Toxic Montana Lake's Extremophiles Might Be a Medical Treasure Trove

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Toxic Montana Lake's Extremophiles Might Be a Medical Treasure Trove

Posted by timothy on Sunday December 4, 2011 @02:29AM from the toxic-waste-pit-is-half-full dept.

EagleHasLanded writes "The Berkeley Pit, an abandoned open pit copper mine in Butte, Montana — part of the largest Superfund site in the U.S. — is filled with 40 billion gallons of acidic, metal-contaminated water. For years the water was believed to be too toxic to support life, until Andrea and Donald Stierle, a pair of organic chemists at the University of Montana, discovered that the Pit is a rich source of unusual extremophiles, 'many of which have shown great promise as producers of potential anti-cancer agents and anti-inflammatories.' In the course of their ongoing investigation, the two self-described 'bioprospectors' have also discovered an uncommon yeast, which might play a significant role in cleaning up the site. In the meantime, the Pit has become a tourist attraction in Butte, which charges $2 for the opportunity to take in the view from the Viewing Stand."

48 of 133 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Two dolla by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-04 02:33 · Score: 5, Funny

One does not simply pay $2 to get into Mordor.
1. Re:Two dolla by msauve · 2011-12-04 03:54 · Score: 2
  
  If you don't want to pay $2, then just visit the /. "tourist attraction." timothy strikes again.
  
  --
  "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
2. Re:Two dolla by FooAtWFU · 2011-12-04 04:18 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Superfund? More like superfun!
  (yes. i stole that line from spacechem.)
  
  --
  The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
3. Re:Two dolla by JRowe47 · 2011-12-04 12:34 · Score: 2
  
  Come visit our giant toxic Butte-hole!
Nature is very very versataile by onyxruby · 2011-12-04 02:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

Nature is extremely versatile and life has and will always find a way. Change the environment enough and most of what's out there will die except for a few things that survive, learn to adapt an ultimately thrive. Mass extinction simply means new opportunities for new creatures and the geological record shows this time and time again.
This has been the case from the small mammals that replaced the dinosaurs to the those that learned to thrive in the oxygen that was poisonous to the life that lived before that.
Man is very arrogant, to think that we should be the judge and jury of every species on the planet. We need to remember that we only one of countless other species of this planet and to be good neighbors.
Change is inevitable, it's probably my biggest gripe against people that are vehement about global warming, this idea that nothing should ever change. Just because a bird species used to stop at this place means that it should always stop at this place.
It's as if these people didn't realize that change is the only thing consistent about our planets biological history. From snowball earth to tropics in the arctic our world has never had a 'normal'. We need to learn to balance ourselves against our planets inevitable future of change.
1. Re:Nature is very very versataile by Dexter+Herbivore · 2011-12-04 02:56 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  I agree with your basic viewpoint, but consider the benefits of at least getting a decent chance to study a wide variety of organisms before they go extinct. Shouldn't we try to preserve as much as possible until we have the resources to understand them fully? From a purely economic POV, more valuable compounds like those found from these extremophiles 'many of which have shown great promise as producers of potential anti-cancer agents and anti-inflammatories.' surely has to be a consideration? If an organism or species is wiped out before we have a decent chance to study it, don't we lose those sorts of opportunities?
2. Re:Nature is very very versataile by vlm · 2011-12-04 02:57 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Change is inevitable, it's probably my biggest gripe against people that are vehement about global warming, this idea that nothing should ever change. Just because a bird species used to stop at this place means that it should always stop at this place.
  In some ways its even more extreme... I looked it up and there was no mine there until 1955, relatively recently in the evolutionary history of birdies by any timescale. Living in glacial territory, there are no lakes of any sort in my area older than ten thousand years or so.
  The numbers are impressive, a good fraction of a cubic mile was scooped up and hauled away in less than a quarter century. Wowzers. I'm sure more rock was moved in my little city over the last 20 years building mcmansions for the housing bubble, but obviously not all in one hole.
  
  --
  "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
3. Re:Nature is very very versataile by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-04 02:59 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Change is inevitable, it's probably my biggest gripe against people that are vehement about global warming, this idea that nothing should ever change. Just because a bird species used to stop at this place means that it should always stop at this place.
  It's as if these people didn't realize that change is the only thing consistent about our planets biological history. From snowball earth to tropics in the arctic our world has never had a 'normal'. We need to learn to balance ourselves against our planets inevitable future of change.
  The problem with global warming isn't so much that it will produce change, but that it will produce change caused by and unfavorable to humans.
4. Re:Nature is very very versataile by quasius · 2011-12-04 03:05 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  People who support dealing with climate change don't seriously think nothing will ever change again. They think that since we now have the ability to effect global climate we should probably be at least trying to do it in a way that isn't terrible for us. Of course the Earth and its life would survive a massive climate shift. But, as a human, I'd rather us go to the stars instead of bombing and polluting ourselves into a regressed society or even extinction.
5. Re:Nature is very very versataile by idji · 2011-12-04 03:17 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  people who are "vehement about global warming" are not rejecters of change, are really aware we are one of countless other species, say we should stop being arrogant, and are trying to convince the rest that we should all be good neighbors. A good neighbor willfully doesn't destroy the environment for others within a few generations and fixes up his mistakes. I agree, our world has never had a "normal", but there is a MASSIVE difference between natural change on geological time scales, and deliberate change WITHIN a few generations, giving species no time to adapt.
6. Re:Nature is very very versataile by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-04 03:17 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Change is inevitable, it's probably my biggest gripe against people that are vehement about global warming, this idea that nothing should ever change. Just because a bird species used to stop at this place means that it should always stop at this place.
  You misreading the target of that vehemence to suit a political perspective... They're vehement because, when the bird stops at a new place or runs out of places to stop, that is a signal that things are changing rapidly enough that our own survival may be at stake. Further, we have evidence that suggests our own influence may be a major contributing factor to changes that may or may not be a good thing for us and our neighbors..
  We need to be good neighbors? Fine... That's a two way street. Just as we shouldn't stand in the way of change with a judge/jury perspective; we should neither represent a solitary agent of change that could destroy or alter our current ecosystem far outside the bounds of a natural sequence of events. If it's possible or probable that we've already done this, then we owe it to our neighbors to investigate means of stopping and/or reversing these changes. Finally, it's not likely we will ever be a good enough neighbor to set aside our survival instincts to the point that we will ignore evidence that our own survival might be at stake for the sake of *maybe* being the ultimate neighbor and allowing our home to crumble into the sea so a bunch of acid lake extremophiles can evolve into bipeds simply because we needed to pull some metal out of the ground.
7. Re:Nature is very very versataile by Tanktalus · 2011-12-04 03:19 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  It's all in the reading. You could take this example to show the opposite: we need to clear out our biosphere of animals, plants, etc., that aren't helping us cure cancer so that new ones can emerge.
8. Re:Nature is very very versataile by Surt · 2011-12-04 04:20 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  It's an interesting theory, but how will you know what you don't know? That is, it might be hard to identify, today, what might turn out to be an absolutely vital compound 40 years down the road. Or even one year down the road. And we have to weigh that potential discovery against the potential progress man might make by wiping out some species. Maybe Giraffe tongues cure Ekeeber's syndrome, which turns out to be what tends to kill old people when you take cancer out of the mix. I don't think that should hold us back from wiping out the Giraffes, because, frankly, Giraffes are creepy, and we're better off without them.
  
  --
  "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
9. Re:Nature is very very versataile by theshowmecanuck · 2011-12-04 04:21 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  From this page:
  
  In fact, hundreds of waterfowl land on the surface of the Berkeley Pit every month during migration seasons, and they typically fly off unharmed within a few hours, either on their own or through Montana Resource's hazing activities, also known as the waterfowl mitigation program. The 2002 Consent Decree recognizes that "birds exposed to Berkeley Pit water for less than 4-6 hours should not be at substantial risk." ... In November 1995, a flock of snow geese landed on the Pit lake. After several days of stormy weather and fog, 342 birds were found dead.
  
  --
  -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
10. Re:Nature is very very versataile by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-04 04:22 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Sorry buddy. I'm Canadian - Northern Canadian. Like, Nunavut. I don't think the warming is a good thing, either. Don't speak for people you don't understand.
11. Re:Nature is very very versataile by BlueCoder · 2011-12-04 04:26 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  I find it so hard to even have an opinion about global warming because the questions and subject is so loaded.
  First of all the global temperature doesn't stay the same, it's constantly rising and falling. Earth has ice ages which are defined as ice sheet existing on planet as is the case currently at our poles and we have glacial periods and interglacial periods which are defined as more extensive ice sheets and the times between them.
  The earth naturally undergoes periods without any ice caps all at the poles. Volcanoes erupt all the time (in the geological sense) and put out way way more gases that change the atmosphere more profoundly than man. A bunch of small volcanoes can cause global warming in a few thousands of years and a large super volcano explosion can send us into an ice age and or glacial period overnight.
  Earth weather does indeed change and that is the norm.
  Human beings are unquestionably contributing to climate change. But how bad is it really vs the climate shifts that would occur anyways if we didn't exist? Where no one makes the distinction is calculating where the climate would be without humans. Global temperatures and been consistently rising since modern man appeared at the beginning of the decline of the last glacial period approximately 12,000 years ago. We probably didn't significantly effect climate until at the earliest 2000 years ago although I suspect is more like after 1200AD. But the earth was warming anyways...
  Second they don't comment on possible benefits climate change can have in some areas vs the bad in others. No one seems to even notice that without ice caps we get a new continent to inhabit.
  Further it seems to me we are overly focused on greenhouse gases and the atmosphere and temperature. I think a bigger issue of consequence is deforestation of unoccupied land and the over farming of the oceans. The more variety of life the quicker the adaptation rate.
  And while we may be totally fuck up this planets current ecology I doubt we could destroy it completely even intentionally. Given our best shot to turn the earth into a desert I bet the earth would be teaming with life again 100 million years later.
12. Re:Nature is very very versataile by Anonymus · 2011-12-04 04:29 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  If you're fine with waiting at least few hundred thousand years for that kind of diversity to even think about beginning to reappear.
13. Re:Nature is very very versataile by poly_pusher · 2011-12-04 05:45 · Score: 2
  
  Organisms as a whole do not "learn to adapt." Some organisms possess intelligence which is a trait allowing conscious adaptation to a changing environment. Most just happen to be born with a trait which suits the changing environment. For instance, say a litter of wolves are born at the beginning of the last Ice age. One or 2 of these wolves have thicker coats than the rest. While the warmer temperature were previously suitable, now the colder temperatures kills off the offspring with thin coats and the thick coat pups grow up and pass along that genetic trait to more of it's offspring. The offspring not possessing it die or are less likely to procreate and so on. They just happen to be well suited and have a better chance of passing on advantageous traits. So you see no reason to try and preserve our environment in a state that suits us well? Frankly I think it is arrogant to decide that we need not do anything because the earth will continue. You are right that the earth has experienced massive changes throughout it's lifespan. That is exactly why we need to understand our impact on the earth. I haven't heard anyone argue that we should save the Earth for the Earth's sake. We need to understand how to keep the earth in a state close to what we've experienced for the last 20,000 years. Does that mean preserving species to maintain their role in an ecosystem? Does that mean reducing carbon emissions into our atmosphere? Does that mean cleaning highly toxic dump sites where only extremophiles can exist? We really don't know do we? And that is exactly why we need to understand our changing world better and try to preserve it best we can until we find out what may alter it past being suitable for human life...
14. Re:Nature is very very versataile by Princeofcups · 2011-12-04 06:11 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It's as if these people didn't realize that change is the only thing consistent about our planets biological history. From snowball earth to tropics in the arctic our world has never had a 'normal'. We need to learn to balance ourselves against our planets inevitable future of change.
  Nature can adapt readily to slow change. The dying off of a species to make way for a new one. But history shows that it does not deal well with rapid change. Nature does not have the time it needs to adapt to the changes that we are doing to this planet. Species are dying off at a catastrophic rate. If the eco system collapses, we go with it. Nature is strong and will survive, but we are just a tiny fragile part of the whole. Man has the capability of causing massive destructive change, to the point that we would not survive it.
  
  --
  The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
15. Re:Nature is very very versataile by SuperKendall · 2011-12-04 09:54 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I don't think the warming is a good thing, either.
  Well you just removed yourself from the discussion of knowing what the hell you are talking about.
  A warmer Canada could grow more crops etc.
  In general humans thrive in warmer climates, in all sorts of ways.
  You "may not like it" but you certainly have no rational general reason for stating that, just personal preference and being uncomfortable with change (which comes to us all anyway regardless of preference).
  
  --
  "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
16. Re:Nature is very very versataile by Halo1 · 2011-12-04 13:07 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  You seem to forget the part where more than half of the US population may want to migrate to Canada. Northern Canada may become more habitable, but many other places will become way less habitable. And it's unlikely to be a zero-sum game, even if you discount the costs of moving billions of people and their infrastructure all over the world from one place to another.
  
  Well you just removed yourself from the discussion of knowing what the hell you are talking about.
  Hear, hear...
  
  --
  Donate free food here
17. Re:Nature is very very versataile by SuperKendall · 2011-12-04 16:11 · Score: 2
  
  You seem to forget the part where more than half of the US population may want to migrate to Canada
  Why? You greatly inflate the desire of anyone to move to Canada. Not that it's not a nice place, I have been there a number of times - but you are simply ignoring human nature.
  Hundreds of millions of people live in Mexico and South America, which is past the worst car of what we can probably expect from Global Warming. The truth is it's WAY easier for life of all kinds to deal with heat than cold, because it's all energy pouring into the system as opposed to a system fundamentally having less energy input.
  The south would become hotter - big deal, they can adapt. Most people would not move. The people closest to Canada would probably enjoy the weather the central U.S. gets and THEY certainly wouldn't want to move.
  People keep fantasizing about mass migrations to place X, but the truth is that lots of people like to stay where they are even when things change. And the kinds of changes in the end we are looking at are no so drastic that people almost anywhere would move.
  
  --
  "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
18. Re:Nature is very very versataile by Toonol · 2011-12-04 18:28 · Score: 2
  
  How long did it take in this case? A few decades? Evolution can occur pretty quickly. How long did Darwin's finches take? Not hundreds of thousands of years
Not really BP by vlm · 2011-12-04 02:51 · Score: 5, Interesting

"BP-owned toxic lake"
I'll be the last to support our crony commie-capitalist system, but that's pretty far fetched agitprop.
ARCO ran the place until '82, mothballed it, and then BP bought ARCO 18 years later in '00.
Its a "sins of the father afflicting the sons" argument at best. At worst its a "my great-great-great grandfather immigrated here two decades after the civil war ended, therefore I'm liable and should pay restitution to the g-g-g-g-g-g-great grandsons of former slaves.". BP has about as much to do with what happened to this mine, as I do with what happened on plantations in the 1830s.
Anyone painting with a broad brush, no matter how noble the goal, is usually a crook. Thanks but no thanks.
My geologist ex-roomie did some fieldwork involving acid runoff from mining operations "somewhere out west" donno if this was related. Its a pretty serious local problem. Ironically the more toxic the water, the more likely you'll find someone wanting to refine metals out of the water, making the problem go completely away. Unfortunately sounds like this site is a local maxima of destruction, if the concentration were lower it would just be another boring manmade pond, and if the concentration were higher, you'd have armies of refineries fighting over who gets the refine valuable metal outta the water.

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
1. Re:Not really BP by Dexter+Herbivore · 2011-12-04 02:59 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  "BP-owned toxic lake" I'll be the last to support our crony commie-capitalist system, but that's pretty far fetched agitprop.
  They did say BP-owned, not BP-caused/created. So technically it's accurate.
2. Re:Not really BP by joebagodonuts · 2011-12-04 03:12 · Score: 2
  
  Legally liable. That liability was part of the purchase. Just sayin'
  
  --
  "Give a woman two glasses of wine and some pad thai, and they'll agree to just about anything." the Sports Guy
3. Re:Not really BP by Solandri · 2011-12-04 03:49 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  "BP-owned toxic lake"
  I'll be the last to support our crony commie-capitalist system, but that's pretty far fetched agitprop.
  ARCO ran the place until '82, mothballed it, and then BP bought ARCO 18 years later in '00.
  Its a "sins of the father afflicting the sons" argument at best. At worst its a "my great-great-great grandfather immigrated here two decades after the civil war ended, therefore I'm liable and should pay restitution to the g-g-g-g-g-g-great grandsons of former slaves.". BP has about as much to do with what happened to this mine, as I do with what happened on plantations in the 1830s.
  I'm actually one who does support our crony capitalist system, but you're apologizing too much. One of the tradeoffs of corporate personhood is that since corporations cannot die like a real person (taking their knowledge, skills, and ethics to the grave), their liabilities must be transferred when they're bought and sold. So in this case, BP is in fact liable for the sins of ARCO, and any companies whose liabilities ARCO likewise acquired.
  
  It does bring up an interesting question though. According to TFA, the biologists studying the organisms in the lake patented some of the yeast they found. Shouldn't the patent belong to ARCO/BP, as the progenitor of said yeast? It sounds like a repeat of that spat where some researchers patented some gene derived from a patient's excised cancer tumor, with the patient arguing that the patent rightfully belongs to him since the gene was originally from his body part. "Invention" vs. discovery.
4. Re:Not really BP by Dexter+Herbivore · 2011-12-04 04:17 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  No shit. Any literate dumbass can see that.
  So you're saying that the GP is an illiterate dumbass? (Your words, not mine). My point was that possibly it was the GP's own pre-conceptions that were the problem and not the article itself. Considering the article contains the following:
  
  So it’s ironic that the damage done by mining is now playing a key role in terms of safeguarding the town’s financial future. “There’s a lot of money in toxic waste,” says Donald, noting that in recent years BP-Arco has poured $800 million into the cleanup of Butte and the Clark Fork River. “I think Butte would be a ghost town if not for those hundreds of millions of dollars,” he says."
  it strikes me as pretty fair and balanced on the whole.
5. Re:Not really BP by Anonymus · 2011-12-04 04:35 · Score: 2
  
  If I steal $50 million dollars and give it to my son, does he have to give the money back? What about when he passes it on to his kid? And they pass it on to their kids? What if they spend the $50 million on building a business empire, or buy a massive mansion, or convert it to gold, or (hint hint) spend it on the best connections and education money can buy, guaranteeing them an advantage over everyone else around them?
  What do you believe the statute of limitations should be on reparations?
6. Re:Not really BP by wolvesofthenight · 2011-12-04 06:12 · Score: 2
  
  No, ARCO should not be given the patent - nor should the researchers - because there should not be such a patent. Assuming the patent is simply on something they discovered then it should be invalid. Patents should be limited to a subset of human creations. Things you find in nature should not be patentable.
  
  --
  -WolvesOfTheNight
7. Re:Not really BP by Miseph · 2011-12-04 10:50 · Score: 3
  
  BP could certainly try to recover the funds from ARCO, but since they acquired ARCO's assets and turned them into BP's assets, it would be a pretty pointless exercise.
  
  --
  Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
Slashdot is a tourist attraction eh? by ToiletBomber · 2011-12-04 02:52 · Score: 2

I hope slashdot doesn't, er, slashdot itself.
New endangered species! by cvtan · 2011-12-04 02:54 · Score: 5, Funny

You realize that new creatures inhabiting the the toxic lake must now be protected from anyone wishing to clean up the water. The toxic lifestyle must be preserved! My head is going to explode.

--
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
1. Re:New endangered species! by cvtan · 2011-12-04 04:28 · Score: 2
  
  I got better.
  
  --
  Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
How did they get there? by bbartlog · 2011-12-04 03:16 · Score: 5, Interesting

Unanswered but interesting question - where did these extremophiles come from? Are we looking at evolution on a very short time frame (plausible for microorganisms) or are there actually very small numbers of these critters drifting around all the time, just looking for a toxic, acidic lake they can call home?
1. Re:How did they get there? by Surt · 2011-12-04 04:11 · Score: 2
  
  Well, there was at least one answer in there. Some of the organisms are arriving and evolving. There's specific mention of an interesting yeast which arrived in the bowels of some geese that had the misfortune to try to rest there while migrating.
  I would assume that most of the novel organisms are evolving there. Some of those organisms have probably had a million generations by now.
  
  --
  "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
2. Re:How did they get there? by DerekLyons · 2011-12-04 05:13 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Unanswered but interesting question - where did these extremophiles come from? Are we looking at evolution on a very short time frame (plausible for microorganisms)
  There's two effects in play here for bacteria evolved locally... The first is that bacteria reproduce rapidly [1], so the bacteria around the pit have gone through an enormous number of generations. (254,000 from the closing of the pit to the present day assuming an average generation time of just one hour [2].) The second is the staggering number of potential ancestors - in the billions in soil surrounding the pit, fecal bacteria from birds and animals, etc... etc...
  
  The result is a essentially a giant distributed memory MIMD parallel processor [3] attacking the problem of colonizing the waters of the pit.
  
  are there actually very small numbers of these critters drifting around all the time, just looking for a toxic, acidic lake they can call home?
  As I point out above, there are numerous potential ancestors. If I had to guess, I'd say they likely didn't colonize the pit directly - they likely colonized the margins and gradually drifted inwards toward the pit with successive generations each able to tolerate a higher level of acid and toxic materials.
  
  [1] As little as half an hour under ideal circumstances - which is why food safety recommendations want things kept cool and cooled/or heated rapidly. A very small amount of bacterial contamination can become a big problem in a short time because bacterial population growth is exponential.
  [2] Which is why fruit flies, with a generation time of ten days, are popular for genetics studies.
  [3] Incidentally, the same is true of the early Earth. Creationists like to point out the unlikelihood of life arising because of the low odds of the right chemical conditions arising - but with thousands of lighting strikes (to take one proposed cause) occurring daily in a wide variety of locations, you have the same distributed memory MIMD effect. Though the chance of a given combination occurring is low, when you're trying multiple solutions in parallel, the odds of that combination appearing rise dramatically.
3. Re:How did they get there? by petsounds · 2011-12-04 11:15 · Score: 2
  
  [3] Incidentally, the same is true of the early Earth. Creationists like to point out the unlikelihood of life arising because of the low odds of the right chemical conditions arising - but with thousands of lighting strikes (to take one proposed cause) occurring daily in a wide variety of locations
  Actually, according to the NOAA Severe Storms Lab, lightning strikes the ground of the Earth about eight MILLION times a day. So, a lot more chances than you suggested!
Aptoymn by barlevg · 2011-12-04 03:43 · Score: 3, Funny

The scientists studying a toxic lake thought to be unable to support life have the last name... Stierle?
Re:the 3-eyed fish is eery by damn_registrars · 2011-12-04 04:03 · Score: 2

At 0:54 in the video you briefly catch a glimpse of a 3-eyed fish jumping out of the lake ... eerily reminiscent of the Simpsons.
Unfortunately, that fish is only visible if you're watching the video on the 30th of February.

--
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
toxic waste is good for you by decora · 2011-12-04 05:17 · Score: 4, Insightful

the mining company (and hedge fund and investment banks) PR people are obviously loving this.
nevermind the hundreds of thousands of people over the world who are sickened and injured by toxic waste over the years. nevermind that these shareholders and boards of directors keep billions in profit while dumping this sludge cleanup bill on taxpayers.
no. this stuff "might cure cancer!"
you know what would ACTUALLY cure cancer?
if you stop pouring cancer-causing chemicals into the air and water. we know FOR A FACT that air pollution leads directly to asthma and cancer deaths, and yet every year these money sucking scumfucks push and push and bribe politicians so that they wont have to clean it up, so they can keep their profits and their mansions and their trophy wives and their cocaine habits.
fuck them, and fuck the morons who think this is going to 'cure' social problems.
Re:Migratory birds. by Patch86 · 2011-12-04 05:18 · Score: 4, Informative

And why doesn't Green peace protest against BP? Gulf spill comes to mind.
You think they don't?
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/files/bp/rebranded/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-10771805
Re:Correct me if I'm wrong by rubycodez · 2011-12-04 05:24 · Score: 2

you calculated a volume that is completely insignificant to the size of the planet. Amazing how man has made so much of the planet useful, liveable and productive for himself.
Uncommon yeast, uncommon beer by handy_vandal · 2011-12-04 05:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

... an uncommon yeast, which might play a significant role in cleaning up the site.
Never mind the site cleanup. Let's brew uncommon beer.

--
-kgj
1. Re:Uncommon yeast, uncommon beer by bar-agent · 2011-12-04 15:13 · Score: 2
  
  Beer is already a mild toxin. We use these yeasts, bam!, kick it up a notch!
  
  --
  i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
Devils Advocate by SuperKendall · 2011-12-04 09:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

From a purely economic POV, more valuable compounds like those found from these extremophiles 'many of which have shown great promise as producers of potential anti-cancer agents and anti-inflammatories.' surely has to be a consideration?
Here you just buried your case though. Who created the conditions for these things to thrive after all? Was it people like you who would have let the mining site along until we could perfectly "understand" every jackrabbit and pine tree in the area? Or the miners who probably didn't care about that much whatsoever but have created a garden for a wide variety of potentially amazingly useful organisms?
So from a purely economic point of view it is better to let nature take it's course in all ways possible (including whatever mankind will do) and then study the results to see what might be gained from it.
Just saying'...

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The Butte Hole by crunchygranola · 2011-12-04 10:01 · Score: 2

This is such an obvious appellation - we should run with it.

--
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
Later that day... by SuperKendall · 2011-12-04 10:04 · Score: 2

Yes, if by "himself" you mean the present generation. Following generations might have a less positive perspective.
You mean the ones who get to benefit from an array of amazing drugs produced by this one tiny pit of pollution?
Our ancestors, they may not be as down as you think.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley