Slashdot Mirror


Money That Grows On Trees

parvez1 submits this piece about a process that uses plants to soak up and accumulate contaminants - and gold - from near gold-mining sites. Then the plants are harvested for their metal content. The plants aren't bio-engineered - he's taking advantage of the natural tendency for certain plants to accumulate heavy metals.

89 of 268 comments (clear)

  1. Baked.. by bigattichouse · · Score: 4, Informative

    Wow, I remember a show called "What will they think of next" (sort of a pre-Beyond2000), talking about banana trees doing the same thing... wow, lets see that makes it almost 20 years ago?

    --
    meh
    1. Re:Baked.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      banana trees doing the same thing...

      Mmmmh.. Bananas... The yellow gold!

    2. Re:Baked.. by yintercept · · Score: 4, Interesting

      New applications of an age old idea are still news. How many times has there been /. discussions about a program designed for UNIX or (gasp) MS, being ported to Linux or other open software? New implementations of existing ideas are still news.

      People have known for a long time that animals and plants tend to concentrate minerals. Some good. Some bad.

      Fish apparently are very good at concentrating mercury from the ocean. Fish that eat fish that eat fish become interesting little mobil chemical factories. This a good reason why estuaries and oceans aren't good places to dispose waste. The fish will concentrate the waste and give it back to us in tasty McFish sandwiches. For that matter, the food chain is pretty good at concentrating heavy metals in the belly of beasts. This has been known for quite a while.

      The reason we need to clean up tailings piles is because humans are really good at concentrating chemicals.

      One of the most interesting chemical/animal relations that I've heard of lately is that salmon bring up a great deal of nitrogen from the ocean. They fertilize the forests that provide the nutrients for baby salmon. Blocking the salmon run with damns decreases the value of the wood in the forest.

    3. Re:Baked.. by HermanAB · · Score: 3, Funny
      So, use the humans as batteries and when they fail, burn them to recover the metals.

      Sounds efficient to me.

      --
      Oh well, what the hell...
  2. *Ding!* by adun · · Score: 4, Funny

    talk about a cash crop!!!

    OMFGLOL i kill myself.

  3. Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I like this guy, he's able to piss off tree-huggers and anti-mining people at the same time.

    1. Re:Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Modern evnironmentalist organizations are nothing but anti-corporate, anti-progress, anti-technology, socialist whiners who would cut off mother earth's nose to spite anyone in a three piece suit."

      Anti-progress sums it all up. Here is an interview with a psychologist who studied a certain breed of environmentalist (anti-nuke) and describes their psychopathologies.

    2. Re:Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Are there any environmental groups left that still think?
      Greenspirit is not too far off. It's by one of the co-founders of Greenpeace, I believe, who stopped liking Greenpeace. His "environmentalism for the 21st century" is all about benefitting humans.

      In any case, I could replace "environmental group" with "group" in your question and have the answer still be "no".

    3. Re:Heh by zx75 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Is there a difference? Or is he pissing off the same people twice as much?

      --
      This is not a sig.
    4. Re:Heh by ChrisMaple · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Look for small organizations without government funding that concentrate their efforts in one state and do things like buying land for preserves and cutting hiking trails.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    5. Re:Heh by cowscows · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Exactly. By the time anything becomes national or global, it has already become more of a beurocracy than anything else, by the very nature of organizations of that size. The people at the top are too far disconnected from people on the ground doing real work, and even if they have good intentions, they're not going to be able to make proper decisions. Although it's cliched, the saying "think globally, act locally" is some of the best advice for environmentalists.

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

    6. Re:Heh by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      to piss off tree-huggers

      And why would that be?

      Understand: tree-huggers is your name for them. Granted there are probably some neo-druids in the bunch who would get pissed off. However, what most of these folks (both people who want to preserve forests and those who want to keep mining regulated) are concerned about is the fouling of habitat. Just like hunting enthusiasts or fishermen (like me) are, but for different reasons.

      It's the shameless fouling of habitat, leaving somebody else to clean up after them, that gets the "anti-mining" (your word for them again) people pissed. It's when the clean water regulations are rewritten so that miners can dump their tailings in streams that gets them pissed. Hell, that gets me pissed, but I'm not anti-mining. Mine all the hell you want but clean up after yourself and keep your crap out of the public's way. By your logic I'm anti-shitting because I don't want you to take a dump the sidewalk in front of my house.

      Most environmentalists (including many who are engineers) want to create closed cycles (recycling get it?) in which waste products are reprocessed into goods. Like this guy is doing.

      So, no, there aren't going to be many "tree huggers" objecting to this.

      Sorry for the rant, but I'm getting pretty sick of right wing nutcases who "score points" with each other with arguments that are just plain stupid. I don't have a problem with guys like Bob Dole or John McCain who are intelligent and principled conservative. For chrissakes there's nothing that shows what a sorry state the Republican party is in than the fact they could have had McCain and they chose Bush (oh crap now you really got me going).

      Getting back to this post, it's an intellectually slimy exercise: make an incredibly stupid argument, and dress it up as a joke. This is Rush's excuse when he's caught saying something that is utterly stupid: he's not a political commentator, he's an entertainer. Understand I have no problem with making a political point with a joke, but if you want to make a political point, have something at least minimally logical to say, no matter how you say it. Just because something is a joke doesn't man it has to be stupid. You don't get a fricken pass if you say your bullshit with a smirk.

      I'm sick and tired of truth getting trashed, and I'm not gotting to let that crap pass anymore. Sorry to the rest of your folks, you didn't need to hear that.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    7. Re:Heh by HeghmoH · · Score: 2, Funny

      Somebody should do a study of the psychopathologies of noncognizant slashdot posters.

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    8. Re:Heh by Insanity · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wow, you can write in the needlessly complex and formal manner of a statistics textbook, you're my hero.

      Your entire argument can be summed up as follows:

      "Don't ascribe to an entire group a property that applies to only a subset of it."

      Don't try to be clever. You're not.

      --
      Nix absolutably seriousness.
    9. Re:Heh by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sierra club was a pretty solid organization, but I heard some environmentalists were kindof trying to hijack it.

      Personally, I just stick to volunteering at my local arboretum.

      --

      ___
      It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
    10. Re:Heh by Whumpsnatz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Cut off mother earth's nose"? Just what do you think is happening to "mother earth" now? With intentional extermination of vast ecosystems, the obliteration of coral reefs, the tainting of every inch of the earth with poisons and heavy metals, with fertilizers causing massive algae blooms, with fresh water being wasted and rivers being run dry, with a large part of the worlds forests being burned to the ground, with fish being driven to extinction because countries are too stupid to stop massive overfishing, with the greatest extinction since the dinosaurs under way right now .... the just what the hell does it take for people like you to WAKE UP!

      No, you'd rather put down people who want to salvage some part of the planet from our "extinction-event" ways.

      Socialist? No, I think of myself as a public property advocate. Those rivers? The sky? The public lands? Even the animals? They're mine! (all mine, I tell you, mine, mine, har, har, har). Yeah, I share it with about a bazillion people, but why should I give corporations (or governments, or individuals, for that matter) free rein to rape and plunder it?

      Do you ever think? Or do you just "fall prey to the suck"?

    11. Re:Heh by Rutulian · · Score: 2, Informative

      There exists subset C of A such that every member of C has property P.

      Therefore every every member of A has property P.


      Actually, there is this thing called statistics which basically states:
      1) If C is a simple random sample of the members of A, and
      2) C is sufficiently large to be representative of A, then
      3) Conclusions drawn from sample C are reflective of A

      And in such a situation, the statement according to the laws of logic, if your argument is valid, it is likewise valid for any values of A,E,C,P, provided the set containment relationships hold is not true because there are restrictions on C.

      Psychology, and science in general, uses statistics to analyze data because it is not possible to measure property P of every member of A. Restricting your focus to C does not make the science any less valid provided the statistics are done right (which includes confidence intervals). Unfortunately, the statistics are often done wrong or the evidence is spurious, which is why it is important to stay on your toes and critically analyze an experimental setup before accepting the conclusions of a new study.

    12. Re:Heh by hey! · · Score: 2, Interesting

      OK, well it's time for you "reasonable" tree huggers to step up and take the reigns from the watermelon

      Sorry, no can do. You see, in a democracy, there's nothing I can do on one hand to keep those people from expressing their opinions, and on the other from keeping the right wing character assasination machine from taking the opinion of the "loonies" and making it stand for the whole

      Please, take back the environmental movement from the loonies.

      Impossible to do dir, since it never belonged to them.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  4. The important question is... by me98411 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... how much do you spend to get a dollar-worth of gold/other metals to grow on a tree. The article does not say that.

    1. Re:The important question is... by Vampo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      By the sound of it, it would be more of a "pay for itself" decontamination process than a biological goldmine. As soon as the metals are cleared out, the land will be used to grow any other plants and most probably be stuffed with fertilisers. Then a few years down the line some other miracle plants will be used to clear those out and keep the cycle going...

    2. Re:The important question is... by Mister+Moose · · Score: 3, Informative
      bacteria can be used to mine some ores by making them water soluable then washing the biosolids out.

      microbial mining

      microbial mining and manufacturing

    3. Re:The important question is... by crimoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It doesn't sound like they are making too much money off the process, rather that it is simply self-sufficient.

      The gold harvested from the process pays for the cleanup - with money left over for training in sustainable agriculture.

      I suppose they sould end the training and end up with some sort of profit.

    4. Re:The important question is... by Feanturi · · Score: 2, Informative

      ... how much do you spend to get a dollar-worth of gold/other metals to grow on a tree. The article does not say that.

      What the article does say is that he gets his money back. The harvested metals pay for the cleanup. It might not be a huge profit, the article doesn't mention anything about that, but at least it appears self-sustaining.

    5. Re:The important question is... by robogun · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Don't be so sure it can't eventually make money. The microbial process (also called bio-leach) sounds environmentally better than the cyanide heap-leach mining process popular now. Such processes are useful for thin gold ores (less than one ounce/ton).

      For example, the low gold content in alluvial fans, downwash from the Chocolate Mountains outside Glamis Calif. never interested the gold-rushers of the 1800s, but since heap and vat leaching was introduced in the 1970s, probably more gold has come out of that mine than in all the placers in the north. Last I checked (it was a while ago) they had pulled more than half a billion dollars worth of gold out of there. Larger mines exist in Nevada and Montana.

      The bio process is being refined because the mining companies fear tightening environmental regulations will result in the eventual banning of the cyanide-based processes.

  5. In other News... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    small pigs seen flying over frozen lake of fire... Here is Tom with the weather...

    1. Re:In other News... by SmackCrackandPot · · Score: 2, Funny

      Scientists have announced that they have bred a new strain of plants that can leech the explosives out of buried land-mines. However, they are advising that people should stay well away from these plants during an electrical storm, and that they should not light cigarettes or start camp fires at any other time.

  6. If money doesn't grow on trees... by Toxygen · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...then where does paper come from?

    1. Re:If money doesn't grow on trees... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      American money is actually more akin to cloth than paper. It's really considered almost a fabric. That's why it doesn't rip up when you accidentally wash it in your laundry.

    2. Re:If money doesn't grow on trees... by kfg · · Score: 3, Informative

      Most of what goes into making the bills is cotton.

      And cotton grows on. . . Chevys?

      It's a plant fiber, just like wood. Paper is felted plant fibers. Cloth is spun and woven fibers (plant or otherwise). Paper money is paper and has absolutely no resemblence to cloth, other then the fact that they're both made of plant fibers. It is the processing that determines whether said plant fibers are paper or cloth. You simply have an ingrained way of thinking cotton=cloth=blue jeans, wood=pulp=paper.

      And you can make clothes out of paper (just as you can make clothes out of felted wool). Paper clothing was actually a bit of a fad in the 60's, especially in Japan, and you'll still find that hospitals contain a lot of it. Dupont is pushing for a return of the popularity of paper clothing in its impregnated form. It goes under the trade name Tyvek. Your outward most clothing (your house) may already rely on it heavily.

      A good chunk of what is in your paper money that is not cotton is flax (and the rest is silk, which is an animal fiber. That's what the little colored bits are. It's really only there to make visible little colored bits), which when made into cloth is known as linen and it's really the flax content that gives paper money its rather unique feel. Go to Office Max or somewhere of the like and find some pure rag paper. This paper is cotton. It feels like very good paper, but it does not feel like money (or anything even vaguely like cloth, since it is not woven). Flax has fine fibers which are more "woody" than cotton (which is why cotton has largely replaced it for clothing), but of a peculiar smoothness and with a fiber length measured in feet rather than inches, and whose terminal ends taper to fine points (which is why flax is uprooted rather than cut).

      If you wish to feel what pure linen paper feels like go to any printer that makes wedding invitations and ask to see some samples.

      And as per my opening question, money, of course, already grows on trees, it's called "trees," which are as much of a tradable commodity as gold. Gold is not money any more than paper is money. Money may be made from paper or gold, but money is an abstracted medium of exchange, for which one obtains commodities, such as wood and gold. Or may well sell those commodities for if one possesses them but desires some other commodity instead, like a car or TV set.

      If you really wish to make money growing trees, plant a black walnut grove, tend for 400 years, and then sell. You'll make a bloody fortune. If you have less patience tend for twenty years and then sell as a black walnut grove. Unless you live someplace like downtown LA you'll find that the cash value of the trees exceeds the value of the land they're growing on.

      Wood is valuable stuff. It gets even more valuable as it becomes rarer, just like everything else. The main interest the English government had in New England was its trees. 90 foot clear pine for masts and 400 year old oaks for framing had become virtually extinct in Europe, but were absolutely necessary to rule the waves.

      KFG

  7. That would be great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting


    if Gold was actually scarce, the reality is it is not uncommon at all, why go through a complicated refining process to extract grams when the same amount of extraction energy would be better put to extracting tonnes

    1. Re:That would be great by reezle · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think his point is that the plants are extracting a wide variety of heavy metals from the soil (cleaning things up). The gold is just one of the more valuable materials to come out of the cleanup process and help pay for things...

    2. Re:That would be great by delibes · · Score: 5, Informative

      The point isn't to make money out of this. They're doing it to clean up the pollution. It's nice that the gold can be sold to cover costs and provide some education, but it's great that they can get the mercury out of the soil.

      --
      This is not a sig
    3. Re:That would be great by Feanturi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      if Gold was actually scarce, the reality is it is not uncommon at all, why go through a complicated refining process to extract grams when the same amount of extraction energy would be better put to extracting tonnes

      It's not so much about getting every last bit of gold through an involved process.. The process is there to clean up the ground from all the contaminants from the mining, so the land can eventually be used for food crops.

  8. Been doing that already... by Jace+of+Fuse! · · Score: 5, Funny

    Anybody who has ever played Animal Crossing knows that if you run around shaking enough trees eventually a bag of money will fall out.

    Just be careful, some of them have bee hives.

    --

    "Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"

    Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
  9. Is gold even used as money any more? by WTFmonkey · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I know you can sell/exchange it, but you can't trade it for groceries at the local Gas'n'Go... is gold even consider "money" anymore, or is it just pretty stuff with a historical sigificance that we still attach some value to?

    1. Re:Is gold even used as money any more? by LostCluster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In the USA, we've moved off of the "Gold Standard" years ago. Fort Knox sill has a large gold reserve to prove that the US Government controls some riches, but there's no static exchange rate anymore. That's why the price of gold changes on a daily market basis just like the conversion between dollar and any other currency.

    2. Re:Is gold even used as money any more? by Xshare · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Thanks to Wikipedia for the following: Today gold is often kept as a hedge against the US dollar or other G8 "hard currencies". In addition to other precious metals, it has several competitors as store of value: the US dollar itself and real estate (which of course is dependent on property rights recognized in a country). None of these has the stability of gold had, thus there are occasionally calls to restore the gold standard, or to move to a new standard based on ecological yield of natural capital, e.g. Global Resource Banking. Given the difficulty of assessing such standards as compared to the simple weighing of gold, it seems not likely they can really take hold. Some privately issued modern currencies (such as e-gold) are backed by gold bullion.

    3. Re:Is gold even used as money any more? by Sadburger · · Score: 5, Informative

      Gold is still available as a currency. At this time, many countries produce gold bullion coins with a face value. Here in the USA we produce the Gold American Eagle series (started in 1986) of gold coins, available in four different sizes (1/10 ounce, 1/4 ounce, 1/2 ounce, and One Ounce). While they are technically produced just for investors and collectors, they do have a legal face value and you could actually spend them, if you didn't mind paying about 8.6 dollars for every dollar you spend (the one ounce piece has a face value of $50, and at todays market price runs about $430)
      Sadburger

    4. Re:Is gold even used as money any more? by DarthTaco · · Score: 5, Informative

      In 1933 Roosevelt made it illegal for a citizen to own gold. They were forced to turn over all their gold in exchange for paper money.

      In 1975, it was made legal again to own gold bullion. But money it ain't.

    5. Re:Is gold even used as money any more? by cgranade · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I have always wondered what gold itself is backed by. You can't eat gold... it only has value inasmuch as people give it value. Truly, then, what is gold backed by?

      --

      #define DRM chmod 000

    6. Re:Is gold even used as money any more? by jdreed1024 · · Score: 2, Informative
      Here in the USA we produce the Gold American Eagle series (started in 1986) of gold coins, available in four different sizes (1/10 ounce, 1/4 ounce, 1/2 ounce, and One Ounce). While they are technically produced just for investors and collectors

      They're designed to be evocative of the original eagle series from the 1800s through ~1930. Quarter Eagles were worth $2.50, half eagles were worth $5, eagles were worth $10, and double eagles (produced for a short time only) were $20.

      --
      There is no sig, there is only Zuul.
    7. Re:Is gold even used as money any more? by pikine · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In theory, to use gold as currency, one equates the amount of gold in market with the value of the rest of the goods and services in the market. If both gold mining and resource development are going at the same rate, the value of gold stays approximately the same. However, since there is only a fixed amount of gold on earth, the mining yield would exhaust one day, possibly before other goods and services are exhausted so, especially considering that one can associate value with services as well, not just goods. Goods are constrainted to the amount of natural resources, but services can be provided as long as people will do so.

      The implication in using gold as currency is that the value of goods and services will actually deflate in terms of gold as more goods and services are provided! This would bother some people, especially the government, who often uses inflation as a form of taxation.

      --
      I once had a signature.
    8. Re:Is gold even used as money any more? by Sadburger · · Score: 2, Interesting

      double eagles (produced for a short time only) were $20.
      not to be nitpicky, but with production dates from 1850 (1849, if you count patterns) to 1933 and a total mintage of over 100 million pieces, I don't see how the double eagle qualifies as "for a short time only" :-p Sadburger

    9. Re:Is gold even used as money any more? by nr · · Score: 3, Informative

      There only exists a limited quanity of it on earth, that is what gives it value.

      Platinum is more rare and scarse than gold and silver, which gives it a much higher value per ounce.

      Prices are defined by supply and demand on the open market. Latest prices can be seen here:

      Metals

    10. Re:Is gold even used as money any more? by MickLinux · · Score: 3, Informative

      Gold is backed by lots of uses. It is valuable for use in photographic film chemicals; for its low resistance (in computer chip wires); for its low melting temperature (in jewelry); for its chemical properties (to stimulate some reactions).

      And yes, the (asian) Indians do eat it. They pound either Gold or Silver into an extremely thin foil, then wrap their medicines in it, and swallow it. Likewise, in the Bible the children of Israel had to eat their golden false god calf.

      Gold is also especially useful as a retirement and security account for Indian women. Their jewelry doubles as cash, if need be.

      Gold is still valuable. On the other hand, one might ask what the US dollar is backed by. Some would say "the US economy". More knowledgable people might perhaps say "the fact that OPEC takes dollars". Yet others would say "the Japanese economy, which buys up dollars to obtain a favorable balance of trade." My brother would say "the requirement by the US government for us to pay our taxes in dollars." I'm not sure... but I'd bet that Gold has more inherent value than US dollars.

      --
      Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
  10. Wow - purple leaves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    from the article "Anderson's field trials also yielded an unexpected and potentially profitable byproduct. The plants he harvested had purple leaves because they contained gold nanoparticles, which are purple, not yellow. These nanoparticles melt at one tenth the temperature of regular gold - which makes them highly sought after for industrial processes, such as cleaning up carbon monoxide in fuel cells."

    so where can get that chemical spray for the soil? I like to apply some to around here

  11. Nuggets by barakn · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Theory is that gold nuggets don't just occur by themselves, they're deposited by microbial colonies.

    --
    "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
  12. from the money-for-nothing dept. by rdsmith4 · · Score: 5, Funny

    If only they'd get working on "chicks for free."

  13. Gold is Where You Find It by handy_vandal · · Score: 5, Informative

    the reality is ... [gold] is not uncommon at all, why go through a complicated refining process to extract grams when the same amount of extraction energy would be better put to extracting tonnes

    It's true that gold is not uncommon. My grandfather, a rockhound, used to observe that gold is very widely distributed around the world. He'd say: "Where is gold? Gold is where you find it."

    What makes this plant-based reclamation process valuable is that it allows people who own low-grade deposits (e.g. mine tailings) to recover the gold. Say I'm a mine owner, and I've dug up all the gold on my land. I'm in the gold-mining business, but now my business will die, for lack of gold. Sure there's more gold in the world -- but can I afford to buy another mine? If not, I can at least use phyto-remediation to extract some gold from my otherwise useless mine tailings.

    Besides, the main point of phyto-remediation to remove toxic metals from the environment. The process may not generate enough gold excite the envy of Croesus, but it does pay for the toxic-metal cleanup

    -kgj

    --
    -kgj
    1. Re:Gold is Where You Find It by core+plexus · · Score: 4, Informative
      It's true that gold is not uncommon. My grandfather, a rockhound, used to observe that gold is very widely distributed around the world. He'd say: "Where is gold? Gold is where you find it."

      That's true, but misleading.

      All elements have what we call "crustal abundance". However, that does not mean that you can profitably (key word here) extract aluminum or gold or whatever you're mining for unless natural processes have concentrated the element many times higher than crustal abundance. There is, for example, gold found in the human body. But, like seawater, the relative amounts are so small that there is currently no profitable mining/extraction method.

      As for gold, the fact is that gold nuggets are far more rare than diamonds. Most large nuggets mined before 1992 have been melted down. This is part of the reason a gold nugget is worth 2x-3x or more of the spot price for gold. And make no mistake, gold is used as a medium of exchange, perhaps not at your corner fuel station, but certainly between investors, countries, and others. Especially people who don't trust the fake money printed out by governments, which rely soley on the perception of value. Disclaimer: IAAM (I am a miner).

      I'd love to see something like this coupled with something like this: Alaska Bugs Sweat Gold Nuggets, since I am thinking that only the smallest particles would be recovered by the corn method.

      -cp-

    2. Re:Gold is Where You Find It by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The answer is natural scarcity. Gold doesn't have to have an inherent value to it by virtue of its usefulness, in fact, the whole point is that gold really doesn't. There are some industrial uses for it, but those are relatively few and comprise a small percentage of global usage.

      Gold, as money, could simply be a token of exchange. Exactly like paper money, except that it's completely impossible to make more of it than is naturally present on our planet. The total quantity of mined gold probably grows at a rate roughly like our population, so the value of gold is essentially constant through time.

      It's currency that doesn't, and can't, be devalued - short of some incredible discovery that makes minable gold reserves far more abundant.

      Of course, what I just described hasn't been the case for a long time. We've fooled ourselves into thinking of gold as a commodity rather than as pure money. We've also convinced ourselves that scraps of paper printed by the government actually have value to them. The world financial system is an incredibly complex lie that we have all agreed to believe, without ever truly understanding it. It works, for now, but it's fragile... when it collapses, gold and other naturally scarce metals will be the only true currency.

  14. pre-Beyond2000 ... by torpor · · Score: 2, Informative

    ... was actually called "Towards 2000" ... and they had a show on it.

    --
    ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
  15. So.... by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Funny

    my Breast-Tree is not so far-fetched after all.

    "Sir, please no squeazing the fruit!"

  16. Extraction Method? by GaussianInteger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not only do we have to worry about how much gold/heavy metals will be left in the plant, a much more important question is how this material will be extracted. I assume that to get rid of all the carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, and nitrogen that make up most of the plant, they would burn or heat the plant in some way, which could posssily contribute to pollution (since the Nitrogen containing compounds don't necesarily always go into Nitrogen gas). Also, since the plant is basically contaiminated with heavy metals, it really has no other side use, and so its only purpose will be for this mineral extraction. Is this profitable or feasible?

    1. Re:Extraction Method? by ajs318 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Burning plants and doing something with the heat is not as bad as burning fossil fuels, because with plants it's a closed cycle ..... you are only putting back what you already took out.

      There is nitrogen and sulphur in plants, but it comes from the air or from the ground. Nobody cared when it was there before the plants you grew pulled it out, elements don't change into other elements {except in a nuclear reaction which we are not considering here} so why should anyone give a monkey's toss when you put it back? And if you do something with the heat, like produce steam to spin a turbine to generate electricity, then you have saved the need to burn some amount of fossil fuel.

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
  17. Vision & Ingenuity by Justifiable_Delusion · · Score: 5, Interesting

    These are the things which will move the world forward. The small wonderous discoveries which can actually change and fix things.

    This example in particular is very simple and will have a smaller effect but it can potentially have a very vital effect on those in the region.

    Other things like this will come around and some of them are going to have an amazing effect. I can't even define what that invention will be obviously...but maybe someone will someday make the air to electricity machine from Atlas Shrugged?

    With computing power slowly ramping up and in some time nano technology being moved to a consumer level in combination with the printing of electronics (if we really even need that...with true control over molecular movements we technically could create whatever we wanted in a nice little microwave or whatever - a la star trek - and it really isn't all that science fiction...its just time and patience and some science)

    People could soon be inventing the most amazing things in their own homes on random weekends...each of us will become research and creation experts...

    its bright

    --
    Mad, adj : Affected with a high degree of intellectual independence. Ambrose Bierce - The Deveil's Dictionsary
  18. Smoking is Bad for you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    People have know about this "soaking up minerals from the ground" thing for a while. Forinstance, tobacco plants soak up polonium(uranium?) from the ground and that goes in to your lungs, as well as the rat poison and what ever the hell is in those things.

  19. This gets it out of top soil... by misleb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What about deeper down in, say, the water table? What about runoff into rivers and streams? What I dont' like about this process (or maybe just this article) is that it seems to give a green light to irresponsible mining and toxic watest disposal by saying... "It's OK. We have these plants now. You can go crazy with the heavy metal polution."

    -matthew

    --
    "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
  20. Hitchhiker's Guide? by koi88 · · Score: 3, Funny

    I remember something similar was also done in Douglas Adam's Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
    They used leaves as money; the only problem was the galloping inflation that was caused by everybody suddenly becoming so rich...

    --

    I don't need a signature.
  21. A lot of things do this by panurge · · Score: 3, Informative
    I believe that a lot of research is ongoing into this. As well as gold, there is the possibility of cleaning up heavy metal residues from industrial processes, and I believe that some nickel contaminated lakes have resulted in shellfish that can survive high nickel concentrations and accumulate nickel, providing a possible cleanup mechanism. I would have liked to have something like this at the back end of a nickel plating plant, instead of producing loads of contaminated, hard to treat sludge.

    But then we (homo sap. sap.)are good at this: we can accumulate lead in our bones from drinking water or contaminated air, and I believe that mercury too can get collected by the body (gets resorbed in the lower intestine, I think.)

    --
    Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
  22. Could this be a legal form of... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...Panama Gold.

  23. Bioremediation by crem_d_genes · · Score: 5, Informative

    Bioremediation has been around for quite a while - it is a good idea in many situations.

    There are a couple of things that really come out in the article is this - "First, he treats the contaminated soil with chemicals that break the gold down into water-soluble particles. Then he introduces the crops"

    Gold and mercury in the soil is a pretty nasty amalgam - and gold being otherwise so *noble* - so I'm wondering how he's mobilizing it -
    The article says the plants had purple leaves - "The plants he harvested had purple leaves because they contained gold nanoparticles" - again not totally breaking news - but he must be using something that can break the gold down *that* small (when there is a lot of gold in mercury, you can literally strain the gold out essentially with a filter like a cheesecloth - that is the technique that is being used by most miners of this sort in the first place.
    Then they literally *cook* the amalgam covered pice of gold in a frying pan (though it could be done with nitric acid - or other things to remove the mercury from the surface)
    In the process, a lot of mercury ends up spilled - and the residue from the *cook* is dense and fuming - and ends up not far away (like in the soil, the streams, or the miner's brain before too long) - Gold too small to picked up in the straining - In fact any microscale gold has been the subject of pretty intense interest because it is much more abundant than the occasional nugget -

    Cyanide leaching is a very common process in areas where there is a lot of sunlight, since the cyanide can break down in holding pools - I highly doubt he would be using any cyanide - even if it could be shown to break down - it would most likely do very poorly on the plant side. Some halide - Bromides? Let's hope not. AuCl ion? - That's the most likely - or probably the most hoped for. There really aren't that many things that can dissolve gold - But there are actually quite a few ways to do what is being suggested with plants - here's one using geraniums.

  24. And for our next project.... by tverbeek · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...we'll be mining inner-city and third-world children for lead and mercury.

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/
  25. Self Powering by bhima · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I've always found phyto-remediation and myco-remediation fascinating. Add to this that one of the crops is canola, even better!

    There's no need to move this stuff far, just crack the oil locally for the ethyl and methyl ester fatty acids after you've removed the heavy metals and you could power a diesel power plant which could probably power the whole project and the local village.

    --
    Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
  26. Re:It would be great.. by aismail3 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually, as the article implies, there would have to be at least a small gold deposit under your garden, in which case you could probably make money quicker by selling the land. It seems to me that the main implication of this discovery is that pollutants can be removed from the soil, not that significant amounts of gold can be harvested.

  27. Not that new by toxic666 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This idea isn't really new, but it is interesting to see it applied to metals in soil. Fast-growing trees with tap roots have been used to extract contaminants from groud water for years.

    The thing the article does not mention is how many harvests it takes to remove metals and the final concentration left in soil. Neither does it mention the processes effectiveness at removing other harmful metals frequently associated with gold deposits (silver, arsenic, lead, etc.). Metals like mercury and lead have human health and environmental impacts in very low concentrations. I'm not sure I would return this land to farming use without adequate analysis of post-remedial soils, but forestry may well be viable.

  28. Mel Chin did this with "Revival Field" by AlanGreenspan · · Score: 5, Informative


    Last term at the University of Oregon, we had the conceptual artist Mel Chin give a lecture on one of his projects entitled "Revival Field".

    It's quite similar to what Chris Anderson is doing in Chile and Brazil. Funded by a $10,000 grant from the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), Revival Field was the first experiment in the United States to use plants to absorb toxic metals from the soil. This launched the nation's burgeoning phytoremediation industry, which one business analyst predicts will be a $400 million dollar business by 2005.

  29. I had a plant in college by hussar · · Score: 3, Funny

    We put it right next to the stereo speakers, and it harvested a lot of heavy metal too.

    --

    Bureaucracy loves company.
  30. Lead contamination by wass · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Yeah, I remember a few years ago my friend telling me about some special plants that have a high affinity for lead. These are planted at sites w/ possible lead contamination, and eventually the plants are harvested and smelted down to obtain the lead metal.

    This was about 5 years ago, and she said this process has already been in use at that time.

    --

    make world, not war

  31. Re:Same risks as GM crops by Garridan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Doesn't work that way. These plants are poisonous because they have absorb large amounts of mercury and gold from the soil. It logically follows that the pollen from these plants will also have a relatively high concentration of gold. Consider the microscopic size of a particle of pollen -- I'm making some big assumptions here, but that particle of pollen should have something on the order of a few thousand gold atoms. Every plant is born from exactly 1 pollen particle. So those thousand or so gold atoms will be spread out over the entire plant -- if you formed 10 thousand atoms of gold into a bullet, and shot that bullet into the head of the bee that pollinated the plant, the bee would live. Just ain't that much gold. And there's only half as much mercury.

    The difference is, GM crops are genetically modified. These plants are just contaminated by heavy metals. If those heavy metals were highly radioactive, you might have a point -- but even then, a few thousand atoms per plant probably wouldn't do anything to anybody.

  32. What!? by AvoidTheNoid · · Score: 2, Funny

    Money does grow on trees?

    My Dad is going to get such a punching...

  33. I always wondered... by CaptainFrito · · Score: 3, Funny

    Ooohhh, so, that's how they make "gold leaf"...

  34. They've been doing this in China... by tsm_sf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    for years. Mainly using water hyacinth to clean up polluted bodies of water.

    --
    Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
  35. And higher up the food chain? by LeJoueur · · Score: 4, Insightful
    This is a very ingenious idea and I'd like to highlight some simplification that the article has had to make.

    I'm no zoologist/biologist/ environmental impact assessor or environmental engineer but I do know that the concentration of the heavy metals and the likes increases up the food chain, i.e., the herbivores feeding on these plants would suffer from a higher heavy metal concentration which would not even be half as bad as that suffered by the carnivores/omnivores (think local human population) feeding on them...

    Now, I'm sure that this person is very knowledgeable and will have tried to make sure that animals aren't able to feed on them, but as any engineer, I'm trained to be skeptical. It strikes me as difficult a thing to ensure, specially in such remote areas as the article mentions (Amazon... might also be of use in somewhere like Zambia/Congo, South-East Asia, Madagascar, etc.).

    Furthermore, fast growing imports (shrubs, etc. which I presume would be of use here) could well outgrow the localised regions of the mines and start competing with the indiginous flora. Tropical forests take a long time to rejuvenate and tropical trees have very slow growth rates, which puts them at a sever disadvantage when having to compete against fast growing imports for space and sun...This phenomenon is to be blamed for the disappearance of the local ecosystem from such small tropical islands (e.g. Mauritius, Indian Ocean is one victim that I'm aware of) and so it is something that has to be borne in mind when you want to implement such a scheme.

    I hope all of these are/will be factored in whenever such a scheme is to be implemented/ someone tries to "help" Nature recover.

  36. France, too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    The question of whether the American order really made it illegal to own gold, or whether it was just illegal to hoard gold, is academic...

    but there is a more interesting tale from France. In the 1700's, France engaged in the Mississippi Scheme, a stock-jobbing plan based on expected returns from the Louisiana territories.

    It had the classic effect, most recently repeated in the Internet boom and crash.

    At the height of the Mississippi boom, the stock in the Mississippi corporation was a better currency than the franc, and was used as the national medium of exchange.

    When it turned out that nothing was really happening in Mississippi at all, the paper money suddenly became worthless, and everyone tried to convert it into gold, then sneak that gold out of the country.

    As a result, the king ordered that gold be illegal as a medium of exchange, and that ownership of more than a pittance was also grounds for confiscation.

    When the U.S. prohibited the owning of large amounts of gold, it was entirely different... they wanted to maintain the stability of the metal itself, as the underpinning of the U.S. dollar, rather than suppressing gold ownership entirely.

    Don't forget that when the U.S. was on the gold standard, having a dollar MEANT owning gold. That dollar was a certificate for that much from the federal reserve.

    1. Re:France, too by Sadburger · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Gold Backed certificates were issued in larger denominations of $10 and $20. Silver Certificates issued in $1 and $5. The silver certificates were issued all the way up into the 1960's, and were redeemable until 1968 I do believe.

      Sadburger

  37. Tiberium! by oneiros27 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So far, it's been two hours since this was posted, and no one's mentioned tiberium? [Okay, someone mentioned Command & Conquer, and was maked 'offtopic', even though he wasn't.]

    For those of you non-gamer geeks, the basic premise for money production in the game was that there was this plant, tiberium, which would leech minerals from the ground, and you would collect it up, and you'd get a source of funding that you could use to produce troops, tanks, buildings, whatever to take out your opponents.

    Of couse, the problem was, that regular troopers were harmed if they went into a tiberium field. [However, they only took damage for moving, in the original game]. Later sequels introduced a mutant army, who healed if they were in a tiberium field.

    Red Alert had crystal fields, which just wasn't the same [they didn't regenerate for one], and C&C Generals uses supply depots -- no concept of tiberium at all. [The best thing about tiberium was that it grew over time, as opposed to being a fixed resource]

    --
    Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
  38. Oh puh-lease. by Dirk+Pitt · · Score: 3, Offtopic
    This "you can't call things from the USA American" crap gets so old. You might be one of those people that *has* to point this out, but it's quite incorrect.

    Point One: The USA is the only *country* in the world with the name America in it, so far as google and I know,

    Point Two: The people of a country always have a descriptive name related to the name of said country. For example: Russian, French, Italian, Canadian, etc.

    Final Point: Would you really have us called 'YouEssAyyans'? 'Staters'? 'United People'? What -- seriously, can you think of a more descript name for the citizens of the US of America?

    "America" does indeed describe to continents, and yes, most, ahem, Americans know it. If there was country called 'The United Factions of Europe', you can damn well guarantee they'd call them Europeans, and everyone would know what they meant. As a matter of fact, I have a friend who's South African. No one questions the legitimacy of this description of his homeland, even though there are certainly other countries that could be called South African (the continent). Everyone, everywhere in the world knows what someone means when you say 'American' (and yes, it's usually conjures negative connotation).

    Anyway, descriptors of continents often connote ethnic background, which isn't applicable here at all. 'South American' suggests a clear ethnic origin, as does 'European', 'Asian', and 'African'. But what does 'North American' suggest? The only valid use of 'North American' is for discussions of geography, in which the word 'continent' would usually be applied anyway. I can *absolutely* say that if you're in Mexico and guarantee something with American money, they won't be expecting pesos.

    1. Re:Oh puh-lease. by e_pluribus_funk · · Score: 2, Funny

      Central America isn't a continent you moron, it's a region. Just like the "Middle East" isn't a continent, it's part of Asia (hence it's other name, Southwest Asia).

      The Americas are divided into two continents, North and South America.

      Simply put, Americans can call themselves Americans for a couple of reasons:

      #1 because they choose to.
      #2 because no one else chooses to.

      So EVERYONE knows what people are talking about when someone mentions an American. Only pedantic assholes who probably bitch about the floral pattern of their friend's toilet paper really give a shit about Americans being called Americans and "appropriating" "3 [sic]" contintents.

  39. Brazil nuts, and extracting waste pharmaceuticals by morcheeba · · Score: 2, Informative

    Brazil Nuts are naturally high in barium (0.3% by weight) and radium -- making it one of the most radioactive foods.

    I wonder if plants can be used to extract waste pharmaceuticals out of the ground, too, such as destruxol and THC.

  40. gold is backed by... by Hooya · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...the last remaining superpower armed to the teeth with nukes. any questions? i didn't think so.

  41. British steel use reed beds. by Moderation+abuser · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They pipe their waste water through reed beds to remove contaminants. They've had them in place since the 1960s.

    It isn't just the reeds themselves which clean the water, they support microbiological colonies which break down organic and inorganic toxins and fix heavy metals in the soil keeping them out of the ground water.

    --
    Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
  42. A slightly older sci-fi idea brought to life by Chas · · Score: 2, Informative
    Straight out of the pages of Leo Frankowski's "Copernick's Rebellion" (about a worldwide movement from an industrial society to one backed by bio-engineering (tree houses that grow how you want them and produce all the food you need, bio-engineered critters to save labor for us, and indeed, plants designed to filter/trap certain elements (Gold, Silver, Platinum, Mercury, etc).

    Here's a Spamazon link to the book.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  43. Re:THIS is Insightful??? by abenoboy · · Score: 2, Offtopic

    oops, wrong link (once again, Google news links to wrong story) "The Supreme Court upheld the standards in February, 2001, and environmental and public health groups, including the American Lung Association and Environmental Defense, sued to force the government into action." here we go

  44. Re:There's another question by ajs318 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    With a match.

    The ashes from burning the harvested plants {which does put CO2 back into the atmosphere, but only as much as the plants took out while growing -- and you can do something useful with the heat you generate, thereby saving you from having to burn a quantity of fossil fuel which would have produced the same amount of CO2 without taking it out first} will contain the metallic elements absorbed by the plant, either in their pure states {if they are particularly unreactive, e.g. gold} or as oxides. A book of physical and chemical properties of substances, something like Kaye and Laby for instance, would give you all the information you needed to devise suitable processes for separating the remains.

    --
    Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
  45. Bio gold by HermanAB · · Score: 2, Informative

    Use of bacteria to concentrate gold is done on a commercial scale in South Africa for about 2 decades already.

    --
    Oh well, what the hell...
  46. Re:A victory for children by demonbug · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now if we could only feed all those starving children in Africa...
    Well, if they use the resulting crops to feed the starving children in Africa, the problem should pretty much go away...

    (Note - this post for entertainment purposes only. I do not support feeding poisonous foodstuffs to starving African children. However, I do see this as a good way of getting rid of some of those damn holier-than-thou vegetarians)

  47. Saucer Wisdom by jchap · · Score: 2, Insightful


    Then the plants are harvested for their metal content. The plants aren't bio-engineered - he's taking advantage of the natural tendency for certain plants to accumulate heavy metals."

    Kinda reminds me of the 'knife plants' in 'Saucer Wisdom' by Rudy Rucker.

    Eg: "Jose and Amparo are no longer careful about harvesting every last knife. Here and there dried stalks rustle, with rusting knives..."

    The book's an excellent 'stab' at what the future may bring - recommended to /.ers.

  48. Mercury poisoning by ElliotLee · · Score: 2, Informative

    This is why disposing of mercury is so dangerous. When plants and animals eat it, it never goes away. It's highly toxic and causes brain development problems which are scary because they're so minor that people often don't notice.