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.'"

Comments

Change the solubility of heavy metals

[Yvan256]

The bacteria Wall is studying are bio-corrosives and can change the solubility of heavy metals.

So... they can convert heavy metal into liquid metal? How long until we can buy that on iTunes?

Re:Change the solubility of heavy metals

[ConceptJunkie]

Forget iTunes! How long before this stuff is walking around killing people and looking like Robert Patrick?!

Re:Change the solubility of heavy metals

[clone53421]

Other way around... they want to make the metals insoluble so they won't contaminate water sources.

Re:Change the solubility of heavy metals

[sonnejw0]

Yes, by adding aliphatic hydrocarbons to the core metal ion. (Except it's liquid to heavy)

Re:Change the solubility of heavy metals

[JamesP]

Actually what happens is they put heavy metal through Microsoft SongSmith thus changing it to something else entirely different.

Interesting

[al0ha]

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!

Re:Interesting

[Brett Buck]

I think the thousands of mites already crawling around in there probably do that job. Unfortunately, you wind up with mite poop.

        Brett

Re:Interesting

[Chyeld]

I think the Chinese Needle Snakes can take care of that problem for you.

Re:Interesting

[SgtPepperKSU]

And the gorillas will take care of the snakes...

The best part: when wintertime rolls around, the gorillas simply freeze to death.

Chemically inert, they mean

[Urban Garlic]

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.

Re:Chemically inert, they mean

[ArbitraryDescriptor]

FTA:

hey can take uranium and convert it to uraninite, a nearly insoluble substance that will sink to the bottom of a lake or stream. Wall is looking into ... how long the changed material would remain inert.

Emphasis mine. It sounds to me that the bacteria are just converting the top layer into a uraninite shell; which insulates the radioactive material? "Nearly insoluble" suggests that it will eventually be broken down by the water, exposing the hot core once again.

Am I reading this correctly? If so, it would seem a method of grinding the material to dust and feeding it into vats/barrels in an O2 free environment might lead to a more permanent solution. Granted, this dust is probably just as dangerous from an inhalation/water contamination perspective...

Re:Chemically inert, they mean

[hardburn]

Yup, doesn't change radioactivity at all. Despite heavy metal toxicity being a far bigger problem in terms of actual, real-world pollution, it just doesn't have the attention-grabbing aspects that radiation does.

Re:Chemically inert, they mean

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

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.

The headline writer did think that, and by failing to correct that(probably obvious) misconception these researchers are effectively claiming just that.

This might sound unfair, but it's really very simple. If a reporter comes to ask you about your research, and comes away printing something totally inaccurate or just completely wrong then that is your fault. You invited them in, you gave them the rope, showed them how to knot it. Why should you complain when they inevitably hang themselves and you in the process.

Researchers should either write their own press releases or else not bother talking to the press at all. In fact, I recommend the latter. Most research is too technical to have a hope of garnering media attention with "embellishing" it, and once you start doing that you've stopped doing honest research and have moved on to dishonest peddling. You've stopped dealing in the facts and have moved on to anti-facts.

Once, once again, this is all in Feynman's Cargo Cult Science speech. Here's the passage relevant to our discussion

I'm talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you are maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.

For example, I was a little surprised when I was talking to a friend who was going to go on the radio. He does work on cosmology and astronomy, and he wondered how he would explain what the applications of this work were. "Well," I said, "there aren't any." He said, "Yes, but then we won't get support for more research of this kind." I think that's kind of dishonest. If you're representing yourself as a scientist, then you should explain to the layman what you're doing--and if they don't want to support you under those circumstances, then that's their decision.

This speech is 35 years old. When are people going to start paying attention to it?

Re:Chemically inert, they mean

[TheCarp]

I agree with the concept, but I don't know if I am ready to toss recriminations. Yes, it is indeed the job of a scientist to both publish his work, and to try and shoot holes in it and show how he might be wrong. He should be honest as to what it really means (if cosmologists are bad on this front, look at a science where money is more heavily mixed in like pharmacology or other medical sciences and you can see this problem is rampant to the point that you wonder how they have any credibility left).

However, you can't always be sure that your meaning is understood by everyone. Have you never had someone do something other than what you wanted and claim that its what you asked of them? I just had an issue this past day where I told someone I had to check on something to see if I could help him, and he only heard "yea I want to help". Is that my fault that he ran off and made commitments himself based on me helping him? I told him 3 times I wasn't sure if I even could.

Sometimes, despite best efforts to prevent them, misunderstandings happen.

-Steve

Re:Chemically inert, they mean

[Ardeaem]

Researchers should either write their own press releases or else not bother talking to the press at all.

I don't think you understand how this works at all. The researchers do research. The University has people on staff that are paid to publicize research. They try to understand the research as best they can. Then, they publicize it, trying to get the research all over the place, and THEY contact the press. If you are lucky (or unlucky, actually - it is a waste of time) the press may talk to you. The researchers are often several steps away from the reporters that report on it. I say this as a researcher who had research that I did at the University of Missouri (the university in question here) publicized, so I know how this works.

The process is pretty much completely beyond your control as a researcher. If the University wants to publicize your research, and they're going to do it regardless of what you say. You can't just not talk to your own university about your research.

Re:Chemically inert, they mean

[Chris Burke]

Yeah, because the researcher was obviously looking over the reporter's shoulder when they were writing their copy. Also, there's zero chance whatsoever that the reporter had started with a more accurate but less punchy title, and an editor who understood even less decided to change it. Clearly anything on the printed/electronically distributed page is a direct reflection of what the researcher explicitly wanted to be printed. No scientist has ever been shocked to find that an article about their research directly contradicted what they had explicitly told the reporter. This is because the reporter, who is always fully devoted to accurately representing the science, makes sure to continue consulting with the scientist at every point of authoring their article, and doesn't just phone up the researcher to ask a few quick questions and get a few sound bites then hang up and write whatever they want. And of course -- okay I can't go on.

Feynman makes a lot of good points, and certainly scientists need to do a better job of interfacing with the press. But surely you can see a difference between a scientist embellishing their research or the uses for it in order to make it more exciting for the press, and a researcher failing to correct a misconception they may not have realized the reporter ever had, and the reporter deciding on their own to embellish the research to make it more exciting. One is the scientist being complicit in bad science journalism, the other is a scientist not being all-knowing omniscient. Why would you assume that the reporter ever said anything that indicated he had this misconception? The scientist probably was careful to specify chemically inert, the reporter may have used the same phrase himself, but by the time it hits the page, it becomes "inert as in non-radioactive". One word makes all the difference.

But yeah. I guess "stop talking to the press until the press stops having misconceptions about science" is a possible solution. We wouldn't be discussing this research in that case here on /., but hey maybe that's for the best?

Re:Chemically inert, they mean

[hardburn]

This might sound unfair, but it's really very simple. If a reporter comes to ask you about your research, and comes away printing something totally inaccurate or just completely wrong then that is your fault.

Shortly after 9/11, Phil Zimmermann was interviewed about the possibility that PGP was used in planning the attacks. He carefully stated that he had no regrets, but that's not what the Washington Post ran.

He was already very experienced with handling the press by that point. He even had the journalist read the entire article over the phone before sending it to the editor. So apparently, there is no defense against a bad editor misrepresenting something, unless you ignore the press altogether.

Re:Chemically inert, they mean

[Repossessed]

How exactly is the researcher responsible for what an editor he never met writes? The Journalists can't even control the headlines.

radioactive bacteria

[pwizard2]

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.

Re:radioactive bacteria

[CorporateSuit]

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.

Scientists already know that whenever this happens, Godzilla awakens from his slumber, tussles with the creature, eventually righting mankind's wrongs through violence, and then torches part of Tokyo before returning peacefully to the sea for another year. I don't know what you're so worried about.

Re:radioactive bacteria

[Nadaka]

for most transuranic elements, their chemical toxicity is far more lethal than the radiation hazard they possess.

Re:radioactive bacteria

[RsG]

I have an exercise for you.

Find me a species, mutated by radiation, that subsequently became dangerous to human beings. Anything at all. I don't care what kingdom, genus, family, what-have-you; anything from a virus to an animal. Harmless before, was mutated, now dangerous. Should be easy, with such a broad mandate - there has to be at least one example that will serve to support your point, right?

Nope. While there are plenty of deadly lifeforms on this planet, mutation via exposure to radiation does not make them deadlier. Conversely, overuse of antibiotics (to give one example) has made bacteria deadlier, or at least harder to cure.

"Mutation" is one of those idiot words - it has a very specific meaning in biology, one that has no resemblance to the way non-biologists habitually use it. Most mutations are detrimental to the organisms survival. The only circumstances under which this is not the case is where the mutation occurs in conjunction with selection pressure that favours the mutant. Bacteria, even parasitic ones, do not benefit from being deadly - lethality is not a survival trait for pathogens.

You've been getting your biology from Hollywood.

Re:radioactive bacteria

[Farmer Tim]

I don't know what you're so worried about.

The Keith Emerson soundtrack.

Re:radioactive bacteria

[Chazerizer]

You scoff at the above poster, but there are (non-lethal) mutations possible that could make these particular bacteria more dangerous to people. A single mutation causes an amino acid change in the protein that converts uranium to uranite. Now, instead of uranium, it binds phosphorus (or calcium, or ferrous ions, or whatever) because its pore size is different. Instead of removing uranium for the water, it now creates large, insoluble phosphorus deposits. Even if the remaining bacteria remove the uranium, you are still left with a completely unlivable ecosystem for micro-organisms (and higher life forms which feed on them, and so on), because basic nutrients are in extremely short supply. In essence, you've traded one barren landscape for another, and that just fails to help anyone. This isn't a terribly likely scenario. 99.999% of mutations are likely to be either fatal to the microorganisms or irrelevant. On the other hand, if a group of bacteria are exposed to 10^m photons of gamma radiation...I'm guessing at least a few beneficial, non-desirable mutations could occur. They won't turn the microbes into the blob, but they could end up causing some very non-desirable effects.

Re:radioactive bacteria

[RsG]

Sorry, no, those examples aren't what I asked for.

To begin with, animals that reproduce sexually get an overwhelming majority of their genetic diversity from recombining genes from both parents. Random mutation, while present, is a minor factor in their evolution (how minor is a source of continued debate). All of your examples fall into this category.

Further, while they did likely mutate due to radiation at some point (you're quite right that the rate of radiation induced mutation is not zero), they don't meet the criteria of "harmless before, was mutated, now dangerous". Specifically, all of the examples you gave were apex predators, descended from a long line of large predatory animals, all of them likely dangerous.

In the case of the T-Rex, it's entirely possibly the species' ancestors were more dangerous, since Tyrannosaurs are generally thought to have been more opportunists than hunters - evolution made them less deadly, even as they got larger.

Anyway, I get your point that every extant species has at least some traits imparted by radiation induced mutation, and wasn't arguing otherwise. I merely wished to show that radiation isn't a relevant force in making otherwise harmless bacteria into pathogens, despite what Hollywood science has to say.

Re:radioactive bacteria

[Jedi Alec]

I'm typically pretty tame and if you lure me with some food I might even allow you to pet me(provided you're female, attractive and my significant other isn't within sight). If you were to start using my home as a nuclear testing ground and I managed to survive i reckon I'd be pretty damn aggressive too however ;-)

real estate

[datapharmer]

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.

For those who don't RTFA...

[Brett Buck]

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

Bad article title

[NewbieProgrammerMan]

<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>

Re:Bad article title

[Zantac69]

The dissolved uranium is reduced to uranite (incidently a common ore that is mined for uranium) inside the bacterial bodies. So in nature, they "eat" dissolved uranium, it accumulates in their bodies, they die, the bodies settle, the bodies decompose leaving uranite. Do that for long enough and you have uranite deposits...much how bacteria oxidized the dissolved iron in the oceans to remove it from solution.

Does this make everything safe? No - just makes it easier to clean up since if can separate the bacteria from the contaminated water.

So dont get too excited.

Re:Bad article title

[mooingyak]

Or, as 'Ert' is a nickname my sister gave me, 'inert' generally refers to hamburgers and beer.

Re:Non-Toxic inert?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

There are two main reasons that you'd be concerned about chemical properties. One is just that a fair number of exciting radioisotopes are also chemically unpleasant. The second is that the chemical properties determine, in large part, how easy it is to keep the substance contained. An insoluble and largely unreactive material will be fine even if the barrel leaks a bit. A corrosive and water soluble material will make the barrel leak a bit and then start leaching into the water table. Radiation is bad; but isolating small areas of intense radioactivity is fairly easy. Isolating large areas of modest radioactivity that has a nasty habit of getting in the drinking water and being incorporated into your bones is quite difficult.

If a bacterial process can economically neutralize the material and induce it to stay where it is, rather than dissolving and floating around, that would make the problem smaller.

Re:Non-Toxic inert?

[meerling]

I'm no where near an expert on this stuff, but my understanding is that the big change is a soluble nasty material is made non-soluble.

In other words, that really nasty stuff likes to dissolve in water and spread everywhere, especially into the water table.

They want to make it not do that, so it's in a contained area, and might even be possible to extract it, or at least stopping it from making everything within a huge area into Chernobyl Nitelights.

I actually worked at a place that had to monitor this kind of stuff.
Previous owners had 'disposed' of contaminated materials by buying them.
Ironically, it wasn't the buried stuff that was the greatest risk factor to us.

I'm sure most of you, including icebike, probably understand this, but it seemed the perfect chunk of thread to post this. :)

Obligatory...

[clone53421]

I, for one, welcome our radioactive bacteria overlords!

Re:Look out, Radioactive Man!

[TheCarp]

White? Please... before long your gonna have real options. White? I mean...why be white when you can be blue? or green? or red? Or.... you could have mood skin! Maybe a little glow in the dark anyone? Sure there may be a few side effects, maybe it wil destroy your liver in 3 years and make your thyroid go hypractive if you survive beyond that but.... the possibilities for matching with your ipod will never be greater.

-Steve

Re:Bad summary

[PitaBred]

Yes, it does. Toxicity relates to chemical reactivity, not to radiation. If it's non-toxic, it won't contaminate your body... it'll be passed through like any other waste material.

Re:Misleading

[mcgrew]

The problem is the submitter and editor thought folks at slashdot would know what "inert" means. Obviously, you and a few others didn't.

In chemistry, the term inert is used to describe something that is not chemically active. The noble gases were described as being inert because they did not react with the other elements or themselves. It is now understood that the reason that inert gases are completely inert to basic chemical reactions (such as combustion, for example) is that their outer valence shell is completely filled with electrons. With a filled outer valence shell, an inert atom is not easily able to acquire or lose an electron, and is therefore not able to participate in any chemical reactions. For inert substances, a lot of energy is required before they can combine with other elements to form compounds. High temperatures and pressure are usually necessary, sometimes requiring the presence of a catalyst.

For example, elemental nitrogen is inert under standard room conditions and exists as a diatomic molecule, N2. The inertness of nitrogen is due to the presence of the very strong triple covalent bond in the N2 molecule; nitrogen gas can, however, react to form compounds such as lithium nitride (Li3N) under standard conditions.

Inert atmospheres of gases such as nitrogen and argon are routinely used in chemical reactions where air sensitive and water sensitive compounds are handled.

"Inert" has absolutely nothing whatever to do with radioactivity, even though radioactive materials may or may not be inert.

Re:Non-Toxic inert?

[yurtinus]

Oh... I thought you were talking about the banking crisis again.

Evil scientist picture

[gurps_npc]

First, let me congratulate the woman in the picture for the article. That picture is just a 100% spot on for Mad Scientist. The huge arms, the vials, the strange lighting, - perfect.

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.

Re:Non-Toxic inert?

[im_thatoneguy]

The two methods most commonly proposed that I'm aware of currently to do this are through pebble bed reactors which keep all the radioactive material inside insoluble carbon shells and glassification which embeds the material in insoluble silica for relatively safe disposal.

Just a couple other areas of research for those interested.

Re:Radiation-immune bacteria?

[Tweenk]

The public perception of radiation is the best example that humans are generally stupid, and that stupidity has to be beaten out of them using blunt instruments. The Fallout games, Hulk, Spider-Man, etc. are NOT fact-based. They do NOT depict actual effects of radiation. Those are FAIRY TALES. There is no such thing as a Chinese syndrome. The nuclear power industry is not comspiring to destroy the world. Animals do not turn into monsters when heavily irradiated, they die! People do not turn into ghouls or zombies when heavily irradiated, they die as well! Please repeat this 100 times.

Now to answer this question, here is an example of a very radiation-resistant bacteria:

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

Re:Non-Toxic inert?

[Andy Dodd]

Also, its solubility can determine how much damage it'll actually do to a human that is exposed to it.

e.g. if it's a soluble substance in the water supply, it'll get absorbed into the bloodstream and potentially stay there for a while doing damage. IIRC radioactive isotopes of iodine are considered "really bad" because of the tendency of the body to concentrate and retain it in the thyroid.

If it's insoluble, the chance of it actually being in the water consumed by a human is far lower, and even if it is consumed, it'll likely just pass through, doing very little damage.

Bad Summary

[Nom du Keyboard]

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.

Another application

[russotto]

If you can get these bacteria to selectively convert U-235 over U-238 (or vice-versa), then you've got an interesting bug.

Re:Another application

[jeffb (2.718)]

Oh, nothing could be simpler. You feed them a diet high in soluble fluoride, and lots of intense UV, and they metabolize the stuff into UF6. At the same time, they form into long, columnar biofilms, with flagellae projecting that they use to fan the UF6 into fast circulation. The 235U segregates preferentially to the center, while the 238U goes to the perimeter. All you have to do is separate it out, in lots of stages.

Alternatively, they could bioluminesce at a precise frequency that excites molecules containing 235U, but not 238U.

There are lots of other possibilities. It's just a matter of engineering.

Re:Another application

[Johnno74]

You'd be much better off trying to find / engineer a bug that can change lead into gold.

If you had something that could convert U-235 to U-238, then lead into gold isn't that much harder.

Re:Look out, Radioactive Man!

[RichardJenkins]

Who's white?

I'm an albino, you insensitive clod!

Re:Look out, Radioactive Man!

[Hognoxious]

with ancestry going through Ireland and Scotland before settling down in Canada.
I'm pink.

After three weeks in the sun, perhaps. The natural colour of the species Brittanicus Atlanticus Gingerus is somewhere between blue and transparent.

Re:Radioactivity

[ShadowRangerRIT]

If you read the couple dozen earlier posts here, it's been pointed out repeatedly that it doesn't actually render them radioactively inert, just chemically inert and insoluble. If radioactive elements don't dissolve their barrels, and aren't soluble in water, then storage becomes a much easier problem.