Slashdot Mirror


Microbes Produce Power As They Clean Nuclear Waste

An anonymous reader writes "Researchers at Michigan State University (MSU) have isolated and explained the phenomenon that causes microbes to generate electricity while cleaning up nuclear waste. The team is hoping to use their findings to create a microbial fuel cell that is capable of generating renewable energy while it cleans up environments exposed to nuclear waste. The bacteria the team studied is a kind of geobacter that is covered in a coat of tiny, natural nanowires that protect the bacteria from the toxic materials. While completing the complex task of stabilizing radioactive spills, the bacteria simultaneously creates energy that can be harnessed and used as a zero-emissions power supply."

90 comments

  1. Almost there... by wsxyz · · Score: 3, Funny

    Now if we can only find a bacterium that converts sunlight into nuclear waste we'll have near infinite clean energy!

    1. Re:Almost there... by Kenja · · Score: 1

      Its called Algae and can be used to convert sunlight into biodiesel.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    2. Re:Almost there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      whoosh!

    3. Re:Almost there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      since when is biodiesel considered nuclear waste?

    4. Re:Almost there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so find a way to transport nuclear waste via photons

    5. Re:Almost there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell yeah!
      Throw some Algae into the desert on some slightly angled, corrugated tin with collection nozzles at the ends... nearly unlimited fuel!
      Unless there is something else involved in the process...

    6. Re:Almost there... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Where do you think all those nuclear products came from? We are all stardust :)

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  2. Hmmm..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, feeding microbes mutagenic nuclear waste. What could possibly go wrong?

    1. Re:Hmmm..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So, feeding microbes mutagenic nuclear waste. What could possibly go wrong?

      You forgot that those are genetically modified microbes.

    2. Re:Hmmm..... by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 4, Funny

      A rat teaches them martial arts?

    3. Re:Hmmm..... by bky1701 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      All microbes are genetically modified. The process is called natural selection.

    4. Re:Hmmm..... by drunkennewfiemidget · · Score: 1

      This made me laugh out loud and startle my sleeping wife beside me.

      Well done indeed.

  3. renewable energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    How is this renewable energy??? is there a constant influx of nuclear waste?? oh yes there is... sorry, my bad

  4. The power is chemical by JoshuaZ · · Score: 3, Informative

    Note that what is going on is essentially chemical, not nuclear. That is, the bacteria are getting energy out by chemical processes of elements that happen to be radioactive. If one had a sample of pure uranium 238 (which is radioactive but only a tiny bit so, with a very very long halflife) these bacteria would act identically. And if one could magically make uranium not radioactive the behavior of these bacteria would not change at all.

    1. Re:The power is chemical by the_other_chewey · · Score: 1

      Yep - that's the problem with nuclear waste material: Putting them into different
      molecules doesn't make the atoms less radioactive. Only time (or, in some very
      specific cases, neutron irradiation) will do that.

      What this does is turning radioactive waste into living radioactive waste...

    2. Re:The power is chemical by tinkerton · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What this does is turning radioactive waste into living radioactive waste...
      It's better than that. While the value of the bacteria generating energy seems utterly irrelevant, the bacteria do provide opportunities to concentrate the nuclear material , in other words, to remove it from the environment, and that's valuable. And maybe there is some minor value in the energy part, it could be a measure of activity.

    3. Re:The power is chemical by Required+Snark · · Score: 4, Insightful
      How it behaves. from TFA

      “Our findings clearly identify nanowires as being the primary catalyst for uranium reduction.They are essentially performing nature’s version of electroplating with uranium, effectively immobilizing the radioactive material and preventing it from leaching into groundwater,” said Gemma Reguera a MSU microbiologist.

      The bacteria take uranium out of solution and turn it into nanowires outside their outer membrane. They have tested it outside in a uranium mine tailings pile. The goal is to build a bacterial water treatment cell that produces electricity while it filters out dissolved uranium.

      This is not for generating power, the energy produced is a by-product. I doubt that the resultant energy would pay for it's own production. However, the electricity could be used to help pump water through the system, which is a neat trick and will help to reduce cleanup costs.

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
    4. Re:The power is chemical by Doubting+Sapien · · Score: 1

      This is not for generating power, the energy produced is a by-product. I doubt that the resultant energy would pay for it's own production. However, the electricity could be used to help pump water through the system, which is a neat trick and will help to reduce cleanup costs.

      I very much doubt it would be even worth that much. The article source(s) are very scant on details, but one of the many tricky aspects of constructing any microbial battery is engineering a system that would effectively and efficiently separate charges in a way that can be usefully harnessed. But even if they should solve the problem of developing good cathode/anode pairs, the conditions these bugs are expected to work under would not be expected to approach a remotely useful energy density.

      --
      ========== "Hello World" in my programming language of choice: ATG - LET THERE BE LIFE - TAG ==========
    5. Re:The power is chemical by toQDuj · · Score: 1

      so when the concentration of bacteria becomes too high, they become supercritical and will explode? nice..

      --
      Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
    6. Re:The power is chemical by Scottingham · · Score: 1

      Seriously?

      If they could enrich the uranium as well, that'd be quite a feat. Somehow I doubt that the bacterium would make their own tiny centrifuges though...

    7. Re:The power is chemical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a centrifuge wouldn't be absolutely necessary for enrichment. Biology can manipulate molecules individually. This would mean they could theoretically be engineered to allow one form or uranium to pass and the more desirable plutonium and uranium to be coalesced into nano-wires. Then you have a secondary tank where you collect the other radioactives to prevent killing everything around and you have a practical enrichment.

      That being said biology could never be made to condense enough to go super-critical without an external force.

    8. Re:The power is chemical by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      so when the concentration of bacteria becomes too high, they become supercritical and will explode?

      No, they just form into a giant fire-breathing lizard.

    9. Re:The power is chemical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, there isn't enough U-235 for that. There was 2 billion years ago, check out the Oklo reactor XD

    10. Re:The power is chemical by smithmc · · Score: 1

      Seriously? If they could enrich the uranium as well, that'd be quite a feat. Somehow I doubt that the bacterium would make their own tiny centrifuges though...

      Maybe U-235 tastes better than U-238...

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
  5. Re:Nuclear Power + Genetic Modifications by cduffy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If they oppose it, then it is a clear proof that their motivations are not as clear as they wish us to believe.

    You're forgetting about Hanlon's Razor.

    The larger concern I have here -- a position taken that anyone in disagreement must be duplicitous, without even allowing an opposing argument to be first presented, is no way to have a serious discussion.

    This is, indeed, great research. Why muddy the waters with a bunch of flamebaiting?

  6. Re:Nuclear Power + Genetic Modifications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is an example of great research. I am proud that it was all done by a team of female researchers.

    Proud because possessing a vagina limits scientific prowess? Or proud because they scored one for team vagina?

  7. Pointless link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Inhabitat article adds nothing to the MSU article. Why is it in the OP?

  8. Re:Nuclear Power + Genetic Modifications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    . I am proud that it was all done by a team of female researchers.

    Personally I'm just proud of it.

    It could have been done by nazi pedophile devil beasts and I would still have been proud of the research.

    Them being females neither adds nor takes away from their results. Because this is science and it doesn't matter who does it.

  9. despite your uid, you must be new here by mevets · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is slashdot, and using a topic to pursue your own agenda is part of what makes this a shitty experience.

    1. Re:despite your uid, you must be new here by symbolset · · Score: 2, Funny

      And pursuing that shitty experience is why we're here. Well, maybe you. I'm in it for the chicks. Chicks dig my slashdot cred.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    2. Re:despite your uid, you must be new here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And pursuing that shitty experience is why we're here. Well, maybe you. I'm in it for the chicks. Chicks dig my slashdot cred.

      riiight..... Tell that to Mensa Babe. You can have it tattooed on your 'nads and wave it in front of her super-IQ.

    3. Re:despite your uid, you must be new here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just because you didn't get laid before you had excellent karma doesn't mean that it happened because of that.

    4. Re:despite your uid, you must be new here by symbolset · · Score: 0

      Ooh. I've gained a stalker. This is a rare privilege. Do they pay you extra for that? I haven't had a slashdot stalker in years. Tell me about yourself.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    5. Re:despite your uid, you must be new here by Abstrackt · · Score: 2, Funny

      Chicks dig my slashdot cred.

      Same here. They're always asking me to fix their computer, carry their things, listen to them complain about their boyfriends....

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
    6. Re:despite your uid, you must be new here by RoFLKOPTr · · Score: 1

      We are working on recognizing a joke when they see it. I can't be sure, but I think even the toddler is ahead of you on that one.

      I bet the toddler's ahead of you on that one, too.

  10. Re:Slashdot presents: The Unholy Shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What The F?

  11. Re:Slashdot presents: The Unholy Shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm always impressed by the quality of the writing in these sorts of things. It's honestly inspiring because I know anyone who would seemingly waste such talent on anonymous shit stories must find better outlets for their abilities. I hope you are creating something that makes the world a better place, you can.
       

  12. Re:Slashdot presents: The Unholy Shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Holy Crap -- 42 x 10

  13. Re:Nuclear Power + Genetic Modifications by wagnerrp · · Score: 2

    If they oppose it, then it is a clear proof that their motivations are not as clear as they wish us to believe.

    You're forgetting about Hanlon's Razor.

    Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity

    You're forgetting about Grey's Law.

    Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

    If they're vocal and annoying enough, does it matter if the cause is through ignorance or intent?

  14. Re:Slashdot presents: The Unholy Shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This would have almost fitted into the beginning of a "Six Feet Under" episode.

  15. Microbe Matrix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reminds me of the movie Matrix in which human were generating energy for the machines..We may not be far from there now :)

    1. Re:Microbe Matrix by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      It was a ridiculous idea.

  16. Sounds labor intensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hooking up wires to millions of tiny bacteria is going to take a lot of time.

  17. free energy by Osgeld · · Score: 1

    just add nuclear waste

  18. Re:Nuclear Power + Genetic Modifications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So I guess this is a good time to mention Hitler?

  19. Re:Nuclear Power + Genetic Modifications by cduffy · · Score: 1

    If they oppose it, then it is a clear proof that their motivations are not as clear as they wish us to believe.

    If they're vocal and annoying enough, does it matter if the cause is through ignorance or intent?

    It matters for purposes of discussing motivations.

    If one doesn't care about motivations, one need not discuss them.

  20. The Japanese Miracle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    GiTS fans know what I'm talking about.

    1. Re:The Japanese Miracle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GiTS fans know what I'm talking about.

      I immediately thought of this. One of the best shows ever.

  21. Nuke Mars by Xaide · · Score: 1

    I guess it's time to nuke mars and infect the tires of the next rover with these things.

    --
    No fair! You changed the outcome by measuring it!
  22. Re:Nuclear Power + Genetic Modifications by lucm · · Score: 1

    > Anyone who is truly concerned about our environment must admit that there is no cleaner energy source then nuclear

    Great statement, a nice way to open the door to discussion. Reminds me of GWB: "You're either with us, or against us".

    --
    lucm, indeed.
  23. Re:Slashdot presents: The Unholy Shit by LifesABeach · · Score: 0

    I kind of liked the setting of the story being a,(wait for it), "dark and stormy night..."

  24. Re:Nuclear Power + Genetic Modifications by lucm · · Score: 1

    > It could have been done by nazi pedophile devil beasts and I would still have been proud of the research.

    But what if it was female nazis? (I'm pretty sure nazis had females too, someone had to sew all those swastikas.)

    --
    lucm, indeed.
  25. Re:Nuclear Power + Genetic Modifications by lucm · · Score: 3, Funny

    > Proud because possessing a vagina limits scientific prowess?

    Proud because a team of female researchers is half the price, so it is not only a scientific achievement, but also an economical one.

    --
    lucm, indeed.
  26. Possibly a Filter Method for Radio Active Waste? by LifesABeach · · Score: 2

    FTFA, “Our findings clearly identify nanowires as being the primary catalyst for uranium reduction.They are essentially performing nature’s version of electroplating with uranium, effectively immobilizing the radioactive material and preventing it from leaching into groundwater,”

    The biggest bleeding hemorrhoid of New Clear Power is the Radio Waste. Filter the radio active part away from the trash, and the trash can recycled. The Radio Active Waste part can then be recombined into something else that is useful. I was thinking of expensive blast furnaces with a combination of fractionating columns. But if some type of Bacteria can do the job, all be it one atom at a time, then my giant blast furnace patent could be in real jeopardy. So this now begs the question, how could one test it? Maybe a road trip to Chernobyl?

  27. Re:Slashdot presents: The Unholy Shit by symbolset · · Score: 0

    I have modpoints. I want to mod you up for an artful dissonance. But this work is worth far more than that, so instead I'll come here in my right nym and say: "recommended" because I think that is worth more. It's disgusting, vile, and recommended. Art like this is never off-topic. But now I need a shower to feel clean.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  28. Re:Nuclear Power + Genetic Modifications by bennomatic · · Score: 2

    nuclear energy + genetic engineering + nanoparticles = clean planet

    Yes. Maybe a little *too* clean. In other words, I, for one, welcome our new nuclear-fed, genetic engineered nano particle overlords.

    --
    The CB App. What's your 20?
  29. Re:Nuclear Power + Genetic Modifications by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

    If they oppose it, then it is a clear proof that their motivations are not as clear as they wish us to believe.

    Or, more probably, they don't believe your formula, and are wary of hidden snags.

  30. Now if only.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Now if only people would shoot themselves in their foot, and be sacrificial fodder for the greater good, we could force them to spend exorbitant amounts of their dollars into making nanowires, improved syntheic bacteria based on the ones the researchers used.

    Why aren't anyone shooting their own foot for the greater good?!! People are so selfish.

    BTW I won't shoot my own foot because I genuinely need it. So don't blame me. There are people who can afford to shoot themselves in the foot. Ask them to pay for it. Or better, let us force them to pay for it.

  31. Re:Nuclear Power + Genetic Modifications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My vote is that the source of her pride results from the perception of a Team Vagina Victory.

    In support of my vote consider that, from the about me section on her journal page, Mensa Babe states "I am a proud member of MENSA [mensa.org]", and then promptly states "I hate sexiest [sic] men, who are afraid of intelligent women."

    I think the misuse of the word "sexiest" wrt to sexist men negates the Team Vagina Victory and disqualifies her from MENSA.

    Unless she was MENStruating at the time she wrote it.

  32. Re:Nuclear Power + Genetic Modifications by symbolset · · Score: 1

    99.999999999% and then some of all the life forms on Earth are bacteria. Assuming you're human, the bacteria in your own body outnumber the not-bacteria cells more than 100:1.

    The bacteria own the the biosphere, from the highest reaches of the atmosphere to miles beneath the surface. The mass of bacteria outweigh all of the algae in the seas, plus all the trees, plus every other plant and animal living by 10x. Even if you break those down into individual cells, bacteria outnumber those cells by 10:1.

    The bacteria control the absorptoin of CO2, the temperature and the flow of ice

    We deem ourselves the masters of this world when it is only a lease, let for the nonce. Unless we 'scape this world we are no better than our single-celled brethren, and share their fate.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  33. Re:Nuclear Power + Genetic Modifications by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

    Thanks. Indeed, this thread is annoying, thanks for stopping it :-)

  34. Re:Nuclear Power + Genetic Modifications by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

    It could have been done by nazi pedophile devil beasts and I would still have been proud of the research.

    Indeed, nazis such as Dr Mengele did lots of medical research whose results are still useful today!

  35. WRONG : it does not "clean up nuclear waste" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The aim here is only to chemically transform the uranium molecule, to a form where it's unable to bind to water.
    So it only stops quick spreading.
    - it does not transform(transmute) the U. atom
    - it does not remove the radioactivity
    - it does not remove or concentrate the already spread uranium : you cannot cleat it
    - the effect is (i suppose, chimists may confirm) only temporary. U. needs millions of years to loose radioactivity

    Furthermore, while U. is a big problem around old uranium mines (steriles), the biggest problem is waste that comes out from nuclear reactors, which includes nearly all elements of the mendeleiev table, in various radioactive forms. That is not possible to clean up.

  36. Re:Slashdot presents: The Unholy Shit by mbstone · · Score: 1

    I also have modpoints and would also mod you artfully dissonant. Send it to Hustler Magazine with an SASE and see if they buy it. And work on your standup routine.

  37. Re:Nuclear Power + Genetic Modifications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, they did. And the research is widely known. No one cites their work though.

  38. Uranium by nojayuk · · Score: 2

    Uranium generally isn't a problem in radioactive spills or contamination. It's not particularly biotoxic as a metal or oxide and with very long half-lives for the two most common isotopes (U-235's half-life is 700 million years and for U-238 it's 4.5 billion years) it's not even very radioactive by itself. Most uranium ore bodies contain a lot of decay products like radium, thorium, polonium etc. which have built up over millions or billions of years and these are exposed to the wider environment when the uranium ore is mined and refined. A method of concentrating and sequestering such short-halflife isotopes from mine tailings would be more useful than this biological method which only, it seems, concentrates uranium. Right now the Japanese would really like a variant that, say, concentrated cesium in a similar manner as Cs-134 and Cs-137 are 99.9% of the contamination problem in the area around Fukushima.

    It might be this particular form of the bacteria could be better used to extract uranium from lesser ore bodies or even seawater where it is present in quantities of about 3 tonnes per cubic kilometre but right now and for the next fifty years or more uranium ore is plentiful enough that the costs of such marginal operations would outweigh the value of uranium metal (currently trading on world markets for 60 dollars a kilo) extracted by them.

    Of course uranium has a scary reputation -- see this news report for an example. Further comments suggest the uranium in question was 500 milligrammes of yellowcake in a sealed vial, a gift from a friend studying chem eng who had prepared it from ore found in New Mexico (just lying about out in the open! Horrors!).

    1. Re:Uranium by trout007 · · Score: 1

      To prove your point where did the uranium come from in the first place? It came from whatever past supernovas made up the dust and gas that made up our solar system. So it has at least been around at least 5 billion years maybe more. Like you said it is the radiation that is the problem and having such a long half life is good. I means every once in a while it decays and the radiation is very little compared with background radiation. The short half life stuff on the order of days and weeks isn't that bad either because it can easily be contained during the time it takes to decay enough to become safe. The problem is the stuff you mentioned like Cs-137 that have fairly long half lives of 30 years. Also it has a beta and gamma decay until it's stable so the radiation isn't blocked by your skin. So this means it puts out a good bit of radiation for about as long as a human life which is why it's so bad.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
  39. You all know the drill by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

    1. Wacky new source of power reported that will POWER ALL THE THINGS!
    2. Never heard about again
    3. "What ever happened to that what's it called? The thing? The- ah, never mind..."

  40. Re:Nuclear Power + Genetic Modifications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And why do you feed the trolls?

  41. You go gerl! by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

    Reguera has filed patents to build on her research, which could lead to the development of microbial fuel cells capable of generating electricity while cleaning up after environmental disasters.

    Way to speed up the process of building tools to protect people from disasters!

    --
    Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
  42. Woman Powered by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2

    This is excellent research. I noticed in the picture of the MSU research team that they're all women. I hope they can inspire more women to join the scientific research community. We need more people in it, and women are the majority of people. Without getting closer to 50:50 gender parity, we're losing the talent and hard work of a large fraction of the people pool we need to draw from. More role models will get more women to follow suit, just as they do for men.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Woman Powered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent troll. So fat I haven't seen in weeks.

  43. Re:Nuclear Power + Genetic Modifications by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 0

    You nuke fetishists are predictably absolutist. "Then they must support this technology" is the knee-jerk bottom line of all you nuke fetishists, no matter what the new nuke technology announced.

    You're also completely crazy, "Mensa (insecure and medium IQ) Babe". You don't care about CO2 because plants breathe it, and you want climate change, but you're more enviro than thou?

    I'm sure you've been corrected many times before. Just shut up already. Your privilege of posting in public doesn't entitle you to yammer like a moron. It does require you listen to what people say when you do it. Shut up.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  44. Re:Nuclear Power + Genetic Modifications by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    +1: Correct application of Godwin's Law :)

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  45. Could this explain "Cold Fusion" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could this explain the "Cold Fusion" results?

    1. Re:Could this explain "Cold Fusion" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd tell you to ask us a dumber question, but there's a remote chance one does exist, and if so, you'd clearly find it.

      The answer is no, and you'd have to be incredibly stupid to think it might. The massive stupidity required to believe "the 'cold fusion' results" means anything pales in comparison.

  46. Re:Nuclear Power + Genetic Modifications by kaliann · · Score: 0

    Yes, of course, because typos and misspellings are a female problem just like bloodstains.
    One simply cannot believe that a MENSA member might make a typo or not proofread something they wrote.

    Do you really think this person doesn't know the difference between sexist and sexiest? (Both of which will not be caught by a spell checker, since they are correctly spelled words.)

    BTW I would guess the source of pride is the simple visibility of a contribution to science made by a female team, as "hard science" is traditionally male dominated. It's good to see everyone getting involved: if more capable people work on problems, more solutions will result. Historical exclusion of women reduced the pool of potential scientists to draw from. This is better.

  47. Hmmm... by ad1217 · · Score: 1

    Not entirely sure I understand it, but does this mean they can clean up depleted uranium/ nuclear waste? That would be awesome.

  48. Eureka! by memorycardfull · · Score: 1

    The scientific inaccuracies in the summation and the article are the result of OP posting a science article from an design fetishist SEO content farm site. Hard to get the science right when you are masturbating to "100 Danish Pendant Lamps"...

  49. Re:Nuclear Power + Genetic Modifications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure you've been corrected many times before. Just shut up already. Your privilege of posting in public doesn't entitle you to yammer like a moron. It does require you listen to what people say when you do it. Shut up.

    I don't want to be rude but she isn't like TALKING you know. If you don't wanna read her posts then like STOP READING THEM? If you don't want to even see her posts then just add her to your foes list, add -6 comment modifier like i did and get over it. Here's how you do it. Its very simple and you wont ever see even her +5 posts ever again. Problem solved. No need to be a jerk. Unless your just trolling and you WANT to read her posts only to disagree with her because it makes you feel more macho or something...

  50. Terraforming by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

    We must make sure we keep this out of enemy hands. The Daleks could reclaim their planet Skaro from the Thals with this technology.

    --
    Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  51. Cool! by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    nuff said!

  52. For your enjoyment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://geobacter.org/

    Derek Lovely, the guy who found this bug, lab's website.

  53. Japanese Miracle in action... by loimprevisto · · Score: 1

    Proof that we're living in The Future. Ghost in the Shell fans will recognize the Japanese Miracle in action. The '30s should be an interesting decade...

    --
    Much Madness is divinest Sense --
    To a discerning Eye --
    Much Sense -- the starkest Madness
  54. Looks good by raymorphic · · Score: 1

    Hoping good results coming out.