587

Eat lead (mander.xyz)

submitted 6 hours ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/science_memes@mander.xyz

120 comments fedilink hide all child comments

(page 2) 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] 10_0@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

But I take everything literally, other than when its inconvenient

[-] LilDumpy@lemmy.world 72 points 6 hours ago

Real question: Is the decay of uranium the only natural way to produce lead? If so TIL.

[-] expatriado@lemmy.world 100 points 5 hours ago

you can also lead by example

[-] tdawg@lemmy.world 10 points 4 hours ago

Instructions unclear. Got diagnosed with lead poisoning

[-] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 4 points 3 hours ago

That's what happens when you get a MBA

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] Nougat@fedia.io 36 points 5 hours ago

Iron is the heaviest element capable of being created inside stars, via fusion. Once iron is fused, the star begins to rapidly collapse.

Elements heavier than iron (28) are the result of supernova explosions, which produce energies high enough to create these heavier atoms. It is further possible, as described in the image, for very heavy elements to decay into lighter more stable elements, those still being heavier than iron.

Lead is 82.

[-] alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml 25 points 5 hours ago

That's what I learned in school, but there's been some research since suggesting stars produces significant quantities of elements up to lead during their lifetimes, even though it's a net energy loss.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-process

[-] Nougat@fedia.io 1 points 2 hours ago

Interesting. Of note, this process would mainly be in a very specific kind of star, and still would depend on an iron "seed" leftover from a previous supernova. Technically, still requires a "regular" supernova.

[-] Gork@lemm.ee 29 points 5 hours ago

No. Nucleosynthesis of lead within stars generated from supernovae make up the bulk of the existing lead on Earth. Uranium decay does provide some additional lead inventory but would be fairly small in comparison.

But the presence of it in the first place within second generation stars proves that lead is billions of years old.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] mindaika@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 3 hours ago

There’s bread from 14,000 years ago

[-] tetris11@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 hours ago

Look I don't like them either, but you can't refer to crusty bishops that way

[-] yogurtwrong@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago

eat lead? this guy probably has already done that one

[-] Routhinator@startrek.website 1 points 2 hours ago

Probably not willingly. Republican States are often horrible at updating infrastructure, and due to the lack of a well educated population, they don't suffer much repercussion for that. Very high chance they grew up with or still have lead pipes.

[-] cogitase@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 5 hours ago

Lead 204 is entirely primordial and the other isotopes found on earth would be found at roughly the same concentration were all of the lead on earth primordial. It's the excess ratios of the other isotopes of lead that can be attributed to radioactive decay. That is a substantial proportion of the lead on earth, but to say the "existence of lead" is proof of the age of the earth is entirely incorrect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_lead

[-] NegativeLookBehind@lemmy.world 35 points 6 hours ago

Lol, look at this guy, trying to use science and facts to disprove my fairytale. What a joke!

[-] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 15 points 5 hours ago

Yeah, No amount of evidence will cut through the fog of wilful ignorance here.

[-] fsxylo@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 hours ago

Young earth creationists make up new element called "creationite" from which all elements came from, thereby filling in the radioactive decay plot hole in their narrative.

[-] StrongHorseWeakNeigh@lemmy.world 8 points 4 hours ago

There's evidence of human civilization and agriculture going back at least 10,000 years. You have to be extremely willfully ignorant to think the earth is only 4,000 years old. Hell the pyramid of Giza is older than that.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] kitnaht@lemmy.world 15 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

I mean, the existence of lead doesn't necessarily prove the age of the earth so much as that those elements have existed for that long.

HOWEVER -- you're basically guaranteed to find lead in uranium deposits found around the earth, and the ratio of lead/uranium is how we calculated the 4.6 billion years.

Uranium is formed in Neutron stars or Supernova, so at the very least - the uranium found on earth itself is 4.6 billion years old. Whether "Earth" was "Earth" back then, who knows. This could be pre-moon? Could be before the earth even cooled down to have a solid outer layer? So the estimate is bound to be off by a little...

Just not by 4.5 billion years.

I'm pretty sure just soap has been around for more than 4.5k years and that means civilization too. So even if you do some backflips in justification here, there's no way you get 4k.