Slashdot Mirror
Bacteria Used To Make Radioactive Metals Inert
Serenissima writes "Researcher Judy Wall is experimenting with bacteria that can cleanse the radioactivity from toxic areas by rendering the heavy metals into non-toxic, inert versions. The technology is not without its flaws (the bacteria can't exist in an oxygenated environment yet), but it does have the potential to cleanse some of the world's hazardous sites. From the article: 'The bacteria Wall is studying are bio-corrosives and can change the solubility of heavy metals. They can take uranium and convert it to uraninite, a nearly insoluble substance.'"
What about my dreams of superhero-dom, you insensitive clods!?
So... they can convert heavy metal into liquid metal? How long until we can buy that on iTunes?
This seems like it might prove useful. Now, when will they invent bacteria that can clean the dust from my computer? That would be really useful!
Did you ever wake up in the morning, with a Zombie Woof behind your eyes? -- FZ
The article is light on details, but at least it's not as dumb as it sounds. The bacteria can sequester the heavy metals into chemically inert compounds, which can then be separated mechanically ("settle to the bottom of a lake") from the environment.
They don't appear to be claiming that they have a biological process that can change the half-life of a Plutonium atom by eating it in a clever way, though the headline-writer may have thought that.
2*3*3*3*3*11*251
So what are we after here, non-toxicity or non radioactive.
They are still radioactive, but containment might be somewhat easier because they are inert seems to be the major claim here.
This sounds a little like painting the DANGER sign green. Its not clear to me that the major problem with containment was the reactivity of the isotopes, but rather their radioactivity.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
What happens when the radiation mutates the bacteria? Single-celled organisms mutate very easily, and we could easily have a serious problem on our hands if the bacteria turn into something that is dangerous to us and then multiply out of control.
"It is a denial of justice not to stretch out a helping hand to the fallen; that is the common right of humanity."
We're fucked if they change any radioactive material into Mooninites.
Sock Puppets: damn_registrars=pudge_confirmer=jimmy_slimmy=raiigunner=cml4524=a_klavan=red4men=ronpaulisanidiot
Jeez, what a terrible article, and an equally terrible summary. Both make it sound like the bacteria make the metals nonradioactive, which of course is absurd. (Nuclear bacteria?) The bacteria just make the metals insoluble. They're still radioactive.
The technology is not without it's flaws (the bacteria can't exist in an oxygenated environment yet), but it does have the potential to cleanse some of the world's hazardous sites.
I hear that there's no oxygen in space. As opposed to dumping this stuff from your spacecraft, are there any nifty uses for these safer substances like uraninite?
Hm, Wikipedia says the stuff is similar to lead. Maybe use it as a kinetic projectile material to shoot junk out of your way? Maybe insulation?
So what they're really saying is they've got a great deal on Ukranian real estate that we don't want to miss out on?
Oh, and I for one welcome our uranium-eating overlords.
Get a web developer
Of course they are not actually changing radioactive materials to non-radioactive materials - they change the compounds containing uranium to compunds that are very weakly soluble in water (instead of highly soluble), so they don't migrate easily. Very useful, but a little different from the impression I got from the summary.
Brett
<science-nitpickery>
"Bacteria Used To Make Radioactive Metals Inert" implies that the bacteria are making radioactive metals non-radioactive. A better title might be "Bacteria Used to make Poisonous Heavy Metals Inert," or "Bacteria Turn Radioactive Heavy Metals Into Chemically Inert Radioactive Stuff That Is Easier To Clean Up."
</science-nitpickery>
[b.belong('us') for b in bases if b.owner() == 'you']
When most people talk about halflife they don't realize the metals themselves are among the most toxic substances even stone cold with no significant radiation. Rendering them into a non-toxic form is huge. It gives hope for a true clean up of sites. Next magical trick is getting some one to take responsibility for actually doing the clean up.
Summary says it "cleanses the radioactivity". No it doesn't. The bacteria makes the metal inert *chemically*.
\u262D = \u5350
Well a confusing headline... 1st thought is "bacteria convert radioactive into non-radioactive?!?". Ofcourse not. 2nd thought was they concentrate the stuff into a form that can easily be separated from other materials - nope. It's about turning the stuff into something that doesn't go anywhere besides where it's already at. Similar in purpose to melting radioactive material into a block of glass-like material.
which can then be separated mechanically ("settle to the bottom of a lake") from the environment.
Maybe I'm misreading the article, but where does it say about cleanup? All I'm reading is improving a way to keep the stuff from polluting a larger area.
I, for one, welcome our radioactive bacteria overlords!
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
True, it does not change the overall radioactivity, but by making the metal nearly insoluble, the precipitated solid can be handled easier. It's also easier to landfill.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Except, it doesn't make a bit of difference, guys. The balls are inert.
In some ways this could change the debate about nuclear power and long-term waste storage. Should be interesting to see how this plays out. Wait around long enough and technology will usually shift and fold any issue.
So then we end up with... Radioactive bacteria? =)
/* No Comment */
Second, this article is REALLY short on facts. The least it could have done is explain exactly what the difference was between the dangerous and the safe uranium. A simple molecular formula comparison would have been very helpfull. Plus they should have told us WHY it was safe. Something along the lines of 'this molecule tastes horrible to other bacteria', as opposed to just leaving us hanging.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Or how do the bacteria survive in this environment?
(I for one welcome our radioactive, mutated metal-disassembling bacteria overlords!)
The balls are inert because of the bacteria.
Heck, I had to look that up in the dictonary... So which is it ? :
1. that cannot be dissolved
2. that cannot be solved; insolvable
3. that cannot be explained; mysterious or inexplicable
I don't insist on creatures that can actually alter the half-life of radioisotopes. Just ones that ingest them, do isotopic separation, and excrete the separated isotopes into segregated containers. We can let the uranium and hydrogen/deuterium separators drive the economy, with all the other separators running as boutique suppliers.
Insert 'The Balls are Inert' joke here.
they had this on Eureka on one of the episodes, it kept on growing like the blob and was threatening to eat its way through the town.
Since TFA and TFS fail with regards to radiation, what about mercury?
Spray some of these bad boys on the lining of tuna cans and such?
...the missing link in the food chain up to the gorilla, who will then freeze in winter.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
While we're at it, could you develop a bacteria that functions like Maxwell's Demon? That would seriously decrease heating and air conditioning costs. Thanks.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Pretty sure Ghost In The Shell had something similar. 'The Japanese Miracle'. Slightly different in that it's micromachines as opposed to bacteria, but what I thought of.
-- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
...act as a find-me signal to promote phagocytic clearance
That's an actual headline in Nature. Are you *sure* you want scientists writing their own headlines?
When you first read this you get the insane idea that somehow the bacteria render the radioactivity into non-radioactive substances. I actually read an SF story long ago where bacteria did exactly that. This looks to be just as radioactive afterwards as before, and not what the article implies.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
It would be interesting to see how this would work in a vacuum environment, where no air is present, and let the metals get treated to become inert with radioactivity.
What are the possibilities for weaponization?
If I were to dump this into your nuclear reactor would it (eventually) be rendered inert? what if I sprayed your atomic weapons stockpile with it?
Difficult to know what caused that particular mutation.
Radiation, bad mitoses, too much antibiotics in the water...
Earth is naturaly radioactive and is constantly bombarded by particles.
A certain percentage of all the mutation is probably caused by these source of radiation. (I have no idea what's the percentage)
So we can consider that all dangerous living things are due partly by mutation generated by radiations.
tigers, sharks, venomous mushrooms, snakes, ...
I think that the deadly claws of the tiger is beneficial for its survival (up to recently at least).
If you can get these bacteria to selectively convert U-235 over U-238 (or vice-versa), then you've got an interesting bug.
Bacteria to Precipitate Uranium From the Seawater
There, fixed that for you
Section 9 should be informed...
... welcome our radioactive, unicellular overlords.
It's so dumb that we still get most of our electricity from coal power. Coal is so incredibly bad in that it produces massive amounts of radioactive/toxic waste. It would be nice if they could get this to work to clean up all the slurry coal power plants have accumulated.
So... just keep the organism as is, treat waste in an oxygen free environment. Simple, effective, expensive to treat existing contamination, but at least the organism cannot cause trouble if it cannot live in the open.
---
Radioctivity is a property at the atomic level. Thus, if an element is radioactive, its compounds are.
You can't make radioactivity go away with chemistry.
Unhandled exception: summary threw metric_fuckton_of_bullshit at or near line 2.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
The result will not be harmless. It will still be radioctive. The thing is that it will not be readily toxic and, more important, it will not contaminate water, e.g. when it rains on a contaminated site. But the indirect implication of the article that the resulting substance is harmless is wrong.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
The pronuke slashdot community has already determined that nuclear waste and radioactive materials are not at all dangerous. Besides, we need as much waste as we can get our hands on so we can make breeder reactors. This bacteria is merely an ignorant antinuke troll.
The Admin and the Engineer
Conventional breeders don't work very well becuase they require too much intervention which means a lot of expensive stuffing about handling incredibly radioactive objects remotely, not lead lined gloves remotely but robot in a chamber with no windows remotely. That pushed the whole idea into the too hard basket for civilian purposes, and there's plenty of material already stockpiled for military purposes in most countries with a military nuclear program. There is an upcoming nuclear technology called "accelerated thorium reactors" which can use some high grade waste such as expended fuel rods or old weapons material and the ignorant assume it's like the old fast breeders. Fast breeders were a dead end. Some people point to the proposed accelerated thorium prototype as "evidence" that fast breeders were not but it is completly and utterly different despite there being the word "breeder" in the title of one of the proposals.
Also leaching of waste is a problem with the two most common disposal methods. In drums or encapsulated in a glassy material (glass structure not window glass material), moisture disolves the soluble radioactive materials and they escape. Incorporation, such as using synrock or this proposed bacterial method, chemically binds the radioactive elements to something else to produce an insoluble material. Synrock has been in development for at least thirty years due to a budget of almost zero since there are plenty of PR idiots that insist that nuclear waste does not exist - however it's now been deployed.
It's the solution to the "energy crisis". Nope, no problems with nuclear power. Clean, safe, efficient nuclear power. Damn greenies, with no understanding of physics, always knocking our nuclear power.
Am I the only one that read that as Bacteria Used to Make Radioactive Metal Shirts?
The question is not whether there are conceivable mutations that could make these bacteria more dangerous, but rather whether the mutation rate is rate-limiting in bacterial evolution. About 1 in 1,000 bacterial cell divisions results in a new mutation. But there are a lot of bacteria; in just one human body, there are about 10,000,000,000,000 E. coli. If they are all dividing with a cycle time of about an hour, that is about 10 billion mutations per hour. So probably just about every possible bacterial mutation pops up somewhere with fairly high frequency. If it doesn't spread and take over the population, it is probably because it is not selectively favorable. If that is the case, then increasing the mutation rate will have little effect on danger to people.
I did a project on bioremediation of radionuclides (specifically radioactive mercury and uranium) back in middle school...
That was 9 years ago.