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."

Comments

hey I know

[ILuvRamen]

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!).

Re:hey I know

[wizardforce]

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.

Re:hey I know

[skirmish666]

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

But is it a good thing?

[taniwha]

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

That's pretty neat, kiddo...

[syd02]

"...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."

Re:That's pretty neat, kiddo...

[Ihmhi]

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.

Proof of evolution

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

"Human-aggravated" might be more accurate

[untree]

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.