Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Uranium Eating Bacteria Help Cold War Cleanup

Posted by timothy on from the until-they-awaken-and-attack-us dept.

Shipud writes "Scientists from UMA have used metal-metablozing bacteria, Geobacter, to "eat" uranium. The uranium is converted from a soluble form to an insoluble one, thus preventing water contamination. Cold-war era uranium processing has left many contaminated sites in the US, and worldwide. Details are here."

51 comments

  1. Unleash them by __aafkqj3628 · · Score: 1

    I wonder if they could also be trained to eat other sorts of metal..... *evil grin*

  2. Radioactivity vs. Toxicity by Henry+V+.009 · · Score: 2, Informative

    I notice this is mainly talking about the toxicity of uranium. This makes me think that depleted uranium from munitions might be a main target for cleanup. It is a heavy metal and all, but I wonder how dangerous it really is once you get past all the media crackpottery on the subject.

    1. Re:Radioactivity vs. Toxicity by Radical+Rad · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Depleted uranium is probably just as toxic as lead. But we have seen that even someone who chewed on too many paint chips as a kid can grow up to be president.

    2. Re:Radioactivity vs. Toxicity by dheltzel · · Score: 1

      Good point, I often wondered what it was that made President Clinton do the stuff he did. But I'm pretty sure Hillary did inhale, otherwise she would have left the idiot.

    3. Re:Radioactivity vs. Toxicity by jasno · · Score: 1

      Funny how the effects of lead are apparently less debilitating than the coke and alcohol our current administration inhaled.

      Perhaps we should ban alcohol in favor of lead based cigarettes?

      --

      http://www.masturbateforpeace.com/
    4. Re:Radioactivity vs. Toxicity by KnightNavro · · Score: 3, Informative
      You're probably correct; the bugs are there to get rid of U because it's toxic. I did my senior design project on U removal from drinking water. The stuff poses a much greater threat as a heavy metal than as a radioactive atom when injected. The microbes wouldn't do anything to the atomic structure of the atoms, and hence do nothing to reduce radiation, but making it insoluble removes it from drinking water and makes it less mobile.

      Of course, I said pretty much the same thing when the story was run two months ago.

    5. Re:Radioactivity vs. Toxicity by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      We have plenty that needs clean up here. Rocky flats here in colorado is still loaded with Plutonium and Uranium. This site was used to produce the nuclear trigger for fusion. There are plenty of other sites such as throughout Russia.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    6. Re:Radioactivity vs. Toxicity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's one thing to criticize, and another to insult.

  3. What about the poor bacteria?! by psyconaut · · Score: 2, Funny

    Nobody spared a thought for the fact the bacteria's children are born with three heads and only one leg due to the radioactivity!

    -psy

    1. Re:What about the poor bacteria?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry about it. We will give the rich ones a tax break and charge all the rest for Genetic Enhancements.

  4. Uraninite? by annisette · · Score: 1

    Sounds like a great idea, could save billions of $'s. Could someone help me with the characteristics of uraninite (level of radioactivity, level of toxicity)? They are having a big problem with heavy metal contamination from the abandoned gold and silver mines from the last century, out west, with the honey comb pathways left, ground water is moving faster and covering more area resulting in contamination that is a bigger issue then most would admit, perhaps this bug could help this situation...also.

    --
    I eat my grapes at room temperature, cuz the cold ones hurt my teeth
    1. Re:Uraninite? by pphrdza · · Score: 1
      As the article says, it's insoluble,(as in, doesn't dissolve in water) so it doesn't contaminate the water anymore .

      But you can find more here. Or just try a Google Search.

    2. Re:Uraninite? by annisette · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the information, I suppose what I was thinking and did not write was; Will the uraninite have to be dug up and disposed in a land fill or such or will be left as it is and the site be declared safe. Though it does not dissolve in water it can still be carried by water if the particles are small enough. hence my question

      --
      I eat my grapes at room temperature, cuz the cold ones hurt my teeth
    3. Re:Uraninite? by pphrdza · · Score: 1

      Good point, and one I thought of also after I posted. :-)

  5. Obligatory UF link by erpbridge · · Score: 2, Funny

    Yellow Cake. Wonder if the bacteria will grow up to look/act like Hastur?

    Egads, I hope not!

  6. so, how long by Unknown+Poltroon · · Score: 1

    Untill lysol is classified as a WOMD?

    --
    All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
  7. Excellent by KDan · · Score: 1

    That is great news. Makes nuclear power plants all that more attractive, as if their short-term-pollution-free power wasn't attractive enough already.

    Daniel

    --
    Carpe Diem
    1. Re:Excellent by IM6100 · · Score: 1

      Gonna go out smashing looms tonight, huh?

      --
      A Good Intro to NetBS
    2. Re:Excellent by kramer2718 · · Score: 1

      This only has small bearing on nuclear power. The bugs only help to ease the toxic properties of heavy metals (in particular Uranium). The radioactive properties are not affected. I believe radioactivity is the larger concern with respect to nuclear power.

      --
      http://yetanotherpoliticalrant.blogspot.com
    3. Re:Excellent by KDan · · Score: 2, Informative

      Solubility is the major concern. The fact that they are radioactive is irrelevant when they're stuck in those bunkers deep underground. The problem is when they dissolve slowly into the underground lakes and such, which currently happens no matter where they're stored. That the bacteria make the Uranium insoluble is a major breakthrough.

      Daniel

      --
      Carpe Diem
  8. Let me see if I understand this. by sakusha · · Score: 1

    The bacteria converts the uranium to insoluble form. So instead of having contaminated water, we just have contaminated land. Somewhere in this process I must have missed the description about how the contamination is removed from the environment completely.
    Don't get me wrong, I believe nuclear power is a good thing, and is inherently less polluting than any other form of energy. But this stuff smacks of bad science.
    Apparently I must be the only person that remembers my Jr Hi grade biology class. We had to read ecologists like Garret Hardin, I still remember his essays, he constantly hammered on the concept of "throwing things away." But there IS no "away." A good example is how people used to burn trash in incinerators to keep the landfills from filling up. Then people finally got hip to air pollution, they finally realized they were throwing their trash into the air instead of the landfill. So now we don't burn trash that anymore, we just need more and more landfills. It would be better to reduce the amount of trash we generate, and stop the problem at the source.

    1. Re:Let me see if I understand this. by TheNarrator · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Uranium has to go somewhere. I guess you could say before it was mined it was in the mountain and the "mountain" was contaminated for millions of years. The point is, if you bury the stuff and it has no chance of getting in the ground water its as harmless as its ever going to get.

    2. Re:Let me see if I understand this. by sakusha · · Score: 1

      So I guess the whole world is contaminated, and we have to dig up all the uranium and safely rebury it to keep it away from humans. Are you starting to see how ridiculous this concept is?

    3. Re:Let me see if I understand this. by trublaha · · Score: 1

      The only "away" in most people's idea of the word, is rather "out of their sight". If its not in their backyard, or home or street, then it is effectively "away".

      I think this development is an excellent thing as it _helps_ deal with the waste we have already made. However, it is certainly not a solution and shouldn't simply be used as a way of encouraging Nuclear Power proliferation.

      At Roxby Downs (a mine near a town in outback Australia) 5 million cubic metres of liquid had leaked from its tailings retention system. I went there a few years back as part of an action, and the effects on the area were horrific - blasted ground, plants struggling to grow, the place had an eerie, sterile feeling to it.

      To measure the degree of environmental impact of any form of power, you need to measure not just the end product, but everything that happens between it being pulled from the earth until its final end product.

    4. Re:Let me see if I understand this. by sakusha · · Score: 1

      Your mine tailing problem is not unique to uranium mines. I used to live in Colorado, and I can personally attest that almost all the mountain streams have been sterilized by copper and gold mine tailings. Uranium mines are rare, nonradioactive mines are quite common. Expending effort to clean up uranium mines will give negligible returns, cleaning up mining in general will give huge returns.

    5. Re:Let me see if I understand this. by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      However, it is certainly not a solution and shouldn't simply be used as a way of encouraging Nuclear Power proliferation.

      Neither, however, should a narrow view that fails to take into account the big picture be used to discourage anything, much less nuclear power. A mismanaged mine paints a stunning picture on it's own, but so does a city with that dreary feeling from soot encrusted buildings and a general poor public atitiude due to everybody having a family member or two with lung cancer. Better some sterile ground somewhere than harmful particles in my lungs.

      To measure the degree of environmental impact of any form of power, you need to measure not just the end product, but everything that happens between it being pulled from the earth until its final end product.

      Been to a coal mine lately? Ever met a coal miner? How about a coal miner over the age of 70? Bring on the nukes.

    6. Re:Let me see if I understand this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I must have missed the description about how the contamination is removed from the environment completely.

      Ahh, that's easy - it's carried away in the lungs of troops and kids playing in the area when they breathe the dust that the wind kicks up. Five years later, they're dead, and the dust can be safely buried. Takes a lot of people, but it works.

    7. Re:Let me see if I understand this. by trublaha · · Score: 1
      Neither, however, should a narrow view that fails to take into account the big picture be used to discourage anything, much less nuclear power.

      I don't see how you could think I was taking a 'narrow view' when you quote my final point: To measure the degree of environmental impact of any form of power, you need to measure not just the end product, but everything that happens between it being pulled from the earth until its final end product.

      You see, I was talking about the 'big picture'. People need to examine the impact of power-sources at every stage of its existence - disposal is just one part of its existence. Every power source has an impact on the people and the environment, just some sources of power have less of an impact than others. Solar or wind power for example.

      Better some sterile ground somewhere than harmful particles in my lungs.

      Where do the toxins go when the mine leaks? Into groundwater. The plants are poisened by this water. Sterile ground is a symptom of a much larger problem. Consider also that the nearby town DRINKS that water! This is arid land, we're talking about - if there is no water (that is drinkable without risk of illness) then the town cannot exist.

    8. Re:Let me see if I understand this. by confused+one · · Score: 1

      It's the soluble stuff that's a "contaminant." Otherwise, the stuff was there to begin with. If you lock up the contaminants in an unsoluble form, then the problem is essentially solved. As for the mining of other metals, the same solution applies, except for the arsenic & cyanide that was introduced. This needs additional attention.

    9. Re:Let me see if I understand this. by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      I don't see how you could think I was taking a 'narrow view' when you quote my final point.

      Saying you're looking at the big picture does not make it so. You're initial narrow statement was at odds with your later declared philosophy.

      The fact remains that there are only three ways to generate electricity that we are presently aware of where we have the capability to manage the downsides. Those are non-photovoltaic solar, wind, and nuclear. Of those three, I would argue that nuclear is the only one that is practical. That's the big picture. Using a botched mining job as sole basis of a decision is not. Presenting a botched mining job as a sole example doesn't promote thinking about the big picture either. It promotes knee jerk reactions.

      Where do the toxins go when the mine leaks? Into groundwater. The plants are poisened by this water. Sterile ground is a symptom of a much larger problem. Consider also that the nearby town DRINKS that water!

      Uranium mines aren't the only ones that leak toxins. Ever heard of coal tar? Check the percentages of people who develop cancer after exposure to coal tar with the percentages of people who develop cancer after being exposed to uranium ore. You may be in for a bit of a surprise.

    10. Re:Let me see if I understand this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The benefits seem clear to me. Water moves; land tends to stay in one place. So if we want to localize contamination so it doesn't spread, making the contaminant insoluble seems like a really good way to do it.

      Imagine a hypothetical process that converts airborne carbon dioxide into this useless black gunk. You still have a pollution problem, but it's now localized to landfills, not spread out in the air and (theoretically) causing global warming. This is the same thing for nuclear waste.

    11. Re:Let me see if I understand this. by JediTrainer · · Score: 1

      The fact remains that there are only three ways to generate electricity that we are presently aware of where we have the capability to manage the downsides. Those are non-photovoltaic solar, wind, and nuclear.

      Did you forget about hydro dams or something?

      --

      You can accomplish anything you set your mind to. The impossible just takes a little longer.
    12. Re:Let me see if I understand this. by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      Considering the number of now fish free rivers due to dams, I'd say that we don't have 100% of the downsides there controlled yet. Better than coal, but not as manageable as you'd hope...

    13. Re:Let me see if I understand this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This hypothetical process is how oil was formed in the first place ...

  9. I, for one... by inertia187 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I, for one, welcome our new Uranium Eating Bacterial overloads.

    --
    A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
  10. And one bacteria to rule them... by SeanTobin · · Score: 1

    Lets see.. genetically engineered bacteria, radioactive waste, underground aquifer.. Anyone else think this is a recipe for a comic book?

    --
    Karma: SELECT `karma` FROM `users` WHERE `userid`=138474;
    1. Re:And one bacteria to rule them... by fireduck · · Score: 1

      except these are anything but genetically engineered bacteria. these are native species, as the first sentence in the article points out.

      bacteria tend to do some seriously amazing things. apparently, all the scientists in this paper did was supply enough food to stimulate the present (but not so populous) geobacter species to fluorish. presumably with different nutrients available, the metabolic pathways of the bacteria were altered such that they mineralized uranium.

    2. Re:And one bacteria to rule them... by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      Anyone else notice that the bacteria's favorite food is "acetate"? Can you say, "film-eating bacteria"? Turn a truckload of those suckers loose on Hollywood...

      Too bad the recent crap the RIAA's been churning out isn't recorded on acetate...8-)

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
  11. brilliant by SHEENmaster · · Score: 1

    by developing enough weapons of mass destruction to destroy the entire planet several times over, and failing to use them for fear of them working, we ended up hurting only our own population.

    Now, we have developed uranium-eating bacteria. Bacteria that will also eat through uranium containers, allowing the substances to contaminate surounding land with the radioactivity of uranium, if not urandium itself.

    I have a better idea. Let's dump all of our used uranium in Iraq in exchange for oil. Then we can get back to developing oil-eating bacteria.

    --
    You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
    1. Re:brilliant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and then they get attacked again for having the materials to build WMDs, because we supplied them again. USA! USA! USA!

  12. A better solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Politician eating bacteria.

  13. Attack of the Metablozers by DasBub · · Score: 1

    "metal-metablozing bacteria"

    Science has changed so much since my last biology class... I can hardly recognize any of the terminology anymore!

  14. But uranite becomes soluble when exposed to O2. by __aaaaxm1522 · · Score: 1

    My chemistry is a bit rusty (HA! PUN!). But if I recall, uranite reverts to a soluble form when it is exposed to oxygen. So, while these bacteria might be a good short-term solution, one would have to take care that the resultant uranite is isolated in an anaerobic atmosphere, to prevent it from turning soluble again.

    1. Re:But uranite becomes soluble when exposed to O2. by Muhammar · · Score: 1

      It is actualy the oxidation that makes U precipitate as U3O8. Thats why uranite sediments formed only after there was enough oxygen in the atmosphere.

      U is not very radioactive, but inhaling the dust and especialy the decay products (radon) can give you lung cancer. And U ingested in soluble form will knock out your kidneys by damaging the glomerulles and also impair the imune system rather quickly, within few days.

      I have seen a guy who poured accidentaly a little bit of solution of aceto-uranylate-sodium into his eye in the lab and the effect (swelling, followed by inflamation, etc) was pretty scary. But they saved his eye.

      I am not expert, but I believe that uranium tox should be more comparable with uglies like mercury or thalium - I think comparing U toxicity to lead is misleading understatement, and that's why army is doing it.

      --
      I doubt that we will ever figure out - and I suspect that even if we did figure out we couldn't do much about it
    2. Re:But uranite becomes soluble when exposed to O2. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Poured"? "Accidentally"?

      Or was it more like an accidental spill or splash?

  15. That's nice... by Paddyish · · Score: 1

    What we need is a conversion of that nifty gizmo from muppet labs which Dr. Bunsen Honeydew used to turn gold into cream cheese.

  16. Nuclear fission sucks (read on) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The spent nuclear rods and mining tailings for a long term pollution stream that makes fission power completely unattractive. Then there's the security issues involved in protecting the fissionables all the way from mining, through usage and long term storage.

    Radiant heat Solar powered sterling engines generators are the way to go for power production. They're pollution free in both use and manufacture (unlike solar panels). They pose no threat of meltdown, have no long term waste storage issues and have no security issues like fissionable power production does.

  17. But the question is... by mobby_6kl · · Score: 0

    do they glow in the dark?