• Neato@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    75
    ·
    8 months ago

    FYI: unprocessed uranium isn’t radioactive enough to do a lot of harm. At least as eaten. BUT uranium is incredibly toxic as a heavy metal so it’d still kill you quickly.

  • fossphi@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    63
    ·
    8 months ago

    What do you mean you don’t have a nuclear reactor in your stomach?

  • morrowind@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    ·
    8 months ago

    I never got this analysis, doesn’t any material have absurd energy if you break down its very molecules and atoms?

      • qjkxbmwvz@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        36
        ·
        8 months ago

        Meme is referring to nuclear reactors, not complete antimatter annihilation.

        Nuclear reactors don’t “burn” everything — most of the matter stays (this is what nuclear waste is). So you can only apply E=mc^2 to the difference in mass, not the mass of the fuel.

        • Krauerking@lemy.lol
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          You know it’s funny, technically a calorie is just a measure of how much energy it takes to heat up 1 gram of water 1° C I never really thought about it but it could totally be applied to other things and nuclear reactor plants that literally just heat up water to spin a turbine would be the perfect thing to measure in calories. So would regular electric plants for that matter. It might just be literally calories.

          Oh shoot that would be some wild math to figure out how hungry they all are.

          • datelmd5sum@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            Except that 1 gram of water is at 1 bar. Heating up 1 gram of water from 300°C to 301°C takes 1.38 calories.

        • Chestnut@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          8 months ago

          Can they really get out THAT many calories from a gram of Uranium?! That’s insane!

          I wish I cared more and would verify it

          • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            8 months ago

            Calories are just a measure of the energy released by a material.

            Normally they’re measured by burning the material, so it’s not really accurate to say that you can get that many calories from uranium. On the other hand the whole concept is fucking stupid anyway, because it’s measured by burning the material. Technically, a kilo of dry sawdust has 4800 calories (more than double the daily calorie requirement of the average person).

          • qjkxbmwvz@startrek.website
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            8 months ago

            I just googled around and I think the meme inflated the numbers. Fast neutron reactor gets 28GJ/g, which is “only” about 7 million food (kilo) calories.

        • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          The numbers don’t add up. If you can get 21 billion US food calories from total annihilation (which I checked is right), you’d get nowhere near 18 billion food calories from a fusion reaction. Maybe it works if you assume “calories” for the fission reaction means metric calories, since US food calories are metric kilocalories.

          I hate the way the word “calorie” ended up with two wildly different definitions.

      • henfredemars@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        I also think it’s an interesting choice to use uranium. Wouldn’t osmium be a better choice due to its increased density?

        • 69420@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          8 months ago

          I think more people know what uranium is. I, for one, had never heard of osmium until right now. Jokes are funnier if you don’t have to explain them.

        • phcorcoran@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          8 months ago

          Picking a higher density of the material just means the one gram would occupy less volume, it doesn’t affect how much energy that gram is equivalent to in terms of E=mc2. For that calculation, as the equation implies, only the mass matters; a gram of feathers is equivalent to the same amount of energy as a gram of lead for that equation. Now, this equation is in fact a simplified assumption; if you launch your feather at relativistic speed, then we’re talking

          • henfredemars@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            This is true. This is why I compared them using the fixed volume of one cubic centimeter rather than using something like specific gravity. The only thing that differs is the mass, which is of course, directly proportional to the energy.

          • henfredemars@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            Given that mass behaves the same regardless of what is providing that mass in a gravity field, I imagine it simply the ratio of the weights. I’m assuming NewtonIan physics here.

            Osmium is 22.59 g/cm3.
            Uranium is 19.1 g/cm3

            I would therefore expect about 10% more energy if it was made of osmium, simply equating mass and energy here with the famous crazy-haired guy equation.

      • Zerush@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Well, its an Actinium (94), but it works better than Uranium. Alternatively you can also use Polonium to eliminate the need to eat for the rest of your life, it was even tested

  • Rentlar@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    8 months ago

    Drinking a gallon of bleach will be enough liquid for the rest of your life. It will be an absolutely painful way to spend it though.

    • AtmaJnana@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      None of that wimpy and watered-down regular bleach, though. Go for the liquid chlorine used in pools, it’s typically about twice as strong. You can get it at Walmart (or Lowes} when it is in-season.

  • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    8 months ago

    This just gives me spec-evo ideas for a person who does the shin-godzilla schtick where they ingest radioactive material and then use their inner fluids, either blood or some secondary circulatory system, as a coolant for the internal bio-reactor digestive system.

    Either developing sail-hawks and sail-backs to expose as much surface area as possible, or Kit-Fisto style tail-locks with the same purpose.

    Maybe a mix of both with the sail fans migrating to be like bat wings for that extra surface area cooling combined with high altitude chill.

    Surprisingly I’d actually imagine this creature getting smaller, more use out of every bit of material they can find, and smaller creatures radiate heat more quickly than larger ones, so even more bio-coolant features to keep the reactor from making biological corium.