Are the benefits being reaped — marginal, or even counterproductive, in many analyses — worth the expense? Those employed in these systems naturally feel the benefits far exceed the costs. But self-interest is simply not an accurate measure of friction; ultimately, only a free market of free citizens can make that assessment.

The Transition to a Post-Friction Economy
PREVIEW by charleshughsmith

The Transition to a Post-Friction Economy

by Charles Hugh Smith, contributing editor
Tuesday, November 1, 2011

Executive Summary

  • Entrenched interests keep our markets from being free
  • We’re living in a fool’s paradise (but for how much longer?)
  • The forced choices headed our way
  • What the post-friction economy will look like
  • 2012-2105: The Era of Transformation begins

Part I – How Much of the US Economy Is Friction

If you have not yet read Part I, available free to all readers, please click here to read it first.

Part II – The Transition to a Post-Friction Economy

In Part I, we pursued the idea that much of the US economy is, in essence, unproductive friction that is overcome with vast borrowing — itself a form of friction — and the importing of fossil fuels. We also noted that the Central State/cartel “capitalism” partnership has greatly expanded the unproductive, uncompetitive “friction” segments of the economy and has limited consumer “choice” to purposely-selected menus designed to appear like a “free market” while benefiting State fiefdoms and private-sector cartels.

Entrenched Interests Keep Our Markets From Being Free

Looking at the sources and costs of friction gives us some insight into issues that are often seen as political — for example, the costs and benefits of borrowing trillions of dollars into existence every year and the costs/benefits of State regulation. Once we recognize how rising systemic friction will eventually freeze the system, then we also recognize that the path we’re on is unsustainable, and the political “rightness” or “wrongness” of increasing debt to fund the forces of friction becomes irrelevant.

The same can be said of State regulation. Given that one of the purposes of government is to protect the nation’s “commons” — air, water, public lands, and other shared resources — then some regulation is necessary to limit exploitation and predation of the commons by either private parties or the State itself. 

But we have confused productive regulation with regulation that achieves little beyond diverting funds to unproductive segments of the economy. There are hundreds, if not thousands of examples in every sector from criminal justice to farm subsidies to health care.

How about the enormous expense of the “war on drugs” and the resulting prison complex and criminal justice system? Are the benefits being reaped — marginal, or even counterproductive, in many analyses — worth the expense? Those employed in these systems naturally feel the benefits far exceed the costs. But self-interest is simply not an accurate measure of friction; ultimately, only a free market of free citizens can make that assessment.

Total 6302 items

Daily Digest

Please login to submit a story to the Daily Digest.

View Past Daily Digests