Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by timothy on 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."

11 of 133 comments (clear)

  1. Two dolla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    One does not simply pay $2 to get into Mordor.

  2. Nature is very very versataile by onyxruby · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 theshowmecanuck · · 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.
    5. Re:Nature is very very versataile by BlueCoder · · 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.

  3. Not really BP by vlm · · 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 Solandri · · 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. New endangered species! by cvtan · · 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.
  5. How did they get there? by bbartlog · · 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?