Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Bacteria Live Happily in Nuclear Waste

Posted by michael on from the self-boiling dept.

unassimilatible writes "Scientists studying the soil beneath a leaking Hanford nuclear waste storage tank have discovered more than 100 species of bacteria living in a toxic, radioactive environment that most would have thought inhospitable to all forms of life, reports the Seattle PI. For most living creatures, the nuclear and chemical waste in the underground storage tanks on the Hanford Nuclear Reservation is the deadliest mixture of toxins and radioactive muck on the planet. For certain bacteria, however, this toxic goop left over from decades of nuclear weapons production appears to be just a second home. 'Scientifically, it's pretty interesting stuff,' said a microbiologist at the lab. 'The material in the tank is self-boiling and quite hot, so it's not just radioactive and harsh chemicals but also in extreme heat.' The discovery eventually could help researchers better understand how microorganisms can survive severe contaminants -- and how to use the bacteria to help clean up toxic environments. Hanford was an important site for the top-secret Manhattan Project to build the atomic bomb during World War II. For 40 years, it processed plutonium for the nation's nuclear weapons arsenal. Today, work there centers on a $50 billion to $60 billion cleanup, to be finished by 2035. See also, the related AP story."

10 of 75 comments (clear)

  1. Why is anyone surprised? by Inominate · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Everytime we look closely at an environment suspected to be unable to support life, we invariably find it.

    1. Re:Why is anyone surprised? by Carnildo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The rule these days seems to be "if there's liquid water and an energy source, there's life".

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
  2. Life finds a way by Pi_0's+don't+shower · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I completely agree. Just because we are such fragile creatures, we often (so erroneously) assume that all other creatures are fragile, too.

    Single-celled organisms, especially, can survive in ridiculous environments. A virus can be frozen and thawed years later with no ill effects. It's not that life is easy to just "create" out of nothing (oogenesis, and it's hard), but life is very hard to eradicate.

    Cockroaches, for one, can survive over 100x the radiation levels that would be lethal to humans.

    It's good that science is confirming what we all should have expected, I agree with the parent, and don't understand why anyone would have expected otherwise. Can anyone respond to this? (IANAB)

    1. Re:Life finds a way by Boglin · · Score: 3, Insightful
      IANAB either, but I am an amateur physicist. The difference between this and that standard scenario is that, instead of finding life where it should be missing the things it needs, we found it where there are things that should kill it. When we find life in pitch black portions of the ocean, we're surprised because life normally needs the sun to live, but here they have found a different energy source. The radioactive waste is different, however. We're not saying that life shouldn't live here because it's missing some crucial componenent, but because the radiation should destroy it. To put it differently, the ocean depths would kill most life forms, but we aren't surprised when a submarine makes it down there. With the nuclear waste, we're amazed every time it doesn't destroy things that aren't even alive. So to see things living where the inanimate die is quite remarkable.

      To put it differently, finding life in a closed ice source in the arctic is like finding an astronaut in a space suit on the moon. Finding life in nuclear waste is like finding an astronaut in bermuda shorts on the moon.

    2. Re:Life finds a way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      To put it differently, finding life in a closed ice source in the arctic is like finding an astronaut in a space suit on the moon. Finding life in nuclear waste is like finding an astronaut in bermuda shorts on the moon.

      Sorry, but that has to be the worst analogy I've ever heard.

    3. Re:Life finds a way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Just because we are such fragile creatures, we often (so erroneously) assume that all other creatures are fragile, too.

      Right conclusion, wrong reasoning. We aren't fragile at all. All sorts of bad shit can happen to us and we keep on living.

      The erroneous assumptions people make about "things can't live there" environments are because they are alien to us. Extreme temperatures for us are normal for other forms of life. It doesn't mean that we are fragile, it means that we are suited for one type of environment and these bacteria are suited for another.

      With many "inhospitable environments", we are already familiar with life that exists there. The best example is probably water. Completely inhospitable to us humans, but we are familiar with fish.

      The reason you are seeing more and more of these "inhospitable environments suddenly found to contain life" news items is because our science is advancing such that we can detect life more easily. Sure, fish are easy to spot. Bacteria in environments we can't approach without dying are not so easy to spot.

  3. Re:critter that does that... by maxume · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Plants?






    Sort of anyway...

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  4. Most? Who's most? by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 3, Insightful
    most would have thought inhospitable to all forms of life
    What is it with these statements about where we would think life can live? We've had so many stories about extremophiles over the last few years that I wouldn't be surprised to hear that life can live in hard vacuum, at temperatures over 200C or in even my shoes. By all means, keep telling us about cool new extremophiles, but please stop telling me I wouldn't have thought it possible. My imagination doesn't stop at this week's latest discovery.

    This isn't just a facetious point - it can damage the credibility of scientists to keep feigning surprise at things that really aren't that surprising any more.

    --
    Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
  5. Further Proof by turgid · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I say, this is just further proof of what we've been saying all along: irradiated food isn't safe to eat.

    /me ducks

    I think it's all this beer they make me drink.

    --
    Stick Men
  6. Re:happy bacteria? by cujo_1111 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Chocolate is a poison for dogs...

    chocolate contains theobromine, an alkaloid that dogs can't metabolize quickly. If a dog ingests a large amount of chocolate, the theobromine can build up and reach a toxic level of concentration, leading to cardiac arrest. Different types of chocolate are more harmful than others, and the effects will vary, depending upon the size and weight of the dog. However, it is potentially lethal.

    --
    If I point out that you are incorrect, making me a foe does not make you any more correct.