Super Bacteria Create Gold

throw out the dictionary, you aren't using it. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-02 10:54 · Score: 5, Informative

This bacteria refines gold compounds.

Re:throw out the dictionary, you aren't using it. by darkfeline · 2012-10-02 11:29 · Score: 2

make 1 [meyk] Show IPA verb, made, making, noun verb (used with object) 1. to bring into existence by shaping or changing material, combining parts, etc. Speak for yourself. FYI, make does not mean summon out of thin air.
Re:throw out the dictionary, you aren't using it. by darkfeline · 2012-10-02 11:31 · Score: 1

Derp. create [kree-eyt] Show IPA verb, created, creating, adjective verb (used with object) 1. to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes. Does gold chloride naturally precipitate into gold?
Re:throw out the dictionary, you aren't using it. by ClickOnThis · 2012-10-02 11:40 · Score: 5, Informative

Derp. create [kree-eyt] Show IPA verb, created, creating, adjective verb (used with object) 1. to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes. Does gold chloride naturally precipitate into gold?
The bacterium does not make the gold. It separates it from the gold chloride molecule.
The only things in the universe that create gold atoms are supernovae. On earth, nuclear transmutation is possible in principle (via particle accelerators, tokamaks, etc.) but I don't think anyone has set up a process to make gold successfully that way.

--
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Re:throw out the dictionary, you aren't using it. by Formalin · 2012-10-02 11:47 · Score: 5, Informative

You can turn one of the isotopes of mercury to gold in a reactor, but it is not cost effective, and presumably has some issues (I'd imagine if the mercury was not all the pure isotope, you would get other radioactive products...)
The bacteria doesn't make gold. correct.
Re:throw out the dictionary, you aren't using it. by wierd_w · 2012-10-02 12:25 · Score: 4, Interesting

I have seen videos of people using neutron capture with heavy isotopes of mercury to produce gold in fast breeder reactors as a proof of concept. Wikipedia gives a little information, but I really do remember seeing a demonstration with a teeny vial of centrifuged mercury being installed in the high flux compartment of the reactor, then removed several days later with thin inclusions of gold inside the vial.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthesis_of_precious_metals#section_4
Re:throw out the dictionary, you aren't using it. by binarybum · 2012-10-02 12:55 · Score: 1

make 1 [meyk] Show IPA verb, made, making, noun verb (used with object) 1. to bring into existence by shaping or changing material, combining parts, etc. i.e. He made that spoon from an even bigger spoon

--
ôó
Re:throw out the dictionary, you aren't using it. by rubycodez · 2012-10-02 13:22 · Score: 5, Informative

gold from lead was done in the 1950s with particle accelerators, and interestingly the reverse is easier, gold to lead in a fission reactor done by a series of neutron captures followed by beta decays to form the pretty dull grey metal from the ugly shiny yellow one.
Re:throw out the dictionary, you aren't using it. by spitzak · 2012-10-02 13:27 · Score: 1, Funny

Car companies don't make cars. They just rearrange molecules until they are formed into a car shape.
Re:throw out the dictionary, you aren't using it. by Max+Threshold · 2012-10-02 13:34 · Score: 1

The main problem is that it would take billions of years to make a gram.
Re:throw out the dictionary, you aren't using it. by 1u3hr · 2012-10-02 14:00 · Score: 1

Car companies don't make cars. They just rearrange molecules until they are formed into a car shape.
Nobody was rearranging protons and neutrons to form gold nuclei. Which is what "making gold" (or any other element) entails. They were just refining it.
Re:throw out the dictionary, you aren't using it. by meerling · 2012-10-02 14:24 · Score: 1

It separates and concentrates the gold, it does not make it.
The problem is the person that wrote the title for the Slashdot article doesn't understand that 'produce' and 'create' do not always mean the same thing, and so screwed up the meaning of the article title by changing one word.
Re:throw out the dictionary, you aren't using it. by Mt._Honkey · 2012-10-02 14:57 · Score: 1

People make gold in particle accelerators (including mine) all the time. It's just a question of quantity.

--

Don't Bogart the fish sticks
Re:throw out the dictionary, you aren't using it. by DarwinSurvivor · 2012-10-02 15:00 · Score: 2

This is more akin to mining, you're just mining in a liquid with bacteria instead of in a hole with shovels.
Re:throw out the dictionary, you aren't using it. by ClickOnThis · 2012-10-02 15:33 · Score: 1

It makes gold from gold chloride. It does not create gold since creation implies making something out of nothing. Since the title says "create" the title is wrong, but you are not much more right either.
Semantics. I could claim that I "make" gold bricks by extracting gold from mined ores. But do I "make" gold atoms? Hell no.
In many contexts, you could adjust your definition of "gold" to claim that you "make" it. But you'd be abusing the definition of both. Bottom line: you can't make gold without nuclear reactions.

--
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Re:throw out the dictionary, you aren't using it. by ackthpt · 2012-10-02 15:56 · Score: 1

This bacteria refines gold compounds.
Shocking - can't tell the difference between Alchemy and Chemistry. Ignorance is rampant.

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Re:throw out the dictionary, you aren't using it. by sFurbo · 2012-10-02 19:32 · Score: 1

That depends on the definition of "gold". For every element, there is at least three different meanings of it's name:
1) (one of) the chemical compound(s) (allotropes) that only consists of those atoms.
2) Atoms of that element.
3) The "platonic ideal", the very idea that atoms having a certain number of protons in the core behave in certain ways.
The first have physical properties like density and color, the first and the second have properties such isotopic ratios, the second have properties such as oxidation states or being part of a compound, the third have properties such as potential oxidation states and possible compounds.
For the first definition, the bacteria creates gold, for the second, they don't. For the third, it is hard to see how you could create it. Perhaps changing the laws of physics?
Re:throw out the dictionary, you aren't using it. by hackertourist · 2012-10-02 22:19 · Score: 1

In 1972, Soviet physicists at a nuclear research facility near Lake Baikal in Siberia accidentally discovered a reaction for turning lead into gold when they found some of the lead shielding of an experimental reactor had changed to gold
Re:throw out the dictionary, you aren't using it. by BlackSnake112 · 2012-10-03 01:32 · Score: 1

Ignorance is rampant.
Your just getting that message now? Where have you been hiding? It appears to be a very good place to be.
Re:throw out the dictionary, you aren't using it. by jackbird · 2012-10-03 02:44 · Score: 1

No, the 'mining' in this process involves filling up a bucket with gold chloride, possibly using a shovel and a hole. This is indeed the smelting/refining step.
Re:throw out the dictionary, you aren't using it. by cthulhu11 · 2012-10-03 05:14 · Score: 1

Thank you for knowing the different between the singular (bacterium) and plural (bacteria). I cringed when I read the abstract.

Wrong section by cfalcon · 2012-10-02 10:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

Shouldn't we have a Newton up there instead of the Einstein?

This is the alchemy section right?

Darn it! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-02 10:59 · Score: 1

I was thrilled until I heard it makes gold out of gold chloride. So, it extracts existing gold.

Re:Darn it! by ceoyoyo · 2012-10-02 11:16 · Score: 5, Funny

You thought they'd found bacteria that can do nuclear fusion maybe?
Re:Darn it! by Firehed · 2012-10-02 11:26 · Score: 2

That's what the title suggests, especially with the "super bacteria" moniker.

--
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
Re:Darn it! by ceoyoyo · 2012-10-02 11:34 · Score: 2

Yes, Slashdot editors aren't the brightest. That would be some super bacteria though.
Re:Darn it! by msauve · 2012-10-02 12:16 · Score: 1

Bacterial alchemists!

--
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Re:Darn it! by BryanL · 2012-10-02 12:39 · Score: 1

If Nibblonians can crap dark matter, why not?
Re:Darn it! by rubycodez · 2012-10-02 13:24 · Score: 1

but they have to eat enormous quantities of regular baryonic cattle to do that. Do you realize how many hogs and cows it takes to crap a trip to the nearest star?
Re:Darn it! by 1u3hr · 2012-10-02 14:02 · Score: 1

You thought they'd found bacteria that can do nuclear fusion maybe?
I thought maybe Pons and Fleischmann had claimed to, anyway.
Re:Darn it! by rwise2112 · 2012-10-03 02:24 · Score: 1

Lela: Someone likes snouts!
Fry: Is it me?

--

"For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
Re:Darn it! by CanHasDIY · 2012-10-03 02:37 · Score: 1

but they have to eat enormous quantities of regular baryonic cattle to do that. Do you realize how many hogs and cows it takes to crap a trip to the nearest star?
42?

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Re:Darn it! by jackbird · 2012-10-03 02:45 · Score: 1

They're not 25 times stronger - they're stronger to the 25th power!

Misleading headline by DoofusOfDeath · 2012-10-02 10:59 · Score: 5, Informative

They're not creating the element gold from another element, they're extracting it from a compound.

Re:Misleading headline by Blue+Stone · 2012-10-02 11:03 · Score: 1

And additionally, the usefulness of this will depend on how abundant and accessible Gold-Chloride is.

--
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
Re:Misleading headline by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-02 11:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

Or the price of gold would plummet, some products that used a lesser alternative due to cost will switch to gold, and people needing a different store of value would just switch to something else. People investing in gold are taking some finite risk that a bunch of gold gets dumped on the market at some point anyways (whether from a new mine, or some previous holder selling).
Re:Misleading headline by camperdave · 2012-10-02 11:22 · Score: 5, Funny

This was known to the Illuminati ages ago. Why do you think they ordered the US to get off the gold standard. They knew it would be worthless soon.

--
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Re:Misleading headline by ceoyoyo · 2012-10-02 11:23 · Score: 5, Informative

Gold Chloride is not naturally occurring and expensive to make. If you managed to get hold of some gold chloride and decided for some reason you wanted the gold metal out of it, you could mix it with hydrogen peroxide or pretty much any reducing agent and get gold without having to wait a week. Or you could just heat it up on an ordinary stove (but don't breathe in).
This is performance art, nothing more.
Re:Misleading headline by sjames · 2012-10-02 11:48 · Score: 2

Some of those people with a substantial investment might just be willing to 'mitigate' their risk...
Re:Misleading headline by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-02 12:38 · Score: 5, Informative

Gold Chloride is not naturally occurring and expensive to make. If you managed to get hold of some gold chloride and decided for some reason you wanted the gold metal out of it, you could mix it with hydrogen peroxide or pretty much any reducing agent and get gold without having to wait a week. Or you could just heat it up on an ordinary stove (but don't breathe in).
This is performance art, nothing more.
You are missing the point. Gold Chloride does form naturally. It is in ocean water at levels between 15-75 ppt. Are you going to boil all of the ocean water to extract the gold? Have you heard of bioremediation?
Re:Misleading headline by dj245 · 2012-10-02 14:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

Gold Chloride is not naturally occurring and expensive to make. If you managed to get hold of some gold chloride and decided for some reason you wanted the gold metal out of it, you could mix it with hydrogen peroxide or pretty much any reducing agent and get gold without having to wait a week. Or you could just heat it up on an ordinary stove (but don't breathe in).
This is performance art, nothing more.
No. It is research, and a terrible headline.

Gold isn't the end goal here. Bacteria that survive in heavy metal solutions are pretty rare. Bacteria that do something useful with those heavy metal solutions are even rarer. The end goal is probably to find and/or create bacteria that can treat large quantities of contaminated water. Water contaminated with other heavy metals like lead, arsenic, etc. Unleashing a heavy-metal leeching bacteria has got to be cheaper than treating a huge quantity of contaminated water. It might take a lot longer, and not be as efficient, but you better believe there is a use and a market for bacteria that can do that. This is just a step along the way.

--
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
Re:Misleading headline by ceoyoyo · 2012-10-02 15:15 · Score: 4, Informative

Didn't read the article hey? It's possible Kashefi does actual research with these bacteria, using their tolerance for heavy metals, but this ain't it. This is an example of an art professor who wandered into a research lab (maybe, Kashefi doesn't seem to know much about gold either) and created his next art project by putting bacteria to work doing something absolutely useless.
From the article:
"He [Kashefi] and Adam Brown, associate professor of electronic art and intermedia, found the metal-tolerant bacteria Cupriavidus metallidurans can grow on massive concentrations of gold chloride" The senior person on the project is a professor of art.
"the bacteria are at least 25 times stronger than previously reported among scientists, the researchers determined in their art installation, "The Great Work of the Metal Lover," which uses a combination of biotechnology, art and alchemy to turn liquid gold into 24-karat gold."
"The artwork contains...."
""The Great Work of the Metal Lover" uses a living system as a vehicle for artistic exploration...."
"Using ancient gold illumination techniques, Brown applied 24-karat gold leaf to regions of the prints where a bacterial gold deposit had been identified so that each print contains some of the gold produced in the bioreactor."
""This is neo-alchemy. Every part, every detail of the project is a cross between modern microbiology and alchemy," Brown said. "Science tries to explain the phenomenological world. As an artist, I'm trying to create a phenomenon. Art has the ability to push scientific inquiry.""
""Art has the ability to probe and question the impact of science in the world, and 'The Great Work of the Metal Lover' speaks directly to the scientific preoccupation while trying to shape and bend biology to our will within the postbiological age," Brown said."
Re:Misleading headline by c0lo · 2012-10-02 16:31 · Score: 1

This is performance art, nothing more.
You are missing the point. Gold Chloride does form naturally. It is in ocean water at levels between 15-75 ppt. Are you going to boil all of the ocean water to extract the gold? Have you heard of bioremediation?
Don't you think that if the gold chloride (at these concentrations) in the oceans would be a "good feeding ground" for bacteria, we would find more gold deposits (similar to the manganese nodules) on the ocean floor? Are you going to boil the ocean until the concentration of gold chloride is high enough to call it "contaminant" and support Cupriavidus metallidurans colonies as "bioremediators"?
My point: practically, it is an art project.

--
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
Re:Misleading headline by TapeCutter · 2012-10-02 17:47 · Score: 3, Funny

"postbiological age" - He's not just an artist, he's a bullshit artist.

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Re:Misleading headline by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-02 17:53 · Score: 1

I actually went to a session at a conference by Brown. This project is applied science, but it's science applied to something that normally wouldn't get funded: making bacteria that pull gold out of solution, *just because of how cool it is*. The artist admits the gold-precipitating process isn't going to be cost-effective, but the technology and technical skills developed to get the bacteria to do this could later be applied to make bacteria for more useful tasks.
It's also an excuse to collect new information on an interesting but little-studied organism. And to get science into art, and art into science.
Re:Misleading headline by fearofcarpet · 2012-10-02 19:35 · Score: 2

As a scientist that has worked on a few science-art collaborations (which I think are a great way to get people interested in science) I have found it incredibly difficult to make artists understand that some words have precise, technical meanings and are not open for interpretation. Conversations quickly devolve into a Lemmon/Matthau bit.
It can be downright infuriating; you say to the artist "ok, well, what if I called your photographs watercolors?" The artist then ponders for a second, trying to find the deeper meaning in what you said, and replies, "Hmmm, I think I see what you're saying. Let's explore that idea." In this case, the artist is using the term "neo-alchemy" to describe simple redox chemistry with total disregard for the actual definition of alchemy, which is frustrating the Nerds of Slashdot and, I suspect, some scientists in Michigan.

--
Actually, I wrote my thesis on life experience.
Re:Misleading headline by ceoyoyo · 2012-10-03 00:56 · Score: 1

Artists don't like precise, or technical, and they depend on interpretation. Actually, I found the comments by the biologist part of the group more disturbing. Yes, he's a biologist, but for someone working with bacteria and heavy metals he really should know something about chemistry.
I'm not criticizing making art projects out of science. I've collaborated with opera singers and instrumentalists and am a photographer myself. Science is beautiful. My objection was to the OP calling this art science.
Re:Misleading headline by fearofcarpet · 2012-10-03 02:58 · Score: 1

Artists don't like precise, or technical, and they depend on interpretation. Actually, I found the comments by the biologist part of the group more disturbing. Yes, he's a biologist, but for someone working with bacteria and heavy metals he really should know something about chemistry.
I'm not criticizing making art projects out of science. I've collaborated with opera singers and instrumentalists and am a photographer myself. Science is beautiful. My objection was to the OP calling this art science.
Well, he is a biologist, few of whom that I have met know anything about chemistry... I'm not knocking art or science or their collaboration; you are of course right that this is art and should not be labeled science.

--
Actually, I wrote my thesis on life experience.
Re:Misleading headline by avandesande · 2012-10-03 03:54 · Score: 1

Gold is the end goal. Large gold nuggets have never been found in a mineral matrix but very large ones have been found loose in a substrate. Many people have theorized that large gold nuggets have a biological origin, which is probably why this researcher is doing this study.

--
love is just extroverted narcissism
Re:Misleading headline by LongearedBat · 2012-10-03 05:40 · Score: 1

Not only that. He doesn't even make the art himself. He employs bacteria to do the work for him.
Re:Misleading headline by bheerssen · 2012-10-03 07:43 · Score: 1

"postbiological age" - He's not just an artist, he's a bullshit artist.
You mean he is a stand-up philosopher.

--
(Score: -1, Stupid)

rarity? by neghvar1 · 2012-10-02 11:03 · Score: 1

Ok, so gold chloride, a worthless substance, can be converted to gold. Now, how abundant or rare is gold chloride?

Re:rarity? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-02 14:10 · Score: 1

Worthless?
I'd venture that goes for $1700/oz., give or take.

Gold-chloride found in nature? by ZombieBraintrust · 2012-10-02 11:03 · Score: 4, Interesting

gold-chloride (a natural forming toxic liquid),

Where is gold-chloride found in nature? A quick google search and all I could find were descriptions describing gold-chloride as something created in a lab.

Re:Gold-chloride found in nature? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-02 11:10 · Score: 5, Funny

Yes it's only created in a lab - and it's extremely expensive to create. But this finding will allow gold chloride makers to recoup some of their investment, and once they realize some economies of scale I'm sure they can make a profit.
Re:Gold-chloride found in nature? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-02 11:19 · Score: 3, Interesting

They mean this, I believe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chloroauric_acid
Basically, you use an acid, (aqua regia) to dissolve the gold so you can harvest it from hard-to-get areas, such as microscopic electrical traces on a circuit board, and then you use this to get it back out of solution.
Re:Gold-chloride found in nature? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-02 11:22 · Score: 2, Funny

to create gold-chloride, dissolve solid gold into a chlorine solution under 100 atmospheres of pressure at 10000C for a 168 hours.
So to create gold using these bacteria it takes 100,000 joules of energy to convert 1 oz. of gold into gold-chlorine and then wait a week to get back .9 oz. of gold from the bacteria.
Cool, where do I sign up? :)
I think we need to get Bernie Madeoff to manage the business, he has lots of experience with this.
Re:Gold-chloride found in nature? by darkfeline · 2012-10-02 11:34 · Score: 2

Though you may not know, labs are the natural habitat of the strange creatures we know as scientists. These ecosystems are known to form in proximity to technologically advanced societies.
Re:Gold-chloride found in nature? by Obfuscant · 2012-10-02 11:42 · Score: 1

Yes it's only created in a lab - and it's extremely expensive to create.
That's because the alchemists who create it have to change half the original gold into chlorine so one hogshead of gold becomes one half hogshead of gold and one half hogshead of chlorine. Those then react to form AuCl. Or AuCl2. Whatever.
This is all nonsense. The bacteria are not "bacterial alchemy", or alchemy of any kind. It's a disgrace when scientists make such ludicrous statements.
Re:Gold-chloride found in nature? by sjames · 2012-10-02 11:51 · Score: 1

If the gold in question is in the form of plating or microscopic particles embedded in rock, it might just pay off.
Re:Gold-chloride found in nature? by khallow · 2012-10-02 12:03 · Score: 2

As has been already noted, there are far cheaper, faster, and more effective means for extracting gold from gold chloride than any organism can accomplish. Even just heating up gold chloride works.
Re:Gold-chloride found in nature? by Grayhand · 2012-10-02 13:02 · Score: 5, Interesting

gold-chloride (a natural forming toxic liquid),
Where is gold-chloride found in nature? A quick google search and all I could find were descriptions describing gold-chloride as something created in a lab.
I think this was done as a what if experiment and has no practical use. The point though is if you can create a bacteria that will concentrate gold in either industrial or natural compounds if could be very useful. Right now mercury is the main element used in processing gold ore. Japan started extracting gold from sewage. I thought it was a silly idea until I heard how much they extracted. I'm not sure what the source of the gold is, old fillings wearing or naturally occurring but they did get a respectable amount from the sewage. Most of the world's available gold is actually suspended in seawater. The downside is it costs more to extract it than the gold is worth. Say you develop a bacteria that seeks out and absorbs gold then sinks to the bottom of the tank. You could over time end up with a coating of gold on the tank bottom. A similar process has been developed for removing radioactive elements from drinking water.
Re:Gold-chloride found in nature? by drinkypoo · 2012-10-03 00:48 · Score: 1

Faster certainly, more effective maybe, cheaper? Much of the point of using organisms is that they are self-reproducing.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Gold-chloride found in nature? by khallow · 2012-10-03 02:23 · Score: 1

Faster certainly, more effective maybe, cheaper?
Oh yes. You have to feed and maintain the environment for these organisms. Plus you still have to extract the gold when you harvest them. That adds considerable overhead.

Reality TV producers are better than bacteria by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2012-10-02 11:05 · Score: 5, Funny

They seem to be able to create cash for themselves from shit.

--
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!

Re:Reality TV producers are better than bacteria by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-02 11:09 · Score: 1

Oh, I know... for example Honey Boo Boo is pure trash tv gold.

bacterium lanistetium! by imkonen · 2012-10-02 11:05 · Score: 1

They literally shit gold!

Re:bacterium lanistetium! by imkonen · 2012-10-02 11:08 · Score: 1

Aarg! That was supposed to be lanisterium. Hope it still made sense.
Re:bacterium lanistetium! by IonOtter · 2012-10-02 11:10 · Score: 3, Funny

It puts the phrase, "Shitting a gold brick" into a whole new light!

--
[End Of Line]

Conversion != Production by hutsell · 2012-10-02 11:10 · Score: 1

Interesting in itself, but if I'm understanding the TFA's properly, converting Gold from an undesirable form to something mainstream isn't "production" in the historical sense desired by the Alchemists--later learned by the physicist of the 20th century to involve altering the atomic nucleus (involving fusion or fission).

--
Yesterday's Weirdness is Tomorrow's Reason Why

Re:Conversion != Production by Maow · 2012-10-02 11:22 · Score: 1

Interesting in itself, but if I'm understanding the TFA's properly, converting Gold from an undesirable form to something mainstream isn't "production" in the historical sense desired by the Alchemists--later learned by the physicist of the 20th century to involve altering the atomic nucleus (involving fusion or fission).
Thank you - I came here to say something similar - this is not producing gold, it seems to be isolating it.
For creating gold, a little more input energy is thought to be required:
From Wikipedia:

Like all elements with atomic numbers larger than iron, gold is thought to have been formed from a supernova nucleosynthesis process.
Re:Conversion != Production by hutsell · 2012-10-02 12:16 · Score: 1

Properly exploited, they could have been used to power our planet.
Fortunately, it failed to be true.
Imagine -- the awesomeness of the greatly feared -- bacteria with nuclear powered butts.

--
Yesterday's Weirdness is Tomorrow's Reason Why

Environmental Impact? by Tough+Love · 2012-10-02 11:11 · Score: 3, Informative

Not a lot said about environmental impact. Heap leaching is a famously effective way to poison streams and destroy large tracts of forest.

--
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.

Re:Environmental Impact? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-02 21:39 · Score: 1

I believe that the SI units for "forest" are "swaths".
"Tracts" are a measure of generic land (and therefore less specific), and chubby unwedable English women ("She has... huge tracts of land")
Re:Environmental Impact? by jd · 2012-10-03 00:34 · Score: 1

Existing methods of extracting gold are extremely toxic on the environment and lethal to the natives. A better solution is definitely needed, even if not this one.
(Since the largest gold reserves are under the Amazon, the ideal would be to have metal-eating bacteria consume the reserves in-situ and be pumped back to the surface -- save the jungle and the natives, eliminate the illegal gold miners, AND bankrupt all those Limbaugh devotees who have bought into gold reserves, ALL AT THE SAME TIME! What could be better?!)

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)

"no it doesn't" by aliquis · 2012-10-02 11:12 · Score: 1

Why did this make it to the front page with no editing?

"Die SchroedingerZ die!" ;D

Re:"no it doesn't" by b4dc0d3r · 2012-10-02 11:46 · Score: 3, Funny

No, it's German. "The SchroedingerZ, the!"
Re:"no it doesn't" by Ol+Biscuitbarrel · 2012-10-02 13:08 · Score: 3, Funny

Q. How many copy editors does it take to change a light bulb?
A. The last time this question was asked, it involved art directors. Is the difference intentional? Should one or the other instance be changed? It seems inconsistent.
Re:"no it doesn't" by zlives · 2012-10-03 07:46 · Score: 1

your question is important to us, please hold while we transfer your call...
"hello, this is Peggy.."

Seawater by frovingslosh · 2012-10-02 11:15 · Score: 4, Interesting

Wouldn't it make more sense to create bacteria that can extract the gold known to exist in seawater, or some other abundant source, than to come up with this publicity grabbing but overall worthless trick?

--
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.

Re:Seawater by CODiNE · 2012-10-02 15:46 · Score: 1

They didn't bioengineer the bacteria, they found one that already exists.

--
Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
Re:Seawater by jmv · 2012-10-02 16:28 · Score: 1

And how do you extract the gold-extracting bacteria from the water?

--
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec

Your post by Intrepid+imaginaut · 2012-10-02 11:15 · Score: 2

Is 25 times strong than most posts. At least its a natural forming post.

Re:OOGA BOOG by Sardak · 2012-10-02 11:19 · Score: 5, Informative

Interestingly, bacteria is the plural form of bacterium, so there's nothing really wrong in the sense you imply. I'm more concerned with the fact that they're apparently not actually creating gold.

Not really practical by ortholattice · 2012-10-02 11:20 · Score: 5, Informative

Gold chloride isn't exactly of "no value" - it is more expensive than the gold it contains (about $100 per gram of gold content). And bacteria aren't needed; from the wiki article it appears that simply temperature-cycling it betwen >160C and >420C a few times will remove the chlorine and leave pure gold. In short, the purpose of this project is artistic and/or political, possibly biologically interesting, but not necessarily of practical value.

Re:Not really practical by dcrisp · 2012-10-02 12:04 · Score: 1

Heating Material, any material, up to 420C, takes a large amount of energy and thus expense. If you can develop a microbe that will perform this operation without the massive amount of input energy then you can save a lot of money. I'm unsure what the time costs are but there would be an argument that throwing a microbe into a vat of Gold Chrloide for a week COULD be cheaper than the heat cycle.
Re:Not really practical by rubycodez · 2012-10-02 13:17 · Score: 1

throwing in a load of hydrogen peroxide or iron is pretty damn cheap
Re:Not really practical by Hognoxious · 2012-10-02 22:23 · Score: 1

Heating Material, any material, up to 420C, takes a large amount of energy and thus expense.

It's not necessary to heat it. Gold is quite unreactive, so compounds of it are unstable.
Farting near it is probably enough.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."

SHIT GOLD BRICKS by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2012-10-02 11:21 · Score: 5, Funny

For fun and profit.

--
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."

Re:SHIT GOLD BRICKS by fustakrakich · 2012-10-02 11:30 · Score: 1

I thought only unicorns could do that.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Re:SHIT GOLD BRICKS by Obfuscant · 2012-10-02 11:45 · Score: 5, Funny

And the goose in my backyard. Until I cut him open to get all the gold out.
Re:SHIT GOLD BRICKS by PlastikMissle · 2012-10-02 11:49 · Score: 2

In other news, bacteria to be renamed after Tywin Lannister.
Re:SHIT GOLD BRICKS by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2012-10-02 12:18 · Score: 3, Informative

Unicorns fart RAINBOWS!
Gold bricks are strictly in the dragon department.

--
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Re:SHIT GOLD BRICKS by Culture20 · 2012-10-02 14:35 · Score: 3, Funny

I thought that was leprechauns. You get their chamber pot of gold if you catch them.
Re:SHIT GOLD BRICKS by DirtyLiar · 2012-10-04 16:31 · Score: 1

Thar's gold in them thar `phills!

--
THINK! It's patriotic

How, Exactly, is this Creating Gold? by EmagGeek · 2012-10-02 11:25 · Score: 1

It seems to me the bacteria are just stripping off the chloride and leaving the gold behind. The gold is already there, so how it is being "created?"

F*cking alchemists how do THEY work? by poity · 2012-10-02 11:43 · Score: 5, Funny

And I don't wanna ask a scientist. Y'all mothafuckas lying, and gettin' me pissed!

--
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll

Re:F*cking alchemists how do THEY work? by Assmasher · 2012-10-02 15:36 · Score: 1

Herbert Kornfeld, is that you? :) I'ze missed you dawg!

--
Loading...

New Slashdot by poity · 2012-10-02 11:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

1. Get sold (again)
2. Make 1 out of every 5 articles a troll
3. Profit

Seriously, though, Torvalds dirty mouth, Glenn Beck article, now "WE GOT ALKEMEE GOIN' ON HERE YO!"
Wild week of trolling at Slashdot.

--
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll

It's not creating gold... by J'raxis · 2012-10-02 11:56 · Score: 1

...but I suppose blatantly lying in headlines and article blurbs gets people to read your articles.

--
Liberty in your lifetime

Re:It's not creating gold... by J'raxis · 2012-10-03 07:01 · Score: 1

It probably needs JavaScript turned on or something. It goes through an interstitial ad, where you can click the "skip" button in the top right-hand corner if you want to go directly to the link.
The link ultimately goes to the Free State Project.

--
Liberty in your lifetime

Personally by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-02 11:59 · Score: 1

I was going to suggest Nicholas Flamel.

Re:Personally by Hognoxious · 2012-10-02 21:01 · Score: 1

Well it's easy to sit here in the - where are we - 21st century being a smug cunt.
However go back a few hundred years and there is no chemistry or astronomy; they evolved later out of alchemy and astrology in the same way that science in general evolved from philosophy.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."

Reason for everything by Aauin · 2012-10-02 12:15 · Score: 1

Now get that bacteria to convert a substance from something to GRAPHENE, and you my friends have bypassed the problem facing todays most amazing substance known currently to man.

Either Stupid or Misleading by nixed3 · 2012-10-02 12:22 · Score: 1

This might be the most misleading headline I have ever read on slashdot. I don't post too often but I have no mod points and I felt compelled to add my voice to the chorus that this article has nothing to do with "creating" gold. The bacteria refine the gold into a pure form from a gold-chloride compound. Bacteria creating an element? Come on now, that's pretty silly.

Gold Standard by DarkHelmet · 2012-10-02 12:24 · Score: 1

I find some kind of satisfaction in seeing this sort of thing become widespread.
In this case, it would make a "return to the gold standard" be absolutely worthless.

--
/^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i

Re:Gold Standard by Glendale2x · 2012-10-02 12:44 · Score: 1

That's why we'll have to go to gold-pressed latinum.

--
this is my sig
Re:Gold Standard by Ash-Fox · 2012-10-02 13:10 · Score: 1

Palladium is worth already anyway.

--
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.

Bania! by Ol+Biscuitbarrel · 2012-10-02 13:04 · Score: 1

This bacteria is gold, Jerry, gold!

This should be no surprise to anyone by Crypto+Gnome · 2012-10-02 13:15 · Score: 1

Once Again The Creationists have gotten things astoundingly wrong.

The process of extracting the gold from gold-chloride is clearly NOT "creation" in any sense of the word.

The ONLY "creation" going on in relation to this article is the CREATION of an obscene amount of HYPE over a somewhat interesting but otherwise irrelevant bacterium.

--
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.

don't need bacteria, throw in iron or h2o2 by rubycodez · 2012-10-02 13:16 · Score: 1

Iron (FE 2+ specifically) or hygrogen peroxide will cause the gold to precipitate out

Slow News Day or WHAT? by Crypto+Gnome · 2012-10-02 13:25 · Score: 4, Informative

or perhaps we just need to fire the current squadron of editors?

original article Here (NB from 2009) in which Australian scientists discover the gold-nugget-forming action of this bacteria.

--
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.

Re:Modern Day Alchemy by rubycodez · 2012-10-02 13:26 · Score: 1

you are so funny, lead to gold done over half a century ago with particle accelerators. tens of thousands of dollars worth of electricity to produce an amount of gold that couldn't even be rightfully called a speck.

uh oh! by slashmydots · 2012-10-02 13:29 · Score: 1

Aaaaaaaaand there goes the gold bubbles. Bye bye paranoid investor morons that buy high. Whether this is real or not, this is the big supply side boost that kills the idiotically high gold bubble.

25x stronger? by WillyWanker · 2012-10-02 13:32 · Score: 1

"The bacteria is Cupriavidus metallidurans, which is conditioned to be tolerant to heavy, toxic metals and to be 25 times stronger than most bacteria."

What could possibly go wrong?

Not illuminating by mattr · 2012-10-02 14:40 · Score: 4, Informative

This is a confusing press release. From what I can gather, this bacterium, which has already been discovered decades ago and its genome fully sequenced, was found 3 years ago to reduce toxic gold compounds into metallic gold. The MSU team fed higher concentration gold solution and this created spherical metallic gold "nuggets" around 30 microns up to 1.2 mm in size. The art exhibition which is pretty distracting from the original scientific research, of which it appears there was some, plays on the themes of alchemy and illuminated manuscripts.

Unfortunately the explanation of the cool scientific part is completely overshadowed and twisted by the art exhibition! That is really annoying. Art exhibitions made by or in collaboration with scientists are often interesting but this announcement of research and an art exhibition at the same time means that factually incorrect words are helplessly mixed in with fact, making everything cloudy. It may seem romantic but it really is a bad idea to do that. In fact the only place alchemy really happens that we know of is in a nuclear reaction, which this is not.

ScienceDaily (Oct. 9, 2009) — Australian scientists have found that the bacterium Cupriavidus metallidurans catalyses the biomineralisation of gold by transforming toxic gold compounds to their metallic form using active cellular mechanism.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091007103034.htm

The bacterium Cupriavidus metallidurans strain CH34, originally isolated by us in 1976 from a metal processing factory, is considered a major model organism in this field because it withstands milli-molar range concentrations of over 20 different heavy metal ions. This tolerance is mostly achieved by rapid ion efflux but also by metal-complexation and -reduction.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi/10.1371/journal.pone.0010433

I dunno by Chuck+Chunder · 2012-10-02 14:42 · Score: 1

I think if you had something that combined gold and chlorine into gold chloride you might reasonably describe it as 'creating' gold chloride.

Thus I don't think it's entirely objectionable to describe something doing the opposite process as 'creating' gold (implying metallic gold rather than gold atoms).

Both "create" and "gold" have multiple meanings.

Which isn't to say that "extract" or something wouldn't have been a better choice.

--
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park

Super bacteria refine gold by celtic_hackr · 2012-10-02 15:10 · Score: 1

TFTFY

Re:OOGA BOOG by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2012-10-02 15:33 · Score: 1

Well, that figures... the ONE time the Editors get spelling and/or grammar right.

--

"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

Create vs Extract terminology not really important by GodfatherofSoul · 2012-10-02 17:23 · Score: 1

I think we all realize bacteria isn't fusing new elements. I recall a middle school teacher telling us there was a fortune in dissolved gold in seawater, just no economically-feasible way to extract it.

--
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!

Nothing new here - done back in 1968 by Captain+Sensible · 2012-10-02 17:37 · Score: 1

Back in 1968 the Bureau of Mineral Resources in Australia operated proof-of-concept apparatus that did exactly the same thing. When I saw it operating it was a roomful of glass pipes that allowed the bacteria to live in their extreme environment and produce a gold compund that settled out and was collected there. Gold would have to be very expensive to make it commercial (and back then the price of gold was quite low), but it did work.

BTW, if you do the mathematics, the quantum wave function for gold is very similar to that of carbon14. And indeed at the heart of every gold nugget is a small speck of organic matter. Native gold is a finely dispersed suspension in granites and is usually not of commercial concentration. However, since alluvial gold accumulates in river beds the thinking at the Bureau was that bacteria were responsible for the growth of nuggets and that quantum processes played some unknown role.

look up the word... by Anarchduke · 2012-10-02 18:02 · Score: 1

PEDANTIC

Reality check here. Does it really matter whether the word "make" is used exactly right? Scientists engineered a bacteria that can survive in an unbelievably hostile environment that can make lumps of 24K gold from a solution of gold chloride. This is freaking amazing.

--
who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain

Bacteria than creates gold (from lead?) by aglider · 2012-10-02 18:57 · Score: 1

can also ignite nuclear reactions!
To create gold, to really CREATE gold, we need to either split heavier atoms in gold + bybroducts or to "melt" lighter atoms in heavier ones.
I fear we've been doing research in the wrong directions!
Or may be those bacteria can concentrate gold because of their metabolism ...

--
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.

Do we learn nothing from mythology? by Chrisq · 2012-10-02 20:10 · Score: 1

This could mutate to become highly infective. Immune carriers will be known as having the "Midas Syndrome".

Neither by mschaffer · 2012-10-02 23:26 · Score: 1

It's not alchemy. That would be creating gold from other elements. This is simple refining.

Gold from gold chloride by Arancaytar · 2012-10-02 23:36 · Score: 1

That's impressive.

In other news, my body creates carbon dioxide and water out of oxygen and carbohydrates.

The Midas Touch by biochozo · 2012-10-03 00:32 · Score: 1

I got some on my hands but it's immune to soap... -GoldMember-

Boring... by rgbatduke · 2012-10-03 00:40 · Score: 1

Gold from gold chloride is truly not interesting. Gold from seawater -- that would be interesting. Gold from seawater at macroscopic rates with no external energy input in unattended apparatus, that would be very interesting. Sadly, this is not that.

rgb

--
Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.

Reduction [Re:throw out the dictionary, you ar...] by Geoffrey.landis · 2012-10-03 02:19 · Score: 1

This bacteria refines gold compounds.

More accurately, it reduces gold. That is, it makes gold metal from gold ions.

--
http://www.geoffreylandis.com

The word is "reducing". by Sans_A_Cause · 2012-10-03 03:58 · Score: 1

The bacteria are reducing gold ions to elemental gold. They are not "creating" or "extracting" gold. This simple oxidation/reduction chemistry.

Clockwork Angels by ekimminau · 2012-10-03 05:17 · Score: 1

The Percussionist Neil Peart http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Peart of the band Rush http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_(band) released a book "Clockwork Angels" http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13592828-clockwork-angels

co-authored with Kevin J. Anderson http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/4845.Kevin_J_Anderson which has a number of Antagonists, among which is "the clockmaker" who takes over society through the creation and a massive influx of "artificially created" gold. The second primary antagonist has created "artificially created" diamonds. Quite timely I believe. Well played Mr. Peart! Well played!

--
Armaments, 2-9-21 And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying, 'O Lord, bless this Thy hand grenade' N

131 of 180 comments (clear)