Slashdot Mirror


MIT Researchers Harness Viruses To Split Water

ByronScott writes "A team of researchers at MIT has just announced that they have successfully modified a virus to split apart molecules of water, paving the way for an efficient and non-energy-intensive method of producing hydrogen fuel. 'The team, led by Angela Belcher, the Germeshausen Professor of Materials Science and Engineering and Biological Engineering, engineered a common, harmless bacterial virus called M13 so that it would attract and bind with molecules of a catalyst (the team used iridium oxide) and a biological pigment (zinc porphyrins). The viruses became wire-like devices that could very efficiently split the oxygen from water molecules. Over time, however, the virus-wires would clump together and lose their effectiveness, so the researchers added an extra step: encapsulating them in a microgel matrix, so they maintained their uniform arrangement and kept their stability and efficiency.'"

347 comments

  1. Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I can just see it now. Some of these get dropped into an ocean, multiply, and eventually deconstruct the majority of the world's water into oxygen and hydrogen. It's the end of the world!!

    1. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      kinda like ice-nine, but backwards?

    2. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by lobiusmoop · · Score: 2, Informative

      Viruses can't multiply by themselves, they have no DNA. They'd have to infect something first and convince it to do the work. Since there probably won't be any fish left in the sea soon, it isn't going to happen.

      --
      "I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
    3. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by goombah99 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      first it's not the virus that is doing anything. it's just a scaffold. the virus just self-assembles the scaffold for you. the interior DNA / RNA is irrelevant.

      that said, the design for the self assembly and display is in the virus DNA I believe. so given a host to express itself in, it could presumably reproduce this in the wild. it would not be any use to the virus. But you could imagine that some host cell might harness the virus to make hydrogen for it's own purposes.

      So I suspect that if this gets loose in the wild that the virus won't keep this trait long enough for some host cell to adapt to taking advantage of it.

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    4. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by Tiger4 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Just don't get any on your skin.

      "Gas bag science researchers exploding with good news. Film at eleven!"

      --
      Behold, this dreamer cometh. Come now, and let us slay him... and we shall see what will become of his dreams.
    5. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by mcgrew · · Score: 5, Funny

      Even if viruses could reproduce without a host (they can't), when oxygen mixes with hydrogen, the hydrogen oxidizes (burns) instantly. The exhaust from burning hydrogen is water.

      Sheesh, I knew that in the 7th grade. I almost got expelled from school for knowing it...

    6. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by LinuxIsGarbage · · Score: 0, Troll

      It would balance out the effect of the sea level rising from global warming. Plus lots of hydrogen!

    7. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by lorenlal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Screw the ocean, I'm plenty worried about me.

      Am I not about 70% water?

    8. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by whitedsepdivine · · Score: 0

      Zombie fishes. I love reading about viruses that may cause the zombie apocalypse.

    9. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by arielCo · · Score: 1

      Oxygen and hydrogen? Nothing a lit match can't fix. A bit of global warming ensues, but hey...

      --
      This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
    10. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by KlomDark · · Score: 1

      Yes, just like playing Joe Satriani backwards.

    11. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by The+Clockwork+Troll · · Score: 1

      The sociological importance of your novel could be overshadowed by a Harry Chapin song released a decade later.

      --

      There are no karma whores, only moderation johns
    12. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hey guess what Mr. Gloom & Doom: the P-Tr extinction about 250 million years ago killed 96% of all marine species without our help, and you know how empty the oceans are now? Oh, that's right, speciation naturally filled the hole, once again without our help. If the environment changes and things die, whatever doesn't die will change to meet the needs of the new environment so long as there are resources to consume. The end.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    13. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by gilleain · · Score: 2, Informative

      What? Of course viruses have DNA (or RNA) otherwise there would be nothing to replicate...

      Of course, there is also the mimivirus, with 1,000 genes that produces its own virion factory in the cell, so that it doesn't even have to put its genes into the cell nucleus.

    14. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Yes. Just like petroleum eating bacteria right? No wait those are known since like the 70s and we still have oil.

    15. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by roman_mir · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, I think you are approximately 90% FUD and 10% skin.

    16. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by xaxa · · Score: 1

      That's fine -- but 6.8 billion of us don't want to risk homo sapiens being on the "extinct" list.

    17. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by winomonkey · · Score: 2, Informative

      The key term that they used in the article was "bacterial virus", which is also known as a bacteriophage, which is a virus that acts specifically on a bacterial host. Fish may come and go, but bacteria will be around for a wee bit yet. However, there is still the issue that the virus itself does not "split water", but merely serves as scaffolding for the other components in the process.

    18. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by wolfsdaughter · · Score: 1

      Didn't it take a VERY LONG TIME for repopulation to happen... ?

      --
      "Are they made from real Girl Scouts?" ~Wednesday Addams
    19. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by schon · · Score: 4, Funny

      Didn't it take a VERY LONG TIME for repopulation to happen... ?

      Well it couldn't have taken that long.. after all, the earth is only 6000 years old!
       
      /me ducks

    20. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is parent modded redundundant?

      I thought it was +1 funny, because, you know, ice nine also "destroyed" all the water, but in a different way, so saying "atlest it's not ice nine" is funny, because that would imply it's not as bad, when in fact it would be as bad. Funny, because it's not true, if you think a bout it a little. (Very little, but still.) So, in conclusion, I think it was unfair to mod parent redundant, because of everything I explained up to recapping it in the conclusion, which is still on-going in this centense right here. (I'm being redeundant on purpose. (Because I think it is funny in this context.))

    21. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      So you think freezing the biosphere forever is really the answer? Environmental changes have given successively more and more advanced biospheres, but you would stop that just because you're afraid of how things might be different? You do realize that regardless of whether such an effort is successful or not (it literally can't be, but we'll let that aside), homo sapiens will eventually become extinct. If you can't rationally face the mortality of the species, can you rationally face your own mortality?

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    22. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by Hylandr · · Score: 1

      I was fearing the same thing.

      You can't control mutation. What happens if the virus mutates, spreads through the air and oceans dividing Hydrogen from Oxygen? Besides being toxic to breathe, one good spark in either cloud could ignite fireballs ranging in size from annoying to devastating explosions to the atmosphere about the globe igniting. Welcome to new Mars.

      It begs the question in our research on mars though, what kind of evidence would such an action leave behind? Have we been looking for that in our efforts on the red planet? Would there be a 'chemical trail' we could detect? White powder just beneath the red soil?

      Do I need some tinfoil? or should we really be worried?

      - Dan.

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    23. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by mutube · · Score: 4, Interesting

      ...they have no DNA

      All viruses have either RNA or DNA. If it doesn't have DNA/RNA it's not a virus (2nd para).

      Viruses cannot replicate without a host cell. However, it's quite possible to create viruses that are replication defective and cannot replicate even given their natural host. This is not a 'mutation' that can be undone but the removal of the entire sections of the viral genome: the virus remains able to infect (capsid interactions) but cannot complete it's life cycle. Initial replication is done with specifically spliced crossovers in a susceptible host cell.

      It's all quite safe, and forms the basis of using viruses for both vaccination and gene therapy.

      Now that's over with:

      WHAAAAAAAAAAA! PANIC! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!

    24. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm 26 and I haven't repopulated yet!

    25. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe because there are at least two other people who posted the same thing before him? One was at least half an hour before him.

    26. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by Hylandr · · Score: 1

      On a humorous note, weather could become fantastic displays of fireworks, as lightning ignites the fireballs, reuniting the oxygen and hydrogen into giant swimming pool size raindrops ...

      "Kaboom! SPLASH!"

      'Scuse me, while I build my rain shelter, with my shiny new hat...

      - Dan.

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    27. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Does it matter? Those events were catalytic in creating the biosphere of today. If today's biosphere is valuable, we owe it to those events. People need to get over extinctions. Extinctions are natural, they have happened to 99% of all species that once lived on earth over geologic time. Without the mass extinction caused by the oxygen catastrophe of the Siderian period, no animal life as we know it would exist on earth. Even though it seems contradictory, extinction demonstrably enables the advancement of life, just different forms of life.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    28. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it doesn't instantly oxidize. You need to give it a bit of activation energy in the form of a flame.

    29. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by xaxa · · Score: 2, Informative

      A hydrogen and oxygen mix at room temperature won't burn -- you need a spark. It's easy to make the mix: put two electrodes (carbon?) in water with an inverted, water-filled tube above them. You can use two inverted tubes to collect the gases if you prefer.

      (Any mistakes are my own. I'm remembering this from school. I'm sure I did the acid+metal = hydrogen + alkali experiment when I was 10 or 11, and the electrolysis of water a year later. In both cases we had to do the "standard test for hydrogen" -- it burns in a test tube with a "squeaky pop". If you add oxygen the pop gets louder. If you have a 1m-long, 30cm-wide "test tube" full of hydrogen you still get a squeaky pop, but maybe in that case mixing oxygen in isn't a good idea.)

    30. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's life, Jim, but not as we know it.

    31. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by Lueseiseki · · Score: 2, Interesting

      about 250 million years ago

      And how many millions of years did it take to get back to normal? Do you think humans could continue to thrive for just one of those millions?

    32. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Actually, you need a spark for hydrogen and oxygen to ignite. Hydrogen and chlorine will ignite with light only, however.

      As for your near-expulsion, that's strange. I went to a private high school and on the recruitment night the chemistry lab had hydrogen ignition as one of the two major features - the other was blowing soap bubbles full of natural gas which we then ignited with a candle attached to the end of a dowel. It was 20 years ago, though.

    33. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by Golddess · · Score: 1

      I didn't see anything about a single virus being limited in how much water it could split (TFS says that over time they lost their effectiveness, but that that was fixed), so that just means it would take a lot longer. If some of the viruses did get out, unless we managed to get them all back, that one little Wall-E that we missed would dutifully continue on splitting water until there was nothing left. ;)

      (Note, the above post is not to be taken seriously.)

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    34. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by Steffan · · Score: 1

      when oxygen mixes with hydrogen, the hydrogen oxidizes (burns) instantly.

      That is incorrect. Hydrogen and oxygen can coexist without the hydrogen oxidizing instantly.

    35. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just don't light a match. See, problem solved. I learned that one in 3rd grade. My eyebrows grew back by the 4th grade.

    36. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by Qzukk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Does it matter? Those events were catalytic in creating the biosphere of today. If today's biosphere is valuable, we owe it to those events.

      If today's biosphere is valuable and it took millions of years to make it that way since the last "event", then if we cause another such "event", tomorrow's biosphere won't be quite so valuable to us.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    37. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by M8e · · Score: 1

      when oxygen mixes with hydrogen, the hydrogen oxidizes (burns) instantly./p>

      Interesting, really?
      When you mix oxygen and hydrogen you get... a mixture of oxygen and hydrogen. You need a source of ignition.

    38. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by wolfsdaughter · · Score: 1

      I believe that diversity is a good thing. I also believe We have a responsibility to ourselves and to future generations to Plus I really enjoy watching animals, especially large animals. :) And ya know, it'd be nice if my daughter and hopefully future grandchildren, great grandchildren and so on, could live in a world that still had those.

      --
      "Are they made from real Girl Scouts?" ~Wednesday Addams
    39. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      The period of time doesn't matter. Humans are incredibly resourceful, moreso than any other animal.

      The chance that a given species survives an extinction is exactly that: chance. However humans have one thing all other animals do not: the ability to pursue any resource, anywhere to virtually any degree that an environment can support. We can grow plants without soil, we can engineer life to perform in environments that it otherwise could not, we can synthesize previously limited resources from materials that are renewable, on and on. Humanity has a better chance of surviving any mass extinction event than any species in earth's history.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    40. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by wolfsdaughter · · Score: 1

      oops - oh well. Anyway, I just think we have a responsibility as the take care of and preserve the ecosystems - even if it isn't as "efficient" at filling the pockets of the greedy few.

      --
      "Are they made from real Girl Scouts?" ~Wednesday Addams
    41. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      If you really think that life retrogresses, I can't help you. Successful lifeforms will find any biosphere "valuable", that's why they are successful, they become less impacted by the way that resources are distributed.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    42. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I'm having trouble finding its autoignition temperature for a pure oxygen/hydrogen mix. From wikipedia: The temperature at which a chemical will ignite decreases as the pressure increases or oxygen concentration increases. Hydrogen: 536 C (997 F)[8]

      That's in a normal, uncompressed, normal atmosphere, not in a pure oxygen atmosphere. Increase pressure or amount of oxygen, and the temperature is lowered.

    43. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by Remus+Shepherd · · Score: 1

      True enough...except now, *every* post referring to Ice-9 has been modded redundant. Even the original.

      It's as if the mention of Ice-9 has frozen the moderators, and every post on Ice-9 they touch is commutative so that it freezes other moderators. Soon all the Ice-9 posts on /. will be dry, redundant landscapes hostile to moderator life.

      Oh, well, Vonnegut said we had it coming.

      --
      Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
    44. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by trapnest · · Score: 1

      giant swimming pool size raindrops ...

      That would be awesome.

    45. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Awesome! That will facilitate deep sea exploration.

    46. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Actually, you need a spark for hydrogen and oxygen to ignite. Hydrogen and chlorine will ignite with light only, however.

      How will it burn without oxygen?

      It was 20 years ago, though.

      Well, I was in the 7th grade in 1965, and it was a public school.

    47. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by Moryath · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Homo Sapiens will either evolve into something (or several somethings) else, or die off entirely. Of course, we can argue that we've already managed to fuck up our own evolution pretty good; the number of our members who manage to breed despite incredibly crippling congenital diseases, tendency towards debilitating developmental diseases, or simply managing to survive their own ridiculous stupidity through advancing medical science, is staggering.

    48. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You are placing everything into your specific emotional context. Thing is, natural processes don't care about your emotional context. It wouldn't matter how cute you thought mammoths were, they simply were no long a viable species in the biosphere. There are no 'good' species or 'bad' species, just the successful ones that live, and the unsuccessful ones that die. And if you like diversity, you should know that regardless of the fact that 99% of species that have ever lived are now extinct, the rate of speciation and the total number of species has always increased over geologic time.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    49. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      Fertility rates are down in virtually every country, even where birth rates remain high. Of course all the neo-Malthusian twits remain completely ignorant both of that fact and of the difference between the metrics.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    50. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      first it's not the virus that is doing anything. it's just a scaffold. the virus just self-assembles the scaffold for you. the interior DNA / RNA is irrelevant.

      that said, the design for the self assembly and display is in the virus DNA I believe. so given a host to express itself in, it could presumably reproduce this in the wild. it would not be any use to the virus. But you could imagine that some host cell might harness the virus to make hydrogen for it's own purposes.

      So I suspect that if this gets loose in the wild that the virus won't keep this trait long enough for some host cell to adapt to taking advantage of it.

      Let's graft it into an engineered Tyrannosaurus/Triceratops/Brontosaurus/Stegosaurus/Pteranodon chimera and make a fire breathing dragon!

    51. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

      Oxygen enabled faster metabolism.
      Eyes led to the acceleration of the predator/prey arms race.
      The extinction of the dinosaurs led to mammals taking over.
      Climate stability led to larger social groups for humans.
      Larger social groups led to technology and knowledge growth.

      Now, show me how any conceivable change in our biosphere will be beneficial to HUMANITY.

      Personally, I think we're doing pretty well right now, and any change is likely to be negative for us.

    52. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      You had me worried for a minute, glad you got sensible in that last sentence.

    53. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like your journal entry. Pretty cool! :)

    54. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, just light a match - instant ocean.

    55. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by clyde_cadiddlehopper · · Score: 1

      Thank you, Zorg

      --
      Obi-Wan: "I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were sudden
    56. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by demonlapin · · Score: 5, Informative

      H2 + Cl2 -> 2HCl. Chlorine is even more reactive than oxygen. Check out demo here.

    57. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can just see it now. Some of these get dropped into an ocean, multiply, and eventually deconstruct the majority of the world's water into oxygen and hydrogen. It's the end of the world!!

      No Cat's Cradle references in any of the comments? You people sicken me.

    58. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, I think you are approximately 90% FUD and 10% skin.

      Old Romulan Proverb: "Humans are a waste of skin."

      So where does that leave him?

      --
      This ain't rocket surgery.
    59. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by Black+Gold+Alchemist · · Score: 1

      H2 + Cl2 = 2HCl

      It "burns" using the chlorine as the oxidizer.

      --
      Responsibility is an addiction
      Virtue is a temptation
      Community is a cartel
    60. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      Change and instability necessitate new developments. Those are beneficial even if the environment is harmful (and the environment knows no 'positive' or 'negative', good or bad, just what works and survives or what fails and dies). It may be counterintuitive, but discomfort, even disaster, forces development and innovation. Humanity will be benefited by a swift kick in the ass to get off its laurels.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    61. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by e2d2 · · Score: 2, Funny

      True. But Pandas are cute and Spotted Owls are not. So fuck those Owls I say! They need to be furry and cute for me to give a hoot.

    62. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Darwinism at work, my friend.

    63. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      I think of myself more as Mr. Han. Especially as he surrounded himself with a troupe of assassin-whores. Now if only I could reach that level...

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    64. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Humans are also demonstrably capable of ensuring other humans do not survive. In fact if you look at sociopaths, they will work to advance themselves even if that activity knowingly doomed the rest of the human race including their own offspring and they represent 1 percent of the human population. If you thin that doesn't count, just remember that they likely lead us into 99 percent of our wars killing hundreds of millions in the process, just to enrich and empower themselves.

      Now combine that with modern technology, junk science (when it comes to blocking reasonable safety protocols), fossil fuel combustion considered as an energy source for billions of people, exotic pollutants, genetic engineering, nuclear weapons (insane that there are still people that actually want them used), then current likelihood of survival is severely diminished.

      With all genetic engineering future mutation must be considered when you are inducing a genetic change that could never occur under a normal reasonable mutational evolutionary basis, especially when you are looking at short term mutations. Short term mutations because the rest of the biosphere needs to keep up in evolutionary terms to be able to undo any major fubars.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    65. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by peragrin · · Score: 1

      The problem is there is another .1 billion people who want to watch the world burn just for fun.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    66. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by Smeagel · · Score: 1
      Dear God this is psuedointellectual.

      RTFA - the virus isn't even the thing splitting the water, it's basically just acting as a source to channel sunlight onto the Iridium compound which splits the water. The transition metal compounds that can split water have been around for years (check JACS, you'll find dozens of articles), the thing that keeps this whole thing so far from being feasible is how expensive those compounds are in comparison to the energy they allow you to generate.

      The only "story" about this "story" is how computer nerds always easily find ways to convince themselves they're smarter than specialized scientists in other fields after reading a dumbed down summary of a paper.

    67. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by graft · · Score: 1

      Only someone with zero understanding of selection could make a statement like this. Natural selection is a pretty precise knife - it multiplies exponentially over generations. Even a minor selective disadvantage - a tiny fraction of a percent - results in removal of deleterious variation.

    68. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by graft · · Score: 1

      People need to get over extinctions.

      Why are people lauding this dude? He's celebrating our imminent deaths. You can have your own death party, buddy. Me, I want our species to survive at least another few million years, not precipitate a mass extinction event right now.

      Some useful reading.

    69. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by Eggbloke · · Score: 1

      I can just see it now. Some of these get dropped into an ocean, multiply, and eventually deconstruct the majority of the world's water into oxygen and hydrogen. It's the end of the world!!

      Couldn't somebody just light a match?

      --
      I care not for your karma and your mod points.
    70. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by graft · · Score: 1

      Your notions of adaptation are extremely optimistic. Life is not inevitable or omnipotent; it cannot overcome any adaptive landscape. If it could, the Moon would be teeming. It is entirely possible for extinction events to eliminate all life. It is entirely possible for us to create such an extinction event. Stop assuming that just because it can happen, life will recover, or that these events are somehow noteworthy and beneficial.

    71. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by graft · · Score: 1

      Yes, you're right, because if the planet, say, heated up enough that liquid water couldn't exist in our atmosphere, we would certainly benefit.

    72. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by stonewallred · · Score: 1

      Probably not. Most people either need the crutch of religion to give them the comfort of "knowing" they'll live forever in the afterlife or they use selective thinking to avoid the fact that one day, they will be gone from this planet. I do think the further a people get from rural life, the harder to accept death becomes. I am not advocating everyone living on farms either, just an observation.

    73. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the thing about evolution. You never know if that debilitating disease or crippling stupidity will make one more or less adaptable in the next change in the environment...

    74. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by cowboy76Spain · · Score: 1

      Yeah! Feed the Pandas with the Owls!

      --
      Why can't /. have a rich-text editor? Editing your own HTML is so XXth century.
    75. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by mattack2 · · Score: 3, Funny

      I was thinking more along the lines of "Ugly bags of mostly water".

      (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Soil)

    76. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      Mass extinctions enabled you. Without mass extinctions, you would not exist. Celebrate that.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    77. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by Ossifer · · Score: 1

      Owls have very little bamboo content.

    78. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      Why is it then that rural areas tend to be more religious? Granted, city-dwellers where they replace religion tend to latch on to other things they think are equivalent providence (from dependence on the church to dependence on the state).

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    79. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by Ossifer · · Score: 1

      Natural process don't care about, or actively do anything. Life has no goals or metrics (success/failure), it just happens.

      Life, the disease of planets...

    80. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Does it matter?

      It matters to me. If tomorrow's biosphere doesn't support my existence, you can bet your ass that I care about the continuation of today's biosphere. It's nice that you support the grand scale view that ultimately, life will continue, but I'm kinda selfishly interested in the continued existence of me and that of my off-spring. Which, you know, happens to be the mechanism behind every life form that ever existed.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    81. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While oceanic conversion is unlikely to happen, I sure wouldn't want to have my body exposed to this virus. I hope it requires some sort of catalyst to perform this trick.

    82. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by graft · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Uh, so what? World War II enabled me, too. Without it, Indian independence probably would have been delayed, my grandparents may not have met and I would not have been born. Should I thus celebrate Hitler's invasion of Poland? What an odd line of reasoning.

    83. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Fertility rates are down in virtually every country, even where birth rates remain high. Of course all the neo-Malthusian twits remain completely ignorant both of that fact and of the difference between the metrics.

      The name-calling is unnecessary.

      I'm curious, however, if you've bothered to look into mortality rates as well? Assuming you know what you're talking about, perhaps you've bothered to do the math?

      Just as an example, look at Afghanistan. Infant mortality has decreased from 212/1000 to approximately 160/1000 over the same period as covered in the handy chart you provided... where fertility rates went from 7.7 to 7.1. You can do algebra... I'll let you figure out the net impact on population growth of those two factors.

      I'm curious, was this something you just didn't consider, or were you being disingenuous?

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    84. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Oh, well, that's ok then.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    85. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Precise? Hardly. Color blindness, albinism, dwarfism, hay fever, and diabetes would have been left out of the hominid gene pools thousands of generations ago if this were true. No, evolution is very casual surgery indeed, and the scars of amputations and major grafts can be traced throughout the evolutionary tree.

    86. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Oh. Oh, my. No, the "successful" ones are suited that particular biosphere. Change the biosphere, and other species will prosper in the short term, and entirely new blances form. Look at the introduction of plants to the biosphere and the introduction of this poisonous, highly chemically active gas "oxygen" to see how entirely new balances had to be formed.

    87. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      Now, show me how any conceivable change in our biosphere will be beneficial to HUMANITY.

      If you want to take a nihilist stance, then who cares about what happens to humanity.

      If you don't want to take a nihilist stance, then please show me one instance in which humanity has faltered for more than a few generations. We are one resilient and resourceful species, I wouldn't be concerned about us. If anything, I think other species are more in danger than we are.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    88. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      Once upon a time in Earth's history, Antarctica was a grassland. We are hardly in any danger of going the Mars route anytime soon, as far as geological history goes, Earth is still pretty damned cold. (and who cares about what happens after that, the rate of change in technology is so great that looking too far into the future is absolutely meaningless).

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    89. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by Evil_Ether · · Score: 1

      Homo Sapiens will either evolve into something (or several somethings) else, or die off entirely.

      Yes and you will either have children before you die or you wont.

      --
      If taxation is legalized theft, then Capitalism is a prolonged rape followed by a slow death.
    90. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by goombah99 · · Score: 1

      now that's funny.

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    91. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just got Godwin'd

    92. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      I shall call names as I see fit.

      Afghanistan is something of an exception, both in the shallowness of its change in fertility and the current socio-political climate there. As such I think you are being disingenuous, focusing on an exception when the average fertility in 1970 was 5.25, and now it is 3.01. India itself, far more statistically significant than Afghanistan and the great population boogeyman of neo-Malthusians, has dropped right along the lines of that average from 5.4 to 2.8. Indonesia, the fourth most populous nation, is similar from 5.5 to 2.2. Brazil, fifth most populous, 5 to 2.3. Pakistan, sixth most populous, 6.6 to 3.5. Bangladesh, seventh most populous, 6.4 to 2.9. Etc. etc.

      I'm sure you can do algebra too, so I'll let you calculate what impact these whole number decreases in all the world's most populous countries' fertility rates has in the face of fractional differences in mortality rates. So...

      I'm curious, was this something you just didn't consider, or were you being disingenuous?

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    93. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      Tell that to cockroaches.

      Also, I already talked about the oxygen catastrophe of the Siderian period. It is an example of how mass extinctions enable the development of life, rather than the opposite as people are trained to think.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    94. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha! More seriously though, 6000 years should be more than enough for two people to turn into billions. Just look at how fast civilization has grown in the last 2000 years.

    95. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      Life becomes tougher with each change. Its formation may be fragile, which is why the moon is barren (aside from lacking liquid water or any kind of turbulent, reactive environment probably prerequisite for abiogenesis). However, you're right about total extinction being possible, but the forces for that are largely outside of our control (novas, radiation bursts, huge high velocity objects), except for the most vicious of nuclear wars.

      If you think it's possible through extinctions, sorry, you have no precedent to stand on. Hypothetically it's not impossible, but that's a very low standard.

      If you don't think the oxygen catastrophe and resulting mass extinction was noteworthy or beneficial, I politely invite you to off yourself, as clearly you don't think that the very chain of events that made you possible are worth anything.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    96. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      Actually, even that would potentially be a good thing if it happened slowly (as it would have to, as the alternative would be a nova-analogous event, and consequently neither here nor there), as it would force us to finally spread into space, which is the only way we (or this context something descended from us) could survive longer than the sun anyway.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    97. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by halowolf · · Score: 1

      Yeah, World War II let me be born as well. Without it my father and his grandparents wouldn't of left England to come to Australia, Dad wouldn't of met Mum and I wouldn't of been born. I don't chuck parties about WWII either.

    98. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      When Mohammad Ali came back from Zaire, he was asked what he thought of Africa and he said "Thank God that my granddaddy got on that boat."

      It is possible when removed from the direct, negative effects of history to be thankful for otherwise negative historical events where they positively impact oneself. This is rational, as to wish for anything different would in fact would be to wish not to exist, contradicting the natural self-preservation instinct.

      My own ancestors were probably slaves to the Romans, but that does not begrudge me to Roman culture and civilization.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    99. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid I don't share your fatalistic lack of faith in the viability of humanity in other biospheres. Humanity has presided over the extinctions of many species, some of which were significantly important resources for early man and his predecessors. However, precedent demonstrates that we adapted from those losses just fine, thanks.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    100. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      There are certain changes in biosphere that I'd rather not experience. True, we could live in an environment where the atmosphere is 100% toxic, the flora is generally deadly to us and the fauna non-existent. However, humans would be clinging to life in that environment, rather than thriving in it.

      I'm afraid I don't share your fatalistic view of human flexibility. I like living in luxury, thank you very much. And yes, the poorest beggar in San Francisco is still experiencing a level of luxury that was beyond the wildest dreams of kings and queens.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    101. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      Life does have a goal: to survive any forthcoming threat in order to consume the resources necessary to reproduce. Try getting in the way of a living thing and you'll find it is very goal-oriented, even plants and microorganisms.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    102. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      Hey I know, let's come up with ridiculous extremes and pretend they are real possibilities! Yeah sure, the atmosphere is totally going to turn to methane or something, and the plants are going to mutate into the things from the end of The Way to Eden! I've been so blind, why couldn't I see this happening before?!?!?!11ONE!

      Oh that's right, because that analogy is stupid hyperbole.

      And as flexibility is an attribute, a thing which makes events possible and not an event in of itself, it is not possible in this context for it to be 'fated' consequently there is no rational thing called a 'fatalistic view of human flexibility' regardless of how much you wanted that non sequitur to work rhetorically.

      Further, do you seriously think that the guy living in a box under an overpass is better off than Caesar Augustus? Even if you take into account the medical advances, the guy in the box isn't really privy to those, he's probably going to die of complications from huffing paint or simply freeze to death. I mean seriously, come off it. Yeah, the AVERAGE guy lives pretty good even compared to the ancient and medieval elites, but the homeless are not a valid contrast.

      I don't think you realize how much of your luxury is the direct product of biosphere changes. The abundance of food comes from the agricultural development of land which has a) lowered water tables b) increased inland salinization c) increased nitrate levels and decreased oxygen levels in aquatic environments etc. That fancy meat you eat comes at the expense not only of the immediate animals, but it is likely that extinct species such as the Aurochs had to go to make room for new species (yes, NEW SPECIES AKA DIFFERENT BIOSPHERE) of tastier and easier to manage domesticated cattle.

      But because you're ignorant, you want to ride the wagon of biosphere changes and spit at it too.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    103. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by venicebeach · · Score: 1

      While an individual life form has goals, I don't see how it makes sense to say that life itself is goal-oriented.

    104. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      If every individual lifeform has the same observable goal, it is rational to suggest that life in the aggregate possesses that goal, as all observations of individuals demonstrate it in common.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    105. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are placing everything into your specific emotional context. Thing is, natural processes don't care about your emotional context.

      Dude, er... yeah?

      You know what, physical processes don't care about my emotional context, but I care about emotional context. Especially when the emotional context seems to indicate that there lies a possibility of me experiencing the emotions of terror, pain, followed by physical processes of death.

      Yes, we are a self-centered species! So what? At least I'm not pretending to hide behind some facade of "objectivity". I'm not lying to myself that I only give a shit about how these viruses could affect my life. I mean, yeah, great, the ability to split water into hydrogen cheaply. Hurrah!

      Except the bit where there's a possibility of ending my existence. Oh yeah, that sucks. Granted, for me, maybe. Maybe you're some alien pod-being or a Dalek or something and it won't matter to you. But it matters to me.

      This is how people work. Deal.

    106. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1, Troll

      I'm curious, was this something you just didn't consider, or were you being disingenuous?

      Nope, I just picked the very first country on your list. It holds for pretty much every country... as infant mortality has dropped, fertility has also dropped. Not saying it's causal.

      India? Infant mortality dropped in half over the same period. Indonesia? Same result.

      Never mind the fact that food production growth has slowed down significantly.

      I'm sure you can do algebra too, so I'll let you calculate what impact these whole number decreases in all the world's most populous countries' fertility rates has in the face of fractional differences in mortality rates. So...

      What do you mean whole number compared to fractional, do you think that makes a difference on its face? Are you trying to make the case that population growth is not exponential? I can't figure out what, exactly, argument you are offering that would counter Malthus here... other than name-calling. You point to a single table that doesn't tell the whole truth, and somehow you think that's enough? You're missing infant mortality, child mortality, food production, lots of details in the Malthusian calculation. And yet you think you've somehow demonstrated that the food supply will continue to outpace population growth.

      Oh well. No use arguing with people who are content to be ignorant, or can't be bothered to actually make an informed point.

      HAND.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    107. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You have to admit, it'd be one HELL of a bonfire...

    108. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by MRL342 · · Score: 1

      Viruses do carry their own DNA, some carry RNA instead. M13, one of the most primitive "life forms" known to science, is a filamentous phage, meaning it can only infect/use bacteria to replicate itself. It is extensively used and manipulated in molecular biology laboratories. So, the fish need not worry. These scientists had to integrate the system with a gel matrix to maintain stability and efficiency which i doubt would hold up in sea water. Something this complex would have to be controlled and monitored extensively and I doubt would lead to some disastrous chain reaction.

    109. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      Just did the numbers and you'd only need an average growth rate of 3.84 per thousand population each year to hit 7 billion in six thousand years. Certainly doable.

    110. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1
      I don't see you quoting any specific mortality figures, funny that. I suppose it's because they don't actually support your argument. Let's look at India because it's the elephant in the room (that's a pun!). In 1970 each woman had 5.25 children on average, and if 119.73 died per thousand, that meant mortality of 0.12 per woman. In 2007 each woman had 2.8 children on average, and if 54.57 died per 1000, that meant mortality of 0.05 per woman.

      Difference in fertility: 2.45
      Difference in mortality: 0.07

      Let me spell it out for you, since you seem a little slow: there are almost two and half fewer children born to each woman in India today vs. four decades ago. There is less than one child more per woman in India due to any difference in mortality rates. This is a net decrease of more than 1.5 children per woman. This is echoed throughout the other examples. Even if you added in child mortality (depending on your definition of child) that wouldn't change things by much more than a few hundreths in most cases, tenths in a few. Nowhere does it touch the still huge decreases in fertility.

      What do you mean whole number compared to fractional, do you think that makes a difference on its face?

      I was speaking in colloquial terms, wherein it is assumed that 'fractional' means less than one. Of course a fraction is only a representation of a difference of values and can be far greater than one, it was meant to be a rhetorical device using colloquialisms to contrast values less than one with values greater than one.

      Are you trying to make the case that population growth is not exponential?

      If the figures are right, it's not. It's also unlikely for most changes to be exponential FOREVAR.

      I can't figure out what, exactly, argument you are offering that would counter Malthus here... other than name-calling.

      That's because you're assuming the numbers prove you right, when I have shown that they prove you wrong. You will proceed to stick your figures in your ears, because the facts don't fit your preconceived notions formulated by your worldview.

      Oh well. No use arguing with people who are content to be ignorant, or can't be bothered to actually make an informed point.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    111. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      I realize that when I said 1.5 I meant 2.38, but I mentally was working with 0.7 at that point instead of the actual 0.07. So I'm even more right with that error accounted for.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    112. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by Strange+Ranger · · Score: 1

      None of this means much. Growth rate as a percentage of the whole population, average births per woman, it all clouds the fact that population growth in India and most everywhere, including the earth taken as a whole, is positive and has been since the first homo sapien.

      For simple math, If each woman is having half as many kids as 50 years ago but there are TWICE as many women, then in another 50 years the population will double again. The absolute growth stays the same. Pretty close to what is actually happening. Malthus is still terrifyingly correct, unless you put him on a tight deadline. You can talk about shrinking growth rates all you like. Until you can point to a population that is actually shrinking in a significant way over time, we better all be seriously worried. And since this has never happened in the history of man, barring very brief or very localized exceptions, it seems pretty safe to worry. A shrinking growth rate is still growth. When a terrifying growth rate, as a percentage of the whole, shinks to the point where absolute growth in numbers is still about the same, it's still terrifying.

      Pointing to that shrinking birth rate per woman in a population that doubles every 50 years is like saying, "well, at least the population is still doubling at an alarming rate that hasn't changed much."

      --

      Operator, give me the number for 911!
    113. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by Strange+Ranger · · Score: 1

      Aww crap. Not "doubling" but growing by 100% of the baseline each period.

      I.e. - - 500 million --> 1billion --> 1.5 billion.

      oh well, it's late. And the point still stands.

      --

      Operator, give me the number for 911!
    114. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by LongearedBat · · Score: 1

      deconstruct the majority of the world's water into oxygen and hydrogen

      And imagine the balance between the oxygen and hydrogen gas generated.
      Then imagine one single lightning bolt.

      Imagine seeing that from outer space.
      Imagine being some surviving little critter on Earth at the time.

    115. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by alt154 · · Score: 1

      viruses HAVE DNA; they just don't have their own replicating machinery.

    116. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      I don't see you quoting any specific mortality figures, funny that.

      I got the mortality rates from the site you provided. Go ahead, search for "infant mortality" then apply the filters to get to the same year range as the chart you provided.

      Let me spell it out for you, since you seem a little slow: there are almost two and half fewer children born to each woman in India today vs. four decades ago. There is less than one child more per woman in India due to any difference in mortality rates. This is a net decrease of more than 1.5 children per woman. This is echoed throughout the other examples. Even if you added in child mortality (depending on your definition of child) that wouldn't change things by much more than a few hundreths in most cases, tenths in a few. Nowhere does it touch the still huge decreases in fertility.

      Oh, I agree that infant and child mortality does not wholly displace the impact of reduced fertility. Where did I say that it did?

      But I'm still wondering if you've bothered to account for any of the rest of the data that feeds into Malthus, like food production capacity (which, aside from the Green Revolution in the 70s and 80s, has been growing at a lower rate than population, when you normalize for bumper years and drought years).

      For that matter, given that grain yields in India are likely actually decreasing, is it not possible that food availability has not already begun to impact population growth? That lower fertility reflects the decreased availability of food to a good portion of people in India?

      I'm still curious if you have an valid criticism of Malthus, or if you're just spouting figures without an idea of relevancy.

      If the figures are right, it's not. It's also unlikely for most changes to be exponential FOREVAR.

      Of course not. It's limited by things like food availability. That's Malthus's fucking point. Glad it sunk in.

      That's because you're assuming the numbers prove you right, when I have shown that they prove you wrong. You will proceed to stick your figures in your ears, because the facts don't fit your preconceived notions formulated by your worldview.

      I'll do no such thing. You have proven nothing. You have used an oversimplified two-variable model with unstated assumptions in order to "prove" something. Go back to high school.

      Oh well. No use arguing with people who are content to be ignorant, or can't be bothered to actually make an informed point.

      I'm still waiting for your first valid, informed point. Please, do share if you've got one. All I've seen from you so far is "wharrgarble I have some numbers here that mean something, so I'm going to assume they mean what I want them to mean."

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    117. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Why do think that is at all relevant to the problem of over fishing? How do past extinction events justify the gross stupidity of destroying the food chain on which we all depend? Following your rationale to it's logical conclusion would imply you have no problems if someone tasered you to death becuase plenty of people have been killed by lightning in the past.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    118. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Why do you think it's a binary choice between the sixth great extinction and "freezing the biosphere"? If you can't see the wisdom in avoiding actions that increase that rate of extinction to a point where your own species is in imminent danger of extinction then you are no more intelligent than a batch of fermenting yeast in a sealed container.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    119. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by Tycho · · Score: 1

      And once upon a time there was much less land above water. Specifically this was back when the Earth had a far warmer climate and no permanent ice caps. For that matter, Mars, Earth, and Venus all have wildly different topographies, chemical compositions, rotational rates, and natural satellites. I'd imagine that we'd really have to fuck the Earth up hardcore to make it entirely uninhabitable and worthless and to force us to consider colonizing Mars or Venus.

      Mars has been geologically dead for billions of years and the oldest terrain on Venus is less than a billion years old. This is important because the Earth has had four billion years of continuous volcanism, physical weathering, and chemical weathering to concentrate useful elements. This is less so the case on Mars and Venus, which are certainly far more homogeneous in their distribution of elements than the Earth. This would present a problem for one attempting to obtain something critical but not too rare like titanium, useful as paint and in its metallic form. Who wants to build and maintain machines that would need to excavate and process cubic miles of rock for a small quantity of titanium? It gets worse when one considers that iridium is orders of magnitude more rare than titanium. So no prospecting on Mars, yet or maybe ever.

      Don't go looking to far into the future, global warming is here, and is already lowering your quality of life. The technology to significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions is also here already and is not something that needs to be developed yet. You may have to be willing to buy the car that handles 95% of your car related needs that uses a quarter the gas as one that fills all your needs. For the other 5%, renting a vehicle may help.

      --
      Impersonating Tycho from Penny Arcade since before there was a PA.
    120. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "the great population boogeyman of neo-Malthusians"

      Ahhh, now I see. You have accepted the Catholic churches character assination of someone who dared to draw a comparison between human and animal populations. Someone who had the audacity to think humans are limited not by god's will but by available resources. No wonder you have no problems with humans wiping out the food chain, god will lift you up to heaven before the shit hits the fan, right?

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    121. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by graft · · Score: 1

      My objection to your line of reasoning is that you impute value to these events at all, and assert that we should be thankful for them, somehow, or consider them beneficial, because they brought us about. But the past is in stone; it does not care if we remember it, or if it is revered. Only the future is malleable. There may one day come a season for us to die in, but I don't believe we've reached it yet; I want to die in a time of our own choosing, not one that our folly thrust upon us.

    122. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by Black+Gold+Alchemist · · Score: 1

      One item that I'm not sure if you folks have missed here is that 2.0 children per woman = 0 population growth (a bit of noise here and there but about). So ignoring all this stuff about mortality (just bear with me), the population of india gained: 5.25 people per couple in 1970, while now it is gaining 2.8 children per couple. That means that the derivative of the population was 2.625 in 1970, and is now 1.4, and falling. So the result is that yes, it's still growing, but the second order derivative is negative. ASSuming these trends hold, you get zero and then negative population growth (until the singularity?)

      Malthus was right that population was limited. He was wrong that capitalism and technical development would not slow down population growth. Maybe people have mis-interpreted Malthus?

      Stop population growth.
      Support economic growth.
      (Soon to be a bumpsticker).

      --
      Responsibility is an addiction
      Virtue is a temptation
      Community is a cartel
    123. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by random+string+of+num · · Score: 0

      ah so your a fascist then

    124. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by Eclipse-now · · Score: 1

      Cool. I'm striking the first match! That would be one hell of a squeaky-pop test! Hmmmmm, squeaky.

    125. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by random+string+of+num · · Score: 0

      also they have to "bind with iridium oxide and a biological pigment zinc porphyrins" which aren't available naturally, and the virus cannot produce. the viruses are just being used as scaffolds for the active ingredients, the catalyst, and the pigment (light absorber).

    126. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      Well, 250 million years ago it must have sucked big time for those creatures who ate fish.

      Maybe we can't avoid a mass extinction like that, but we definitely shouldn't be causing the extinction of one of our main food sources. It's not very clever, if you know what I mean.

    127. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      But cockroaches are not one species, any more than primates are all one species. They are an "order" a set of species with some common characteristics. Like sharks, they're amazingly effective and surprisingly robust against disease. But make no mistake, the _species_ among them also compete in evolutionary terms and die out or migrate as environments shift.

      People are trained to think that extinctions destroy life because they _do_ destroy ecosystems in wholesale and clearly destructive fashions, in the short term. Mass extinctions cause change, certainly, and shake limbs of the evolutionary tree in ways that knock off branches and open gaps for new ones. But it's often a mistake to think of it as being automatically progress in other ways than merely evolutionary survival. Both knowledge and commercial possibilities are lost.

      Take the example of the American bison: nearly extinct from human predation, the bison makes more meat, and leaner, more cardiac friendly meat, with less arable land and water than cows. They're a far better meat animal, and are only recently being repopulated from the almost too-small-to-safely-breed herds that were left. Or take the pigeon population in cities: pigeons are basically flying rats, carrying infection and dropping their feces on human heads below, and destroying roofs and gutters and wires quite effectively. Re-introducing hawks into cities has been very effective in controlling them.

      Similar ecological and commercial niches are accidentally destroyed when mass extinction occurs, and it is certainly a loss to species (like us) who find those niches useful.

    128. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by dotar · · Score: 1

      Yes, you should. We are only here by virtue of what has created us.

    129. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      So let's see, if the meaning I have derived from the numbers is wrong, and you are right and that growth is reduced by the availability of food, then that means that the reduction of growth in the developed world must mean I'm starving! Shit, these chips I'm eating must be imaginary, and Malthus was right all along!

      Fertility in contemporary society is tied to economic growth, not food production. Might I suggest you look into the research of Hans Rosling.

      However you're too tightly wound to have an enjoyable debate with, so this will be my last interaction, one way or the other.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    130. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      The point is that extinction events, even the most massive, are not the end of the world, just the beginnings of new paradigms. If I were killed by any kind of electrical discharge, humanity would move on without me. If humanity itself, as unlikely as that is, were to be unable to overcome a resource shortfall (which is extremely unlikely as humans can make use of virtually any resource), life would go on without us too. While some species may be dependent on others, no combination of loss of species has ever been "successful" in ending the totality of life.

      Quite the opposite, regardless of the many mass extinctions over geologic time, both the rate of speciation and the total number of species has always increased on the aggregate. Extinctions actually ENABLE speciation by forcing more rapid adaptation.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    131. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1
      What a dramatic reading, ironically you cast dispersion on the emotional context of the past while attaching an emotional context to the future. Oh what, because you think we can change it? Ho ho ho, good one.

      I want to die in a time of our own choosing

      This never happens, except in suicide, is that what you're advocating? You're romanticizing things that don't exist, and you lecture me for simply appreciating the cause/effect relationship of things that did exist?

      Go tell your parents you're not thankful for them, that you don't care to remember them, because that's all in the past now. See how that goes over. The past is important in many dimensions, just as much as the future. There is no future without the past.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    132. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      And once upon a time there was much less land above water. Specifically this was back when the Earth had a far warmer climate and no permanent ice caps. For that matter, Mars, Earth, and Venus all have wildly different topographies, chemical compositions, rotational rates, and natural satellites. I'd imagine that we'd really have to fuck the Earth up hardcore to make it entirely uninhabitable and worthless and to force us to consider colonizing Mars or Venus.

      Thanks for rehashing my point.

      global warming is here, and is already lowering your quality of life

      huhwhat? How so? My life is pretty damned grand right now. I'm enjoying living in a global society with the longest average lifespan the human species has ever known, and I don't have to worry about how I'm going to find food to eat tomorrow, or if my family is going to be eaten by lions. How could an absence of global warming possibly increase the quality of life I am experiencing right now? Give me free blow, blackjack, and hookers?

      You may have to be willing to buy the car that handles 95% of your car related needs that uses a quarter the gas as one that fills all your needs. For the other 5%, renting a vehicle may help.

      Whatever, I ride a bike. Love the exercise and increased mobility it gives me (I live in a city). ...hmm, you know what would reduce my quality of life though? Buying a more expensive hybrid car that I may not be able to afford, instead of just getting some clunker off of craigslist.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    133. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      Humanity has survived and can again survive despite the extinction of a primary food source. We used to eat mammoths you know. That's the cool thing about humans, they can eat just about anything, and this might shock you: we farm things, including fish. Fish farms are not impacted by the separate welfare of wild species.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    134. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      Yes, but you see people die. As soon as fertility drops below the replacement rate of 2.1, as it has in SIXTY-FOUR countries , you have declining population. If the reduction in fertility continues in most of the other countries, eventually the world population will level off and even decline. The trends all show it, but unfortunately 'everything will be fine' just isn't as sexy and exciting as 'MALTHUSIAN DISASTER WILL DESTROY US ALL! DO SOMETHING, ANYTHING, NOW!' So people are frequently unwilling to be disabused of their conclusions.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    135. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And since the resulting species may not be fish at all, the GP post is still plausible.

    136. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

      AHA, busted !

      You're on slashdot, you can't possibly have any offspring.

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    137. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

      I subscribe to the general idea you just promoted - survival of the fittest doesn't seem to be applying to use any longer.

      On the other hand, I've been entertaining the thought that it's not really possible to go outside of evolution - indeed, that our ability to wield advanced technologies and medicine is just another evolutionary benefit our species has developed. A side product of that, is the increased viability of what is essentially debris in the genepool. Time will tell if our wielding of such advanced tech is an evolutionary benefit, or wether our *indiscriminate* wielding of that tech to save those who may be detrimental to the species will be the fault that makes us yet another failed branch on the evolutionary tree.

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    138. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

      > It's all quite safe

      Oft-heard words, usually right before the screaming starts :-)

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    139. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      Humanity has survived and can again survive despite the extinction of a primary food source.

      Yeah, we could survive by eating roots only once a week. But I don't just want to survive, I want to live. Depleting the resources on which we depend is not good, regardless of any extinctions that happened a gazillion years ago.

      we farm things, including fish. Fish farms are not impacted by the separate welfare of wild species.

      That doesn't make it a good idea to extinguish the wild species. It may shock you, but they are a very important reserve of genetic material. Also they contribute to the balance that allows us to live in this planet, balance that we shouldn't be disturbing like irresponsible children.

    140. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      In case you hadn't noticed, humanity has thrived "regardless of any extinctions" whether they be "a gazillion years ago" or last week. If anything, the extinctions furthest in humanity's past should have the greatest effect, as that effect would be felt longest. That they have no appreciable effect, and recent extinctions have no appreciable effect, should lead us to see that human development has become quite insulated from the effects of extinctions. In fact, I would issue a challenge to you that I have issued to others in the past, always unanswered:

      Find me any sizable human civilization known or reasonably believed to have been destroyed by the extinction of a species.

      Good luck, because it hasn't happened. Humans are too adaptable for that.

      The genetic value of wild populations is debatable. The selective breeding that happens in captivity results in much faster development of different traits with wider applications. Populations in the wild do interact with more things and have a greater propensity by that interaction for lateral development (viruses messing with genes), but if the size of this population is small, this development is slow, and in any case more random/less guided.

      Never forget that disturbing the so-called 'balance' enabled humanity to exist in the first place. Balance is simply a way of describing a given biosphere. It often ignores competing and emerging paradigms since, after all, there are only so many resources in given niches.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    141. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      Dude, you live in denial. And you obviously don't know shit about biology. Go be happy in your artificial little world. Enjoy your Soylent Green.

    142. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by mpeskett · · Score: 1

      What do you mean by "the Mars route"? Mars is a hell of a lot colder than Earth, but you seem to be using it as an example of a planet gone hot.

      Runaway greenhouse-like processes producing wild overheating would be the Venus route.

    143. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      I find it funny that you tell me that I live in denial when you would rather just deny my assertions rather than address them. Psychologists call that 'projection', Sparky. You might want to have that looked at.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    144. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      Look who's talking. You've been writing the same thing over and over, ignoring what I write.

    145. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      Naturally, it's obvious I'm ignoring what you wrote, I probably quoted you accidentally while I was flailing randomly at my keyboard. The fact that you would make such claims of my behavior in the face of evidence to the contrary indicates that you're a disingenuous twit, so yes, we can consider this interchange wholly closed.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    146. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      Bye, good luck with your trolling.

    147. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by mea37 · · Score: 1

      I think you've been reading too much Asimov. Don't get me wrong, I like Asimov; but when his robots poisoned the Earth to push humans back into space, the technology to spread beyond Earth already existed. If we started a concentrated effort today, how soon do you think we'd be ready to colonize anything?

      As enlightened as it sounds to take a neutral view to change, the fact is we have a vested interest in perpetuating the environmental conditiosn on Earth to which we are adapted. Even if nature is pushing to change the climate, it is in our interest to try to keep it the same. Yes, we could adapt to some degree of change. Whether the challenge would make us stronger as a species is open to debate, and is really irrelevant (who are we trying to impress?).

      Claiming that a catastrophic change would be "in our best interests" is just childish daydreaming. It ignores every historical precident. And yes, humans are capable of things no other species on Earth has been (or at least we have no reason to think otherwise); but the notion that it would be "good" to have to prove that or go extinct is ridiculous.

    148. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      If we started a concentrated effort today, how soon do you think we'd be ready to colonize anything?

      We went from backyard rockets like Goddard's in 1926 to the Moon in 1969. I'd say that if the screws were put to humanity, we could have a diaspora in confines of one or two generations.

      ...it is in our interest to try to keep it the same.

      Who is we? What are 'our' interests? There are factions out there calling for an end to the production of meat for food because of the environmental impact of that production. It's in my interest to eat steak now and then. My interests, my priorities are not theirs. I am willing to accept different scenarios than they are, or even most people. That is my prerogative. I think mankind can find happiness even in a world without pandas. I like pandas, but not enough to deny the benefits of development to poor rural Chinese.

      It ignores every historical precident[sic].

      So which precedents are we talking about here? Maybe the massive climatological warming since the end of the last glacial period (including the holocene climate optimum that was much hotter than current climate norms)? Yeah, that hasn't, you know, enabled all of human civilization or anything. Maybe you're referring to the countless species that have become extinct in the same period of time, including major sources of food for early humans like mammoths, which ultimately have had no discernible effect on humanity's meteoric rise? Maybe you're referring to the medieval warm period that enabled an increase of the agricultural output of Europe and the cultivation of crops at latitudes previously impossible? Aside from the desertification of the Sahara (which may have been catalytic in motivating human migration to other regions, another 'negative' event with positive results), I can think of no major changes in the environment in the last interglacial that have had a demonstrably negative impact on any sizable human population.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    149. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by toddestan · · Score: 1

      The problem is that with almost 7 billion mouths to feed, we can't afford to have drastic changes to the biosphere. Any drastic changes would likely lead to less food production, which would lead to mass starvation. This inevitably would lead to wars over the remaining resources, which would result in more people being killed and further changes (most would call it damage) to the biosphere. Sure, life on Earth would continue on, new species will fill in the gaps, and likely humans would still be around. However, it's not going be pleasant for anyone alive today or their immediate descendants. I don't see why you don't get this.

    150. Re:Hopefully they aren't too effective.. by Maxmin · · Score: 1

      No virus can replicate *by itself*. They inject RNA into host cells, which reprograms them to produce more virii. Purely parasitic.

      --
      O lord, bless this thy holy hand grenade, that with it thou mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.
  2. What could possibly go wrong? by jnaujok · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    A self-catalyzing, replicating virus that converts water into hydrogen and oxygen.

    Please don't spill this into the ocean.

    --
    Life, the Universe, and Everything... in my image.
    1. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why, you just have to lit a match, problem solved.

    2. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      Wrong apocalypse... Think of the exploding zombie movies!

    3. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by Altus · · Score: 1

      from the sounds of it, without the proper conditions it will clump up and stop functioning. Still, caution would seem to be the best possible idea.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    4. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by MozeeToby · · Score: 2, Informative

      If the net effect is a positive for the virus, the behavior would have evolved on it's own in nature. If it's a negative, the virus will be out competed by other viruses. Even if it's neutral, it will at most fulfill its current niche and the water splitting abilities will be lost to genetic drift since it doesn't convey any advantage. In other words: Nothing is going to go wrong, control your irrational fears of genetic engineering and biotechnology.

    5. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sure, except for this bit:

      Over time, however, the virus-wires would clump together and lose their effectiveness, so the researchers added an extra step: encapsulating them in a microgel matrix, so they maintained their uniform arrangement and kept their stability and efficiency.

      If this virus ever got loose it would no longer be inside the microgel matrix, so it would soon lose its efficiency at generating hydrogen, becoming just another virus among many—and one ill-adapted to survive outside a lab.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    6. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If the net effect is a positive for the virus, the behavior would have evolved on it's own in nature.

      Evolution does not guarantee that any given mutation will occur.

    7. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by blair1q · · Score: 3, Insightful

      1. it's not self-catalyzing, it takes iridium oxide which is what you might call highly uncommon (though they implied there might be others, but if they needed to start with Ir02 the list must have been very very short)

      2. they didn't say under what conditions it reproduces, but i wouldn't be surprised if the open ocean isn't its best culture medium, or even a decent one

      3. in order to get it to work for any sort of duration they had to encase the virus in a gel. now, unless they plan to mutate the virus to produce its own gel, or not to need the gel, it's not going to threaten very much of any body of water

      4. we could use a little more oxygen, as ours is being bound up into CO2 by people who persist in believing that burning coal & oil is a god-given right

    8. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by bdenton42 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Then they should make a variant of the virus that splits C02.

    9. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      If the net effect is a positive for the virus, the behavior would have evolved on it's own in nature.

      This statement seems to imply that all possible positive characteristics for a virus have already evolved. That's is quite a statement, much like someone saying that all possible inventions have already been invented. To me it seems quite absurd. In any case, what's good for a virus, may not be necessarily good for other living things, such as humans.

       

      Nothing is going to go wrong, control your irrational fears of genetic engineering and biotechnology.

      Oh, I see, you're just trolling. Carry on.

    10. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by chammel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yea they are called plants.

      --
      Neutrons are slippery little rascals, they can fool you. They can bounce and show up around corners you don't expect.
    11. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by ShadowRangerRIT · · Score: 2, Informative

      We don't need a virus for that. We have cyanobacteria, which have been producing oxygen via photosynthesis for 2.8 billion years or so. Plants can do it too, but cyanobacteria are small, ubiquitous and efficient, just like your hypothetical virus.

      --
      $_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
    12. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by slimjim8094 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Perhaps they could use light as the energy source required. You could even make sugar with it! But you'd need to collect the sunlight - since red and blue are the highest-energy colors, it would need to be a green pigment.

      If only such a thing existed...

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    13. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by 517714 · · Score: 1

      we could use a little more oxygen, as ours is being bound up into CO2 by people who persist in believing that burning coal & oil is a god-given right

      Those people suffer from hubrus, a condition that supporters of this type of experimentation also frequently suffer.

      --
      The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
    14. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes if only nature would come up with some way to take CO2 and make it into O2.

      Hm, Eureka! Oh wait wait, never-mind.

    15. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah! you know, it could take CO2 and water and energy and turn them into sugar and oxygen

      oh, wait ...

    16. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dammit, I need a +1 funny AND insightful.

    17. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by elfprince13 · · Score: 1

      Indeed not. There are plenty of positive genetic traits that would have had no impetus to occur naturally, because as you so helpfully pointed out, traits that are neutral in the short term may very well be lost to genetic drift, even if in the long run they could accumulate to something more beneficial.

    18. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by Stooshie · · Score: 1

      "... since red and blue are the highest-energy colors ..."

      Erm, blue and green are higher energy than red. (look at a rainbow, red is at one end and blue at the other with green somewhere in the middle (ROYGBIV)).

      --
      America, Home of the Brave. ... .and the Squaw.
    19. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by Joey+Vegetables · · Score: 1

      Actually, any given mutation very likely does occur, in any sufficiently large population . . . the problem is whether the creature will survive any nontrivial mutation. That's what's rare.

    20. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by blair1q · · Score: 1

      But in that system the hydrogen isn't liberated, meaning you can't make money selling the free energy.

      So it'll never be developed beyond the concept phase.

      Sorry.

  3. Re:Personally... by Defenestrar · · Score: 1

    The researchers had a real gas..

  4. Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    engineered a common, harmless bacterial virus

    I am not a scientist, but isn't this how every zombie movie starts out? Today we get hydrogen fuel; tomorrow we get zombie outbreaks. At least we can use the fuel to escape, I guess.

    1. Re:Hmm... by Thiez · · Score: 1

      In this zombie-apocalypse scenario flamethrowers will be very dangerous to use!

    2. Re:Hmm... by nizo · · Score: 2, Funny

      Actually the water in the zombies will all get broken down into hydrogen and oxygen so we're good.

      My new car runs on zombies!

    3. Re:Hmm... by Ragzouken · · Score: 1

      FYI the people who write zombie movies aren't scientists either.

    4. Re:Hmm... by JeanBaptiste · · Score: 1

      actually, a lot of Toyotas do.

  5. End of the world? by Manip · · Score: 1, Funny

    Let's hope these don't spread into the ocean turning it into a toxic gas that will wipe out most life on earth...

    1. Re:End of the world? by trapnest · · Score: 2, Funny

      I don't think Hydrogen or Oxygen are 'toxic'.

    2. Re:End of the world? by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 2, Funny

      Pick your own reply:

      A) Tell that to an anaerobic organism.

      OR

      B) philosophical question: Is the global firestorm, caused by a spark igniting the H and O mixture, toxic?

    3. Re:End of the world? by trapnest · · Score: 1

      I wonder what would happen to a person in a room full of H and O, if that mixture were ignited?

  6. There has got to be a missing step by Brett+Buck · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It still takes energy to split the molecule, and it has to come from somewhere, even if viruses to the dirty work.

    1. Re:There has got to be a missing step by jmauro · · Score: 4, Informative

      They're using the virus to bring together the components and then using sunlight to power the split and the biological components. It's like photosynthsis with H20 instead of CO2. Kind of novel, but who knows if it'll work on an industrial scale. It's just a lab experiment for now.

    2. Re:There has got to be a missing step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Photosynthesis splits H2O, not CO2. This is exactly the same reaction (H2O -> 1/2*O2 + H2) that plants use for photosynthesis.

    3. Re:There has got to be a missing step by clyde_cadiddlehopper · · Score: 1

      Here, let me help you. The article reads: The role of the pigments is “to act as an antenna to capture the light,” Belcher explains, “and then transfer the energy down the length of the virus, like a wire. The virus is a very efficient harvester of light, with these porphyrins attached."

      --
      Obi-Wan: "I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were sudden
    4. Re:There has got to be a missing step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's sunlight

    5. Re:There has got to be a missing step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RTFA. It's a solar catalyst reaction.

    6. Re:There has got to be a missing step by Stooshie · · Score: 1

      The activation energy of the reaction is reduced though. That's what catalysts do.

      --
      America, Home of the Brave. ... .and the Squaw.
    7. Re:There has got to be a missing step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm too lazy the read the Wikipedia article, but I read enough to find the equation for photosynthesis and it converts water and carbon-dioxide into sugar and oxygen and there is no way the equation can work if the carbon-dioxide isn't split, so basically, you're wrong.

  7. Bacterial virus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've never heard something like this, is it half alive?

    1. Re:Bacterial virus? by oldhack · · Score: 3, Funny

      That's right. It's the scientist speak for zombies. Can't call it zombies, though, cuz they'd get sued by the Hollywood IP zombies.

      --
      Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    2. Re:Bacterial virus? by Linzer · · Score: 1

      I've never heard something like this, is it half alive?

      They mean a virus that typically infects bacteria.

      --
      Gravitation is a theory, not a fact.
    3. Re:Bacterial virus? by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      It infects bacteria.

      Like a canine virus infects dogs.

  8. Hollywood, are you listening? by Angst+Badger · · Score: 5, Funny

    Despite the self-limiting nature of the technique they describe, whether it ends up working in production or not, I guarantee you that, in a matter of days, someone is going to be flogging a script around Hollywood studios about a runaway virus destroying all the water on earth and the team of hot, young scientists who save the day at the last possible minute by using something compounded from randomly selected Greek and Latin roots.

    --
    Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
    1. Re:Hollywood, are you listening? by blair1q · · Score: 1

      they're going to have to make mine first

      it's about a virus that mutates into other viruses and the team of young, hot scientists (i see angelina jolie as their mentor, Doctor Y) can only stop it by developing a virus to infect the virus ...half tempted not to post this, because now that i think of it, it's a killer idea for a spec script...

    2. Re:Hollywood, are you listening? by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 2, Funny

      *gasp* they resort to polyamory??? FIENDS!

    3. Re:Hollywood, are you listening? by Thud457 · · Score: 1

      Yo dawg, do you see a role for Xzibit in your movie?!!

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    4. Re:Hollywood, are you listening? by ginbot462 · · Score: 1

      I bet one of the hot scientist is the "Maverick" that tells a General (read military = BAD!) all about the impending chaos. And Maverick has an ex who his daughter is staying with on the other side of the country (there's water over there too!!!!). Some markedly fake computer crap, some CSI crap, and the family reunites and learns to live and love.

      Oh, and lots of bad CGI.

      --
      Atlas Shrugged : Thematic Story :: Battlefield Earth : Organized Religion
    5. Re:Hollywood, are you listening? by Facegarden · · Score: 1

      Despite the self-limiting nature of the technique they describe, whether it ends up working in production or not, I guarantee you that, in a matter of days, someone is going to be flogging a script around Hollywood studios about a runaway virus destroying all the water on earth and the team of hot, young scientists who save the day at the last possible minute by using something compounded from randomly selected Greek and Latin roots.

      I predict that they will have to create a hyper-velocity neutron star supernova with quanum entangled quibits that will irradiate the viruses.

      --
      Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
    6. Re:Hollywood, are you listening? by Bozdune · · Score: 1

      The Germ-eshausen Professor. Heh.

    7. Re:Hollywood, are you listening? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      young scientists who save the day at the last possible minute by using something compounded from randomly selected Greek and Latin roots.

      *gasp* they resort to polyamory???

      Worse than that: TELEVISION

    8. Re:Hollywood, are you listening? by Lord+of+Hyphens · · Score: 1

      Why am I reminded about the plot to Outpost 2? Must be the "OMG TEH WORLD WILL END!".

      --
      "I've spent my whole life figuring out crazy ways to do things. It'll work." -- Montgomery Scott, "Relics"
    9. Re:Hollywood, are you listening? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for re-writing Cat's Cradle by Kurt Vonnegut

    10. Re:Hollywood, are you listening? by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

      Ooh, imagine the bang when all that dissociated water meets the first lightning storm or someone with a cigarette.

  9. What could ... by daveime · · Score: 0, Redundant

    ... possibly go wrong.

    Viruses have a tendency to mutate. Human body 90% water. All we need is one virus to mutate and start using carbon as a catalyst, and we all become walking bombs.

    1. Re:What could ... by Cyberax · · Score: 4, Informative

      Impossible. You need energy input to split water. No amount of catalysts can help you - first law of thermodynamics comes to rescue, as usual.

    2. Re:What could ... by snarkh · · Score: 3, Funny

      Since the viruses use sunlight to convert water, all we would need to do is to stay in a dark room.

      A large tin foil hat can also be used.

    3. Re:What could ... by mayko · · Score: 1

      The human body has no thermal energy? Ahh... thats why I have to lay in the sun to get my body temp up to ~98 F (~36C).

    4. Re:What could ... by Cyberax · · Score: 4, Informative

      Now the second law comes to the rescue - you need temperature gradients to extract energy.

    5. Re:What could ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Impossible. You need energy input to split water.

      It uses sunlight. Seems to work for plants. RTFA.

    6. Re:What could ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a solar reaction...

    7. Re:What could ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But what about E=mc^2?!?!? It could just convert all of the ocean's mass to energy so that it can turn it back into H and O, then we'd be doooooomed! :(

    8. Re:What could ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate to side with their paranoid line of thought, but they are technically right. There are plenty of gradient surfaces in the human body, because it is not a closed system. Every time you drink cold water or hot coffee, there is a transfer of heat - and that is just blatant heat energy. Practically every other process that goes on in the human body (even the firing of a single neuron) involves the transfer of some form of energy to another, or from one function to another, or from one place to another. In other words, if the problem was only to provide an entropic gradient for the mutant viruses to get to work, they could get to work very quickly.

      Thankfully, 'useful/helpful' mutations are very rare in nature, funnily enough because of the Second Law. So it is unlikely that the virus would survive long enough in a host to develop the several particular mutations needed to become adept at completely eating up our water. And if it did, it won't be able to pass onto another human subject very easily. You'd need a chemical warfare scenario for it to be any large scale threat.

      Wait a minute.. the door, who could be knocking at this hour? I'll be ri

    9. Re:What could ... by Stooshie · · Score: 1

      Catalysts can greatly reduce the activation energy needed for a reaction.

      --
      America, Home of the Brave. ... .and the Squaw.
    10. Re:What could ... by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      "Every time you drink cold water or hot coffee, there is a transfer of heat - and that is just blatant heat energy."

      Calculate its amount. It's trivial compared to amount of chemical energy.

      For example, suppose that cup of coffee (0.25l) is at 70C and your body is at 40C. So you can extract at most 0.25*4200*(70-40)~=30000J of energy. That's enough to split 0.1 moles of water (about 1.8 grams). And that's in the ideal case.

    11. Re:What could ... by Joey+Vegetables · · Score: 1

      Yes, true and very useful, but you still don't get to defeat the Second Law. You can't transfer the atoms into a higher energy state without that energy coming from somewhere (in this case, apparently sunlight).

  10. WCPGW by ArhcAngel · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    If ever a story screamed for the "What Could Possibly Go Wrong" tag.

    --
    "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
    1. Re:WCPGW by Jeng · · Score: 1

      It is self limiting.

      If you can't keep the hydrogen and oxygen separated they will just reform as water again perhaps killing the virus in the process.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    2. Re:WCPGW by trapnest · · Score: 1

      They won't recombine into water without an ignition source.

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

      DAMN! MODS with sticks up their arses today. Even if you don't think it's funny it's hardly flaimbait.

  11. huh? by Maximum+Prophet · · Score: 1

    They also need to find a way to transform the products of the reaction into usable hydrogen fuel – currently the hydrogen atoms are split into constituent protons and electrons that must be recombined into complete atoms and molecules.

    What's up with this? Last time I checked, a naked proton will find an electron, combine into hydrogen and then form up with other hydrogen atoms into H2 spontaneously. Perhaps, they meant the hydrogen spontaneously recombines with the Oxygen released when water is split.

    --
    All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
    1. Re:huh? by jmauro · · Score: 1

      A "naked" single protons is always a hydrogen atom regardless of the presence or lack there of of an electron.

      They're quite electrically unstable and will bind to just about anything with a free electron or two to spare. Not just other hydrogen molocules.

  12. Good news! by barfcat · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Water is now a finite resource! Hopefully they can make a virus that puts the water back together again... O.o

    1. Re:Good news! by bdenton42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You don't need a virus to do that... just a match.

  13. Is this basic, applied or vaporware research? by GAATTC · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Press release stories like this should get a special Slashdot category - something like scientific vaporware. While this is potentially an important discovery, none of the information needed to determine if this could ever be an energetically or economically viable way of producing hydrogen is provided. I split water into hydrogen and oxygen every day when I run gels in my lab. The energy you could potentially get from the hydrogen that this electrolysis produces is smaller than the amount of energy it takes to run the gel. Basic research is cool and all (so cool it's what I do for a living), but without more data I would guess that this discovery is very much on the basic end of the basic-->applied research spectrum. Discoveries like this are made all the time - only a tiny fraction end up being useful in real life.

    1. Re:Is this basic, applied or vaporware research? by Maximum+Prophet · · Score: 1
      Probably just vaporware.

      They also need to find a way to transform the products of the reaction into usable hydrogen fuel – currently the hydrogen atoms are split into constituent protons and electrons that must be recombined into complete atoms and molecules.

      That doesn't make too much sense, but if it's correct, they are splitting water into mono-atomic hydrogen and mono-atomic oxygen, which will spontaneously recombine into H2O if it's not kept separated. Keeping the hydrogen and oxygen separate is a big problem. (without expending more energy to push stuff through barriers.)

      --
      All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
    2. Re:Is this basic, applied or vaporware research? by oldhack · · Score: 1

      Sounds like the thriving G3 industry: green grant grab.

      --
      Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    3. Re:Is this basic, applied or vaporware research? by trapnest · · Score: 1

      Probably just vaporware.

      I see what you did there.

    4. Re:Is this basic, applied or vaporware research? by robotkid · · Score: 1

      Press release stories like this should get a special Slashdot category - something like scientific vaporware. While this is potentially an important discovery, none of the information needed to determine if this could ever be an energetically or economically viable way of producing hydrogen is provided.

      Agreed. Providing proper context is 100% of the difference between scientific sensationalism and good science journalism. FYI, the original press MIT press release does include such context information, which TFA conveniently left out. http://web.mit.edu/press/2010/virus-water

      Thomas Mallouk, the DuPont Professor of Materials Chemistry and Physics at Pennsylvania State University, who was not involved in this work, says, “This is an extremely clever piece of work that addresses one of the most difficult problems in artificial photosynthesis, namely, the nanoscale organization of the components in order to control electron transfer rates.” He adds: “There is a daunting combination of problems to be solved before this or any other artificial photosynthetic system could actually be useful for energy conversion.” To be cost-competitive with other approaches to solar power, he says, the system would need to be at least 10 times more efficient than natural photosynthesis, be able to repeat the reaction a billion times, and use less expensive materials. “This is unlikely to happen in the near future,” he says. “Nevertheless, the design idea illustrated in this paper could ultimately help with an important piece of the puzzle.”

  14. No, they harness catalysts to split water by jfengel · · Score: 5, Informative

    The actual splitting of water is done by using a pigment to absorb sunlight, then transferring the energy to indium oxide as a catalyst to split water. That's old news. Good, but old.

    The problem is that it's hard to keep them doing this efficiently; things tend to clump up. They came up with a way to use viruses to make a structure that keeps everything separate. Viruses are good for building self-assembling structures; this is also old news in nanotech.

    Putting it all together here, that's news, but not terribly exciting news, since it's all still in a lab and not scaled to industrial sizes. So the PR department buffs it up with a misleading headline about viruses splitting water.

    So no, you don't have to worry about the virus eating the world. It's all about indium oxide, which is not self-replicating. The viruses are just a piece of the machinery.

    1. Re:No, they harness catalysts to split water by pushing-robot · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hey, this is Slashdot. Stop depressing us with your world's-not-going-to-end attitude.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    2. Re:No, they harness catalysts to split water by junglebeast · · Score: 1

      This little comment of yours is more informative than the article which was originally linked to.

      It also does not contain nonsensical statements like this:

      "Splitting water is one way to solve the basic problem of solar energy: It’s only available when the sun shines."

    3. Re:No, they harness catalysts to split water by Orleron · · Score: 1

      Moreover, Indium is an element in short supply on the earth, so good luck getting enough to make this viable. Another catalyst perhaps?

    4. Re:No, they harness catalysts to split water by c++0xFF · · Score: 4, Informative

      Minor correction: they're using iridium oxide. That alone make it hard to scale up: iridium (virtually tied with osmium) is the densest material possible on earth that we know about, has an incredibly high melting point (900 *C higher than iron, though less than tungsten), and rare enough and hard enough to process to make it relatively expensive. They're using it in the lab because its a very good catalyst (see the rest of the platinum group).

      But fortunately, almost all major advances start out this way: a small process that wouldn't work in real life, but which is later developed with other materials or techniques to scale up production. Unfortunately, many more end up as vaporware. Either way, even small advances like this are exciting.

    5. Re:No, they harness catalysts to split water by jfengel · · Score: 1

      Whoops! Thanks for catching that.

      Either way, even small advances like this are exciting.

      I just wish more news sources would try to find the excitement in them as they actually are, rather than puffing them into yet another entry of the "solar power coming soon!" litany.

  15. It is really a sunlight + water - hydrogen device by bbn · · Score: 4, Informative

    Before anyone more think this will split water molecules magically. It also requires a catalyst, so it will not spread by itself in the ocean.

    Missing totally from the article, is any hard numbers about efficiency. Is it converting solar energy at 1%, 10%, 20% ? How is compared to PV-cells? If it is anywhere near, it could be very neat to get your solar energy as hydrogen instead of electricity. Hydrogen can be stored and converted to electricity when you need it.

  16. am I missing something? by greywire · · Score: 1

    In the article its says they split hydrogen into protons and electrons that need to be recombined into atoms and molecules..

    Am I missing something basic about chemistry and physics or are the writers of the article just mucking up the information? Aren't they just splitting hydrogen from oxygen using H20 as the "fuel" and sun light as the energy?

    --
    -- Senior Software Engineer, Attorney appearance services, locallawyerapp.com.
    1. Re:am I missing something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am not basing this on TFA at all.

      Hydrogen is a special case in that ionizing it IS splitting it into a proton and electron. It contains one of each and no neutrons at all. (at least for the most common isotope)

      In regards to the story at hand, yes it appears they are splitting H2O into H2 and O2 with sunlight and an Indium Oxide catalyst.

  17. This is solar energy by Linzer · · Score: 5, Informative

    Some important information is missing from the summary. The viruses don't do the splitting. They profide a scaffold for the synthetic catalyst (iridium oxyde here) which catalyzes dissociation of water by sunlight. So this is a form of solar energy using a clever catalytic nanomaterial, not some mysterious virus-based energy as the summary makes it sound.

    --
    Gravitation is a theory, not a fact.
    1. Re:This is solar energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent up, please. Summary is misleading.

    2. Re:This is solar energy by CyprusBlue113 · · Score: 1

      Translation: we looked at plants, and decided that trying to use some kind of bio lattice with catalizers on top to utilize the energy of sunlight to convert something common to something useful seemed like a good idea.

      --
      a handful of selfish greedy people are no match for millions of selfish, greedy people -u4ya
  18. will make a great Cat's Cradle - like SF story. by porky_pig_jr · · Score: 1

    Virus multiplies, converts *all* water on the Earth into a hydrogen ... All life on the Earth disappeared except for the hydrogen-powered vehicles which evolve into intelligent beings.

    1. Re:will make a great Cat's Cradle - like SF story. by AndrewNeo · · Score: 1

      Now we know what happened on Cybertron!

  19. Desalination by SoTerrified · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Am I missing something, or wouldn't this be a huge benefit to the existing process of extracting drinkable water from sea water? One of the major problems with the current process is the energy costs. If this is a low energy way to separate the hydrogen and oxygen, it would be easy to filter and much less energy intensive to recombine.

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

      Recombining Hydrogen and Oxygen is usually an explosive process though.

    2. Re:Desalination by Fastolfe · · Score: 1

      I think this has been a solved problem for many, many years. We have the technology to burn explosive fuels without generally causing an explosion. There are also these things called fuel cells.

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

      "much less energy intensive to recombine"

      Take a bottle with 1 part oxygen and 2 parts hydrogen and hold a lighter up to the mouth. You might want to do this outside, while wearing bulletproof plate armor. Be sure to upload the video to YouTube.

    4. Re:Desalination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be energy *ex*tensive. Not *in*tensive. Ex means energy goes out.

    5. Re:Desalination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure there's already an efficient process for separating water and salt using the sun. Can't quite remember what it's called... ;)

  20. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  21. Parting water molecules by merrickm · · Score: 5, Funny

    Great for leading your people to freedom from Nanopharaoh.

    1. Re:Parting water molecules by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Great for leading your people to freedom from Nanopharaoh.

      You'll need the Enigma Force for that.

  22. read the article, energy comes from the sun by Chirs · · Score: 1

    They're basically doing a form of artificial photosynthesis.

  23. Mopping up by Linzer · · Score: 1

    Apparently, the viruses will have to clean up the mess as well. Title of the TFA: MIT researchers harness viruses to spilt water.

    --
    Gravitation is a theory, not a fact.
  24. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  25. The promises of H by ADHVfFsvjLIViaglKlqo · · Score: 1

    I can remember an episode of In Search of... that showed a room-temperature form of liquid H that would replace gasoline with only a $35 modification to the carburetor.

    1. Re:The promises of H by amliebsch · · Score: 1

      Well..gasoline *is* a room-temperature form of liquid H. They don't call them "hydro"carbons for nothing.

      --
      If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
    2. Re:The promises of H by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After reading the wikipedia article... it sounds like the show was a precursor to Mythbusters. Without the skepticism. Or reality. Or gratuitous explosions. Basically, Mythbusters where they just state the myths as fact, and move on.

  26. What's in a name.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    A GAS evolving VIRUS is created by the GERMeshausen Professor of Materials Science who's last name is BELCHER! Shouldn't this be an April 1 post?

  27. Wow... by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Very cool and scary. The tension between possible salvation of man (cheap, clean energy) and his possible destruction (something going badly wrong). Reminds me of how people felt in the 50's regarding their hopes, dreams, and fears of nuclear power.

    This is unbelievable fodder for science fiction writers.

  28. Hydrogen Economy is Vaporware by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1

    Regardless of the efficiency of this method, the hydrogen economy is still vaporware.

    Hydrogen remains an energy transport, or store, not a source. You can't yet store enough practically to make a useful road vehicle. You lose energy manufacturing it electrically. You lose energy converting it back to electricity.

    The current largest source of hydrogen? Oil. I'm sure you can wring it out of coal as well. The fossil fuel lobby love hydrogen technologies because they are the biggest source of hydrogen.

    Solve the energy crisis? A practical fusion reactor and better electricity storage. Then we can get working on the molecular manufacturing and fix the environment back up.

    1. Re:Hydrogen Economy is Vaporware by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

      As sucky as hydrogen is, it could still be a reasonable transportation fuel.

      What it would take is a lot of very, very, cheap electricity, the kind which might be generated through a series of thousands of small and medium sized hydropower stations built alongside (but not in) America's rivers and stored in the recently mentioned sulfur sodium batteries (http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/04/07/022250). Using this proven, if unexciting technology, enough power could be generated to create hydrogen and fuel the transportation sector. It's not a perfect solution, but it requires no great technical breakthroughs, merely money (OK, so maybe not so merely), political will and enough smarts to do it without destroying the river ecologies of the USA.

      --
      Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    2. Re:Hydrogen Economy is Vaporware by Black+Gold+Alchemist · · Score: 1

      You can't yet store enough practically to make a useful road vehicle.

      You can. If you combine the hydrogen with carbon dioxide, you produce liquid carbon hydrides with very high energy density. You then burn that in an internal combustion engine.

      You lose energy manufacturing it electrically. You lose energy converting it back to electricity.

      There's no theoretical reason this is not a 100 percent efficient process. Practically, it is because hydrogen is a poor electrochemical reagent. If you produced aluminium, zinc, or iron fuel. All methods of quote "electricity storage" are simply methods of storing energy by making either lithium, cadmium, or zinc fuel. You lose energy when you make the fuel. You lose energy when you convert it back to electricity.

      --
      Responsibility is an addiction
      Virtue is a temptation
      Community is a cartel
    3. Re:Hydrogen Economy is Vaporware by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      The benefit of the hydrogen economy is decoupling the energy transport from the energy source.

      While the hydrogen (or ethanol, or electricity) is currently generated from fossil fuels, it's easy to make the stuff from non-fossil-fuel sources. Just not economically viable at the moment because fossil fuels are still very cheap. As fossil fuels become more rare, or as more "green" legislation makes burring them more difficult, we can easily switch to other sources of the hydrogen (or ethanol, or electricity).

    4. Re:Hydrogen Economy is Vaporware by potat0man · · Score: 1

      Solve the energy crisis? ...better electricity storage

      Which is exactly what producing hydrogen from water is about: storage.

    5. Re:Hydrogen Economy is Vaporware by Black+Gold+Alchemist · · Score: 1

      Just a note. People see three issues for hydrogen: making it, storing it, and burning it. Ignore that bit about making it for a minute. What's the best way to store hydrogen? The best way is with gasoline and diesel, with hydrogen density 2x that of liquid hydrogen. The second best is with compressed ammonia.

      Ignoring fossil fuels, NREL concluded that the best way to make hydrogen was with biofuels. The second best way to make hydrogen was with nuclear powered electrolysis and hydro. The third best, IIRC, was wind.

      Now for that burning hydrogen bit. A fuel cell ($63,000) is 10 times more expensive than a diesel generator ($8,999). With the diesel consuming 1.81 gallons of diesel = 141.20 megajoules/hour. The fuel cell consumes 0.962 kg of hydrogen an hour = 137.59 megajoules. That means that at 0.1 $/kWh of fuel, the payback time is 540000 hours. Or, over 60 years. Play with the energy price all you like, the fuel cell does not cut it.

      So the best hydrogen economy is biofuels, for example biodiesel. But, the best way to run a diesel car is as a hybrid, and the best hybrid is a plug-in hybrid. That means we end up with a plug-in biodiesel hybrid as the best form of hydrogen using current technology. Now, we might run out of land for biofuels pretty quickly. In which case, we'll be using synthetic diesel from hydro, wind, and nuclear. If this virus discovery works (and anything with these rare, expensive catalysts hydrogen economists love is not "working"), we'll use it to make the gasoline and diesel.

      Now, hydrogen is crappy fuel. The best fuel by volume (what you really care about) is not hydrogen but boron. But it's not a nice thing to work with (poor conductor), doesn't burn very well. Second is beryllium, a rare, toxic material. Third is aluminum. We have technology for aluminum that makes it more efficient than most hydrogen economy proposals (but still more expensive than gasoline). The aluminum fuel cell is 300 times cheaper than the hydrogen fuel cell. After that, in terms of storage capacity are zinc and iron, of all things. Iron is where I'm putting my money. If you smelted all the easily accessible iron in the USA, and stacked it up. It would power the whole country for a few years. To make iron batteries to send your car 300 miles, you'd need just $10-$15 worth of iron. It's just so cheap.

      --
      Responsibility is an addiction
      Virtue is a temptation
      Community is a cartel
  29. Change the polar angle to 120 degrees! by Gothmolly · · Score: 1

    I hear if you change the covalent bond angle of water to 120 degrees, it cures cancer !

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
  30. Human Contageon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can this virus be transmitted to a person? Just imagine what it would do...

  31. Re:Personally... by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ATTN: All people including parent who don't understand how long and with how much effort a virus needs to effectively cross barriers between species of hosts (let alone viruses like these that affect prokaryotic bacteria jumping to fucking eukaryotic animals! Are you kidding me?)

    Please STFU. You paranoia is sourced in horror movies and cheap sci-fi novellas. Go read about real microbiology. Thanks.

    --
    I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
  32. Perpetual Motion ... by ElSupreme · · Score: 1

    I am sorry this is not the full story. It requires a large amount of energy to seperate Hydrogen and Oxygen in water molecules. You get that energy back when you burn them together and get water. But you have to input energy in there somewhere. It is thermodynamics.

    --
    My addiction: Arguing with idiots. AKA Slashdot!
    1. Re:Perpetual Motion ... by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      You’re right, and I’m one of the first to cry foul when somebody starts touting hydrogen as the miracle fuel. “Just split water,” they claim, “and you can get as much hydrogen as you need!” And yes, they usually fail to recognise that splitting water in the first place requires more energy than burning the hydrogen will produce (yes, more: you’ll never do it 100% efficiently).

      Usually.

      Solar cells harness the sun’s energy and convert it to electrical energy, but they’re not very efficient, and they’re not cheap.

      If this breakthrough results in a cheaper, more efficient way of harnessing the sun’s energy and converting it to chemical energy, you do have a largely untapped energy source just begging to be exploit^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hutilized.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    2. Re:Perpetual Motion ... by optikos · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh, great! Now you've convinced us that this virus is going to suck all of that massive amount energy from the surrounding water causing the oceans to freeze (until Mr. Global Explosion lights his match). Concurrent doomsday scenarios, where one doomsday triggers other concomitant doomsdays: 1) If the lack of water doesn't get us, then 2) the massize cooling will get us, or else 3) the Hindenberg-like atmosphere fire will surely finish us off.

  33. Re:It is really a sunlight + water - hydrogen devi by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · · Score: 1

    Yeah... how could the virus ever find more iridium oxide while floating around in the world's oceans?

    --
    The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
  34. Re:Personally... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Move to a place where evolution isn't recognized and you won't have to worry about that sort of thing!

  35. Right, but... by sean.peters · · Score: 1

    ... this still seems like a pretty trivial problem to solve. I would imagine that the vast majority of these free protons would more-or-less immediately hook up with a passing water molecule to form a hydronium ion. Put a pair of electrodes in the water, run a small amount of current through it. The H3O+ ions will be attracted to the negative pole, start soaking up electrons, and... instant hydrogen, right? And the amount of electricity required would be way less than straight up electrolysis, since the only bond you would need to break would be the loose connection between the spare proton and the water molecule.

    The really interesting question, though... is this process EVER going to be able to beat regular old electrolysis in terms of cost-effectiveness? Indium don't come cheap.

    1. Re:Right, but... by xaxa · · Score: 1

      I think most hydrogen nowadays is produced from natural gas, as that's cheaper than electrolysis. (IIRC from school, methane is mixed with steam.)

    2. Re:Right, but... by Darth+Hamsy · · Score: 1

      Yup, Steam Reforming: methane and steam with a Nickel catalyst. Very cheap, about 90% of the methane is converted into Hydrogen.

  36. M13? by KlomDark · · Score: 2, Funny

    I didn't know that was a bacterial virus, I thought it was a plant. Who knew? Wow!

  37. Re:It is really a sunlight + water - hydrogen devi by S.O.B. · · Score: 1

    How is this informative? Where's the car analogy?

    --
    Some of what I say is fact, some is conjecture, the rest I'm just blowing out my ass...you guess.
  38. Bacteria != Virus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The original post seems to be confusing viruses and bacteria, two very different things.

  39. Re:Personally... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As someone who has read 'real' microbiology, I'd say you're being an ass. Do you have any idea how little is actually understood about anything in microbiology? I'd guess about 95% of microbiology right now is just a parts list and guessing about how things come together. Plus the parent said nothing about crossing species only about mutation and survival.
    Yes, most of us have been exposed to too many bad horror movies and sci-fi, that doesn't mean it couldn't happen. (Well besides the fact that the summery made it sound like these viruses don't currently reproduce in this machine.) From my experience, sci-fi and horror is a lot more fun then real microbiology.
    The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense.

  40. Imagine this headline in Soviet Russia by roman_mir · · Score: 1

    In Soviet Russia Viruses Harness MIT Researchers To Split Water.

    I don't know why, I must be really sleepy to go for the old 'Soviet Russia' gig and not with a better suitable naked and petrified Natalie Portman is pouring hot water splitting Viruses down MIT Researchers Pants.

    Oh .... this is bad.

  41. And here's the wrap-up... by clone53421 · · Score: 1, Informative

    To be cost-competitive with other approaches to solar power, he says, the system would need to be at least 10 times more efficient than natural photosynthesis, be able to repeat the reaction a billion times, and use less expensive materials. “This is unlikely to happen in the near future,” he says. “Nevertheless, the design idea illustrated in this paper could ultimately help with an important piece of the puzzle.”

    “Unlikely”? That’s quite an understatement.

    For personal reasons I highly suspect that natural photosynthesis is pretty damn efficient, and I doubt that they’ll ever get anything similar that is 10 times more efficient than natural photosynthesis. Okay, if you scale it up 10 times larger then you can get 10 times the yield, but 10 times more efficient on the same scale? I don’t think they’ll ever achieve that. But... who knows? Maybe there’s a good reason for natural photosynthesis not to be the most efficient method possible.

    Anyway, yes, this could be a key piece of the overall puzzle of getting cheaper, more efficient utilization of solar energy.

    --
    Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    1. Re:And here's the wrap-up... by mog007 · · Score: 1

      What's more efficient at performing arithmetic: your natural human brain, or a calculator?

      GE crops are much more efficient at producing food than natural plants, because they've been modified. It'll take time, but if the researchers got the funding and spent enough time doing it, they could put the natural definition of "efficient" to shame. Humans don't have to operate like evolution. Evolution doesn't pick the smartest option, it just works on what the best way to do it that manages to survive, but engineering a solution has no such constraint.

    2. Re:And here's the wrap-up... by NNKK · · Score: 1

      How the hell does one have "personal reasons" for suspecting how efficient photosynthesis is? There's extensive research on exactly that subject, surely you have actual data instead of "personal reasons"?

    3. Re:And here's the wrap-up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [quote]How the hell does one have "personal reasons" for suspecting how efficient photosynthesis is? [/quote]

      So..*twitch*...many...*twitch*...jokes...*shiver*...MUST RESISTS...*Snap*

      A plant photosynthesized and killed his parents.
      A plant he hooked up to his gameboy ran out of power, meaning he lost his shiney pidgey.
      A bulbasaur shot a solar beam at him one day and he hates plants now.
      Them dirty daisys. Always looking so smug because they can photosynthesize. I BET IT ISN'T EVEN THAT EFFICIENT.

      Huh. Why the hell do I have two pokemons in there?

    4. Re:And here's the wrap-up... by robotkid · · Score: 1

      For personal reasons I highly suspect that natural photosynthesis is pretty damn efficient, and I doubt that they’ll ever get anything similar that is 10 times more efficient than natural photosynthesis. Okay, if you scale it up 10 times larger then you can get 10 times the yield, but 10 times more efficient on the same scale? I don’t think they’ll ever achieve that. But... who knows? Maybe there’s a good reason for natural photosynthesis not to be the most efficient method possible.

      Anyway, yes, this could be a key piece of the overall puzzle of getting cheaper, more efficient utilization of solar energy.

      Photosynthetic efficiency is actually quite abysmal, typically a fraction of a percent (with sugarcane topping out at single digit percents). If you study the chain of events that occurs in a plant photosystem, it's designed like a Rube Goldberg device with hundreds of moving parts interacting in a myriad of ways. It may be the most efficient solution given the constraints that a plant has to deal with , such as the natural abundance of various nutrients in the soil and air, the evolved bio-synthetic pathways that dictate that whatever you make has to be composed of amino acids and insert into a lipid membrane, etc etc.

      This is the reason we eat plants and not vice-versa!! Synthetic attempts to harness photo-energy have no such constraints, for example in this case requiring large amounts of trace elements like Iridium. Research solar cells can be nearly 50% efficient in comparison. But they are terribly expensive to produce, and break down rapidly over time, as opposed to plants that can make more of themselves. ..

      It's actually entirely reasonable that the current biological solution is just trapped in a local minimum and not the global best solution to the answer even given those constraints, something that I personally believe based on the directed evolution lab experiments with plants that I'm familiar with. But you may not be able to get there from here naturally, so to speak, if the path to such a state would require generations of plants to tolerate photosystems with reduced functionality or none at all. If we understood protein folding a lot better than we currently do, it might be possible to overcome such barriers at least in a test-tube setting.

      At which point I will happily welcome our new zombie plant overlords.

    5. Re:And here's the wrap-up... by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Your natural brain wasn’t designed to perform arithmetic.

      Chlorophyll was designed for the sole purpose of converting sunlight into useful chemical energy. Whether you think evolution designed it that way or some higher power did it is relatively irrelevant: that is its sole purpose and it’s been doing it for eons.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    6. Re:And here's the wrap-up... by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      That’s a pretty decent explanation. Thanks.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  42. Re:Personally... by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

    Yes I am being an ass. I'm just tired of the paranoia getting rolled out every time somebody suggests a biotech solution to a problem, as though viruses are going to jump between entire taxonomic KINGDOMS overnight and kill us all (which I believe was implied even if it was not stated). It's just bullshit, and no, it couldn't happen, in so far as it has never been observed to happen, never even been reasonably theorized to happen. Insofar as we as human beings don't know everything, it's not demonstrated impossible, but from everything we do know, no, it just couldn't happen.

    --
    I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
  43. Am I the only one... by Sfing_ter · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one that whenever they hear of these types of technology (virus batteries, gmo food, virus water molecule splitting), gets the Devo song Mongoloid streaming to their brain????!!!

    --
    A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
  44. Re:It is really a sunlight + water - hydrogen devi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    87% quantum efficiency.

    the problem is the reusability. it's a really awesome science project, but it has to be reusable indefinitely before it can gain any traction. As is it produces ~1000 oxygen molecules and then stops working until regenerated.

  45. Maybe this isn't new... by bennomatic · · Score: 1

    Think about it... the mythology of things like the Loch Ness monster and fire breathing dragons could be true. If some animal had developed a means of harnessing this sort of a virus to split water into oxygen for breathing and hydrogen for FIRE, you could have both in one!

    --
    The CB App. What's your 20?
  46. Re:Personally... by WSOGMM · · Score: 1

    Please STFU. You paranoia is sourced in horror movies and cheap sci-fi novellas. Go read about real microbiology. Thanks.

    There's a reason that they're modded up as "funny". :)

  47. Re:Personally... by WSOGMM · · Score: 1

    Or... at least... the ones that aren't should be.

  48. Re:Personally... by querent23 · · Score: 1

    Heh. "Prokaryotic" and "eukaryotic" are not monophyletic categories, and need to be dropped. See the research of Norm Pace, for example.

  49. Angela Belcher, From the Bottom of My Heart by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    Taking inspiration from the way that plants use sunlight to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, the MIT team led by Angela Belcher genetically engineered a virus called M13

    The hydrogen generating virus was engineered by Angela Belcher. Who writes this stuff?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  50. The End of Some Other World by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    Some other world where the oceans are full of the indium catalyst necessary for this process to work might be threatened, not ours.

    Which means this is a weapons programme! So it's certain to receive way more funding than it needs.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  51. Sounds familar by slapout · · Score: 1

    Sound's like next week's SyFy movie of the week

    --
    Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
  52. Re:Personally... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yellow, fever, chickenpox, bird flu, swine flu.

    "don't understand how long and with how much effort a virus needs to effectively cross barriers".
    You mean that some viruses just tried harder? please.

    Just because there are significant barriers doesn't mean that there aren't combinations which circumvent those barriers. It's not a matter of effort, but random chance alignment of factors. In this case, the more you meddle, the greater the chances.

    Just because nature didn't serve up that many chances in the past, does not mean that we should discount the "human error or stupidity" factor. You know, where someone decides to do a "what-if" study with different parameters or someone makes a major error in processing that has catastrophic consequences. e.g., chicken pox virus has useful characteristics so they decide to see if they can split water more efficiently with it. Bacteria and viruses also mutate.

    I don't care how much of a microbiology expert you think you are, your lack of vision and caution reflects just the type of ignorance that gets people killed. The majority of the most deadly human viruses are in fact those which did make the jump between species, now you please STFU.

  53. Powerful by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    But in this case, the H2 + O2 would combine in a controlled device designed to extract the maximum energy for directed use. Water + power. From sunlight, which is nearly all they have in the places that most need cheap water and power.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  54. Re:Personally... by bdenton42 · · Score: 1

    no, it couldn't happen

    When the known viruses were limited to the various influenza strains and the mostly defeated childhood diseases it wasn't such a big deal. Now that HIV is mainstream and Ebola is well known, and there was semi-constant coverage about H1N1 and it's potential for mutation to a more lethal form... well yeah there is a fear factor happening here.

    Do you really think it's completely unjustified?

  55. Hydrogen As Feedstock by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    The processing doesn't have to stop with hydrogen as the fuel. The hydrogen can be converted into other chemicals with only a small energy cost. I prefer propane or "natural gas" (mostly methane), which burn very cleanly, especially in fuelcells, that already get over 40% efficiency (plus usable byproduct heat). There is already an extensive gas energy infrastructure, which we should grown to be universally available (perhaps with "last mile" as mostly electric to areas hard to pipe).

    Cheap, networked fusion reactors and efficient energy storage are also very important. In fact they fit in well with propane fuelcells, since both the fuelcell and the fusion reactor might use hydrogen as the storage medium for energy at small and large scales, respectively.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Hydrogen As Feedstock by Black+Gold+Alchemist · · Score: 1

      Why methane and natural gas/propane? By the time you trapped the CO2, convert it to gasoline instead, so it's a zillion times easier to handle. We need a gasoline fuel cell.

      --
      Responsibility is an addiction
      Virtue is a temptation
      Community is a cartel
  56. I propose a new rule: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For any slashdot story regarding energy technology, the summary must include where the energy actually comes from, or must have a "perpetualmotion" tag. ("inthishouseweobeythelawsofthermodynamics" would also be acceptable.)

    This is functionally just a new type of high-efficiency solar cell that can only be used for electrolysis, but the summary makes it sound like MIT managed to break conservation of energy.

  57. Re:Personally... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why would I read about microbiology when there's all of that porn out there? Its much more more more more ahhhh fun to read

  58. I, for one, by osomoore · · Score: 0

    welcome our new Water-Destroying Overlords.

  59. Re:Personally... by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    H1N1 is a joke and demonstrates common paranoia as well as anything could. My toddler had H1N1 and it was so much like the regular flu we had no idea until she was already recovered and we heard back from the lab. So yes, it is completely unjustified in the developed world to worry about diseases around every corner for a person that behaves in any normal, responsible way. Now in the developing world there is reason to worry about AIDS and Ebola. Which is why I stay the hell away, but that still says nothing about horror movie levels of mutation that just don't happen in the real world.

    --
    I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
  60. Zwabudike Morgan said it best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Resources exist to be consumed, and consumed they will be! If not by us, they by a future generation. By what right to forgotten future generations deny us our birthright?"

  61. Congradulations by HeckRuler · · Score: 4, Funny

    If you've made it this far down, you've waded through a river of bullshit. From the half-cocked fear mongering Luddites, past the post-intellectuals joking about doomsday, over the no-news-is-new crowd that already knew about this, to the same old arguments we have about oil and alternative energy.

    So congrats, you owe yourself a beer. Now get back to work.

    1. Re:Congradulations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sir have just made my day. I'm getting back to work now.

    2. Re:Congradulations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know you're trying to be funny, but really, this site's userbase is braindead.

      I don't know what's worse, the plainly ignorant fucks who apparently browse this site just to point out why every little scientific discovery is going to pose an existential risk to mankind, or the circlejerking cynics who get off on bashing new tech, apparently as a result of some vast overestimation of their own level of intellect. Even our resident professionals (self-described, anyway) tend not to be very bright.

      Actually, I do know what's worse. The worst part, in fact, is that the people here are considered intelligent by Internet standards. Now that's just depressing.

      Thank goodness that the stories here are the main attraction, because the comments section, even on a site like this, is the pits.

    3. Re:Congradulations by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      If I went back to work I'd owe myself another beer, and there's only 1 left in the fridge.

      So because of your congradulations I'm forced to read slashdot for the remainder of this working day. Thanks a lot buddy!

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
  62. = Perpetual motion machine? by therealkevinkretz · · Score: 1

    Even one molecule at a time, it takes energy to split H2O in to 2Hs and an O. Even if the viruses make the reaction as perfectly efficient as possible, there's no free lunch and it will be impossible to split the water for any less cost in energy than one can obtain by re-introducing the H and O.

  63. Re:Personally... by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

    So let me guess, you think chicken pox comes from chickens? Here's a hint: it doesn't. As for bird flu, it took twenty. muthafuckin'. years. for it to cross from birds to humans in any appreciable numbers. That's my point, not that it doesn't happen, but it takes a LONG TIME. Swine flu took more than a decade.

    --
    I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
  64. OR!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "....way for an efficient and non-energy-intensive method of producing hydrogen fuel." ....or drying all the seas in the World !!!!!

    Was this virus used in "Batman Begins" ?

  65. Re:It is really a sunlight + water - hydrogen devi by somepunk · · Score: 2, Informative

    Hydrogen can be stored and converted to electricity when you need it.

    This is in fact, precisely one of the bigger challenges with Hydrogen as an energy storage/delivery medium. It's not so easy to store it, or pipe it over long distances. Its molecules are so tiny that they diffuse through almost anything, leaking out and embrittling the tank or pipe in the process.

    --
    Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do. (Isaac Asimov)
  66. Unintended consequences by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While trying to make the 'hydrogen economy' viable researchers invent a cost effective desalinization technology that leads to actual prosperity for a larger fraction of the species, who then demand electricity, private transportation and climate controlled homes.

  67. Re:It is really a sunlight + water - hydrogen devi by bmo · · Score: 1

    Pacific coastal water was 1.02 +/- 0.26 x 10(-14) g

    Source: PubMed http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18964014

    That's "iridium is about as rare as chicken lips in sea water."

    --
    BMO

  68. Re:Personally... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slashdot needs a "-1 Jackass even if he's right" moderation option.

  69. Yes, but I would emotionally prefer to live. by tjstork · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm no big tree hugger, but as an animal I have come to form an emotional relationship with the earth and I would prefer that while, we recognize that changes to come to the environment and biosphere, that, we not go around pissing on things all over the place either. Like, I don't think its entirely wrong to ask people to respect the world they live in. Like, I never understood how my fellow right wingers could be so up and up on God, and not ponder for a moment that the earth should be respected because it is His gift to us. I would expect them to be leading the charge on the environment, not dragging their feet on it.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:Yes, but I would emotionally prefer to live. by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      While I am an atheist, my upbringing overexposed me to the Bible, so I can tell you that the reason some Christians want to have free reign over the use of planetary resources is that it's what God told them to do in Genesis 1:28. In fact, that verse specifically says 'subdue it [the earth]' and that man has dominion over all life on earth. Psalm 115:16 says that the earth has been given to men.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    2. Re:Yes, but I would emotionally prefer to live. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jeremiah 2:7. I brought you into a fertile land to eat its fruit and rich produce. But you came and defiled my land and you made my inheritance detestable.

      Job 12:7-10. But ask the animals, and they will teach you; or birds of the air and they will tell you; or speak to the earth and it will teach you; or let the fish of the sea inform you. Which of all these does not know that the hand of the lord has done this. In His hand is the life of every creature and the breath of all mankind.

      Genesis 9:12-13 And God said, "This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will he the sign of the covenant between me and the earth.

      Ezekiel 34:17-18. As for you, my flock... Is it not enough for you to feed on good pasture? Must you also trample the rest of your pasture with your feet? Is it not enough for you to drink clear water? Must you also muddy the rest with your feet?

    3. Re:Yes, but I would emotionally prefer to live. by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      When "defiled" is used in the Bible it usually carries a social moral connotation, and you are taking this verse out of context, as the chapter is talking about how the Israelites should avoid "defiling" themselves and their newly conquered *cough* I mean delivered land with the worship of false gods.

      Your verse from Job could be interpreted simply as 'learn from the stuff around you' and ends up by saying 'you and the animals are all God's bitches, so show some respect to Him'.

      Your verse from Genesis doesn't even apply on the face of it, the 'rainbow covenant' was simply God saying 'I won't kill almost everything in a flood again, so don't fear the rain'.

      The passage from Ezekiel of course is a metaphor, an analogy drawn between sheep and people that really isn't about the environment (because guess what, ancient people didn't give a shit about the environment), but rather about the lowly, dirty animal nature of man compared to the divine plan of God.

      Yeah taking shit out of context doesn't work with an apostate Christian who was forced to study the Bible five+ days a week, nine months a year every year for nine years.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    4. Re:Yes, but I would emotionally prefer to live. by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Their belief in imaginary friends makes any less-bizarre actions understandable.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  70. why is /. so credulous on biotech by cinnamon+colbert · · Score: 1

    most of the biotech stories here on /. are academic demo projects - they got it to work, and maybe, one day, it might lead to something, but at the moment the probabilit that an virus based system of any sort is going to split water seems..ludicrous. And most of hte biotech stuff on /. is like that, like all the lab on a chip diagnose you physiology from a drop of blood stuff, all the nanobots go into your bloodstream and heal you stuff, all the gene therapy/RNAi/antisense stuff, all the stem cell stuff...all of this stuff is years and years away from doing any good (except in the case of RNAi, which may actually help a small number of people soon) You want real cutting edge progress in biotech.... look at artificial eyes and other organs DNA sequencing; there was a paper in science magazine last year about how, ifyou had a mix of DNA from 10,000 random people, and DNA from a suspect, you could tell if the suspects DNA was in teh mix

  71. Re:Personally... by Cederic · · Score: 1

    as though viruses are going to jump between entire taxonomic KINGDOMS overnight

    Be serious. Nobody's suggesting that.

    It'd take millions, maybe billions of generations to evolve to that extent.

    So not overnight, but possibly by next Thursday.

  72. Some scientists should be shot.... by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    Sorry, I am all for science.

    But certain experiments should be conducted OFF-PLANET (see President Obama, who just castrated space program).

    Yes, yes, we always know that protections have been taken to ensure the safety and contain said virus. Yes, yes, they always say that....

    --

    But seriously, humans are 70% water. A virus that breaks down water is just asking for the end of humanity.

  73. I am Legend... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So we'll end up with zombie cars, lol.
    http://www.advancingthecurve.com

  74. so that's how... by Null+Perception · · Score: 0

    So that's how Moses did it...

    --
    Great new book on Evolution: The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins
  75. Re:Personally... by Ornlu · · Score: 1

    ATTN: You paranoia is sourced in horror movies and cheap sci-fi novellas. Go read about real microbiology. Thanks.

    And sarcasm... You forgot to include sarcasm, the chief source of our oh so authentic paranoia.

  76. Depends on which christianity... by tjstork · · Score: 1

    Yeah taking shit out of context doesn't work with an apostate Christian who was forced to study the Bible five+ days a week, nine months a year every year for nine years.

    It depends on which Christianity we're talking about. Christians tend to get lumped together but the reality is that a lot of the Christian sects have very different beliefs. Indeed, some versions of Christianity have you getting into heaven so long as you just "accept Christ" and others have you getting into heaven only if you do good deeds to match your faith in Christ. And some versions of Christianity don't have you getting into heaven at all, with only a few actually being saved.

    So.. when you say that someone is taking a quote in the bible out of context, be careful, because it really means you are saying that they are not speaking that verse in your context. After all, some Christian faiths would say that the Bible is not even a literal word of God, but, man's attempt to transcribe his relationship with the almighty and that actually an oral tradition of Christian storytelling is far, far more important than just reading the book by itself.

    --
    This is my sig.
  77. um by sexybomber · · Score: 1

    Let me see if I'm reading this right. They're using iridium oxide as a catalyst? The same element that's found in high concentrations in asteroids, but found virtually nowhere on Earth? (except at the K-T boundary, apparently.) Methinks it'll take quite a bit more energy to assemble the electrolizer than it'll eventually produce. The Second Law of Thermodynamics frowns upon your shenanigans.

  78. Just fing... by stoicio · · Score: 1

    AWESOME!!!!!

  79. By an extension of your logic... by hallux.sinister · · Score: 1

    (This all is written with the admittedly ethnocentric assumptions that you are a nonnative American citizen, and are most likely of European descent. If I'm mistaken, please disregard, the rest of this won't make much sense.)
    So when you and yours go extinct, everyone around you should just buck-up too, right? By way of analogy, the dying-off of North American Native civilizations, such as the Mound-Builders, resulted in the Spaniards et. al. arriving to find a culture that had devolved back to being, for want of a more generous term, neolithic. If this event had not happened, (c. 900-1300 C.E.) Christophoro Columbo and his crew would have found a civilization of complexity and organization to rival the best of Europe at it's peak to that date, and of vicious blood-lust to rival that of ancient Rome. The steam-rolling of the "Indians" by Europeans might never have occurred, even given the natives' lack of biological resistance; with a large enough initial populous at time of first transatlantic contact, a pool of survivors of all the plagues and pox the Europeans had would have ensured the survival of their nation(s), albeit depleted, of course.
    If you're not a Native American descendant, and you live in America, (which you might well be, and do,) you owe the civilization you enjoy now, to the ease with which your ancestors were able to tear it from the hands of those who had it first. You owe the civilization you enjoy to the mass die-off of the Native Americans in the 500 years before Europe's forcible penetration of the 'New World'. By an extension of your logic, if THAT was a good thing, then when you and yours all suddenly drop dead, that will be a good thing, from the perspective of whomever takes over what is now "yours".
    So please continue sanguinely enjoying the fruits of your (and your ancestors') dumb-luck, remembering that just because a massive upheaval resulted in the beautiful blue-green orb we live on today, doesn't mean that we will enjoy the next massive upheaval, in fact, it will probably be rather unpleasant. Hastening it, if indeed we are, when in fact we needn't, is downright stupid.

    1. Re:By an extension of your logic... by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      There is no evidence that a bronze-producing culture ever existed in North America. Failing to reach even this technological milestone, it is quite a stretch to say that the chance success or failure of the Mound-Builder culture would have been the key to any sort of European equivalent North American civilization.

      Fact is, the Aztecs and Inca were formidable engineers, building aquaducts that even the Romans would envy. They did reach at least bronze level of technology before the Columbian period, but that was too little too late, and no civilization in the Western Hemisphere seemed capable of producing something as simple as a locomotive wheel. Basically, only two, maybe three civilizations in the Americas reached an equivalent level of technology with say Greece or Rome. Too bad when they finally managed that, a bunch of guys with guns who were a thousand years more advanced than that showed up.

      Ultimately, the Aztecs were conquered by luck, the Incas by intrigue (the conquistadors played local factions against each other, then erased as much of that history as possible to make it seem like they were supermen who did it all by themselves), and the North American natives were conquered by disease and the inherent technological deficiency and scattered, tribal nature of their culture. In some cases, chance could have made things harder for the Europeans than things ultimately were, but the idea that Native Americans anywhere in the hemisphere could have resisted the onslaught of a dozen civilizations all a thousand years more advanced is a ludicrous pipe dream.

      Interestingly, my own family is an amalgam of these pasts. I don't deny nor devalue, as many with 'white guilt' do, those events which precipitated the capacity for a bunch of Scandinavians to settle in Washington state, any more than I begrudge Greco-Roman civilization for their crimes while enjoying the fruits of their culture and their knowledge. However, my own wife, and consequently my daughter, is descended from both Cherokee and Choktaw stock AND from African slaves (she is descended in fact from the author of Brighter Sun, Greene Buster, whose book describes his grandfather's transition from slavery to freedom). I am far more cognizant of the positive and negative patchwork of events that make my current reality possible. However, because I like my current reality, I would change none of them.

      It remains undeniable that today's pleasures stand on the backs of yesterday's tortures. Tomorrow's pleasures will also. You should find some way of coming to terms with this, as throughout all human history it has never changed.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
  80. Ironic names by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Virus research done by the Germeshausen professor of Biological Engineering, Ms Belcher.

    Heh :)

  81. Hmmmmm A dirty syringe anyone? by dogzdik · · Score: 0

    Eeeeek! I am disassociating!

    --

    .

    Voting up, Voting down - If I really gave a fuck about your approval or not, I'd come and ask you.

  82. Creutzfeldt–Jakob? by phorm · · Score: 1

    While this situation doesn't seem quite the same, assuming that a virus or disease can't cross species isn't always a safe gamble. For example, see "mad cow disease", which crosses to humans, and is thought to have crossed to cows via their ingestion of proteins created from the ground remains of other animals. It may be a variant of scabies (from sheep).

    1. Re:Creutzfeldt–Jakob? by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      People seem to keep ignore the "how long and with how much effort" part. I don't say it's impossible, my point is that it happens slowly, and the results aren't "catastrophic". H1N1 took more than a decade to cross to humans, 'avian flu' took twenty years. Neither one is doing any more damage than 'regular' influenza.

      Where CJD is concerned, it's hard to say much about its history, as it was discovered nearly a century ago, and it's not really known how old the disease is in cows. It could be as much or more than 1500 years old. If that were true, it's a better example for my argument than for yours.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
  83. Re:It is really a sunlight + water - hydrogen devi by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · · Score: 1

    Pacific coastal water was 1.02 +/- 0.26 x 10(-14) g

    That is per gram of seawater... 1 gr of seawater being roughly 1 cc of seawater. So a cubic meter of seawater contains 10(9) * 10(-14) = 10(-5) gr. and 100 m3 of seawater contains a milligram of iridium... that's a cube only a few meters on a side. How many virus particles can be made functional with a mg of iridium? Sounds to me like with a whole ocean to feed on there could be quite a large number of virus particles activated. So the answer to "Where would the iridium come form?" is - seawater.

    --
    The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop