Slashdot Mirror


E. Coli Can Be Used To Clean Up Nuclear Waste

jerryjamesstone writes "Researchers have found that E. coli can be used to recover uranium from tainted waters and can even be used to clean up nuclear waste. Using the bacteria along with inositol phosphate, the bacteria breaks down the phosphate — also called phytic acid — to free the phosphate molecules. The phosphate then binds to the uranium forming a uranium-phosphate precipitate on the cells of the bacteria. Those cells can then be harvested to recover the uranium." What has made this 14-year-old process economically feasible is the use of inositol phosphate, which is a cheap waste material from the production feedstock from plant material.

102 comments

  1. Just cuddling by Goffee71 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Surely the e-coli just wants to cuddle up to something warm, nothing unusual in that

    --
    If he's the Walrus then can I be a penguin please?
  2. I for one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    I for one welcome our new radioactive, disease spreading overlords!

    1. Re:I for one... by AmIAnAi · · Score: 1

      My first thought was along these lines too. Will the Uranium promote mutation into more deadly forms? I hope the Uranium (and E-coli) recovery is going to be tightly controlled

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable from a feature.
    2. Re:I for one... by OrangeMonkey11 · · Score: 1

      Or the bacteria can give us all super powers

    3. Re:I for one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean you don't have yours yet?!

    4. Re:I for one... by wastedlife · · Score: 1

      This is highly unlikely. While exposure to radioactivity promotes mutation, nearly all of it is fatal or detrimental to the mutant. Remember that the radiation is causing mutation by creating breaks in the DNA strands, basically causing irreparable damage.

      --
      Said, "It's just like dice but it's got more sides And it tells me who lives and who dies"
    5. Re:I for one... by Sylver+Dragon · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's not really a worry.

      First off, naturally occurring Uranium isn't all that radioactive. For the most part its U238, which doesn't give off much radiation. And, spent reactor fuel is even more skewed towards U238, otherwise known as Depleted Uranium, the stuff the military uses for armor piercing bullets. You can hold either of this stuff in your bare hands and not have any ill effects. One thing to keep in mind with radioactive materials, the stuff which has half lives of millions or billions of years (U238 is 4.46 billion years, U235 is 703 Million years) isn't producing a heck of a lot of ionizing radiation. The problem with Uranium is that it is a toxic heavy metal, and like other toxic heavy metals (lead, thorium) it will deposit in your internal organs, build up and eventually kill you.

      The second problem with the mutated E. Coli of Death is that the vast majority of mutations will result death fairly quickly. Of the ones which don't, they will probably just result in death slowly. Yes, the E. Coil could get some sort of useful mutation out of it, but it's not really more likely to happen in this cleanup site than anywhere else.

      --
      Necessity is the mother of invention.
      Laziness is the father.
    6. Re:I for one... by Ladysman3621 · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that U234 decays into Rn222 which is where this lovely gas comes from. Given enough uranium, the concentration of radon will build up to deadly amounts.

    7. Re:I for one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Using E. Coli is irrelevant if we use Nicholas Cage to remove nuclear waste. Oh wait, I was thinking of his acting in his last couple of movies.

    8. Re:I for one... by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      You can hold either of this stuff in your bare hands and not have any ill effects.

      Boy to people always forget the fourth dimension.
      The question is *how long* you can do that, and *how strong* the effects will be.

      Without time, I could say that I can hold my hand into fire. (For some milliseconds.)

      The problem with Uranium is that it is a toxic heavy metal, and like other toxic heavy metals (lead, thorium) it will deposit in your internal organs, build up and eventually kill you.

      Aaah... There's the (partial) answer. ;)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    9. Re:I for one... by Eudial · · Score: 1

      Besides, bacteria mutate at a very high rate as it is, since they have such short generation gaps.

      So even if some radiation-induced mutations survive, it's probably not going to be a significant increase in mutation rate.

      --
      GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
    10. Re:I for one... by TheGreenNuke · · Score: 1

      Actually U-234 decays to Th-230, from Th-230 to Ra-226, then Ra-226 to Rn-222. And the half lives of Th-230 and Ra-226 are in the thousands of years, where Rn-222 is like 4 days. The Rn-222 produced from the decay chain of Uranium-234 should thus deplete much faster than the chain creates more.

    11. Re:I for one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would it not be simpler to just use Nuke-a-way?

    12. Re:I for one... by Ladysman3621 · · Score: 1

      Correct, but if there is a large amount of uranium (perhaps in huge fill pools of coal ash etc.), there is likely to be some radon present. Its probably not a big deal though unless the radon is concentrated. All in all you are right because there probably wouldn't be enough spent fuel to create dangerous amounts, I was just commenting.

  3. Radioactive e-coli? by Thanshin · · Score: 4, Funny

    Someone's bound to get bitten, and then what?

    Will e-coliman protect us from the villains?

    1. Re:Radioactive e-coli? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know, if ever a story needed a "whatcouldpossiblygoright" tag, this one is it

    2. Re:Radioactive e-coli? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah man, you are getting it the wrong way around, E-coliman IS the villain.

      You'll need to wait for Antibioticman to be born... or something.
      Get to it Science!

    3. Re:Radioactive e-coli? by MadKeithV · · Score: 2, Funny

      I prefer bacteriophageman.
      He's got that dark, brooding, lone wolf hero thing going.

    4. Re:Radioactive e-coli? by Agent+of+Nowhere · · Score: 1

      and who e-colis the ecoliman?

      --
      Noone. Nothing. Nowhere.
    5. Re:Radioactive e-coli? by Jesus_666 · · Score: 3, Funny

      I, myself, am partial to the name "Diarrheaper".

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    6. Re:Radioactive e-coli? by zonker · · Score: 0

      Yeah I've seen how this movie ends...

  4. Ingenious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    So a combined chemical and biological threat can defeat a nuclear one, after all!

    1. Re:Ingenious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Truly the modern age has arrived when rock, paper, scissors is replaced by chemical, biological and nuclear...

    2. Re:Ingenious by Thanshin · · Score: 1

      So a combined chemical and biological threat can defeat a nuclear one, after all!

      The damage rolls back at 255.

      If you find yourself in a chemical, biological, nuclear zone, shoot yourself in the head every five seconds or so.

    3. Re:Ingenious by selven · · Score: 5, Funny

      If you ever find yourself in a chemical, biological nuclear zone with a guy shooting you in the head every five seconds or so, take out your laptop and read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_immortality

    4. Re:Ingenious by martas · · Score: 1

      that's an unclear threat...

    5. Re:Ingenious by kalirion · · Score: 2, Funny

      Dude, how many universes must you post that in? Give it a rest already!

    6. Re:Ingenious by The_mad_linguist · · Score: 1

      I just bind quicksave and quickload to the left and right mouse buttons.

      But your way works too.

  5. Bad timing by celibate+for+life · · Score: 4, Funny

    Had they discovered that a couple of years ago they could have used all that e-coli infested frozen spinach that went to waste!

    1. Re:Bad timing by IBBoard · · Score: 1

      It's okay, we've got a few e-coli infested "petting farms" in the UK at the moment ;)

    2. Re:Bad timing by master5o1 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Children are not bacteria. They may seem like it some times, but they're not.

      --
      signature is pants
    3. Re:Bad timing by IBBoard · · Score: 1

      Your children multiple at uncontrollable rates without any external interaction? Wow, I'd certainly be worried.

    4. Re:Bad timing by master5o1 · · Score: 1

      Not my children, but I do know some people that seem to reproduce at near bacteria level speeds.

      --
      signature is pants
    5. Re:Bad timing by neokushan · · Score: 1

      Additionally, they have all the intelligence of a single-celled organism.

      --
      +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
    6. Re:Bad timing by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      No, they're below bacteria. Bacteria are at least atheists.

    7. Re:Bad timing by tweekie · · Score: 1

      Children are not bacteria. They may seem like it some times, but they're not.

      True, at least antibiotics can kill off most bacteria. Children continue to survive. Mmmm, radioactive bacteria. At least next time I eat contaminated beef my skin should have a nice healthy glow.

    8. Re:Bad timing by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Well, counted by mass percentage, they might as well be.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  6. two birds by X10 · · Score: 0

    Doesn't e-coli live in sewers? So if we use sewer content to cool nuclear reactors, e-coli kills the nuclear waste and the reactor kills e-coli: two birds with one stone....

    --
    no, I don't have a sig
  7. Hah! then... by garompeta · · Score: 4, Funny

    Does it mean that McDonalds is a safe place to hide in a nuclear war?

    1. Re:Hah! then... by Centurix · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'd say the nuclear waste has a shorter half life than a McDonalds burger. The waste is probably easier to digest for the poor thing. Think of the E.Coli!

      --
      Task Mangler
    2. Re:Hah! then... by RuBLed · · Score: 1

      Would you really want to?

    3. Re:Hah! then... by Thanshin · · Score: 3, Funny

      When hunger comes, you'll eat anything.

      I mean, sooner or later you'll have no more corpses, and then, you'll have to choose between McDonalds and Spam.

      The radiation inmunity just tips the balance to the clown pit.

    4. Re:Hah! then... by OxyFrog · · Score: 1

      I'd really, really hope that nuclear waste has a shorter half life than a McDonald's burger. Shorter half-life = more radioactive than.

    5. Re:Hah! then... by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Nah. What's with the plants around you. And if everyone is dead, there will be more food that you could possibly eat.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  8. Oh, Well... by blcamp · · Score: 2, Funny

    Shit happens.

    --
    The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
    1. Re:Oh, Well... by courteaudotbiz · · Score: 1

      Nope. Shit saves the planet!

  9. Great! but only until..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they will discover that the radiation has mutated the bacteria badly enough to create another disastrous plague...

  10. Critical mess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    One day we will find out that e-coli prefers uranium-235, not long after it happens to make a nice deposit of this benign material.

  11. nucular. by thhamm · · Score: 3, Funny

    i'm sorry, but it's pronounced 'nucular'.

    1. Re:nucular. by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      "i'm sorry, but it's pronounced 'nucular'."

      Wow, I didn't know YouTube has clips of Jimmy Carter's old speeches.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
  12. I for one... by kazade84 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I for one welcome our radioactive super powered waste eating bacteria overlords

    .... I'll get my coat.

  13. how about diseases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    can they also cure atomic radiations patients like those from (Chernobyl for you lot, hey where's my cyrillic)

  14. as a professional microbiologist ... by acidfast7 · · Score: 3, Informative
    i must remind you that it's E. coli NOT E. Coli.

    even better would be E. coli, but perhaps I ask too much :(

    1. Re:as a professional microbiologist ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only on /. would we find the a geek bigger than the rest of us. Spelling and grammar in a news article, let alone on /. WHAT was E thinking.

    2. Re:as a professional microbiologist ... by buchner.johannes · · Score: 1

      What's the reason for the italic?

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    3. Re:as a professional microbiologist ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if this process is successful, maybe we should call it A. coli. If it fails, F. coli.

    4. Re:as a professional microbiologist ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a species name. They're all italicized.

    5. Re:as a professional microbiologist ... by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Terms should not rely on typography. And the case... what's whit that?
      You should learn to back your arguments with something, so you can be taken seriously. :)

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    6. Re:as a professional microbiologist ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  15. Edwina Currie is the answer by NSN+A392-99-964-5927 · · Score: 1, Troll

    She is rather egg-cellent to comment on e-coli.

    --
    All cows eat grass!
  16. Conveniently... by davidbrit2 · · Score: 1

    Nuclear E. coli can be used to clean up human waste. So everybody's a winner.

  17. Finally a use for all the defunct petting zoos! by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 2, Funny

    Just build petting zoos on top of nuclear waste dumps. Problem solved!

  18. I for one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Welcome our new glowing self-mutating assbug overlords.

  19. dirty skanky bastards by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    E coli lives up buttholes. Human and animal. Instead of running around like headless chickens people should learn to wash their goddam hands already, especially if they've been near buttholes or stuff that comes out of them or xcreature likely to have rolled around in stuff that comes out of them. Problem solved, hardly rocket fucking science is it?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:dirty skanky bastards by neokushan · · Score: 1

      But then the radiation will get them!

      --
      +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
  20. Naturally by bytesex · · Score: 4, Funny

    Uranium is the element named after Uranus, right ? No wonder it attracts E.Coli.

    --
    Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
  21. depressing... by nietsch · · Score: 2, Insightful

    All those commenters that need to make that very funny joke about E.coli => poop. Man, that was funny when you were 6, not 20 or 30 years later.
    But to go back on topic: This looks a bit like a solution looking for a problem. How much low grade uranium waste is there anyway? Or do they propose to use it in primary uranium mining, to make low uranium content ore usable?
    Yes there is an unsolved waste problem with uranium fission, but this proposed solution is no solution to that.

    --
    This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
    1. Re:depressing... by dunezone · · Score: 1

      Man, that was funny when you were 6, not 20 or 30 years later.

      But at 40 and 50 years later its pure comedy once again.

    2. Re:depressing... by jack2000 · · Score: 1

      The possibility for random mutation of the E. coli is what staggers me, AND they haven't thought of that?! WTF! A whatcouldpossiblygowrong indeed!|

    3. Re:depressing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha. He said poop.

    4. Re:depressing... by Tweenk · · Score: 1

      99,9...% of random mutations cause premature death. Of the beneficial ones, exactly 0% cause the bacteria to transform into man-eating eldritch abominations. "Dangerous mutants" are a pop culture thing and pretending they are a real possibility is funny.

      --
      Those who would give up liberty to obtain working drivers, deserve neither liberty nor working drivers.
    5. Re:depressing... by papasui · · Score: 1

      I visited one of the Elliot Lake, Ontario mines back in the early 90s. These were primarily Uranium mines and the reason for visiting was my hometown (Crandon, WI) had one of the larger zinc/copper finds in the US. My parents were in fairly respected positions in the community so Exxon/Rio Algom paid for us to go on a little trip up there and take a look at what they proposed for our town. One of the major concerns I recall walking away with was what mining did to the lake. The uranium tailings were directly deposited into Elliot Lake around the 50s and completely killed off the fish and plant life. It had taken nearly 50 years for the plants and fish to begin to recover. Needless to say we walked away not in favor of having a mine opened in our town.

    6. Re:depressing... by mayko · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It is a solution for a pop culture non-problem. What I mean by that is... All of the people who are irrationally scared of the word "nuclear" have the same fearful position on nuclear power.

      "What do we do with the waste? Not in my back yard!!!"

      "The run off from uranium mining can rape the local flora. Not in my back yard!!!"

      It isn't about solving some huge looming problem. It is about pacification of people's irrational fears so we can actually build nuclear power plants and stop spewing mercury and radioactive ash into the air. Shit, we could even use the plants to split water for hydrogen fuel... then again "hydrogen" is scary too.

      If this "solution" can be used to convince people we have all of our all of our bases covered, then it is a very good thing.

    7. Re:depressing... by jonadab · · Score: 1

      I think you're off by at least six years. Poop jokes are inherently hilarious to most twelve-year-old boys, unless I am gravely mistaken. HTH.HAND.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    8. Re:depressing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SO you're saying that mining practices from the 50s would have been used to extract the ore and that once again big corporations (were they big in the 50s?) would have dumped their toxic waste into your town's lake?

      Hmm sounds like you're a complete idiot. How much money did you turn down? You must not have any public services or poor people who could use a helping hand. Good job.

    9. Re:depressing... by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      I'd say it's slightly more than 0%, but not by much.

    10. Re:depressing... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      It isn't about solving some huge looming problem. It is about pacification of people's irrational fears so we can actually build nuclear power plants and stop spewing mercury and radioactive ash into the air.

      By all means, pacify irrational fears.

      However, being worried about the environmental impact of uranium mining (beyond NIMBYism), about the security and weapon proliferation issues involved in putting plutonium factories all over the place, and about the lack of a solution for waste disposal, is not irrational.

      Many people have irrational fears about nuclear power. Many, though, have an irrational attachment to it, some big-science romantic idea of Man Harnessing The Atom!, never mind the drawbacks.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    11. Re:depressing... by Kasar · · Score: 1

      Cleanup in places like the Black Triangle and other places in Central and Eastern Europe would be the most obvious use for this if it can be done economically. The mining tailings and waste are only part of the problem, but anything helps when nations like Hungary are spending billions on inherited messes.

      They should move on to molten-glass Thorium reactors really though, Uranium's so 1945.

      --
      vi? Who's that?
    12. Re:depressing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The process has not changed that much, you fucking idiot.
      where else would the tailings go ? (hint: they need a lake - artificial or manmade)

    13. Re:depressing... by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      It is about pacification of people's irrational fears so we can actually build nuclear power plants and stop spewing mercury and radioactive ash into the air.

      There is nothing irrational about not wanting to ingest radioactive isotopes because they have been bio-concentrated by the environment into the food chain. Once radioactive isotopes are *inside* the body the mutagenic properties cause cancers. If this stops excess uranium entering the environment then that is a good thing. Unfortunately there are a plethora of other radioactive isotope externalities that the entire industrial Nuclear process releases.

      As radioactive isotope emission is inevitable, and there is no known way to clean it up, I'd say those sorts of fears are actually rational fears, like not getting to close to a large crocodile, once you understand the dangers. So you are better informed I've listed some of the mutagenic radioactive isotopes that the Nuclear industry releases:

      Mine tailing: radioactive mine tailings from open cut mining where ever it has occurred, radon 220, radium 226, thorium etc.

      Enrichment: U-238 or DU. Used as weapon projectile, is pyrophoric and burns into a radioactive powder. Groundwater contamination from leaking Hexafluoride tanks

      Reactor facility: tritium, iodine 131, xenon 141, 143, 144, cerium 141, 143, 144, and tritium. Noble gases which decay into more dangerous daughter products (Xenon 137, Krypton 90, rubidium 90, strontium 90, Xenon 135, xenon 133, krypton 85, Argon 39). Of course no epidemiological studies have been performed on the noble gas venting which are released hourly from *all* Nuclear reactors. (did I mention tritium?) 4000 gallons of primary coolant water PER DAY containing plutonium 238,239,241, technetium 99, iodine 129, carbon 14 and *ahem* tritium. That's just the authorised effluents and not the accidents.

      Reactor decommissioning: cobalt 60, iron 55, nickel 63, C.R.U.D.

      Radioactive Waste: Plutonium, Strontium 90, Iodine 131, Cesium 137 and on and on

      If this "solution" can be used to convince people we have all of our all of our bases covered, then it is a very good thing.

      So, quite clearly, all our bases are *not* covered. This is only being used to recover uranium which will be used for fuel. When the engineering is performed and the scientific evidence is produced to demonstrate out bases are covered *then* I will be convinced. Until then the reality is that the Nuclear process continues to release radioactive isotopes into the environment and that they continue to accumulate in the foodchain.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  22. Out of the frying pan, into the fire by funehmon · · Score: 0

    Great, we have gone from uranium tainted water to E.Coli infected water. Take your pick!

  23. I love science! by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    I love hearing about turning aids into a cancer fighting ailment.
    I love hearing about using waste from the farms to develop the ecoli, which will then recycle the nuclear waste we are accumulating.
    Imagine if now, the nuclear waste did not have to go missing off the back end of ships and trucks everywhere, because we had a safe means of disposal....it would not only make the garbage management industry falter, but make us rethink our failure to adopt nuclear energy as a viable source for cities everywhere.

  24. Good! Nuclear luddites have ever fewer excuses! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I long for the day when the "Green" movement is forced to concede that nuclear power is the ONLY path to true energy independence and abundance. I'm not interested in your pre-industrial-revolution utopia.

    1. Re:Good! Nuclear luddites have ever fewer excuses! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Energy independence? Surely not if you're an American. America only has a tiny 2.5% of the world's uranium reserves. Besides, we only know of enough uranium to keep us going for another 100 years or so. And that's based on old consumption figures. If America were to move to nuclear, it would be game over in a hurry.

    2. Re:Good! Nuclear luddites have ever fewer excuses! by petrus4 · · Score: 1

      I long for the day when the "Green" movement is forced to concede that nuclear power is the ONLY path to true energy independence and abundance. I'm not interested in your pre-industrial-revolution utopia.

      We had some ideas for energy independence, but unfortunately they had to be abandoned. It turns out that violations of the Second Law of Thermodynamics make atheists cry.

  25. Hot Frongs On The Loose! by davidwr · · Score: 1

    Paging Fred Small, paging Fred Small, there's a song in this story trying to get out.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  26. Fermi 2 wastewater was dumped into Lake Erie by mantis2009 · · Score: 1

    And now they're going to dump a bunch of E. coli into the Great Lake to... clean it up? What a country! http://www.beyondnuclear.org/storage/fermi_holtec-press_releasejune09.pdf

  27. McDonalds jokes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I resent McDonalds bashing jokes.

    Their food is perfectly healthy and we had a guy eat McDonands for a whole month to prove it.
    He gained one or two (or twenty) extra pounds not much to complain about.

    He is alive and well !!!
    (is he?)

  28. Hot investment tip by NYMeatball · · Score: 1

    Looks like its time to start moving assets into http://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NASDAQ:JACK

  29. Glowing Excrement! by WidgetGuy · · Score: 1

    Cool. Now my stool can glow in the dark!

    --
    One "Aw, Shit!" is worth 100 "Ata boys!"
  30. Obligatory Futurama reference by Snarky+McButtface · · Score: 2, Funny

    How will this affect my nuclear piles?

  31. Not the "Japanese Miracle" by krou · · Score: 1

    The reference to Ghost in the Shell is tempting, but unfortunately, the "Japanese Miracle" from GitS involved using nanomachines for radiation clean-up. Still, pretty interesting.

    The article says it can clean up nuclear waste. Does this mean it can clean up sites where a nuclear explosion has taken place? (Sorry if that's a dumb question, I'm not that knowledgeable on this). If so, I am more interested in what this will mean politically: does this mean using nuclear weapons has become a much easier option? Does having a nuclear weapon now become less of a deterrent?

    --
    'If Christ had tweeted the sermon on the mount, it might have lasted until nightfall.' - John Perry Barlow
    1. Re:Not the "Japanese Miracle" by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      I dont know how helpful crop dusting all the victims of a nuclear explosion with Ecoli would be. I think that might constitute a further war crime.

    2. Re:Not the "Japanese Miracle" by jhfry · · Score: 1

      I never knew that nuclear blast zones were so contaminated that they were of much concern. I always thought that the hundreds of thousands killed in an instant was the deterrent, not the expensive clean up.

      --
      Sometimes the best solution is to stop wasting time looking for an easy solution.
  32. The cartoons? by idigitallDotCom · · Score: 1

    All jokes aside, nuclear waste "mutated" E Coli. Why am I the only one who thinks this is a bad idea?
    Making life radioactive? is that really a good idea?

    --
    blog.idigitall.com
  33. Mutations and environment by mollog · · Score: 1

    Actually, I think the radioactivity will create viable mutations. But then those mutants need a niche that is exploitable by their particular mutation.

    But all this mutation talk seems like it's off-topic. I'm more interested to hear more about this technique of precipitating metals using phytic acid.

    We have large uranium mine tailings that need to be cleaned up. We also have other radioactive materials that need to be neutralized.

    Also, I wonder if this technique can be used to extract materials such as Hafnium, now widely sought out for its use in processors.

    --
    Best regards.
    1. Re:Mutations and environment by wastedlife · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is possible some viable mutants will result. However, would the chances be any higher of producing a strain of E. coli that are deadlier to humans? I doubt it.

      Back on topic, is the uranium-phosphate that is produced still radioactive, or does this just make it easier to extract and remove from the environment?

      --
      Said, "It's just like dice but it's got more sides And it tells me who lives and who dies"
    2. Re:Mutations and environment by wkcole · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is possible some viable mutants will result. However, would the chances be any higher of producing a strain of E. coli that are deadlier to humans? I doubt it.

      Increasing the mutation rate has to increase the chances of mutants that are both viable and more harmful. Mutations from radiation are essentially random, so more mutation events means more mutation varieties, and so a greater chance of something very bad happening. Analogy: a handful of 5 6-sided dice. If you roll those dice once an hour, your chances of rolling all sixes in any day is very low: 1 in 324. If you roll them every 5 seconds you don't have a better shot at all sixes in any particular roll (1:7776) but your odds of hitting all sixes at least once in a day are 720 times higher, and most days you'd hit it twice. And have serious hand cramps. :)

      It should also be noted that most E. coli strains are harmless to humans, and our guts are full of them. It is evolutionarily problematic for a parasitic microorganism to kill its hosts, so most things that take advantage of living inside us do so without doing damage. We actually are dependent on our gut flora (including E. coli) for healthy digestion and absorption. The deadly strain of E. coli is believed to be the result of fairly recent (decades) incorporation of Shigella virus toxin genes by E. coli in cattle feedlot environments where shortening host life is essentially meaningless but triggering large volumes of waste helps the bacteria spread from its already-doomed (i.e. future hamburger) hosts to nearby others with a few more days of life.

      Back on topic, is the uranium-phosphate that is produced still radioactive, or does this just make it easier to extract and remove from the environment?

      There is no (bio)chemical way to eliminate radioactivity. This is just a way to isolate Uranium out of whatever soup of other stuff it happens to be in. Isolating the Uranium out of waste is useful because the Uranium is both hazardous and potentially reusable, but it only deals with part of the problem. Nuclear waste comes in many different forms, and the forms that would be targeted by this sort of tactic also are full of Uranium's decay products, many of which are themselves also radioactive and/or toxic. Absent a truly radical revolution in our understanding of nuclear physics, there is no total solution to the problem of waste from fission reactors other than time. There's nothing we can do to prevent radioactive decay and only a few narrow cases (i.e. fission reactors and bombs) where we have figured out ways to speed it up, so the "solutions" are all aimed at trying to concentrate and fractionate the various forms of bad stuff in the waste and find ways to safely store or reuse each fraction.

  34. I wonder when they will find out... by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

    That everyone down that river now constantly shits his pants, instead of losing hair, and that that makes them die even quicker. :P

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.