Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Bacteria To Protect Against Quakes

Posted by kdawson on from the shake-them-cilia dept.

Roland Piquepaille writes "If you live near the sea, chances are high that your home is built over sandy soil. And if an earthquake strikes, deep and sandy soils can turn to liquid with disastrous consequences for the buildings built above them. Now, US researchers have found a way to use bacteria to steady buildings against earthquakes by turning these sandy soils into rocks. 'Starting from a sand pile, you turn it back into sandstone,' the chief researcher explained. It is already possible to inject chemicals into the ground to reinforce it, but this technique can have toxic effects on soil and water. In contrast, the use of common bacteria to 'cement' sands has no harmful effects on the environment. So far this method is limited to labs and the researchers are working on scaling their technique. Here are more references and a picture showing how unstable ground can aggravate the consequences of an earthquake."

24 of 81 comments (clear)

  1. I hope they are not too successful by LM741N · · Score: 3, Funny

    "researchers are working on scaling their technique"

    I hope their technique doesn't scale too far. Its hard to make sand castles out of sandstone without power tools.

  2. No harmful effects by Silver+Sloth · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In contrast, the use of common bacteria to 'cement' sands has no harmful effects on the environment. Didn't they say the same about Cane Toads?
    --
    init 11 - for when you need that edge.
    1. Re:No harmful effects by beavis88 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And kudzu!

    2. Re:No harmful effects by Alicat1194 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You'd think at the very least it would change the water drainage patterns in the area (and thus the water table, local waterways etc, etc)

      --
      You can learn a lot about a person if you just take the time to inject them with sodium pentathol
    3. Re:No harmful effects by AlexanderDitto · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Won't somebody please think of the worms?!

      Oh humans! Messing with things we don't know aren't harmful. Things like this are nearly always used before they've had a chance to be researched thoroughly, leading to something going horribly, horribly wrong, like giant mutating monsters or zombies or alien attacks.

      Maybe I've just been watching too many horror flicks.... Either way, I should hope these people would proceed with extreme caution. I don't like the thought of the soil turning into one big slab of sheet rock. Where would my food come from?

      --
      No, Mr. Green. Communism is just a red herring.
  3. Research needed! by FredDC · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It seems to me that alot of research is needed to investigate possible side effects of such a process. Changing the soil composition is going to have far greater consequences than just protecting against earth quakes! Especially when used over large areas.

    Also I wonder how one would contain these bacteria, and stop them from spreading? I don't think we would want our beaches turned to stone...

    I am generally very reserved when it comes to releasing living organism where they don't belong and/or trying to alter the environment. There are just too many factors involved, and there is no way we can cover them all!

    --
    09 f9 11 02 9d 74 e3 5b d8 41 56 c5 63
    1. Re:Research needed! by canUbeleiveIT · · Score: 3, Informative

      Exactly.

      FTA: In contrast, the use of common bacteria to 'cement' sands has no harmful effects on the environment.

      That should read "...has no *known* harmful effects..." Introducing species has a long history of unintended consequences. For example:

      • Introduction of mongooses to various islands, resulting in the decimation of native bird populations
      • Introduction of the Nile Perch into Lake Victoria, resulting in the extinction of certain species of chichlids
      • Introduction of African (killer bees) honey bees to N. America
      • etc, etc

    2. Re:Research needed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why is it that we allow nature to run freely, in an uncontrolled manner, and think that's safe, but when things are done controlled, people get scared?

      Primarily because humans have proven themselves to be remarkably adept at fucking things up, even when we have the best of intentions.

      Nature "running freely" represents an equilibrium reached through 4+ billions years of physical and biological evolution here on planet earth. Now along come the humans, and before we even understand a fraction of a percent of the natural processes at work we start altering all kinds of fundamental systems.

      Maybe Kurt Vonnegut was right after all ...
    3. Re:Research needed! by Applekid · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There's lots of manipulation of nature by the human animal that hasn't spelt doom and gloom. The history of the species is pretty much a showcase of manipulating nature as we evolved away from nomadic lives. Agriculture, housing, infrastructure: all of it is about pushing selected external organisms away while favoring others. Sometimes it's the elimination of all other life like in building a mall or a power plant, sometimes it's the selected cultivation of certain organisms like wheat and beer yeast.

      The fact that humans happen to manipulate nature to our needs is as much a consequence of what we do as beavers building dams, mice digging holes, spiders lashing webbing between trees.

      Of course there have been a lot of problems with solutions that end up causing problems. But they seem to stand out apart from the millions of successes over millenia of mankind. I mean, "build somewhere else" is easy to say when there's lots of land to be spared, but tell that to Japan (for just one example) with some of the highest population to land area ratios in the world. Attempts to make vulnerable areas less so are simply a matter of intelligent mitigation rather than just throwing your arms up when a whole city could be potentially levelled.

      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
  4. Jeez by dr_d_19 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I know people think Quakers are wierd, isn't biological warfare a bit too much?

    Sorry.

  5. If only we could have found by idontgno · · Score: 2, Funny

    some microbial life form to prevent Diakatanas instead.

    --
    Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  6. This new learning amazes me, Sir Bedevere.... by Fromeo · · Score: 2, Funny

    Are these bacteria found on sheeps' bladders, by any chance?

  7. Lab workers save from earthquakes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    US researchers have found a way to use bacteria to steady buildings against earthquakes [...] So far this method is limited to labs I work in a lab, so at least I'll be safe at work.
    Awesome.
  8. Call me daft but... by symes · · Score: 2, Insightful

    surely the best way forward is to not build houses on sand in the first place?

    1. Re:Call me daft but... by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'd call you daft if you built a castle in a swamp, but you're right that there is a grain of truth in not building your house on sand. It's so dumb to build your house on sand that Jesus even spoke a parable about it for people who listen to his words, but don't actually put them into action.

      --
      God spoke to me.
    2. Re:Call me daft but... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      surely the best way forward is to not build houses on sand in the first place?

      Sorry, you must be new here. The way we do it is to encourage the wealthy to build mansions in unreasonable places and then bail them out from disasters with the public treasury, funded by broad-based regressive taxes.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    3. Re:Call me daft but... by ultranova · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Though I'm not one to ignore human suffering, I don't give it the same weight when it's obviously self inflicted. San Franciscans who suffer loss in earthquakes and Floridians who get hit by hurricanes simply don't "rate" with me on the tear duct scale.

      I was unaware that you can choose not to be born in San Francisco or Florida.

      They knew it was coming. They ignored the probability, not possibility, of the disaster. When a Floridian says, "I couldn't get hurricane insurance and now I've lost everything," with tears in his eyes, I listen for the part where his family is alive and well, and then I simply ignore him as a fool.

      Logically speaking, and discounting hyperbole in "I lost everything", someone who loses everything in a hurricane likely had no significant savings (since otherwise he would still have them). This means he's not capable of relocating, since that requires considerable financial resources. If he does manage to save some money, he likely has larger risks (fire insurance, car insurance, a newer and safer car, health insurance, etc) that should be mitigated first.

      Not everyone who fails to plan for every possible disaster does so out of foolishness. Someone might well know he lives in an unsafe place, but if he doesn't have enough money to move, he can't and that's that.

      World isn't just, and people who get hit with natural or any other kind of disasters usually don't deserve it, nor are they any more foolish than anyone else. They are just unlucky.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  9. potential fix for ground water problems in Boston? by DrewMIT · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Here in Boston, about most of the city's residents and commercial property is sitting on land fill. (At its time, the filling of Boston's Back Bay was the nation's largest public works project ever. The Big Dig is us reclaiming that dubious title) Buildings sit on wooden pilings that are buried in the landfill below the water table. As long as those pilings stay wet, the buildings and streets on top of them are supported. But if and when the water recedes, those pilings start to rot, and bad things can (and likely, will) happen. A century's worth of construction has started to upset groundwater levels. Since most of the landfill material used was sand, I wonder if this discovery could be used to solve the problem here in Boston (and any other cities with similar problems).

  10. Water handling for one... by scsirob · · Score: 2, Interesting

    When making such radical changes to the soil, the first thing to look at is how water is being handled. Sandy soil lets water through, and in fact filters it quite nicely. Rock will keep the water on top, causing all sorts of interesting issues. Like cars and furniture floating thhrough the streets...

    --
    To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
  11. Welcome to Malibu Rockpile. by goombah99 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Gazooks, what if this gets loose on the beaches. It's a cinch people with eroding beaches threatening buildings will be injecting this stuff along shorelines.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  12. Re:Slashvertisement... by EMeta · · Score: 2, Insightful
    ...which is something we would care about if he didn't consistently submit interesting articles. Some of them are rather on the fringes of science, certainly, but isn't that the kind of stuff we want to know about perhaps before it's truly viable? He's started linking to the original article in all his submissions, and if he has more information he's put together himself on his site, I'm more than glad to give him some clicks for this service, if I'm interested enough to want to see said extras.

    Seriously, more often than not, he submits really interesting stuff. I wish more people would emulate that, not less.

  13. This is different by Reverberant · · Score: 2, Informative

    The bacteria process basically improves the shear response of the soil when it's under motion to prevent/reduce liquefaction. The problem in Boston is that buildings in Back Bay and along the Harbor are basically setting on water. Short of soil mixing under each of the foundation, there's not much that you can do to solve the problem you describe.

  14. Help for Venice? by boo+pixie · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I wonder is this can provide help for sinking cities like Venice. I don't think the Venitian Lagoon is that sandy, but at some depth there might be enough to work with. As long as it doesnt just turn everything into a bigger rock that will sink faster.

    --
    -- http://uncannyvalley.org/
  15. Alt. Construction..? by skelly33 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Could something like this be used as a low-cost concrete alternative structural building material in 3rd world locations where chemical concrete mixes might not be affordable...?