Gold in faeces 'worth millions'

[Ichinisan]

how come science doesn't know how to create gold from other elements?

It does. Alchemists figured it out hundreds of years ago, but greedy corporations killed the technology, just like the did the electric car.

I knew it!

 

[RGUN]

do you know that 1 pound of feathers is just as heavy as 1 pound of rocks?

So in defence of your opinion that it is not economically recoverable, you present that you are completely ignorant of the subject? Excellent.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I didn't say that anywhere in my statement, but if you think $280 worth of minerals in one ton of material isn't significant, I would say that you are wrong. The proportions are what is important, if 1/10th of that is gold, or any one mineral, we can start having a conversation.

It's $280 of assorted elements. Even if it's cheap to dissolve (or whatever) a ton of feces, you still have to be able to catch all the individual elements of interest and then go through the process of sorting those out, all for a single gram of gold.

 

[disappoint]

do you know that 1 pound of feathers is just as heavy as 1 pound of rocks?

Yeah but 1 pound of milk wheys more than 1 pound of rocks.

 

[Hugo Drax]

sounds like bullshit. I get so frustrated with news articles that leave out the most important pieces of information, like how the fuck there is gold in our shit.

There is always small traces of different elements in things we eat,breath and drink.

For example Seawater has gold. It is pretty simple science, out of the tons of shit going thru the sewers, there is a statistical chance of collecting shit with trace gold.

Process enough of the shit and you will end up recovering some gold.

 

[SunnyD]

how come science doesn't know how to create gold from other elements?

It's called alchemy... there's a whole medieval field of it in search of this very question...

Think about that word for a second. "Element." Yeah. "Element."

You can't make an element from another element without fusion, fission, or radioactive decay. That's why we call it an "element." Elements are the elemental building blocks of all other compounds. It's why we call them "elements." Their "building blocks" are sub-atomic particles.

And? This is precisely what Printer Bandit is asking. Ergo, you can make an element from another element, simply by adding something to the base element.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthesis_of_precious_metals#Gold

Gold was synthesized from mercury by neutron bombardment in 1941, but the isotopes of gold produced were all radioactive.[12] In 1924, a Japanese physicist, Hantaro Nagaoka, accomplished the same feat.[13]

Gold can currently be manufactured in a nuclear reactor by irradiation either of platinum or mercury.

Note: It is not cost-effective to produce gold, or pretty much any material in such a manner outside of expected radioactive materials.

 

[CZroe]

It's called alchemy... there's a whole medieval field of it in search of this very question...



And? This is precisely what Printer Bandit is asking. Ergo, you can make an element from another element, simply by adding something to the base element.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthesis_of_precious_metals#Gold



Note: It is not cost-effective to produce gold, or pretty much any material in such a manner outside of expected radioactive materials.

"Simply by adding something." LOL! That's a hell of a way to describe exactly what I described. Gold found naturally is made by stars going supernova, exploding and seeding their exotic products of nuclear fusion. All matter started out as hydrogen before this and the process has to happen multiple times for gold (multiple generations of stars).

If you know anything about sustainable fusion, you know the problem with that. I did not say that we can't simulate the conditions in a reactor or a particle accelerator, FFS. You need to understand the stuff you linked to know how ludicrous it is that you would describe that as "simply by adding something" to something.

Yes, I know you're trolling.

 

[jagec]

If there was $280 worth of gold in a ton of waste, I still don't think it would be "economically recoverable"

Two quick Google searches inform me that gold is currently around $1200/oz, and that it takes about 30 tons of ore to get an ounce of gold.

Hey, that's only $40 of gold in a ton of ore. Now, it's possible that it's easier to get gold out of ore than out of sh!t, but clearly it's not a problem of relative concentrations, which is what your statement implies.

 

[who?]

The traps in the jewelry shop drains may be malfunctioning.

 

[RGUN]

Two quick Google searches inform me that gold is currently around $1200/oz, and that it takes about 30 tons of ore to get an ounce of gold.

Hey, that's only $40 of gold in a ton of ore. Now, it's possible that it's easier to get gold out of ore than out of sh!t, but clearly it's not a problem of relative concentrations, which is what your statement implies.

Exactly. If even a relatively minor percentage of that is gold, the economic potential is huge.

 

[Jeff7]

...
Note: It is not cost-effective to produce gold, or pretty much any material in such a manner outside of expected radioactive materials.

Not now it isn't.

But hey, 200 years ago they'd have thought you were crazy if you'd said that people in the future would be profitably mining gold out of human excrement.