• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Discovery at Chernobyl. Life thrives in a radioactive environment.

exchemist

Veteran Member
I find the idea highly questionable. (Though I may simply not know enough.) Is life really generating more entropy? What effect exactly forces the emergents of life?
But it is a brilliant rebuttal to YEC who cite the second law of thermodynamics.
Here is a paper he wrote about it: https://www.englandlab.com/uploads/7/8/0/3/7803054/nnano.2015.250__1_.pdf
I have only glanced through it so far, but it may give you an idea of his argument.

Mind you, he's given up academic work now and joined some corporation or other, so maybe it didn't work out.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
I read an article from some MIT nuclear guy after the Fukashima earthquake and all that with the nuclear power reactor, and this guy said the worst was over. And then the situation got worse. And got worse again. And kept getting worse yet. Not saying this MIT guy is still necessarily wrong, but that I landed so hard from placing so much confidence in that article that my face still hurts abit.
Well people are sometimes wrong, even if they come from MIT. At least they are not idiots there. (I should know, I married one. :D) Someone from MIT, I mean, not an idiot!
 
Last edited:

beenherebeforeagain

Rogue Animist
Premium Member
I did not see such a reaction in the video. Did I skip over it? The presenter said that fat combines with oxygen to form carbon dioxide and water at the time stamp that I mentioned in my previous post here. I did not here him even imply that molecular hydrogen was formed.
since I do not have unlimited gigs of data available, I briefly skimmed...maybe I just read into it the classic let's split water and see what happens...

anyway,

but the food we ingest ultimately gets converted to Hydrogen (which we sweat out) and CO2, which we exhale.
which is what I was pointing out is not correct. We sweat out water. We also expel some of that converted food through urination and defecation. There are hydrogen atoms in those substances that we expel, but virtually all of it is bound up in the large variety of molecules with other elements.
 

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
since I do not have unlimited gigs of data available, I briefly skimmed...maybe I just read into it the classic let's split water and see what happens...

anyway,


which is what I was pointing out is not correct. We sweat out water. We also expel some of that converted food through urination and defecation. There are hydrogen atoms in those substances that we expel, but virtually all of it is bound up in the large variety of molecules with other elements.

You must have missed this post I made.

My mistake: it comes out as CO2 and H2O, not H2. The vid concludes that 84% of weight loss comes from conversion of calories to CO2.
 

Dan From Smithville

What we've got here is failure to communicate.
Staff member
Premium Member
That's not the point. The point is the video made a demonstration, and a poster suggested from that video that humans sweat hydrogen...we don't. We sweat water.
I got the idea that they meant we sweat hydrogen in the form of water and not straight hydrogen. It would be a real gas if we did though.
 

Dan From Smithville

What we've got here is failure to communicate.
Staff member
Premium Member
My mistake: it comes out as CO2 and H2O, not H2. The vid concludes that 84% of weight loss comes from conversion of calories to CO2.
Ah. So my interpretation of your point was incorrect. That is what I get for thinking like a literalist and believing my interpretations are the bottom line.
 

Salvador

RF's Swedenborgian
blinky-the-fish-simpsons.jpg

The Clinton nuclear power plant's cooling reservoir keeps the water in Clinton Lake mild year round, which provides excellent conditions for fishing even during the cold winter months. However, I am just a bit wary of eating the three eyed fish from there.

IMG00172.jpg



 
Last edited:

gnostic

The Lost One
Chernobyl shocker as fungi that eats radiation found inside nuclear reactor | Fox News

A fungi that eats radiation. How weird is that?

I think the search parameters for life in the universe has just expanded.
Eating implies consuming. Is there less radiation present as a result of this fungus growth?
The fungi use the radiation (mostly X-rays iirc) like plants use sunlight. They don't "eat" the radiation sources.
I would say maybe. I don't know for sure, but I do know certain mushrooms are capable of, basically, eating our bodies and filtering the toxins out. It is fascinating regardless. But if it does help filter it, I wonder if it could do so in the oceans? Maybe not a good idea, but dropping barrels of nuclear waste in the ocean is going to eventually be a very major problem. It would be wonderful if this helps pave the way to solving that issue, along with radiation leaks from Fukashima reactors.
Toxins are matter and can be broken down into components. Dont know how that would apply to radiation emitting matter
There has to be some waste material, obviously, but the article does say the fungus converts the radiation into energy for growth. I have no idea how that works, but it's absolutely amazing.
I dont believe that. The radiation is already energy
Plants use radiation all the time to grow.
Strictly speaking, everything that is eaten by plant or animal is already energy. Animals take this in through calories, and to a small degree sunlight. Plants get this primarily through sunlight (which is also a form of electromagnetic radiation). This energy is taken in, digested in one way or another, and converted into energy the organism can use. In this case, the fungi is breaking down radiation as energy for growth. This would roughly be like us eating a piece of fruit for the vitamins, fiber, and a sugar boost. Or taking in sunlight to covert it to vitamin D.
Plants dont break down sunlight. I dont believe fungi breaks down radiation
The radiation may stimulate fungi growth on it's way thru

All that have been very enlightening.

I really don’t know all that much about fungi, because I have never studied fungi at school. I stopped learning (in classroom environment) in Year 9 high school, so I didn’t know mushrooms were forms of fungi.

Before 5-7 years ago, I thought fungi, particularly mushrooms, were a form of plant life. My sister keep telling me mushrooms are not vegetables.

It was only recently - very recent - that I discovered fungi are not organisms that have photosynthesis capability.

Fungi feed off by dead organic matters, first by releasing some form of enzymes that help to break down and decompose the dead materials, and then absorb any nutrients from decomposing matters.

I don’t know what parts radiations play with fungi.

Plants on the other hand, don’t actually feed on sunlight, but does use ultraviolet radiation to cause chemical reactions, by turning carbon dioxide and water into carbohydrates (sugar) and oxygen. The ultraviolet from sunlight is actually catalyst that cause this chemical reactions.

The plant absorbed water from the ground through it’s root, while the leaves filter the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The green pigment of the plants, known as chlorophyll (C55H70O6N4Mg), absorbed the blue and red from light, while reflecting the red. It is this radiation that cause the conversion of carbon dioxide and water into carbohydrates.

Hence photosynthesis.

It is carbohydrates that provide nutrients and energy to plants, not sunlight itself.

I still don’t understand enough about fungi, by what Fox News article mean by “eating radiation”.

Perhaps it the matters that have been affected by radiation that fungi are feeding on, not the radiation itself?
 

gnostic

The Lost One
I wonder if they're going to find some kind of fungi on Mars or one of the other planets since the parameters can be expanded now giving us more places to look.
Ah, it would be highly unlikely, NM.

From what little I understand of fungi, they feed off dead decomposing matters; they absorbed nutrients from decomposed matters.

Unless Mars have other life, I don’t think you will find fungi on Mars.
 

Dan From Smithville

What we've got here is failure to communicate.
Staff member
Premium Member
Would we go * pop * or * boom * ?

:astonished:
Pop would be preferred. I was reminded of a false story about a Japanese beer containing hydrogen that was circulated several years ago. A customer was supposed to have gone boom.
 

Dan From Smithville

What we've got here is failure to communicate.
Staff member
Premium Member
Ah, it would be highly unlikely, NM.

From what little I understand of fungi, they feed off dead decomposing matters; they absorbed nutrients from decomposed matters.

Unless Mars have other life, I don’t think you will find fungi on Mars.
They also help us make some excellent beverages. No hydrogen though.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Now that could produce a boom, but of a more recognizably traditional quality. I haven't had any of these. Or perhaps I have and all memory was blasted away.
Actually in Dutch it would be pronounced "bome" rather than "boom", like the amusing "telefoon" boxes they used to have.

Oranjeboom means Orange Tree I think.
 

Dan From Smithville

What we've got here is failure to communicate.
Staff member
Premium Member
Actually in Dutch it would be pronounced "bome" rather than "boom", like the amusing "telefoon" boxes they used to have.

Oranjeboom means Orange Tree I think.
Similar to baum which I think also means tree. Add hydrogen and you get a beer like an exploding tree?
 
Top