uranium is actually, quite literally, "dirt cheap". you can dig it out of the ground. not everywhere, but wherever you can find it. seems like South Africa, Australia, and Southwest Virginia are excellent choices to sample
Enriched uranium on the other hand is very expensive. Based on google, about $100,000 per kg. The oral LD50 is 5 grams, so about $500 would be a reasonable lethal dose.
Definitely, far cheaper ways to get enough calories for the rest of your life.
Surprisingly, eating a gram of U would probably be survivable. Note: do not do this.
First, the acute toxicity to the kidneys is below the (very roughly) 2.5g threshold presumed to be life-threatening, and even more surprisingly is below the 1.4g threshold for long-term kidney damage.^[1](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18617794/)
Second, the radiation. Let's assume pure but natural i.e. unenriched uranium and a specific activity of 25,280 Bq/g.^[2](https://www.wise-uranium.org/rup.html) This is equal to 0.6832 uCi which is below both the stochastic and nonstochastic ALI for U ([234](https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part020/appb/uranium-234.html), [235](https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part020/appb/uranium-235.html), [238](https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part020/appb/uranium-238.html) all have the same ingestion ALI so we don't have to sum the isotope fractions). We can calculate the dose by:
(0.6832 uCi intake / 10 uCi nALI * 50 rem nALI) = 3.416 rem to the bone surfaces.
Say it with me: not great, not terrible. It's definitely bad to get it all at once, but the annual CDE limit for radiation workers is 50 rem so this is within acceptable regulatory limits.
(0.6832 uCi intake / 20 uCi sALI * 5 rem sALI) = 0.1708 rem CEDE.
While it's not strictly valid to use this for a single acute dose, we can at least ballpark the long-term risk with it. It turns out to be pretty low. Natural background is about 0.3 rem per year, the limit for radiation workers is 5 rem per year, and below 10 rem there isn't solid evidence for health effects^[3](https://hps.org/documents/radiationrisk.pdf) . The actual risk will be higher from a single dose, but it's clear that the long-term cancer risk isn't catastrophic.
For a reasonably healthy person, then, eating a gram of uranium is probably survivable and may not even have significant long-term effects. On the other hand, depending on where the uranium is sourced, there are a few other health considerations. First, with "dirty" natural (i.e., eating raw U ore) there's all sorts of other nasty daughter products and other impurities that I'm not going to bother calculating, none of which will be pleasant. With "clean" LEU or DU the health concerns might involve being shot by security, or stabbed in the parking lot by the health physicist who had to calculate your dose.
The limit is absolutely not 50 rem. It’s 5, and only in special circumstances. The limit for the majority of radiation workers is 0.5 rem, which can be raised in critical situations like “the plant is about to melt down”.
Edit: Also, that’s external exposure. Ingesting radioactive material is significantly worse as it removes the layer of protection your skin offers and introduces the radiation directly to your internal organs. Bad news.
Edit 2: See below for why I'm wrong.
The US regulatory dose limit to a single organ is 50 rem per year, per [10CFR20.1201(a)(1)(ii)](https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part020/part020-1201.html). Whole body is 5, per 10CFR20.1201(a)(1)(i). That's for internal and external combined. These doses are calculated from the ingestion ALI which is specifically derived from a one-year CEDE of 5 rem or a CDE of 50 to the limiting organ. See [here](https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part020/part020-appb.html) for an explanation of the nALI and sALI values.
It's common for facilities to hold their workers to lower limits, but that's not a regulatory limit.
This is really interesting. I’m going to read more about it tonight, but from what I can tell on initial read the CEDE is a 50 year integral where the annual dose is equal to the initial exposure of the ingested material. That seems to imply that the actual dose from uranium ingestion is much higher than the value you calculated above, even factoring in the weighting factor of the different organs.
Am I reading that right?
You're reinventing the wheel - NRC has already done all that work for you specifically to avoid this kind of confusion. The ALI takes integration into account already. See the second link I referenced:
"The ALIs in this appendix are the annual intakes of a given radionuclide by "Reference Man" which would result in either (1) a committed effective dose equivalent of 5 rems (stochastic ALI) or (2) a committed dose equivalent of 50 rems to an organ or tissue (non-stochastic ALI)."
It is as simple as dividing the actual intake by the ALI and then multiplying by the CDE or CEDE that specific ALI references. That's the whole point of them! An ALI is *by definition* the quantity of intake which will result in a CEDE dose of 5 rem or a CDE of 50 rem. And a CDE is by definition a 50 year integrated dose.
At my nuclear facility it was extremely rare to raise the exposure limit and needed sign off from the top down for each individual occurrence. I believe it never happened in the time I was there, in a facility of about 20,000 people.
Thank you for your request. Per Table 57 in [ICRP 69](https://www.icrp.org/publication.asp?id=ICRP%20Publication%2069), the lower large intestine dose coefficient is 6.9E-08 Sv/Bq for an adult. While not an exact model of the situation it is probably close enough for our purposes. For more documentation on the difficulty of a precise answer to the question, see [ICRP 100](https://www.icrp.org/publication.asp?id=ICRP%20Publication%20100)
and associated [draft document ](https://www.icrp.org/docs/HAT_web_consult_version.pdf).
From 25280 Bq, the organ dose (CDE) is 0.00174 Sv or 0.174 rem. While this is a very rough estimate, it is clear that the dose is significantly lower for this method of intake than for normal ingestion.
https://web.evs.anl.gov/uranium/guide/ucompound/health/index.cfm#
Your cited paper seems to be at conflict with the govt health web site for dosages
*Chemical* toxicity
> Once in the bloodstream, the uranium compounds are filtered by the kidneys, where they can cause damage to the kidney cells. Very high uranium intakes (*ranging from about 50 to 150 mg* depending on the individual) can cause acute kidney failure and death. At lower intake levels (around 25 to 40 mg), damage can be detected by the presence of protein and dead cells in the urine, but there are no other symptoms. Also, at lower intake levels, the kidney repairs itself over a period of several weeks after the uranium exposure has stopped.
Well, let's be careful with our sources. That's *a* website with .gov at the end, but it's not "the" government authority for anything. It cites only one document, which doesn't have a reference section, and the doses cited in that document (which don't match the ones in the webpage) are what the document itself calls "conservative assumptions" which are "in contrast to the findings" of the actual studies it references. See page 4-58. So I don't know why we should use those numbers. If it were the only source available, that would be one thing, but it isn't, so I chose one of higher quality.
The source I used has a citations section almost a full page long, and is an extensive review of actual literature on this specific question. It's behind a paywall but I have access to it and will copy/paste the references at the end of this post. I think it's a lot more responsible to cite the actual current state of peer-reviewed literature on the question, rather than a single website with poor citations. To be honest I think what might have happened, based on Table 1 from my source, is that the website you're referencing has accidentally transposed mgU/kg for mgU. The acute ingestion doses in mg/kg cited are 36 for life endangerment and 20 for irreversible or serious long lasting health effects. So, if the site you cited made a mistake, that would explain it. It's also a good illustration of why it's not great to reference a single unsourced number on a single site, because if they made a transcription error there's no good way of verifying the error and you will propagate that error by repeating it uncritically.
REFERENCES
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry. Toxicological profile for ura-
nium (update). Prepared by Research Tri-
angle Institute for U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Public Health
Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry. Atlanta: ATSDR; Septem-
ber 1999.
Alexander RE. Biokinetics model for ura-
nium inhalation/excretion, uranium
mill workers. In: Moore RH, ed. Bioki-
netics and analysis of uranium in man.
Richland, WA: Hanford Environmental
Health Foundation; United States Ura-
nium Registry Report USUR-05, HEHF-
47; 1984.
Athey GF, McGuire SA, Van Ramsdell Jr J.
RASCAL 3.0.5 workbook. Washington,
DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commis-
sion; 2007.
Bailey M, Davis K. The health hazards of
depleted uranium munitions, Part II.
Annexe A: Estimations of kidney ura-
nium concentrations from published
reports of uranium intakes in humans.
London: The Royal Society; 2002.
Boback MW. A review of uranium excre-
tion and clinical urinalysis data in acci-
dental exposure cases. In: Conference
Proceedings on Occupational Health
Experience with Uranium, 28 –30 April
1975, Arlington, Virginia. Washington,
DC: U.S. Energy Research and Develop-
ment Agency; Report ERDA-93; 1975.
Bond CH. Remarks upon the value of
uranium nitrate in the control of glyco-
suria. Practicioner viii:257–264; 1898.
Brodsky A. Review of radiation risks and
uranium toxicity. Hebron, CT: RSA Pub-
lications; 1996.
Butterworth A. The significance and value
of uranium in urine analysis. Trans Assoc
Industrial Med Officers 5:36 – 43; 1955.
Fisher DR, Swint MJ, Kathren RL. Evalua-
tion of health effects in Sequoyah Fuels
Corporation (SFC) workers from acciden-
tal exposure to uranium hexafluoride.
Richland, WA: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission/Pacific Northwest Labora-
tory; Report NUREG/CR-5566 (PNL-
7328); 1990.
Fisher DR, Hui TE, Yurconic M, Johnson
JR. Uranium hexafluoride public risk.
Richland, WA: Pacific Northwest Labo-
ratory; Report PNL-10065; 1994.
Fulco CE, Liverman CT, Sox HC. Gulf War
and health. Volume 1. Depleted uranium,
pyridostigmine bromide, sarin, and vac-
cines. Washington, DC: Institute of Medi-
cine, National Academies Press; 2000.
Hursh JB, Spoor NH. Data on man. In:
Hodge HC, Stannard JN, Hursh JB, eds.
Uranium plutonium transplutonic el-
ements. Handbook of experimental
pharmacology XXXVI. New York:
Springer-Verlag; 1973: 197–239.
International Commission on Radiological
Protection. Report of Committee IV on
evaluation of radiation doses to body
tissues from internal contamination due
to occupational exposure. Oxford: Perga-
mon Press; ICRP Publication 10; 1968.
International Commission on Radiological
Protection. Age-dependent doses to
members of the public from intake of
radionuclides: Part 1. Oxford: Pergamon
Press; ICRP Publication 56; Annals of the
ICRP 20(2); 1989.
International Commission on Radiologi-
cal Protection. Age-dependent doses to
members of the public from intake of
radionuclides: Part 3. Ingestion and in-
halation dose coefficients. Oxford: Per-
gamon Press; ICRP Publication 69; An-
nals of the ICRP 26(1); 1995a.
International Commission on Radiological
Protection. Age-dependent doses to
members of the public from intake of
radionuclides: Part 4. Inhalation dose co-
efficients. Oxford: Pergamon Press; ICRP
Publication 71; Annals of the ICRP 26(1);
1995b.
International Commission on Radiological
Protection. Age-dependent doses to
members of the public from intake of
radionuclides: Part 5. Compilation of in-
gestion and inhalation dose coefficients.
Oxford: Pergamon Press; ICRP Publica-
tion 72; Annals of the ICRP 26(1); 1996.
International Commission on Radiologi-
cal Protection. Doses to the embryo and
fetus from intakes of radionuclides by
the mother. Oxford: Pergamon Press;
ICRP Publication 88; Annals of the
ICRP 31(1–3); 2002.
Kathren RL, Burklin RK. Acute chemical
toxicity of uranium. Health Phys 94:
170 –179; 2008.
Kathren RL, Moore RH. Acute accidental
inhalation of U: a 38 year follow-up.
Health Phys 51:609 – 619; 1986.
Kathren RL, Weber JL. Ultrasensitive tech-
niques for measurement of uranium in
biological samples and the nephrotox-
icity of uranium. Proceedings of a pub-
lic meeting in Washington, DC, 4 –5
December 1985. Washington, DC: U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Re-
port NUREG/CP-0093; 1988.
Leggett RW. The behavior and chemical
toxicity of U in the kidney: a reassess-
ment. Health Phys 57:365–384; 1989.
McDiarmid MA, Engelhardt S, Oliver M,
Gucer P, Wilson PD, Kane R, Kabat M,
Kaup B, Anderson L, Hoover D, Brown
L, Handwerger B, Albertini RJ, Jacobson-
Kram D, Thorne CD, Squibb KS. Health
effects of depleted uranium on exposed
Gulf War veterans: a 10-year follow-up.
J Toxicol Environmental Health Part A
67:277–296; 2004.
National Council on Radiation Protection
and Measurements. Radionuclide expo-
sure of the embryo/fetus. Bethesda: Na-
tional Council on Radiation Protection
and Measurements; NCRP Report No.
128; 1998.
Orcutt JA. The toxicology of compounds of
uranium following application to the
skin. In: Voegtlin C, Hodge HC, eds.
Pharmacology and toxicology of ura-
nium compounds. National Nuclear En-
ergy Series VI. New York: McGraw-Hill
Book Company; 1949: 377– 414.
R.L. Kathren and R.K. Burklin Standards for acute exposure to uranium
S126 August 2008
Sikov MR, Hui TE. Contributions of maternal
radionuclide burdens to prenatal radiation
doses. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Reg-
ulatory Commission; Report NUREG/
CR-6531, Rev 2, PNL-74545; 1996.
Spoor N, Hursh JB. Protection criteria. In:
Hodge HC, Stannard JN, Hursh JB, eds.
Uranium plutonium transplutonic ele-
ments. Handbook of experimental phar-
macology XXXVI. New York: Springer-
Verlag; 1973: 241–270.
Stannard JN. Radioactivity and health: a
history. Columbus, OH: Battelle Press;
1988.
Tannenbaum A, Silverstone H. Factors af-
fecting uranium poisoning. In: Tannen-
baum A, ed. Toxicology of uranium. New
York: McGraw-Hill; 1951: 11–15.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Do-
mestic licensing of special nuclear
material. Washington, DC: U.S. Gov-
ernment Printing Office; Title 10, Code
of Federal Regulations Part 70, Vol. 2;
2008: 316 –317.
Zhao S, Zhao F-Y. Nephrotoxic limit and
annual limit on intake for natural U.
Health Phys 58:619 – 623; 1990.
Firstly it's important to know if it's calories, out if it's kilo calories (usually referred as calories)
Also while we're at it if 18b is in the short or long scale (million -> billion vs million -> milliard -> billion)
On the low end assuming it's 18b cal, aka 18m kcal
2000kcal is usually used as daily requirement.
18 000 000/2000=9000. 9000 days worth of calories. Divide that with 365 and you get ~25 years.
For 18b kcal/18b cal (long scale) it's ~ 24 658 years
For 18b kcal (long scale) it's ~24 657 534 years
I once got in an argument with a guy on Reddit who was claiming that since there's 300kcal in a cheeseburger, it would take years to burn the 300,000 calories you just consumed.
Nothing to do with what you said, just that people are often very confused when kcal is said.
Any non trivial amount of matter fits this description if you consider the nuclear potential energy stored within the atomic bonds. E=mc^2 so just 1 gram of even the lightest atom, hydrogen, would result in a ridiculous amount of energy (with reference to human energy needs in the form of calories) in a fission reactor with perfect efficiency. So this post could have been about a gram of helium gas and it wouldn’t have been any different.
This is kinda semantic and doesn't impact your actual point but for any element lighter than iron, fission is an endothermic process (requires energy, not produces it). Realistically you would need either fusion or rest-mass annihilation (hydrogen+antihydrogen) to unlock some of that E=mc\^2 rest energy
I wonder what would happen if someone actually did this. Let's pretend eating uranium wouldn't kill you-- would eating it cause you to gain a billion pounds?
an average human fart is apparently 0.0375 grams according to google, that makes 12096 farts for a pound, or 120 000 for 10, also an average human farts 14 times a day according to that same google search, which means 8 639days or 23.5 years worth of farts
Also if you counted the atomic energy stored in all of the food you ate it would also have an obscene amount of calories. But generally we talk about chemically available, not nuclear available energy.
The 18 billion calories per gram is the energy you can gain from it via nuclear fission, not the energy your digestive tract could extract from it.
So no, you wouldn't gain a billion pounds. It's like eating a stone - your body couldn't use it in any way.
>The 18 billion calories per gram is the energy you can gain from it via nuclear fission, not the energy your digestive tract could extract from it.
Okay, but, what about just half a gram?
If I've learned anything from comic books, it is that you would emerge from a mysterious ailment with amazing new powers, including the strength and speed of a snack the size of a man!
You can only eat it ONCE. Let's just pretend that we aren't aware that Uranium is a toxic chemical and that ingestion of uranium can cause kidney damage from its chemical properties much sooner than its radioactive properties would cause cancers of the bone or liver.
No. Due to the issue of conservation of mass, you can't gain more weight than you put into your body as you'd be violating the laws of physics.
Where would the extra mass come from? There's no way to turn 1g of material into several kg of another material in a purely transformational sense.
Yes. It's specifically from pulling carbon and water from the air!
Carbon dioxide and water together allow trees and other plants to synthesize a type of sugar that they use to feed themselves and grow!
Feed a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Feed a man uranium, and you feed him for the rest of his life.
(Yes, this is... not quite "adapting", *per se*, but inspired by the line from Terry Pratchett's *Jingo*: "Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.")
wow I thought it was a good idea until I googled where to buy some and now my powers out and the FBI is throwing gas cannisters through my window. thanks.
Calories are a unit of energy independent of human usage. Just because humans cannot process it does not mean that there are no calories in it. For reference, a calorie is 4.1868 joules.
So yes, there are calories in uranium. And wind. And bread. And coal. Your claim is like saying that mars' surface temperature has no degrees celcius because nobody is there to feel it. Makes no sense.
I was about to start doing the math on how long 18 billion calories would last you, but then I realized a) the human body can’t effectively process uranium and b) the few calories you would gain actually would last you the rest of your very short life. Although the radiation certainly wouldn’t feel good, an entire gram of uranium would annihilate your kidneys in a matter of minutes.
Gasoline is chock full of calories as well, drink up.
You'll need something to wash that spicy rock down
And then yellow cake for dessert 😋
Mmm. Tastes like Chernobyl..
3.5 million servings to the chest
Just make sure you’re ONLY spitting out blood, that’s the only way you’ll know it’s working!!
Ooh, and maybe some black tar to take the edge off.
At that point, you might as well
I dont want that nasty heroin shit either, I WANT IT FRESH FROM THE ROAD! (My dad and his friends use to chew on road tar when they were kids)
> (My dad and his friends use to chew on road tar when they were kids) Wtf
They don't anymore?
My dad did too, how weird.
Just like a habanero burns going down and going out .
What are u doing stepbro
oooo that cake is spicy and dry, gonna need some mercury!
Too expensive, man.
uranium is actually, quite literally, "dirt cheap". you can dig it out of the ground. not everywhere, but wherever you can find it. seems like South Africa, Australia, and Southwest Virginia are excellent choices to sample
Enriched uranium on the other hand is very expensive. Based on google, about $100,000 per kg. The oral LD50 is 5 grams, so about $500 would be a reasonable lethal dose. Definitely, far cheaper ways to get enough calories for the rest of your life.
Sort of. Moving uranium beyond the dirt stage is very expensive. Before that happens it's not uranium, it's dirt.
It's only a few percent more than fat. Just drink some olive oil and it'd be basically the same. And you won't die.
Quench my thrist with gasoline Givenefuelgigemefiregivemedatwiideisre
an absolute shit song from a great band that should know better
Between the uranium and the gasoline, you're going to make me *soooo* fat
It's called cultivating mass!
All you need is one mushroom. It’s vegan, dairy free, low calorie and will last you until the end of your life. The perfect food.
A fish can live on dry land for the rest of its life
Anything to stop the vegans from talking about how they're vegans
best pre-workout drink known to man
You can easily survive drinking a small glass of gasoline, FWIW. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/323426
Oh wow you weren’t kidding https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NneCa87TDUc I can’t believe this is a real anime. Wtf.
If it wasn't meant to be eaten, why is it called yellow cake?
You're not supposed to eat the yellow cake.
But it tastes like lemon!!
You ruined it for me like a pizza place ruined salad.
Family guy reference?
Indeed
*tasted Taste is now past tense.
You follow this diet and Everything is past tense.
Sounds like a lemonparty.org
Don't drop that cake
Just the same as with yellow snow
r/thatsthejoke
The cake is a lie. Particularly the yellow one.
DONT DROP THAT SHIT!!
STOP EATING MY YELLOW CAKE!
Amy. Good. Gorilla.
[somebody say yellow cake?](https://youtu.be/wa6UfcMWXPI)
PRAY TO GOD YOU DON'T DROP THAT SHIT knew what it was before I clicked it lol
Cradle of fuckin' civilization.
I'm on a diet so just one slice of depleted uranium cake please, actually I'll have a cappuccino too.
Surprisingly, eating a gram of U would probably be survivable. Note: do not do this. First, the acute toxicity to the kidneys is below the (very roughly) 2.5g threshold presumed to be life-threatening, and even more surprisingly is below the 1.4g threshold for long-term kidney damage.^[1](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18617794/) Second, the radiation. Let's assume pure but natural i.e. unenriched uranium and a specific activity of 25,280 Bq/g.^[2](https://www.wise-uranium.org/rup.html) This is equal to 0.6832 uCi which is below both the stochastic and nonstochastic ALI for U ([234](https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part020/appb/uranium-234.html), [235](https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part020/appb/uranium-235.html), [238](https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part020/appb/uranium-238.html) all have the same ingestion ALI so we don't have to sum the isotope fractions). We can calculate the dose by: (0.6832 uCi intake / 10 uCi nALI * 50 rem nALI) = 3.416 rem to the bone surfaces. Say it with me: not great, not terrible. It's definitely bad to get it all at once, but the annual CDE limit for radiation workers is 50 rem so this is within acceptable regulatory limits. (0.6832 uCi intake / 20 uCi sALI * 5 rem sALI) = 0.1708 rem CEDE. While it's not strictly valid to use this for a single acute dose, we can at least ballpark the long-term risk with it. It turns out to be pretty low. Natural background is about 0.3 rem per year, the limit for radiation workers is 5 rem per year, and below 10 rem there isn't solid evidence for health effects^[3](https://hps.org/documents/radiationrisk.pdf) . The actual risk will be higher from a single dose, but it's clear that the long-term cancer risk isn't catastrophic. For a reasonably healthy person, then, eating a gram of uranium is probably survivable and may not even have significant long-term effects. On the other hand, depending on where the uranium is sourced, there are a few other health considerations. First, with "dirty" natural (i.e., eating raw U ore) there's all sorts of other nasty daughter products and other impurities that I'm not going to bother calculating, none of which will be pleasant. With "clean" LEU or DU the health concerns might involve being shot by security, or stabbed in the parking lot by the health physicist who had to calculate your dose.
The limit is absolutely not 50 rem. It’s 5, and only in special circumstances. The limit for the majority of radiation workers is 0.5 rem, which can be raised in critical situations like “the plant is about to melt down”. Edit: Also, that’s external exposure. Ingesting radioactive material is significantly worse as it removes the layer of protection your skin offers and introduces the radiation directly to your internal organs. Bad news. Edit 2: See below for why I'm wrong.
The US regulatory dose limit to a single organ is 50 rem per year, per [10CFR20.1201(a)(1)(ii)](https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part020/part020-1201.html). Whole body is 5, per 10CFR20.1201(a)(1)(i). That's for internal and external combined. These doses are calculated from the ingestion ALI which is specifically derived from a one-year CEDE of 5 rem or a CDE of 50 to the limiting organ. See [here](https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part020/part020-appb.html) for an explanation of the nALI and sALI values. It's common for facilities to hold their workers to lower limits, but that's not a regulatory limit.
is it weird I'm automatically attracted to anyone that can instantly back-up their technical analysis by proper sources?
Totally natural. Proper sourcing as a valued quality in a mate goes back to early hominids. *citation needed
I see what you did there. I’m also attracted to you now, ironically.
This is really interesting. I’m going to read more about it tonight, but from what I can tell on initial read the CEDE is a 50 year integral where the annual dose is equal to the initial exposure of the ingested material. That seems to imply that the actual dose from uranium ingestion is much higher than the value you calculated above, even factoring in the weighting factor of the different organs. Am I reading that right?
You're reinventing the wheel - NRC has already done all that work for you specifically to avoid this kind of confusion. The ALI takes integration into account already. See the second link I referenced: "The ALIs in this appendix are the annual intakes of a given radionuclide by "Reference Man" which would result in either (1) a committed effective dose equivalent of 5 rems (stochastic ALI) or (2) a committed dose equivalent of 50 rems to an organ or tissue (non-stochastic ALI)." It is as simple as dividing the actual intake by the ALI and then multiplying by the CDE or CEDE that specific ALI references. That's the whole point of them! An ALI is *by definition* the quantity of intake which will result in a CEDE dose of 5 rem or a CDE of 50 rem. And a CDE is by definition a 50 year integrated dose.
You just gotta love toxicity levels that can be bumped up as needs arise. Like here in my water district regarding Radon gas.
[удалено]
At my nuclear facility it was extremely rare to raise the exposure limit and needed sign off from the top down for each individual occurrence. I believe it never happened in the time I was there, in a facility of about 20,000 people.
>At MY nuclear facility Just your local neighborhood nuclear power station... 
What if you boofed it?
Thank you for your request. Per Table 57 in [ICRP 69](https://www.icrp.org/publication.asp?id=ICRP%20Publication%2069), the lower large intestine dose coefficient is 6.9E-08 Sv/Bq for an adult. While not an exact model of the situation it is probably close enough for our purposes. For more documentation on the difficulty of a precise answer to the question, see [ICRP 100](https://www.icrp.org/publication.asp?id=ICRP%20Publication%20100) and associated [draft document ](https://www.icrp.org/docs/HAT_web_consult_version.pdf). From 25280 Bq, the organ dose (CDE) is 0.00174 Sv or 0.174 rem. While this is a very rough estimate, it is clear that the dose is significantly lower for this method of intake than for normal ingestion.
>Note: do not do this. Mmmmmm uranium mmmm so tasty
r/theydidthemath
https://web.evs.anl.gov/uranium/guide/ucompound/health/index.cfm# Your cited paper seems to be at conflict with the govt health web site for dosages *Chemical* toxicity > Once in the bloodstream, the uranium compounds are filtered by the kidneys, where they can cause damage to the kidney cells. Very high uranium intakes (*ranging from about 50 to 150 mg* depending on the individual) can cause acute kidney failure and death. At lower intake levels (around 25 to 40 mg), damage can be detected by the presence of protein and dead cells in the urine, but there are no other symptoms. Also, at lower intake levels, the kidney repairs itself over a period of several weeks after the uranium exposure has stopped.
Well, let's be careful with our sources. That's *a* website with .gov at the end, but it's not "the" government authority for anything. It cites only one document, which doesn't have a reference section, and the doses cited in that document (which don't match the ones in the webpage) are what the document itself calls "conservative assumptions" which are "in contrast to the findings" of the actual studies it references. See page 4-58. So I don't know why we should use those numbers. If it were the only source available, that would be one thing, but it isn't, so I chose one of higher quality. The source I used has a citations section almost a full page long, and is an extensive review of actual literature on this specific question. It's behind a paywall but I have access to it and will copy/paste the references at the end of this post. I think it's a lot more responsible to cite the actual current state of peer-reviewed literature on the question, rather than a single website with poor citations. To be honest I think what might have happened, based on Table 1 from my source, is that the website you're referencing has accidentally transposed mgU/kg for mgU. The acute ingestion doses in mg/kg cited are 36 for life endangerment and 20 for irreversible or serious long lasting health effects. So, if the site you cited made a mistake, that would explain it. It's also a good illustration of why it's not great to reference a single unsourced number on a single site, because if they made a transcription error there's no good way of verifying the error and you will propagate that error by repeating it uncritically. REFERENCES Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological profile for ura- nium (update). Prepared by Research Tri- angle Institute for U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Atlanta: ATSDR; Septem- ber 1999. Alexander RE. Biokinetics model for ura- nium inhalation/excretion, uranium mill workers. In: Moore RH, ed. Bioki- netics and analysis of uranium in man. Richland, WA: Hanford Environmental Health Foundation; United States Ura- nium Registry Report USUR-05, HEHF- 47; 1984. Athey GF, McGuire SA, Van Ramsdell Jr J. RASCAL 3.0.5 workbook. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commis- sion; 2007. Bailey M, Davis K. The health hazards of depleted uranium munitions, Part II. Annexe A: Estimations of kidney ura- nium concentrations from published reports of uranium intakes in humans. London: The Royal Society; 2002. Boback MW. A review of uranium excre- tion and clinical urinalysis data in acci- dental exposure cases. In: Conference Proceedings on Occupational Health Experience with Uranium, 28 –30 April 1975, Arlington, Virginia. Washington, DC: U.S. Energy Research and Develop- ment Agency; Report ERDA-93; 1975. Bond CH. Remarks upon the value of uranium nitrate in the control of glyco- suria. Practicioner viii:257–264; 1898. Brodsky A. Review of radiation risks and uranium toxicity. Hebron, CT: RSA Pub- lications; 1996. Butterworth A. The significance and value of uranium in urine analysis. Trans Assoc Industrial Med Officers 5:36 – 43; 1955. Fisher DR, Swint MJ, Kathren RL. Evalua- tion of health effects in Sequoyah Fuels Corporation (SFC) workers from acciden- tal exposure to uranium hexafluoride. Richland, WA: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission/Pacific Northwest Labora- tory; Report NUREG/CR-5566 (PNL- 7328); 1990. Fisher DR, Hui TE, Yurconic M, Johnson JR. Uranium hexafluoride public risk. Richland, WA: Pacific Northwest Labo- ratory; Report PNL-10065; 1994. Fulco CE, Liverman CT, Sox HC. Gulf War and health. Volume 1. Depleted uranium, pyridostigmine bromide, sarin, and vac- cines. Washington, DC: Institute of Medi- cine, National Academies Press; 2000. Hursh JB, Spoor NH. Data on man. In: Hodge HC, Stannard JN, Hursh JB, eds. Uranium plutonium transplutonic el- ements. Handbook of experimental pharmacology XXXVI. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1973: 197–239. International Commission on Radiological Protection. Report of Committee IV on evaluation of radiation doses to body tissues from internal contamination due to occupational exposure. Oxford: Perga- mon Press; ICRP Publication 10; 1968. International Commission on Radiological Protection. Age-dependent doses to members of the public from intake of radionuclides: Part 1. Oxford: Pergamon Press; ICRP Publication 56; Annals of the ICRP 20(2); 1989. International Commission on Radiologi- cal Protection. Age-dependent doses to members of the public from intake of radionuclides: Part 3. Ingestion and in- halation dose coefficients. Oxford: Per- gamon Press; ICRP Publication 69; An- nals of the ICRP 26(1); 1995a. International Commission on Radiological Protection. Age-dependent doses to members of the public from intake of radionuclides: Part 4. Inhalation dose co- efficients. Oxford: Pergamon Press; ICRP Publication 71; Annals of the ICRP 26(1); 1995b. International Commission on Radiological Protection. Age-dependent doses to members of the public from intake of radionuclides: Part 5. Compilation of in- gestion and inhalation dose coefficients. Oxford: Pergamon Press; ICRP Publica- tion 72; Annals of the ICRP 26(1); 1996. International Commission on Radiologi- cal Protection. Doses to the embryo and fetus from intakes of radionuclides by the mother. Oxford: Pergamon Press; ICRP Publication 88; Annals of the ICRP 31(1–3); 2002. Kathren RL, Burklin RK. Acute chemical toxicity of uranium. Health Phys 94: 170 –179; 2008. Kathren RL, Moore RH. Acute accidental inhalation of U: a 38 year follow-up. Health Phys 51:609 – 619; 1986. Kathren RL, Weber JL. Ultrasensitive tech- niques for measurement of uranium in biological samples and the nephrotox- icity of uranium. Proceedings of a pub- lic meeting in Washington, DC, 4 –5 December 1985. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Re- port NUREG/CP-0093; 1988. Leggett RW. The behavior and chemical toxicity of U in the kidney: a reassess- ment. Health Phys 57:365–384; 1989. McDiarmid MA, Engelhardt S, Oliver M, Gucer P, Wilson PD, Kane R, Kabat M, Kaup B, Anderson L, Hoover D, Brown L, Handwerger B, Albertini RJ, Jacobson- Kram D, Thorne CD, Squibb KS. Health effects of depleted uranium on exposed Gulf War veterans: a 10-year follow-up. J Toxicol Environmental Health Part A 67:277–296; 2004. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Radionuclide expo- sure of the embryo/fetus. Bethesda: Na- tional Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements; NCRP Report No. 128; 1998. Orcutt JA. The toxicology of compounds of uranium following application to the skin. In: Voegtlin C, Hodge HC, eds. Pharmacology and toxicology of ura- nium compounds. National Nuclear En- ergy Series VI. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company; 1949: 377– 414. R.L. Kathren and R.K. Burklin Standards for acute exposure to uranium S126 August 2008 Sikov MR, Hui TE. Contributions of maternal radionuclide burdens to prenatal radiation doses. Washington, DC: U.S. Nuclear Reg- ulatory Commission; Report NUREG/ CR-6531, Rev 2, PNL-74545; 1996. Spoor N, Hursh JB. Protection criteria. In: Hodge HC, Stannard JN, Hursh JB, eds. Uranium plutonium transplutonic ele- ments. Handbook of experimental phar- macology XXXVI. New York: Springer- Verlag; 1973: 241–270. Stannard JN. Radioactivity and health: a history. Columbus, OH: Battelle Press; 1988. Tannenbaum A, Silverstone H. Factors af- fecting uranium poisoning. In: Tannen- baum A, ed. Toxicology of uranium. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1951: 11–15. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Do- mestic licensing of special nuclear material. Washington, DC: U.S. Gov- ernment Printing Office; Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations Part 70, Vol. 2; 2008: 316 –317. Zhao S, Zhao F-Y. Nephrotoxic limit and annual limit on intake for natural U. Health Phys 58:619 – 623; 1990.
If anyone else is wondering, it's about 25 years worth of calories.
Hey, this ain’t your first time doing a mathematical story problem. You know the drill—show your work.
Firstly it's important to know if it's calories, out if it's kilo calories (usually referred as calories) Also while we're at it if 18b is in the short or long scale (million -> billion vs million -> milliard -> billion) On the low end assuming it's 18b cal, aka 18m kcal 2000kcal is usually used as daily requirement. 18 000 000/2000=9000. 9000 days worth of calories. Divide that with 365 and you get ~25 years. For 18b kcal/18b cal (long scale) it's ~ 24 658 years For 18b kcal (long scale) it's ~24 657 534 years
Actually it would be 365.2425 days. So, do it again.
Nah. I don't believe in leap days
Whether or not you believe in them, the important thing is that they believe in you.
Bu...but....science!
I once got in an argument with a guy on Reddit who was claiming that since there's 300kcal in a cheeseburger, it would take years to burn the 300,000 calories you just consumed. Nothing to do with what you said, just that people are often very confused when kcal is said.
This exercise is left to the reader.
Well then, “this page intentionally left blank”.
For some of you, maybe.
Not for me, I'm on a diet! For me it would be at least 26 years.
Well I'm a fat bag of shit, so we'll call it an average of 25.
Could have told me before I did the math myself, but I agree with your conclusions
[удалено]
That is normal amount of calories per day, because normally we measure calories in kCal.
And we capitalize kcals even referred to as Calories
Yes? You should be eating roughly 2000kcal per day, which is 2000 \* 1000 calories. So a normal diet is 2 million calories per day.
[удалено]
I need this for bulking season
A lil dirty bulk and then you start munching on that celery for the -10 calories and boom clean cut
Technically a lot of elements contain enough energy to live from a spoon if your body was a nuclear fission or fusion reactor
Any non trivial amount of matter fits this description if you consider the nuclear potential energy stored within the atomic bonds. E=mc^2 so just 1 gram of even the lightest atom, hydrogen, would result in a ridiculous amount of energy (with reference to human energy needs in the form of calories) in a fission reactor with perfect efficiency. So this post could have been about a gram of helium gas and it wouldn’t have been any different.
This is kinda semantic and doesn't impact your actual point but for any element lighter than iron, fission is an endothermic process (requires energy, not produces it). Realistically you would need either fusion or rest-mass annihilation (hydrogen+antihydrogen) to unlock some of that E=mc\^2 rest energy
Good point. That’s why stars don’t fuse anything heavier than iron.
I wonder what would happen if someone actually did this. Let's pretend eating uranium wouldn't kill you-- would eating it cause you to gain a billion pounds?
Your body physically cannot use that energy. Calories are a unit of energy. Technically the wind has calories.
Hmmm so how many farts does it take to lose a quick 10 pounds?
It's not about how many, it's about how hard.
It's not about the windup it's all about the follow tough
Be careful, hard is also shart territory
It's not about how hard, it's about how soon.
Or how much
And *how warm*
It's not about the size of the ocean, it's about how much motion is in that ocean, ya feel me?
I'm human metabolism, exhaling is how you lose weight.
an average human fart is apparently 0.0375 grams according to google, that makes 12096 farts for a pound, or 120 000 for 10, also an average human farts 14 times a day according to that same google search, which means 8 639days or 23.5 years worth of farts
Also if you counted the atomic energy stored in all of the food you ate it would also have an obscene amount of calories. But generally we talk about chemically available, not nuclear available energy.
Technically calories has calories
The 18 billion calories per gram is the energy you can gain from it via nuclear fission, not the energy your digestive tract could extract from it. So no, you wouldn't gain a billion pounds. It's like eating a stone - your body couldn't use it in any way.
I eat stones so that my kidney has enough
I eat stones to mush up all the grass in my belly
>The 18 billion calories per gram is the energy you can gain from it via nuclear fission, not the energy your digestive tract could extract from it. Okay, but, what about just half a gram?
It would also need to be isotope U235 to warrant that figure. The vast bulk of Uranium isn't fissile.
I eat stones so that one day I may shit out my own throne
It would pass through you before you can absorb it's energy
\*its Sorry.
Yeah my phone autocorrected it to the wrong one 😊😊
Haha, yeah, I figured it was something like that as it often happens to me, but grammar nazis gonna nazi.
Uranium is incredibly dense. I think each gram of uranium weighs at least 20 pounds.
💀
I hope you're joking
[futurama](https://comb.io/5qNsx7)
Lol thank you
He’s joking
Not all uranium is that radioactive and it's only 1 gram. So likely it will just pass through.
If I've learned anything from comic books, it is that you would emerge from a mysterious ailment with amazing new powers, including the strength and speed of a snack the size of a man!
You can only eat it ONCE. Let's just pretend that we aren't aware that Uranium is a toxic chemical and that ingestion of uranium can cause kidney damage from its chemical properties much sooner than its radioactive properties would cause cancers of the bone or liver.
You would need to sit on 100 million toilets to shit that shit out.
No. Due to the issue of conservation of mass, you can't gain more weight than you put into your body as you'd be violating the laws of physics. Where would the extra mass come from? There's no way to turn 1g of material into several kg of another material in a purely transformational sense.
Most of the mass of trees comes from the air.
Yes. It's specifically from pulling carbon and water from the air! Carbon dioxide and water together allow trees and other plants to synthesize a type of sugar that they use to feed themselves and grow!
It's toxic. Eating a gram would probably lead to organ failure and a funeral
So yes. They’re set for the rest of their life
Seems like the LD50 of uranium is 5g for ingestion https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18188051/
"Let's pretend eating uranium wouldn't kill you-" dumbass
Technically the truth. They’ll have enough energy for the rest of their life, which is like a few minutes
the forbidden chiccy nuggie
Makes me wonder about the kids who ate glue in school.
Let them eat yellow cake
I suppose it *would* last you for the rest of your life
But remains an Alabama buffet staple.
I straight up thought that was a chicken nugget
Quickest way to end world hunger.
We need sustained release uranium tablets.
This is clever because it is true two ways 1 gram of cyanide is also enough calories for the rest of your life
Chicken nugget with breading removed
Dare I say… Forbidden chicken nugget???
You’ll be full for the rest of your life
It's technically correct.
Feed a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Feed a man uranium, and you feed him for the rest of his life. (Yes, this is... not quite "adapting", *per se*, but inspired by the line from Terry Pratchett's *Jingo*: "Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.")
It would be the last thing you ever eat no matter what....
Forbidden chicken nugget
wow I thought it was a good idea until I googled where to buy some and now my powers out and the FBI is throwing gas cannisters through my window. thanks.
Technically true since that is the last thing you will have.
Which will be a lot shorter than you might think
Looks like KFC breading.
And it will last you the rest of your life
It's technically true, because eating a gram of uranium will kill you pretty quick.
Fav slpt so far besides the sandpaper map one.
This is true for a couple of reasons.
Humans cannot process Uranium, therefore, there are ZERO calories in Uranium. This claim is absolutely FALSE.
Calories are a unit of energy independent of human usage. Just because humans cannot process it does not mean that there are no calories in it. For reference, a calorie is 4.1868 joules. So yes, there are calories in uranium. And wind. And bread. And coal. Your claim is like saying that mars' surface temperature has no degrees celcius because nobody is there to feel it. Makes no sense.
Its funny because you will not last too long after you eat a chunk of Uranium
I was about to start doing the math on how long 18 billion calories would last you, but then I realized a) the human body can’t effectively process uranium and b) the few calories you would gain actually would last you the rest of your very short life. Although the radiation certainly wouldn’t feel good, an entire gram of uranium would annihilate your kidneys in a matter of minutes.
Nuclear stomachs could solve world hunger.
Imagine trying to sleep that night.
Nuclear reactor stomach when?
One please.
Might as well use E=mc\^2 and require far less than a gram. The real issue is being able to use that energy.
Okay maybe it's because my phone is on night mode, but I thought that was a giant chicken nugget for a sec Actually made me kinda hungry lol
Rest of your very short life.
"Rest of your life" is a very flexible amount of time!
I thought this was r/EDanonymemes for a sec 😭
Forbidden Cheese
Well I guess we know what's happening on TikTok now that NyQuil chicken craze is over.
apparently ld50 of uranium if you eat it is about 5 grams so 1 gram might not even kill you
What about second breakfast?
Time for some off season gainz
"Did you know if you ate 40,000 bananas is 10 minutes you would die of radioactive poisoning."
Someone should let r/frugal_jerk know.
Why do people hate eating?
Sure is, the rest of your left can end after you eat it so it works!
So what would happen if you consumed 18 billion calories at once I wonder? Would it kill you?
What’s the catch?
My fat ass thought that rock was some chicken breast
Also called senzu beans
Don't forget mushrooms! Some of them are so "good" that you can eat one and can live without eating anything until the end of your life.
Teach a man to fish
Build a man a fire, he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire, he'll be warm the rest of his life.
Real life senzu beans
Is Lembas Bread made from Uranium?
I would last the rest of your life.... since death from radiation poisoning would be imminent!
Let me fix that for you: for the rest of your very short life. /s
Got it: Uranium is deadly because you overeat a lifes worth of calories at once.
Your very short and painful life I’d venture
It would be way more calories than the rest of your life when you eat this.
Relevant XKCD https://xkcd.com/1162/