Slashdot Mirror


Teen Discovers Plastic-Decomposing Bacteria

ganelo writes to tell us that 16-year-old Waterloo Collegiate Institute student Danel Burd has made quite a stir with his plastic-eating bacteria discovery. For his efforts Burd won top prize at a Canada-wide science fair claiming a $10,000 prize and a $20,000 scholarship. "Tests to identify the strains found strain two was Sphingomonas bacteria and the helper was Pseudomonas. A researcher in Ireland has found Pseudomonas is capable of degrading polystyrene, but as far as Burd and his teacher Mark Menhennet know -- and they've looked -- Burd's research on polyethelene plastic bags is a first."

209 comments

  1. Well, Ma'am.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Now when people come back into my store and complain about their shopping bags breaking, I can tell them why!

    1. Re:Well, Ma'am.. by eleuthero · · Score: 1

      On a slightly more serious note, this would seem to offer explanation to everyone in my neighborhood who has had to replace their bathroom and other plumbing fittings regularly due to decomposition of the plastic/rubber seals in any faucet/spigot.

    2. Re:Well, Ma'am.. by Deadfyre_Deadsoul · · Score: 2, Funny

      I for one would like to welcome our new plastic bag eating bacterium overlords. I hope their stay is a pleasant one, as they dont want to eat us, just our plastic credit cards.

      --
      ~DF
  2. hey I know by ILuvRamen · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You know what would be cool is instead of just saying ooh I wonder if it eats plastic too and finding out it does, though that's definitely stll amazing...put some bacteria that are at least close to maybe being able to eat X substance and put it on the surface of that substance and blast them with regular, mild radiation every day until some mutate until a colony mutates and starts eating the rubber/plastic/whatever. I've heard very little about forcing mutations randomly to try and get a given result but it seems like a good idea to me. I mean if this kid had found that the bacteria couldn't eat plastic, I doubt anyone would have given him the funding and stuff to try and alter them so they do. And yes, before anyone posts it, keep the test area damn well sealed too so supergerms don't get out (duh!).

    --
    Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
    1. Re:hey I know by wizardforce · · Score: 5, Interesting

      a similar technique to what you describe has already been used to generate a strain of bacteria capable of cleaning coal of various hydrocarbons. the basic idea is that you can breed bacteria and put a selective pressure on them while slowly changing the chemical environment they live in. in the case of coal, you start with oil digesting bacteria and slowly acclimate them to larger quantities of hydrocarbons typically found in the presence of coal while lowering the concentration of the original "oil" hydrocarbons. it is my understanding that the process I am referring to has been patented although I do not believe that radiation/mutagens were used in the breeding process. so in principle your idea, though not new, would/does work and is being used to some extent.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    2. Re:hey I know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd just end up with a strain highly resistant to radiation damage.

    3. Re:hey I know by skirmish666 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This reminds me of that episode of sliders where a bacteria created to eat plastic waste escapes and eats the worlds petrochemical supply.

      --
      Sigger than your average
    4. Re:hey I know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I've heard very little about forcing mutations randomly to try and get a given result but it seems like a good idea to me."

      Yeah, right up til you get a strain of bacteria that infects all animals and plants it comes into contact with and converts them into itself. Shit man, have you not seen The Andromeda Strain?

    5. Re:hey I know by jnnnnn · · Score: 1

      I would be very surprised if evolution had not already arranged things so that the mutation rate was optimal.

    6. Re:hey I know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They patented evolution?

    7. Re:hey I know by piojo · · Score: 1

      The mutation rate may be optimal for the conditions an organism evolved for, but the goal here isn't "successful reproduction of an organism", so those rules don't apply. If causing an organism to change as quickly as possible is the sole goal (without regard for overall survival), then manipulating the rate of mutation seems reasonable.

      --
      A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
    8. Re:hey I know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you overestimate the power of evolution a bit. The customary way to get really impressive results is to start some billions of billions of experiments in parallel, then rinse and repeat for a billion years.

      And even then, you might get Rush Limbaugh.

    9. Re:hey I know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an idiot.

    10. Re:hey I know by nloop · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think they tried that in the 80s. the result has been impossible to get of. I think they scrapped the project with the help of a "Shredder"

    11. Re:hey I know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It sounds like a good idea, Kinda like the plan to build an artificial intelligence by randomly wirering up a billion different circuits and then giving them an IQ test to see which one is smartest.
      The problem is as always with these kinds of design problems, that after a week of radiation, when none of the bacteria eats the plastic, you are no closer to finding one that actually does, and even after twenty years of radiation, if you aren't lucky, then you are still at square one.

      The oil/coal example mentioned is a much better stategy, by gradually changing the conditions,you allow generations of bacteria to survive based on their ability to solve your problem, thus even if you don't get coal eating bacteria, you will end up with oil eating bacteria, that are closer to the goal of eating coal.

    12. Re:hey I know by maxume · · Score: 1

      Bacteria will increase their mutation rate on all their own when they encounter a lack of resources. Irradiating them is just going to select for bacteria that are somewhat more resistant to radiation.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    13. Re:hey I know by aplusjimages · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure Ivan Reitman at least copyrighted Evolution.

      --
      Can I bum a sig?
    14. Re:hey I know by Pedrito · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, bacteria mutate fairly quickly as it is. First of all, they don't have nearly the same level of DNA repair ability that eukaryotes (that's all multi-celled creatures and some single-celled) do. Second of all, their sheer numbers are enormous. In a small container, populations many orders of magnitude larger than the human population, can be grown. So out of the huge populations alone, you can expect a much larger overall mutation count.

      Finally, different species of bacteria can share genetic material (DNA plasmids) through a type of "mating" called conjugation, allowing species to trade traits with other species.

      Any mutations that makes them more efficient reproducers and better able to create energy from their environment is likely to ensure survival and ability to out-reproduce their peers.

      Through these various methods, you should get a fairly high rate of mutation. Adding radiation may actually be detrimental to the overall success of the intent. Mutations tend to be detrimental, so if you increase the rate too much, you end up killing them off too fast. You also increase the risk of killing off the small populations with the new positive mutations you want, before they have a chance to spread.

      It wouldn't surprise me if you went digging through a bunch of dumps that have been covered up years ago, to find bacteria that have evolved to eat some of that garbage. I suspect that the time required for our garbage to decompose is actually lower than we predict since we don't really factor in the possibility of bacterial mutations which can make them good consumers of the garbage. I suspect these mutations will happen in far less time than the natural decomposition period of the materials in question.

    15. Re:hey I know by MrZaius · · Score: 1

      http://www.amazon.com/Ill-Wind-Kevin-J-Anderson/dp/0312857608
      Did you mean this, where a bacteria created to eat oil spills ate the world's petrochemical supply? The book with the mountain-mounted railgun?

    16. Re:hey I know by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      I suspect that the time required for our garbage to decompose is actually lower than we predict since we don't really factor in the possibility of bacterial mutations which can make them good consumers of the garbage.

      The fact that actual studies of landfills indicate exactly the opposite notwithstanding...
    17. Re:hey I know by ZeroFactorial · · Score: 1

      put some bacteria that are at least close to maybe being able to eat X substance and put it on the surface of that substance and blast them with regular, mild radiation every day until some mutate until a colony mutates and starts eating the rubber/plastic/whatever.
      You mean sort of like the conditions in a landfill, under the "regular, mild radiation" of the sun, surrounded by all sorts of wonderful materials they could mutate to decompose (probably including Human tissues/bodies)?

      I don't think landfills are well sealed... except by smell perhaps.
    18. Re:hey I know by Pedrito · · Score: 1

      The fact that actual studies of landfills indicate exactly the opposite notwithstanding...

      There are studies? Cool. Can you point some out? Google seems to be returning a bunch of results that appear to lean towards supporting my position, so I'd be happy to see some examples that contradict it. Thanks

    19. Re:hey I know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have tried this technique in the past.

      9 times out of 10, it normally results in the destruction of the world.

      Unless you have a magic wand that can restore the world to a state it was previously in... you may not want to try this at home.

      Yes, I use it on my glass of beer often.

    20. Re:hey I know by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      But imagine the lawsuits if it escapes and eats everyone's iphones and ipods.

    21. Re:hey I know by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      And yes, before anyone posts it, keep the test area damn well sealed too so supergerms don't get out (duh!). Because as everyone knows, a supergerm is recognizable easily from the biohazard logo printed on the side of the cell wall.
      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    22. Re:hey I know by samkass · · Score: 1

      My understanding is that while garbage dumps probably ARE a selective breeding ground for breaking down what we throw out, that they're a terrible environment for growing bacteria in general. That essentially the waste is packed so tightly and so mixed with toxins that the bacteria often die in their own waste output (methane, etc) and that oxygen is rapidly depleted leading to only anaerobic bacteria which reproduce far slower. Now pumping air down into the waste and burning the methane output seems like a pretty reasonable alternative and could not only produce power but enable the sort of bacterial environment you suggest, it would seem to me...

      --
      E pluribus unum
    23. Re:hey I know by Half+a+dent · · Score: 1

      Was this an episode of Sliders? There was a pilot movie named "Doorways" that predated Sliders by a couple of years that had the same scenario.

    24. Re:hey I know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ..or the whole series of Earth Girl Arjuna, where the raaja destroys anything made or containing oil, including plastic

    25. Re:hey I know by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      Not to mention, they put a clay cap over the landfill so that rainwater won't filter through the garbage and into the water supply. So you've got very dry trash with no oxygen supply. I've read studies where they dig up landfills from the 1960's with clay caps and most everything looks like it's aged 3-5 years.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
  3. in related news by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Funny

    a top secret death squad under the auspices of the upper corporate echelon at ikea have been dispatched from stockholm to deal with this potentially profit decimating threat

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:in related news by FriendSite.com · · Score: 3, Funny

      I would have thought Ikea would have loved this, to get their furniture to self-destruct after 2 years... 1. Build Plastic Furniture 2. Create Mutant Plastic Eating Bacteria 3. Bacteria Eats Plastic 4. Customer needs new furniture 5. ??? 6. Profit

    2. Re:in related news by dwater · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have several pieces of Ikea furniture, and almost none of it is plastic - it's wood and/or metal, mostly.

      Is it different in the USA?

      --
      Max.
    3. Re:in related news by nametaken · · Score: 1

      I must be your nemesis, as I've found the error in your evil plan...

      Ikea furniture self-destructs in far less than 2 years to begin with.

    4. Re:in related news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      decimation... that word does not mean what you think it does. (unless you believe 10% change should invoke a panic response)

    5. Re:in related news by SpinyNorman · · Score: 1

      No - the furniture is mostly wood. Some spill-proof little kids furniture in plastic though.

      They just started to make people pay for plastic bags to discourage one-time use, and successfully did so by over 90%!

    6. Re:in related news by dwater · · Score: 1

      Oooh. I see.

      Well, they've charged for bags ever since I've been going (in China). Seems like it might be something new to the US.

      --
      Max.
    7. Re:in related news by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1


      Marks and Spencers do the same in the UK. They charge a few pence for the carrier bag and it's already stopped me getting bags from them. It's a little ironic that I struggle down the street with packets of food under my arm to save a few pence, when I end up spending a few quid more just because I've gone to such an expensive supermarket. :)

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    8. Re:in related news by dwater · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ..but do you not get the bags because they cost you a few pence, or does the cost remind you of the environmental cost and *that* stops you?

      --
      Max.
    9. Re:in related news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Canada Ikea furniture is mostly wood, too, so I imagine it's the same in the US as well.

    10. Re:in related news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Check definition 1, realize language changes over time, and get mildly embarrassed like you nerds tend to do when you're wrong.

    11. Re:in related news by Drakonik · · Score: 1

      Seriously, language nazis, can you GET OVER THIS? Yes, the technical definition is 'to destroy 1/10th', but that's an archaic definition now. Decimate now means to destroy in vast quantities.

    12. Re:in related news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In all the posts that use the formula of "5. ??? 6. Profit!" have I ever seen a more clear cut #5.

      ??? = Sell them furniture

    13. Re:in related news by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1


      Because of the financial cost.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    14. Re:in related news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, you could use a non-plastic bag.

    15. Re:in related news by Firehed · · Score: 1

      Well regardless of the reasoning at your end, they claim to do this for environmental reasons so the couple cents is doing exactly what it should.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    16. Re:in related news by dwater · · Score: 1

      ...or better yet (IMO), pay for one plastic bag, and reuse it.

      --
      Max.
  4. The mishap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Actually, the bacteria was introduced after the teen discovered the cure for cancer in a plastic dish; however, before the cure could be analyzed in order to replicate it, the bacteria ate the dish and the cure. The Associated Press quoted the boy saying "God damnnit!"

    1. Re:The mishap by kitsunewarlock · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      It ate chemotherapy?
      I jest, and I know its a horrible, body damaging and many times unsuccessful treatment.
      I should have said something along the lines of "It ate whatever was keeping the FDA going?", but that's too much of a stretch.

      --
      Ginga no Rekshiya Mata Each page.
  5. Absolutely Beautiful by Walter+Wart · · Score: 5, Insightful
    It was kitchen table science done by himself with no budget, no grant and no assistants. You aren't supposed to be able to do Real Science(tm) like that anymore. So how did the kid do it?
    1. He thought a of a simple problem that hadn't been solved
    2. He investigated the obvious avenues first
    3. He used the resources at his disposal instead of trying
    4. He chose something where success and failure would both be easy to demonstrate
    This was really good science. If he keeps it up look for his name with the words "Full Professor" in front and a list of patents afterwards some time soon.
    --
    The man who never alters his opinion is like the stagnant water and breeds Reptiles of the Mind -- William Blake
    1. Re:Absolutely Beautiful by v(*_*)vvvv · · Score: 4, Insightful

      5. Got lucky.

    2. Re:Absolutely Beautiful by urcreepyneighbor · · Score: 1

      You aren't supposed to be able to do Real Science(tm) like that anymore. Says who?
      --
      "The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
    3. Re:Absolutely Beautiful by David+Gerard · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Chance favours the prepared mind" - Louis Pasteur.

      --
      http://rocknerd.co.uk
    4. Re:Absolutely Beautiful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      5. Got lucky.

      Damn, and probably with a cute enviro-chick too.

    5. Re:Absolutely Beautiful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LIES!!! That was Under Siege II: Dark Territory...

    6. Re:Absolutely Beautiful by ByteSlicer · · Score: 1

      He thought a of a simple problem that hadn't been solved
      I'm not convinced he has solved it either. Reusing the plastic bags as a base material would be much better than having bacteria decompose it. Granted, decomposing is still far better than burrying in a landfill.
    7. Re:Absolutely Beautiful by Yinepuhotep · · Score: 1

      5. Got lucky. ...and this is different from big-budget science exactly how?
      --
      Gun control: The belief that a woman, raped and strangled with her panties, is morally superior to a dead rapist.
    8. Re:Absolutely Beautiful by h4rm0ny · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "The harder I work, the luckier I get" - Samuel Goldwyn (apparently).

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    9. Re:Absolutely Beautiful by LordVader717 · · Score: 1

      My (cynical) two cents:

      1. Choose an area of current scientific research (bacterial polymer degradation)
      2. Do some basic experimentation on improvement with the limited means he has available
      3. Compare results to existing scientific publications.
      4. Get a local newspaper to blow the achievement out of proportion.

      I can understand a local Daily wanting to celebrate school science award winners, but this is Slashdot. Unless he shows us how to build a plastic-bag-reactor as a continuous power supply for a server, we don't want to know.

    10. Re:Absolutely Beautiful by maxume · · Score: 1

      cute enviro-chick too

      *Scratches head*

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    11. Re:Absolutely Beautiful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Chance favours the prepared mind" - Louis Pasteur. "Imagination is more important than knowledge."

      Albert Einstein.
    12. Re:Absolutely Beautiful by msheekhah · · Score: 1

      Don't you mean Travis Dane? ;-)

      --
      Mark Anthony Collins
    13. Re:Absolutely Beautiful by natedubbya · · Score: 1

      5. Have a scientist father who does the work

      There's no way that kid did this.

    14. Re:Absolutely Beautiful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      "It's a funny thing, the more I practice the luckier I get" - Arnold Palmer

    15. Re:Absolutely Beautiful by Mahjub+Sa'aden · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Thyme flavours the prepared mind." - Hannibal Lecter

      --
      What is is all that is. Isn't that obvious?
    16. Re:Absolutely Beautiful by failedlogic · · Score: 1

      At the least, give the guy some credit. I heard his interview on CBC radio. He setup the experiment in his own house and on his own time. Based on his interview, this kid I believe did it himself - no fancy schmancy vocabulary from him just an ordinary 16 yr. old.

      I've seen and heard of many of the experiments some people are running now a days as a HS science fair project. Its quite obvious from the complexity of the work of some projects that mommy, daddy or very good family friend happens to work in the same field as the kid's project. Wonder who did all the work and research? There's money and admittance to good universities - a lot at stake - for a project. Its no wonder many of the "science fair" winners get media coverage for their groundbreaking research.

    17. Re:Absolutely Beautiful by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

      When I was 15, I already had designed a few electronic circuits and had programmed in BASIC and assembler. And yes, cracked computer games. So yes, there's SURE way that kid did this.

  6. Mutant 59 by Maximum+Prophet · · Score: 3, Funny

    Shouldn't this be tagged, "Mutant 59"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kit_Pedler

    --
    All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
    1. Re:Mutant 59 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's another link:
      Mutant 59: The Plastic Eaters Something of an end-of-civilization story; I read it years ago.

    2. Re:Mutant 59 by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Yes, that was my first thought upon reading the summary. I still have that book in my collection somewhere: I remember Ainslie's Bacillus and Degron, and the cyanide-laced variant they created to kill it ("We'll get Polytad to mass produce!") By the way thanks for the Wikipedia link: it was an interesting read.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  7. But is it a good thing? by taniwha · · Score: 4, Interesting

    right now we're putting more CO2 into the atmosphere that we're taking out - largely by digging it up out of the ground and burning it. Plastic bags are largely made from fossil carbon - surely we're better off sequestering this carbon (by dropping it in a landfill, or down an old oil well, or coal mine) than we are breaking it down presumeably to CO2 which is released into the atmosphere

    1. Re:But is it a good thing? by lattyware · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That presumes that putting CO2 into the atmosphere does something bad. Which it does not. (Rises in temperature CAUSE a rise in CO2. CO2 is dissolved in the oceans. When the temperature rises, water evaporates, and CO2 is released. Graphs show CO2 actually rises directly after an increase in temperature not before.)

      --
      -- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
    2. Re:But is it a good thing? by blind+biker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have been thinking along the same lines for a long time. I came to the conclusion that landfills are, in a weird way, good for the planet in the long run, if filled with carbon-containing trash - this is, as you noted, a carbon-sequestering mechanism of sorts.
      But this seems even less politically correct to say, than that nuclear plants are more ecologically sound than coal plants, so I don't expect your post to be modded very high. Slashdot can be extremely PC.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    3. Re:But is it a good thing? by Maelwryth · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It doesn't just end up in landfills though, does it.

      --
      I reserve the write to mangle english.
    4. Re:But is it a good thing? by v(*_*)vvvv · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is global warming myths 101.

      The above is true, and rise in temperatures caused from CO2 are ALSO true.

      That is why once you start increasing CO2 levels, it gets warmer FASTER because it triggers even more CO2 to be created, and all of it causes more warming.

      Get with the program people. This is science not politics.

    5. Re:But is it a good thing? by pembo13 · · Score: 1

      Well good or bad, humans can't (yet) breathe CO2... so it can't be all that good.

      --
      "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
    6. Re:But is it a good thing? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      If only somebody could come up with a way of taking the CO2 out of the atmosphere...

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    7. Re:But is it a good thing? by Nullav · · Score: 4, Informative

      Graphs show CO2 actually rises directly after an increase in temperature not before. You know, there's a reason for the term 'runaway greenhouse effect'. Hint: That extra CO2 released by the increased heat doesn't help cool anything.
      --
      I just read Slashdot for the articles.
    8. Re:But is it a good thing? by ThePromenader · · Score: 1

      ...and putting oxygen back in?

      --

      No, no sig. Really.

      ThePromenader
    9. Re:But is it a good thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only somebody could come up with a way of taking the CO2 out of the atmosphere...
      Humans inhale O2 and eat plants and animals then exhale CO2 and drop fertilizer, as well as becoming it when they die. Plants "inhale" CO2 and "exhale" O2 and take up fertilizer from the soil as well as becoming fertilizer when they die. Bit of an oversimplification, but you as well as others seem as paranoid on CO2 as many do on terrorism and have forgotten what they should have learned in basic science and on the playground. We need to seek a balance and to do so we must open our eyes and our minds as well as quit proving that humans learn nothing from history.
    10. Re:But is it a good thing? by sirsnork · · Score: 1

      Trees?

      --

      Normal people worry me!
    11. Re:But is it a good thing? by RodgerDodger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      *sigh* It's called a positive feedback loop. Increased temperatures do result in increased CO2 levels. Increased CO2 levels then result in increased temperatures. And thus the cycle continues upwards until something causes it to stop. The real big giveaway is that the temperature increase always accelerates as CO2 concentrations goes up.

      This is a simple laboratory experiment that anyone can do. Heck, they did it on MythBusters.

      And yes, it's true that natural processes put out a lot more CO2 than humans do. That's not the point. Natural processes are more or less balanced; what nature puts out, nature absorbs. What we are doing is upsetting the balance so that there isn't enough capacity. One of Dicken's characters said "Annual income 20 pounds, annual expenditure 19 six, result happiness. Annual income 20 pounds, annual expenditure 20 pounds ought and six, result misery." - his point was that all you need to do is live just a little beyond your means to cause big problems.

      Heck, it doesn't even matter if we _are_ the main cause or not. If we're not the main cause, we're still contributing to the problem at least a bit. Personally, I'd rather be the cause - it would imply that we could fix it.

      --
      "Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
    12. Re:But is it a good thing? by taniwha · · Score: 1

      yup - trees - let me take my thought one step further and suggest that sending your newspaper to the landfill rather than recycling it (and I have been diligently for years) might also be a good thing ....

    13. Re:But is it a good thing? by Yinepuhotep · · Score: 1

      yup - trees - let me take my thought one step further and suggest that sending your newspaper to the landfill rather than recycling it (and I have been diligently for years) might also be a good thing .... Yup. Increase the demand for paper, you increase the number of trees farmed. Since trees do most of their carbon sequestering during their early years, that means that young trees (like the ones in tree farms) are going to take more carbon out of the atmosphere than old trees. Thus, paper farms are a net atmospheric benefit.
      --
      Gun control: The belief that a woman, raped and strangled with her panties, is morally superior to a dead rapist.
    14. Re:But is it a good thing? by TheDugong · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Natural processes are more or less balanced"

      That is a rather large assumption and probably untrue, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_Age, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#Life_cycle etc etc etc.

    15. Re:But is it a good thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *sigh* Nature has ways of stopping warming. Its cooling that's a mystery.

      As the environment warms, areas farther north and south are able to grow vegetation for longer growing seasons thus taking co2 out of the atmosphere and damping the warming cycle.

      On the other hand, increasing ice cover increases reflection of sunlight thus further decreasing temperatures. This leads to more ice, more cooling etc. Breaking that cycle is more challenging.

      Of course in this day of politicized science all this is controversial and subject to rebuke depending on your political stance. *double sigh*

    16. Re:But is it a good thing? by publius1234 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Natural processes are more or less balanced; what nature puts out, nature absorbs. Yeah and the planet's temperature had been the same for eons until us pesky humans showed up. :/
    17. Re:But is it a good thing? by TheUglyAmerican · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And further we need to start cutting down old growth forests. Mature trees are mostly carbon-neutral. Plant new trees in their place that, like you said, actually take co2 out of the atmosphere.

      --
      "Written on the pages is the answer to the never ending story..."
    18. Re:But is it a good thing? by bencoder · · Score: 0

      Not the same temperature, but it is a feedback system, so it wobbles back and forth over a roughly static value.

      We're pushing it way over- perhaps it will still be able to recover, we just don't know. I personally would prefer to avoid having to find out if the earth is capable of recovering from our influence.

    19. Re:But is it a good thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've also been saying that chopping down trees, converting them to paper or wood products and growing more trees is a good thing.

    20. Re:But is it a good thing? by maxume · · Score: 1

      It's true, just not necessarily for human friendly values of balanced.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    21. Re:But is it a good thing? by maxume · · Score: 1

      Not really, biodiversity is probably more useful than additional land to reforest. Most of the United States has already had its old growth forest removed, reforestation can go on quite a while before we need to start cutting down old forests in order to plant trees.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    22. Re:But is it a good thing? by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      If only somebody could come up with a way of taking the CO2 out of the atmosphere... ...and turning it into plastics!
    23. Re:But is it a good thing? by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's rather appropriate that you mention nuclear plants, because the big benefit of nuclear plants is essentially same benefit of not trying to decompose our plastic landfill waste (specifically, that the waste is easy to contain compared to carbon dioxide emissions).

    24. Re:But is it a good thing? by Truekaiser · · Score: 1

      Until a tipping point is reached and feedback loops happen faster then we can react. ie massive methane hydrate release etc.
      Remember climate is a non-linear system, and it takes a decent amount of education to get a person to understand the concept of a exponential system.

    25. Re:But is it a good thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heck, it doesn't even matter if we _are_ the main cause or not. If we're not the main cause, we're still contributing to the problem at least a bit.

      My view is this: Let's say volcanoes were the main cause and things will work themselves out in 10,000 years. Do we wait 10,000 years and live thousands of human generations in terrible conditions, or do we do we as humans step in and try to rectify the situation? I say the latter.

    26. Re:But is it a good thing? by r_jensen11 · · Score: 1

      That presumes that putting CO2 into the atmosphere does something bad. Which it does not. (Rises in temperature CAUSE a rise in CO2. CO2 is dissolved in the oceans. When the temperature rises, water evaporates, and CO2 is released. Graphs show CO2 actually rises directly after an increase in temperature not before.) Riiiight, and the water levels for the oceans isn't rising due to things like the polar ice caps melting.....

      Maybe your theory would make sense if there were less liquid water in the oceans as the temperature of the world increases. However, what we are experiencing is the opposite.
    27. Re:But is it a good thing? by taniwha · · Score: 1

      no need to cut down old growth forests - they also have a lot of carbon in the soil - you want that to stay rather than be released - better to take farmland that's been overfarmed and had it's soil depleted and convert that to forest for a couple of generations - leave the old growth (and the rainforest) where it is

    28. Re:But is it a good thing? by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · · Score: 1

      Get with the program people. This is science not politics.

      Ummm do you really think those two areas are mutually exclusive? Any professor at any university can tell you that isn't true. Although it might only be the ones with tenure who would actually say it out loud.

      And the general population isn't competent to judge whether any particular thing being presented as science is actually science and if so whether it is "good" science or "bad" science.

      When the UN committee on climate change says "there is no longer any doubt that global warming is caused by humans. Scientists are sure to 90%." That is politics in action. What is that supposed to mean to people? 90% of all climate scientists are 100% sure? 100% of all climate scientists are 90% sure? The certainty level averaged over all climate scientists is 0.90 but some are 1.0 and some are 0.0?

      And don't forget the huge (lack of) outcry from the scientific community when Gore made claims like New York would be under 100(?) feet of water if warming continued. Yeah... almost cost him that award.

      Whatever is causing global warming the current attitudes about it are anything but scientific, in fact the backlash against "unbelievers" is quite the opposite. BTW whatever happened to the fellow(s) who posited cloud cover generated by gamma rays as a major contributor? Did they get their time at CERN?

      --
      The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
    29. Re:But is it a good thing? by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · · Score: 1

      Heck, it doesn't even matter if we _are_ the main cause or not. If we're not the main cause, we're still contributing to the problem at least a bit. Personally, I'd rather be the cause - it would imply that we could fix it.

      Yes, it does matter. Consider a possibility: we aren't the main cause and the main cause is something else that, given sufficient research etc., we might be able to influence but we invest all our efforts into reducing our contribution and not investigating other possible causes.... then we find out the truth, but by then it is too late to do anything.

      --
      The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
    30. Re:But is it a good thing? by TheUglyAmerican · · Score: 1

      Good points but buying farmland for a non-revenue producing venture probably means government funding. That could be tough to arrange. On the other hand, using old growth trees could actually generate revenue for reforestation and other projects. I like old forests as much as the next guy but if we are serious about this, its something that should be considered.

      --
      "Written on the pages is the answer to the never ending story..."
    31. Re:But is it a good thing? by bluephone · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's not that it's untrue, it's that he's confusing balanced with static. Everything in the universe is "balanced" in that there is the conservation of matter/energy, thermodynamics, etc. But that doesn't mean the universe is /static/, where in it stays the same all the time. Right now, we have ice caps because the global temp isn't hot enough to melt them. However, if Co2 rises more and the planet continues to warm, then it would be too warm to sustain such levels of ice, so in balance the ice melts. The heat energy is more balanced across the globe. But it's far from unchanging which is the critical point most (if not all) people who look at natural balances fair to see.

      --
      jX [ Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler. - Einstein ]
    32. Re:But is it a good thing? by RodgerDodger · · Score: 1

      Far from being an assumption or untrue, it's largely tautological. Any long-running system spends the majority of its time in a balanced state, which does not prohibit the possibility of rapid shifts between balanced states. Climate systems exist in mostly-balanced states most of the time, with abrupt shifts to different mostly-balanced states occurring every so often.

      --
      "Software is too expensive to build cheaply"
    33. Re:But is it a good thing? by v(*_*)vvvv · · Score: 1

      I am not saying they are exclusive. But here is why I said it.

      If we are debating facts, we should be able to avoid politics.

      If we are debating science, then it is all about politics.

      Most of your arguments are regarding the debate over global warming. This is politics. The debate over whether or not CO2 can cause the atmosphere to warm by decreasing the amount of heat that is able to escape, is science. Whether more CO2 is emitted with increasing temperatures, is science. Whether what Al Gore said was true or false, is politics.

      Science is used to build skyscrapers. Politics is used to tear them down.

      Science is about rationalizing real phenomena and making things work. Politics is about rationalizing imaginary phenomena so that we can pretend that something works.

      But, you are correct in that, to a non-scientist, all this noise sounds the same. And, that is precisely why we are f*cked.

    34. Re:But is it a good thing? by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · · Score: 1

      I am not saying they are exclusive.

      If you say "We are talking X not Y." Then you are making them exclusive."

      If we are debating facts, we should be able to avoid politics.

      Except that whether or not something is a fact is often a political, or politically influenced, decision. Ask Galileo.

      Whether what Al Gore said was true or false, is politics.

      Actually, no, that is science because what he said is testable. We know the volume of ice in both icecaps and in all the glaciers etc. around the world. We know the volume of water released if it all melted. We know that that volume of water spread around the planet would raise the height of the oceans a certain amount. and we know that that amount is nowhere near what Gore claimed.

      I can't respond to most of the rest of what you said - it seems very fuzzy and ambiguous to me - sorry. Regardless, the idea that science is a process perfectly separate from (big or little "p") political processes is nice but wrong.

      --
      The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
    35. Re:But is it a good thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it is totally whack.

    36. Re:But is it a good thing? by v(*_*)vvvv · · Score: 1

      They can be made exclusive if you need them be. That was my point. Yes, they can mix, and they mix very well, hence all this confusion about facts. A scientist cannot be influenced by politics. If they are, what they are doing is not science.

      I whole heartedly disagree with your claim that facts are politically influenced, if by facts, you mean scientifically testable (to use your word) facts. If you mean common consensus, then yes. But "fact", no. That word should be reserved for politically immune truths, or else I need to update my vocabulary with a word for it.

      Facts are not "decisions".

      What I meant by "what Al Gore said" was not referring to the "facts" he stated, but to the "act" of debating what someone said. Facts are never about who said them or how they got out. Debating over facts should always be about the evidence, and never the messenger.

      If I were to "decide" that 1 + 1 = 3, then I would not be able to build skyscrapers. That is why "imaginary facts" used in politics can only tear things down. Our history is filled with illustrious examples of such politically motivated imaginary facts.

  8. Ah, this story by Haoie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When I first came across it, I thought that it was an idea that needs some serious development. Plastics take up a huge amount of landfill space worldwide, and this is of use in the future.

    That and recycling plastics, obviously.

    --
    If each mistake being made is a new one, then progress is being made.
    1. Re:Ah, this story by ThePromenader · · Score: 1

      Bingo. Instead of degrading plastics - made from our limited petroleum resources - we should be recycling it.

      I would be curious to know, all the same, the composition of the plastic residue after bacteriological treatment.

      --

      No, no sig. Really.

      ThePromenader
    2. Re:Ah, this story by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      When I first came across it, I thought that it was an idea that needs some serious development. Plastics take up a huge amount of landfill space worldwide, and this is of use in the future.

      The problem is - it's not clear where the components of the plastic are going after being 'eaten'. (There should be more coming out of the system than 'water and tiny levels of carbon dioxide'.) Nor did he measure the volume of the plastic remaining after being 'eaten', only it's weight and gross mechanical properties - the latter being meaningless. Etc... Etc...
    3. Re:Ah, this story by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Plastics take up a huge amount of landfill space worldwide, and this is of use in the future.

      Landfill space isn't exactly in short supply, and keeping our trash in-tact is a far better alternative than letting it decompose and pollute the air...

      I would say that landfill power is the most promising "green" power technology out there. Decomposing our future "fuel" before we can start to harness it is decidedly non-green.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  9. That's pretty neat, kiddo... by syd02 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "...you came up with an answer to 29 million tons of non-biodegradeable plastic being added to landfills each year, so here's 10 grand. Yep, 10 big ones. Oh, and go get yourself a bit of education."

    1. Re:That's pretty neat, kiddo... by Ihmhi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      But doesn't he own the process? Unless the rules stated that any experiments become the property of the organization running the fair, he is going to make $30K on top of whatever money he will be pulling out of this discovery in the future. If he doesn't squander it away on Xbox games and hookers he's set for life.

    2. Re:That's pretty neat, kiddo... by ModernGeek · · Score: 1

      In all due respect, the science fair that paid out probably doesn't have that much money to give away, there was a prize they set up, he won the fair, and that is what he was given. I'm sure he will be getting grants and recognition from other sources in the near future.

      --
      Sig: I stole this sig.
    3. Re:That's pretty neat, kiddo... by zmollusc · · Score: 1

      Squandering the money would be spending it on things other than games and hookers, surely?

      --
      They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
    4. Re:That's pretty neat, kiddo... by AaxelB · · Score: 2, Funny

      Quite right. He should invest in games and hookers.

    5. Re:That's pretty neat, kiddo... by syd02 · · Score: 1

      Right, it's just funny, regardless.

    6. Re:That's pretty neat, kiddo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If he doesn't squander it away on Xbox games and hookers he's set for life. Just graba copy of GTA IV. Two birds, one stone.
    7. Re:That's pretty neat, kiddo... by ElMiguel · · Score: 1

      If he doesn't squander it away on Xbox games and hookers he's set for life.

      You've got it wrong. He's going to spend a lot of money on games and hookers. The rest he'll squander (with apologies to George Best).

    8. Re:That's pretty neat, kiddo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      xbox games and hookers? You mean he's a slashdotter?

    9. Re:That's pretty neat, kiddo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Squander?

    10. Re:That's pretty neat, kiddo... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      "...you came up with an answer to 29 million tons of non-biodegradeable plastic being added to landfills each year, so here's 10 grand. Yep, 10 big ones."

      Recognition and accolades are a powerful thing in the science profession. Imagine the scholarships he'll get.

  10. Potential for heating by concernedadmin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Since the bacteria produce heat as a byproduct in addition to a negligible amount of CO2, perhaps this could be used to replace older trash incinerators to act as a type of greenhouse, with the heat coming not from trapped infrared, but from the microbial waste.

    1. Re:Potential for heating by timmarhy · · Score: 1

      hows it going to get hot enough without kill the bacteria, duh.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    2. Re:Potential for heating by concernedadmin · · Score: 1

      hows it going to get hot enough without kill the bacteria, duh. Well, a heating system would be designed to move the heat around. If it just sat in one location, of course, you'd destroy your furnace, so to speak. A simple pipe filled with continuously passing cool water could serve as a heat transport system.
    3. Re:Potential for heating by FateStayNight · · Score: 1

      If so then we could harness that heat and use it as a source of energy. Sounds good to me.

  11. Next up: What he does the next $100,000 by terbo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I wonder how hes going to turn that $20k into $100k so he can actually get a college degree.

    --
    If you're interested in facts I'll tell you what they are and I'll give you sources - Chomsky on The Big Idea
    1. Re:Next up: What he does the next $100,000 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $100k for a B.S.? Have you heard of a state school?

    2. Re:Next up: What he does the next $100,000 by smorken · · Score: 1

      I'm sure he can turn the 20k into more playing blackjack if he goes to Vegas.

    3. Re:Next up: What he does the next $100,000 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, I live in Vegas, you insensitive clod!

    4. Re:Next up: What he does the next $100,000 by superflex · · Score: 2, Informative

      I wonder how hes going to turn that $20k into $100k so he can actually get a college degree. He doesn't. He turns it into $40k and gets a bachelors degree at pretty much any Canadian university he wants to attend.
      Or he registers in an honours co-op degree program at his local university and then his $20k, plus what he earns on co-op work placements, pays for his bachelors degree entirely.
      --
      sigs are for suckers
    5. Re:Next up: What he does the next $100,000 by dave1g · · Score: 1

      Or he could go to a public school and not pay through the nose... My total tuition was about $32,000 across 4 years. Half of which was paid for with loans and the other half paid for with various jobs I took while in school and during the summer.

      University of Texas BS in Computer Science, now I almost make $100k per year (first year out of school)... except its in NYC so that's like making 50-60k elsewhere hehe....

      I get so tired of the people I meet here in NYC who complain so much about their tuition and yet it was their dumb idea to live WAAAAY beyond their means and end up in 100k in debt just because they wanted to go to some famous fashion college here. Just today I was asked if I could house a friend for the summer while she was between apartments due to her lack of ability to earn money with her unfinished degree and her massive tuition debt(nearing 100k)

      Just go to the best school within a hundred miles if you are going to pay on your own. You will be better off in the long run. Unless you expect your earning power to increase exponentially over time.

  12. Have seen it somewhere else... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fumo? Fumoffu!

  13. recycling is a better idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As the price of oil continues to increase wouldn't it make more sense to recycle plastics rather than have them be eaten by microorganisms?

    1. Re:recycling is a better idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn you! Oil will hit $200 in no time as surely this will be spun as "Kid invents bug that eats Oil!".

    2. Re: recycling is a better idea by Krisbee · · Score: 1
      Recycling is a fluffy word.
      A) You can recycle by cleaning the product and re-using it. A good option but seldom feasible. This is hard to do with soft plastic bags and can be done a limited number of times.
      B) You can recycle by decomposing the procuct and make new products. This can be done for plastic bags but takes energy.
      C) You can recycle by collecting the product and incinerate to make use of the energy. This is how it's mostly done, but usually emits CO2 as a byproduct.

      Decomposing with bacteria would, assuming the article is correct, be an alternative to incinerating.

      Then we also have the plastic problem in the Pacific Ocean. That stuff seems hard to recycle, but bacteria, provided it doesn't upset the ecology, maybe could be of help.

    3. Re: recycling is a better idea by MrMr · · Score: 1

      Decomposing with bacteria would, assuming the article is correct, be an alternative to incinerating

      A poor alternative if you don't use the heat for power generation. Perhaps oil prices in Canada are so low they have to burn it to get rid of the surplus?

    4. Re: recycling is a better idea by Undead+NDR · · Score: 1

      You can recycle by collecting the product and incinerate to make use of the energy. This is how it's mostly done, but usually emits CO2 as a byproduct.

      Not to mention lots of other deadly stuff.
  14. is this a MR FIXIT story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i don't remember how he fixed it

  15. Weaponization next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This bacterium might lead us to the next level in biological warfare.

  16. Unintended consequences by Starvingboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I can't help but wonder about untindended consequences. Looking around at all the plastics, having them inadventantly eaten by bacteria would be a BAD thing.

    1. Re:Unintended consequences by Z00L00K · · Score: 1
      So the evolution will claim new victims.

      But I'm hardly surprised that these bacteria exists - considering that oil-eating bacteria already has been found!

      The issue is otherwise at what rate they can consume plastics and which conditions that are required.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    2. Re:Unintended consequences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cuz alllll plastiks r te same!

    3. Re:Unintended consequences by Jumperalex · · Score: 1

      No not all plastics are the same however a LOT of plastics are made out of polyethylene. Fortunately not many structurally important ones. Many are made from polycarbonate now.

      As for unintended consequences, all I could think of was the Andromeda Strain as I read this topic :)

      --
      If you can't be good, be good at it!
    4. Re:Unintended consequences by Warbothong · · Score: 1

      I can't help but wonder about untindended consequences. Looking around at all the plastics, having them inadventantly eaten by bacteria would be a BAD thing. EXACTLY! This is terrible news for global warming, since there won't be any fuel for Mr Fusion if these bacteria become widespread, and thus cars will still be using petrol/diesel engines!
    5. Re:Unintended consequences by clockwork_cyborg · · Score: 1

      These bacteria exist already, but not in great enough density to destroy all the plastic products we have lying around. Something makes them weaker than the other bacteria in the vicinity. Makes you wonder how they would apply this.

    6. Re:Unintended consequences by Mspangler · · Score: 1

      "Looking around at all the plastics, having them inadventantly eaten by bacteria would be a BAD thing"

      You mean like when the plastic insulation in your house electrical wiring rots off, and the house burns down? And the smoke detector does not go off because its critical parts were eaten by the bacteria?

      Think "Fall of Cities" from the Ringworld books.

      I hope they keep this thing tightly under control.

  17. Doubtful by aepervius · · Score: 1

    The patent would be a patent of evolution. I doubt you can patent a natural process like this. But then again I don't know much on the US patent process, so...

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:Doubtful by Ihmhi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, the US patent process certainly hasn't stopped anyone from patenting the human genome.

    2. Re:Doubtful by nqz · · Score: 2, Funny

      So if I die because of some patented gene that caused heart failure, can the company who owns that patent be sued for wrongful death? On a very basic level, it sounds like the companies who patent these genes might say they own a part of me. On another note, I would argue that evolution itself owns the original patents on every single gene out there, and by definition these patents could never expire.

      But that's just me.

  18. Another excuse by eggman9713 · · Score: 1

    Great, more excuse for people to not recycle. It takes so much energy and oil to make new plastics that we are having to beg people for oil now.

    1. Re:Another excuse by urcreepyneighbor · · Score: 1

      Never forget the parable of the Vidiians.

      --
      "The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
  19. No cigar.. by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    Come back when your "ocean evaporation" theory can explain why Venus is twice as hot as Mercury....

    --
    No sig today...
    1. Re:No cigar.. by arodland · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Come back when your "ocean evaporation" theory can explain why Venus is twice as hot as Mercury.... Dur, because Mercury has no atmosphere to speak of? Half the distance from the sun that Earth is, a twentieth the mass, and tidally locked into three rotations for every two revolutions? Not exactly the ideal candidate for climate study... and Venus? You realize Venus has an atmosphere that not only is more than 95% CO2, compared to 0.04% on Earth, but is also nearly a hundred times denser? To what degree do you think that observing the difference between 95% CO2 @ 90 atm and 0.04% CO2 @ 1 atm, or the difference between 95% CO2 @ 90 atm and 3% CO2 @ ~0 atm will give you insight on the difference between 0.04% CO2 @ 1 atm vs. 0.045% CO2 @ 1 atm?
    2. Re:No cigar.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ooooh, you just got served!

      Who's l

  20. Proof of evolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Like the evidence of Nylonase this shows a new life forming to fill a niche of edible material.

    In 1975 a team of Japanese scientists discovered a strain of Flavobacterium living in ponds containing waste water from a factory producing nylon that was capable of digesting certain byproducts of nylon-6 manufacture, such as the linear dimer of 6-aminohexanoate, even though those substances are not known to have existed prior to the invention of nylon in 1935
    Yet another hammer in the coffin for the nuts who want to deny reality.
    1. Re:Proof of evolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yet another hammer in the coffin for the nuts who want to deny reality.
      You are hereby sentence to listen to Simon and Garfunkel's El Condor Pasa while donating your time to Habitat for Humanity till you learn the difference between a hammer and a nail.
    2. Re:Proof of evolution by cerberusss · · Score: 1

      hammer in the coffin for the nuts
      You misread that sentence. The hammer is applied to the nuts, which in turn moves you in the coffin.
      --
      8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
  21. And the code name for this bug is: by misterhypno · · Score: 3, Funny

    The Andromeda Strain.

    as if anybody hadn't thought of THAT one yet!

    1. Re:And the code name for this bug is: by philgross · · Score: 1

      Be on the lookout for mysterious air/spacecraft crashes...

    2. Re:And the code name for this bug is: by userw014 · · Score: 1

      I think I saw the original "Andromeda Strain" before I read "Mutant 59 - The Plastic Eaters", (http://www.fantasticfiction.co.uk/d/gerry-davis/mutant-59.htm) but that was ages ago. Pre internet. Perhaps even pre- "vi". Hey, it was the Nixon era. Dystopias were prevalent in Science Fiction, or at least that part selected by my local public library.

  22. Oh dear by smoker2 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    What can possibly go wrong ?
    Does anybody really think that the discovery and propagation of voracious plastic eating bacteria is going to be a good thing ?
    Your pc could just fall apart, the keyboard will disintegrate, as will the mouse, the monitor, the power leads feeding the hard drives etc etc. Backup discs ? LOL.
    Sure they'll promise that it won't escape and only be used for good purposes, but that worked so well with cats in New Zealand, rabbits and dogs in Australia, and numerous other creatures in countless other situations.
    People hailed the invention of plastic materials for housing, because of woodworm and termites, and now we want to propagate their replacements.
    Looks like I'll have to build myself a steam punk pc out of cut glass or oak or something.

    1. Re:Oh dear by Emperor+Skull · · Score: 1

      Some people are scared of everything. The two types of bacteria mentioned in the story already exist, just like countless other types of bacteria. You probably already have some on your keyboard, and in a thousand years or so your keyboard will fall apart because of it. Aren't you worried about all the other bacteria on your keyboard like E Coli or Salmonella? Those things have a lot more immediate threat to you. Isolating bacteria for useful purposes in't new. Dumping oil eating bacteria on spills in the ocean hasn't made a bit of difference in oil reserves. Just like the plastic eating bacteria, a little soap and water, lysol, bleach or probably just the presence of other bacteria is enough to keep them in check.

  23. Don't get too excited yet by gsgriffin · · Score: 0, Troll

    Like most of the initial announcements (that come way to early!), this has not been tested and shouldn't get anyone thrilled. Haven't we learned yet that there are consequences and effects related to the things we do? What is the by-product of these bateria? What conditions does it take for them to live and multiply in? When we have these little buggers all over the place, what affect on human health could it have? Don't throw your bags out the window just yet!

    --
    jsut athnoer menagiensls ltitle psrhae for you to dcoede. Why do we wtsae our tmie dnoig tihs?
  24. Love those journalists by MrMr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This sounds like an excellent high school project, combined with crappy PR and lazy Journalism.

    but as far as Burd and his teacher Mark Menhennet know -- and they've looked
    Yeah right, so googling 'biodegradation Sphingomonas polyethene OR polyethylene' doesn't return any hits in Canada.

    1. Re:Love those journalists by kaos07 · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Yeah right, so googling 'biodegradation Sphingomonas polyethene OR polyethylene' doesn't return any hits in Canada."

      Second result is your post! http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=biodegradation+Sphingomonas+polyethene&btnG=Search

    2. Re:Love those journalists by GPado · · Score: 1

      Top result now.

    3. Re:Love those journalists by mqduck · · Score: 1

      Actually, if you had bothered to read the summary, he's a 16-year-old college student.

      --
      Property is theft.
    4. Re:Love those journalists by MrMr · · Score: 1

      I read the summary, the newspaper report, started to doubt the story because I recall reading about exactly that type of plastic and exactly those bacteria in the nineties and subsequently scanned the literarure references to double-check.
      And you manage to come up with the slashdot knee-jerk RTFS?

    5. Re:Love those journalists by mqduck · · Score: 1

      You implied that he's in high school. That's all I commented on.

      --
      Property is theft.
    6. Re:Love those journalists by MrMr · · Score: 1

      I implied nothing of the kind, I chose my words with care to reflect the fact that this research was of a particular level.
      Now read that sentence again.

    7. Re:Love those journalists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterloo_Collegiate_Institute

      Waterloo Collegiate Institute is an academically driven high school in Waterloo. It was designed by architect Mike McCallum and opened in 1960. The school is known mainly for its strong athletic and musical clubs and teams, it excels mostly in academics. In 2006, the school placed first in the Canada in the Canadian National Math League (CNML) for grades 9, 11, and 12.

      Actually if you had done the research...

    8. Re:Love those journalists by mqduck · · Score: 1

      Actually if you had done the research... Don't get pissed. I was just criticizing a flippant dismissal. If this story mattered anymore in Slashdot terms, I'd encourage people to give you an Informative mod :-P. So be merry.
      --
      Property is theft.
  25. Ringworld Civilization Collapse Explained by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 1

    Shouldn't this be tagged, "Mutant 59"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kit_Pedler

    I'd go with "Ringworld Civilization Collapse Explained", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ringworld. ;-)

  26. Plastic with a Shelf Date by wintermute1974 · · Score: 1

    We can only hope that people will not promote these plastic-eating bacteria. I sort of like the fact that we have -- other than metals -- a material that has no shelf date.
    Laptop cases don't decompose right now. I hope I don't live long enough to see a time when they do.

  27. Doomwatch by BigBadBus · · Score: 2, Interesting
    This was the basis for an episode of the BBC drama series Doomwatch in the early 1970s. The bacteria was heralded as a way of disposing with plastic litter ... until it escaped into the wild. Well worth watching IMHO.

  28. It's both of the above by mangu · · Score: 2, Informative

    Granted, decomposing is still far better than burying in a landfill.

    The idea is not to have a plastic-decomposing machine. The problem to be solved is how to deal with plastic that gets buried in a landfill. Even though many people today do a conscious effort to recycle, it's still not enough, there will always be some plastic in the garbage.


    With this invention, you just spray the surface with water containing the bacteria, it seeps in and decomposes the old buried plastic, and then the landfill place can be reclaimed for other uses.

    1. Re:It's both of the above by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It sounds from the article like you need a fermenter, some simple but essential nutrients, and a good mix of two bacteria (one that may help the other reproduce). It doesn't yet seem ready to digest in the wild, it looks to me like you would need a plastic eating machine. (And frankly, I'm not sure I want a plastic eating bacteria to be able to thrive outside of a controlled, industrial environment.)

    2. Re:It's both of the above by triffid_98 · · Score: 1
      Well that is problem is easy enough, you just have to light it on fire. Instant plastic decomposition. Do I get a patent award for this?

      The idea is not to have a plastic-decomposing machine. The problem to be solved is how to deal with plastic that gets buried in a landfill. Even though many people today do a conscious effort to recycle, it's still not enough, there will always be some plastic in the garbage.

  29. Starch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    America was in the process of moving to using corn starch for a number of things. In particular, it WAS becoming competitive with oil based plastic bags. That was killed when W. did his corn to fuel trick. If that man had a brain, he would have funded NREL or even offered an X-Prize for bacteria/algae conversion to ethanol/diesel. But instead, he wanted farmers to vote republican.

    I do not know what is worse; what would the world be like if even a single neo-con had a brain and they had accomplished even a fraction of what they wanted vs. the current total incompetence that has produced monster trade and federal deficits, an occupation, stealing of our rights, spying on Americans, hatred of America, etc. etc.

  30. Simple answer by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Wait a year, then convert to American dollars. At that time, American Dollar will have dropped enough, but many Universities will still be good.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  31. I am not surprised by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, I have my own experiment going on in the kitchen. I sometimes use flimsy polyethylene bags for collecting kitchen garbage. They sit just on the counter. This includes wet stuff, old vegetables, tea leaves and so on. Every now and then I have a bag that is ok at the start. But after a week or so, it suddenly starts leaking. No change in mechanical load or so to account for it.

    Has happened more often than I think plausible. Now I have a possible cause.

    Anybody wants to buy my kitchen garbage?

  32. The whole story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Teenage student: I found this amazing bacteria!!
    Teacher: GET OFF MY LAWN!!!

  33. Harlan Ellison by grolaw · · Score: 1

    Said that this was a bad idea more than 30 years ago. So did Kit Pedler & Jerry Davis "Mutant 59: The Plastic Eaters"

  34. Only 10K? by mrfoog · · Score: 1

    I'd expect a lot more than 10k if I was in his position. And the 20k for school won't cut it either. This is a big deal!!

  35. Titanium for me! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Ouch, so now on, titanium laptops. The plastic ones are to be eaten by the new computer bacteria, for which even the bullet resistant IE is not immune.

    Waiting for the AVG bacteria scanner.

  36. Oh yeah, "science" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Get with the program people. This is science not politics.

    Let's see, science is (or was):

    1. hypotheses
    2. experimental confirmation
    3. reproduceable prediction of results
    4. documentation of model's errors
    5. honest vetting of competing theories

    And man-caused GW is:

    1. wildly extrapolated hypothesis
    2. ?? (no ability to confirm)
    3. ?? (ignore erroneous predictions and competing explanations)
    4. fear-mongering
    5. public policy
    6. profit!!

    Okay, so this is politics. As usual.

    At least the man-bear-pig crowd is not trying to kill people with it's brand of fear-based control.

  37. Bender's opinion by Mark_in_Brazil · · Score: 1

    If he doesn't squander it away on Xbox games and hookers he's set for life.
    No room for Daniel Burd, huh? Well, he should start his own science fair, with video games and hookers! In fact, forget the science and the video games!
    --
    "It is nice to know that the computer understands the problem. But I would like to understand it too." --Eugene Wigner
  38. In Other News . . . by aplusjimages · · Score: 1

    . . . Man's prosthetic arm is lost to plastic-eating bacteria. Necrotizing fasciitis afflicted community takes a moment of silence. There is no escape.

    --
    Can I bum a sig?
  39. Great... by PottedMeat · · Score: 1

    A termite for the 21st century...

    100 bux says this kids dad is really the Orkin Man

    PM

  40. "Human-aggravated" might be more accurate by untree · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm not a climate scientist, but I did work in a paleoclimatology lab for awhile in college. I think the main problem I have with the global warming discussion -- like almost any other so-called "controversial" topic -- is that it rapidly becomes an argument among extremists.

    NO ONE can deny that C02 is a greenhouse gas. The discussion should therefore be "how much is our CO2 output affecting global climate?" Instead the argument ends up being a battle between people claiming it is a "wildly extrapolated hypothesis" and people saying we're on the verge of a runaway greenhouse effect that will turn Earth into Venus.

    I think it is undeniable that the climate is changing -- it has ALWAYS changed. There were times in the history of the Earth when there were ice caps extending almost to the equator. There were also times when there were probably NO permanent ice caps. Climate changes.

    Likewise, it's fairly undeniable that increasing the total volume of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will tend to push the climate in a warmer direction. If our natural cycle is one of warming, it will accelerate the warmth. If we're in a cooling period, it will decelerate the cooling.

    Now if we would just start with that framework, we could have a worthwhile discussion about what type of climate cycle we're in right now, and to what degree our output of CO2 (and the methane produced by the ridiculously large population of cattle we've domesticated) will affect that cycle.

    1. Re:"Human-aggravated" might be more accurate by BlueParrot · · Score: 1

      I think the main problem I have with the global warming discussion -- like almost any other so-called "controversial" topic -- is that it rapidly becomes an argument among extremists.


      Nonsense, the main problem is that popular media doesn't think science is interesting enough to sell papers, and hence they "spice it up a bit" by giving attention to doomsayers and conspiracy theorists.

      I would argue that the following is pretty much known:

      a)We emit a lot of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere
      b)If we continue to do so this it will cause significant warming of the planet
      c)It will likely be a lot easier to reduce emissions that to adapt to changes they could cause

      What is not clear is just how large consequences our emissions will have, it is not completely clear how rapidly problems will start to arise if we do nothing, and it is not completely clear what the best ways to reduce emissions are. However, I would argue that most of the people that try to argue that we do not need to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions are either basing their arguments on a gross misrepresentation of what we do know, are banking their hopes on a rather small probability of a rather solid theory being wrong, or simply don't know what they are talking about.

      By all means there are uncertainties in climate science, but anybody who will seriously argue that we shouldn't try to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions has either not done his homework properly, or has nefarious motives.
    2. Re:"Human-aggravated" might be more accurate by FromellaSlob · · Score: 1

      I would argue that the following is pretty much known:

      a)We emit a lot of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere
      b)If we continue to do so this it will cause significant warming of the planet
      c)It will likely be a lot easier to reduce emissions that to adapt to changes they could cause a) Define "a lot". What we emit is certainly "a lot" in terms that a human being can easily visualise, but is it "a lot" in relation to the overall amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and their effect on temperature?
      b) This is not agreed, it is the essence of the debate.
      c) This hangs on the assumption made in point b.

      The way you chose these "pretty much known" points indicates that your mind is completely made up and you sit firmly in the doomsayer camp. You're merely trying to masquerade as moderate to place your agenda as the "middle ground".
  41. What about the bacteria-eating plastic? by Jay+L · · Score: 1

    Most hot tubs and swimming pools have a chlorine/bromine-based water chemistry, to kill bacteria. But there's an alternative treatment, based on biguanide polymers, that IIRC weakens the cell walls of the bacteria. (It's sold as BaquaSpa and BaquaCil, among others.)

    The most common bacteria in hot tubs? Pseudomonas.

    So... who wins that battle?

  42. Plastic bags can't be recycled by ohxten · · Score: 1

    Plastic bags can't be recycled. Actually, they *can*, but it costs the recycling companies too much money. They're a pain to handle.

    The solution? Plastics made from food products (such as corn) that can biodegrade in a reasonable amount of time. Then to recycle them put them in one big compost pile and sell 'natural' fertilizer.

    Of course, I don't know squat about said subject except it sounds like a good idea. I'll have to do more research. Anyone care to elaborate on the subject?

    --
    Need an automatic screenshot taker? Try here.
  43. So plastic bags are biodegradable? by foniksonik · · Score: 1

    SO does this mean that all the Environmentalists now have to shut their traps about paper or plastic? (I know.. they now want everyone to bring their own canvas bags to the store).

    Seriously though... if there are natural bacteria that decompose both polystyrene and polyethylene... doesn't that just mean that the studies that showed that those materials would last for a really long time in landfills were just plain wrong, and that we should stop feeling guilty about throwing them away - as far as polluting the environment goes?

    Recycling is still a good idea of course. If only because it stimulates the economy with all kinds of new 'made from recycled materials' products that consumers seem to love.. even if they are cheaper and more disposable than the higher grade material versions.

    --
    A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    1. Re:So plastic bags are biodegradable? by ohxten · · Score: 1

      It's not only that -- plastic is made from petroleum. You can take it from there.

      Also, lots of pollution comes from making plastic, as well.

      --
      Need an automatic screenshot taker? Try here.
    2. Re:So plastic bags are biodegradable? by ninjapiratemonkey · · Score: 1

      well we always knew that after a really long time the plastics would biodegrade... but that was after thousands of years. The bacteria were known to exist, but they were never found in high enough concentrations to do any good. What he's done is found the ideal conditions for living and reproduction for these bacteria.

      --
      01110000 01010111 01101110 00110011 01100100
  44. No no no ! by slashdotard · · Score: 1

    This is a fake! It does not exist! Plastic CANNOT be decomposed by bacteria! We have no proof! The plastic is not decomposing! It lives forever! Here, I'll prove it: I'll show you a plastic bag that has been buried for ten years--

    Hey! Where'd it go? I buried it right here!

    --
    me. --a by-product of public education
  45. Only when out of money ... by freaker_TuC · · Score: 1

    How many times I've been eating on my large plastic garden table in my student time!

    This plastic (and pretty cheap) table has served me long in my house..

    Now it's in the way of everything, standing against the wall, maybe those bacteria would have been the solution for a long time to a more classy lifestyle ;)

    --
    --- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
  46. House wiring and water pipes by Leuf · · Score: 1

    It would be kinda bad if the wiring insulation in every house started getting eaten. All I could find on the type of plastic used is "thermoplastic" of which there are so many kinds.

    For new homes, PEX (cross-linked polyethylene) is taking over from copper for water piping.

  47. It's just plain old good news by Bombula · · Score: 1
    There are, predictably, plenty of comments here and elsewhere on the interwebs about the doomsday scenarios conjured by plastic-eating bacteria. Of course, those scenarios have been covered in sci-fi for decades (Mutant 59, Andromeda Strain, Pandora's Genes, on Sliders, etc).

    What isn't getting much notice is the fact that this story is just really good news: it turns out that plastic bags biodegrade through bacterial action just like wood or paper. Where are the cheers?

    Wood and paper don't liquify overnight due to unstoppable bacteria - we make plenty of packaging out of paper and even build quite sturdy structures out of wood. But they break down eventually. It all works out quite well for everyone - us, bacteria, and the environment. Well, as it turns out, so do plastic bags. Considering most people think plastic bags are going to last hundreds of thousands of years, they are viewed as much more evil litter than paper bags. Turns out this view is misguided. Isn't that cause for celebration?

    Hopefully, it will turn out that styrofoam, PET, PE, PVC and all the hundreds of other plastics and petrochemicals biodegrade too. This is not to say that plastic litter s not a problem. It is better for farm animals and sea turtles to eat paper bags by accident than plastic ones. But still, the idea that the giant Pacific garbage vortex won't be there forever is comforting news.

    --
    A-Bomb
  48. Mutant 59: The plastic eater by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    Wasn't bad read as I remember.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  49. dump it in the ocean by Polo · · Score: 1

    now he needs to get someone to sponsor him to dump some of this in the middle of that large plastic floating island...

  50. The White Plague by msheekhah · · Score: 1

    by Frank Herbert, anyone?

    --
    Mark Anthony Collins
  51. Lets see how far back we can go. by mrmeval · · Score: 1
    --
    I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
  52. Lucky works more often than you'd think by Namlak · · Score: 1
  53. Maybe we'll see... by thoughtlover · · Score: 1

    the return of industrial hemp. I still believe this plant could help with re-stabilizing the environment, and the economy. Now, if only people could put aside the misconceptions of hemp versus the psychoactive, flowering portion of the female plant, we might get somewhere.

    I know I'd like hemp grocery bags. Strong and long-lasting.

    --
    No sig for you! Come back one year!
  54. I think I see where this is going by RaymondRuptime · · Score: 1

    Have you read Ill Wind?