top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 205 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

I mean, you can heat any old rock & make it look like that ... what I'm saying is that every rock, when heated to 500+°C, will gain delicious orange flavour, but scientists don't want you to know that!!

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 85 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I wanna taste that blue Cherenkov tang

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 59 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Evidently plutonium just tastes metallic. And radium is flavorless.

    What I'm saying is people have tasted these things.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I think it was when we got to toxic metals and radioactive elements that chemists where forced to stop tasting their discoveries.

    I hope it went: Safety person: Hey! Stop tasting any elements or new molecules. It's been getting people severely sick or killed!

    Chemist: "Ugh, fine, but ima bitch about it the whole time"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • [–] 153 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    Given that lead acetate is sweet, would plutonium acetate do the same?

    anyone wants to help me set up a charity where we give "last meals" to terminal patients using toxic ingredients just for them to describe how they taste?

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 106 points 1 year ago (6 children)
  • [–] 60 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    This is a commonly quoted fun fact that is not really true. There are 2 different definitions of calorie. One means the absolute amount of energy in an object, the other means the bioavailable amount of energy that a human can extract from it using their digestive system.

    So every physical object that exists has some amount of potential energy contained within it which we can express in calories, but that doesn't mean it has any bioavailable calories. For example glass has some significant amount of energy contained within it, but it has 0 bioavailable calories.

    This "fun fact" mixes up the two definitions, making the statement meaningless.

    (Nothing against you OP, this is a commonly repeated falsehood)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    this is a commonly repeated falsehood obvious joke

    And, if I have to explain the joke: it's just E=mc² (the Einstein thing ... well, the Einstein's thing's approximation), the energy (E) is the same for all mass (m) since the c is a constant.
    You get the same 21 billon kcal from 1g of apples as from 1g of plutonium.
    And since it's usually well known humans do not devour mass into pure energy that might trigger ppls sense of humour.
    (Additionally the idea of eating metal to seek nutrition might be funny, but we do need some metals \m/.)

    Also "potential energy" phrasing is weird in that context.

    There are 2 different definitions of calorie.
    This "fun fact" mixes up the two definitions

    It's not even two definitions, the kcal is absolutely the same, it's just used to measure two different things (mass energy vs the sum of what an average human can extract via chemical processes). I see you def understand that, but it's not a different definition of a calorie (in the same way as length vs width of an object isn't a different definition of a metre).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 31 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    Not dietal calories.

    The calorie numbers we assign to food, measure how much energy our body extracts from them when eaten.

    In this context, plutonium is closer to 0

    If we instead want to measure the actual total physical energy content of materia, we would turn to E=mc^2, telling us that a gram of anything has about 20 million kcal, no matter if its plutonium or diet coke. which is a slightly less useful value on food labels :D

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    Technically it measures how much you can heat up a known volume of water if you burn the food. We have no way of measuring how much of that energy released by combustion actually gets absorbed and translated to ATP in the body, but it’s the best estimation we have of the relative energy content of foods.

    There’s some carbohydrates, proteins, and fats that our bodies don’t seem to convert to energy (or only partially convert) but still technically contain “calories” because they’re combustible. Sugar alcohols, fiber, etc.

    Plutonium doesn’t combust, but it would heat up water in a calorimeter. Really the test method’s applicability kind of falls apart when you start testing undigestible materials.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 62 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    The highest calorie last meal

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
    [+] 40 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 33 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Isn't it just that color because it's hot? Like, if you cooled those off to room temperature, wouldn't they be metallic gray?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Cooling down means it's breaking down and no longer plutonium.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    I'm talking about thermally cooling it down. If you put it in a freezer it will cool down, but the nuclear process will not change speed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago (7 children)
  • load more comments (6 replies)
    [–] 22 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    And here I thought plutonium looked like this:

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 20 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    if you can wait a few million years, after few decay steps it turns into lead, which is known to be sweet

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago

    This whole image is metal as fuck \m/

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Yes, it does look delicious.

    But I can't help but think about this being the consequences of dying everything we eat unholy colors. Maybe radioactive material wouldn't be so tasty looking if we didn't give kids candy that looks like radioactive material.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 14 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    What would happen if you played hockey with that?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago*

    It is for sure delicious, but those who tested, never said it

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago

    Deliciously ever-hot orange pie

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›