Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Plastic-Eating Bacteria Could Help Clean Up Waste (inhabitat.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the change-doesn't-happen-overnight dept.

Kristine Lofgren writes: Japanese researchers have discovered a microorganism that literally devours ocean-clogging plastic. The bacterium Ideonella sakaiensis can completely break down polyethylene terephthalate (PET), a common plastic used in bottles and containers. That type of plastic makes up a huge proportion of all the plastic waste in the world, particularly in the ocean. The bacterium uses a pair of enzymes to break down PET and turn it into a food source. The problem is, it takes up to six weeks for the bacterium to completely breakdown a small, low-grade sample of PET. Microbiologist Kohei Oda of the Kyoto Institute of Technology co-authored the study published this week in the journal Science, and he told PBS NewsHour he was "very surprised to find microorganisms that degrade PET" because the plastic has always been thought to be non-biodegradable. Now, scientists just need to figure out how to harness the hungry little bug to recycle plastic and reduce pollution.

75 comments

  1. what could possibly go wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    what could possibly go wrong
    gdz

    1. Re:what could possibly go wrong by LesFerg · · Score: 2

      I want to patent credit cards made out of aluminium, cos we all know the bugs will get loose. Tho not many people will be going shopping when all the cars electrics start shorting out. Damn

      --
      If I had a DeLorean... I would probably only drive it from time to time.
    2. Re:what could possibly go wrong by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 2

      Not to mention what this will do to my plans for 3D printed Ocean Liners and Yachts...
      Damn

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    3. Re:what could possibly go wrong by fraxinus-tree · · Score: 2

      Nothing. PET is a niche use plastic with a lot of health debate around it and a lot of other products waiting to replace it. The mechanism of breaking it down is pretty specific and I don't see it fast-evolving to eat other polymers. Wake me up when it starts eating polyethylene.

      Then again, it depends on the regulatory response. If PET is assumed bio-degradable, it's use (and it's health effects) may increase.

    4. Re:what could possibly go wrong by fraxinus-tree · · Score: 2

      Neither cable insulation nor CC's are made of PET.

    5. Re:what could possibly go wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're saying this bug is discriminatory against poor people? All those guys with platinum american express cards are laughing at us.

    6. Re:what could possibly go wrong by vtcodger · · Score: 1

      "Neither cable insulation nor CC's are made of PET"

      "Life, uh ... finds a way" The imaginary Dr Ian Malcom in Jurassic Park.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    7. Re:what could possibly go wrong by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      "I want to patent credit cards made out of aluminium, cos we all know the bugs will get loose."

      This bacterium is natural, not a GMO, so it doesn't have a GMO's magical powers to thrive in every environment and gobble up everything.

    8. Re:what could possibly go wrong by mikael · · Score: 1

      You could transfer those genes into fish and insects. Then they would devour everything plastic in sight.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    9. Re:what could possibly go wrong by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Do you want the Andromeda Strain? Because that's how you get the Andromeda Strain.

    10. Re:what could possibly go wrong by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      what could possibly go wrong

      What indeed? Mutant 59: The Plastic-Eaters

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    11. Re:what could possibly go wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what could possibly go wrong
      gdz

      Read Mutant 59: The plastic eaters, a science fiction book out of the 70's where a mutant strain of bacteria starts eating plastics and threatens human civilization.

    12. Re:what could possibly go wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gojirra!

    13. Re:what could possibly go wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually a novelization of an episode of "Doomwatch" on the BBC absolutely great viewing and I have a galley proof of the book.

    14. Re:what could possibly go wrong by LesFerg · · Score: 1

      This bacterium is natural, not a GMO, so it doesn't have a GMO's magical powers to thrive in every environment and gobble up everything.

      Um yes, that is true, but every modified organism started out as a natural organism, didn't it? I mean, "modified" kind of suggests that they started with something. And it was meant as a humorous "profit of doom" kind of statement, it's not like I'm cashing in my lifes treasures and building a plastic-free underground shelter... yet.

      --
      If I had a DeLorean... I would probably only drive it from time to time.
    15. Re:what could possibly go wrong by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Whoosh!

  2. The probem is, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    it takes up to six weeks for the bacterium to completely breakdown

    Why is this a problem? What's the hurry, last week we didn't know this existed and now it's too slow?

    1. Re:The probem is, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it takes up to six weeks for the bacterium to completely breakdown

      Why is this a problem? What's the hurry, last week we didn't know this existed and now it's too slow?

      I'd hazard a guess that in practical terms we'd generate waste plastic faster than they can break it down without having to build HUUUUUGE plastic digester farms.

    2. Re:The probem is, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That means there would be 36million tons of plastic scattered across the planet vs 3 billion tons. You set it free in the wild, not make recycling plants. And plastic is quite useful, you don't want it all to go away.

    3. Re:The probem is, by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Are we sure it is better to get rid of it this way? It is sequestered, on the chemical level anyway. This will change that.

      What happened to that ocean compactor plan, cheap at it bales the crap up so it can be shipped for recycling.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  3. Ice 9? by DrNico · · Score: 1

    It sounds like it could have Ice 9 like problems. Will it eat our civilisation?

    1. Re:Ice 9? by Anomalyst · · Score: 2

      wrong book you are looking for "Mutant 59: The Plastic-Eaters" http://www.amazon.com/Mutant-P...

      --
      There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
    2. Re:Ice 9? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bacteria eats wood yet most of us live in wood houses and eat at wood tables sitting on wood furniture.

    3. Re:Ice 9? by Culture20 · · Score: 2

      Bacteria eats wood yet most of us live in wood houses and eat at wood tables sitting on wood furniture.

      Preserved with bacteria killing arsenic and other poisons and sealed against exposure with paint or resins.

    4. Re:Ice 9? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [live in wood houses] ... Preserved with bacteria killing arsenic

      The only wood on your house that is preserved with arsenic are the 4x4s/6x6s and floor joists on your deck. All the rest of the wood is standard non-preserved pine 2x4s, 2x6s, or OSB.

  4. Dammit! by flightmaker · · Score: 1

    I'm mid-Pacific and they're almost through the bottom of my yacht.

  5. it's not the fish & us unchosens? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    looks from here as though we uns have been relegated to digesting/processing the silage from our oil addiction? then back into the ground we go becoming future fuel for future wmd on credit neogod psychopath genociders of our future? chat as though the moms are watching... soon they may be able to stop crying all the time? truth+mercy=justice..

  6. No reason for alarm by Mal-2 · · Score: 3, Informative

    I don't think there is anything to be concerned about. They didn't engineer this bacterium, they discovered it. Yet we don't have a massive epidemic of credit-card-eating bacteria everywhere. Why? Probably because although they can eat it, it isn't their preferred food source. Now if someone knocks out some metabolic pathways so that they have to eat plastic to survive, then maybe we'll have something to worry about.

    --
    How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    1. Re:No reason for alarm by fraxinus-tree · · Score: 2

      We already have worms eating polystyrene. So far, no one's fridge got eaten.

    2. Re:No reason for alarm by jenningsthecat · · Score: 1

      I don't think there is anything to be concerned about. They didn't engineer this bacterium, they discovered it. Yet we don't have a massive epidemic of credit-card-eating bacteria everywhere. Why? Probably because although they can eat it, it isn't their preferred food source. Now if someone knocks out some metabolic pathways so that they have to eat plastic to survive, then maybe we'll have something to worry about.

      Aren't you concerned that some scientist will knock out those metabolic pathways? Or that natural mutations in that direction might occur merely because of a change from their natural environment to one which is rich in PET and scarce in their currently-preferred nutrients?

      --
      'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    3. Re:No reason for alarm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why would we be concerned? It took biology the entirety of the Carboniferous period to develop effective ways of eating/breaking-down wood. We still use wood products. It will probably take a similar time frame for biology to be able to degrade plastics in general at the same rate... and then we (if we survive) will still be using plastic, and wood, products.

      captcha: "rotten"

    4. Re:No reason for alarm by KGIII · · Score: 1

      > Aren't you concerned that some scientist will knock out those metabolic pathways?

      Nope. Not even a little. Why? Because I kind of understand the science. I am not a geneticist but I've seen a whole lot of documentaries, read a whole bunch, and even read a study or two. With all this free information online (some needing piracy) it's unfortunate that more people don't take a few minutes to try something different.

      I'll expand on that... This is not a "holier than thou" or "better than" intended post.

      You've got the whole internet. I wasn't ever really big on television and in the 1980s they ruined my experience by moving to too many ads. By television, I mean normal television. I love me some documentaries. I don't mean that pawn show stuff but real, deep, documentaries that are information dense. I don't really learn much from them - they're entertainment. But I do pick up a lot of generalities. It's not a scholarly pursuit.

      The internet has been awesome for me. I've not really watched much television since the 1980s, as I said, but I have actually been consuming lots of media. There are a gazillion and three documentaries that folks have pirated and uploaded to streaming services. I pay for Hulu and Netflix but hardly ever watch 'em. Instead, I stream from YouTube with playlists.

      Then, sometimes, I learn stuff by accident or things pique my interest. I'll then watch a bunch more things on that same subject (there are lectures, talks, TED talks, and things like that) and I'll even go find a few studies or learn more about a subject. That's when it becomes a quasi-scholarly pursuit.

      I guess my point is, there's no reason to worry. Genetic modification doesn't work like that - at least not yet. In theory? Sure, it could happen. The chances of it happening and the resulting species being able to reproduce or live and expand are really small - vanishingly small. I won't say impossible but damned near it. You have all these resources available to you and, if you're interested, you need only craft a few search queries and be on your way - and able to refine those terms so that you get better results.

      I don't know the specific odds of that happening but, even if they tried, they're very low. Accidentally? Well, quantum physics says that if you leave a box closed long enough that eventually you could end up opening it and finding a 100 carat diamond in there. (Or that's what Brian Cox claims.) I imagine the odds of your fear coming to pass and it actually being a problem are somewhere along the same order of magnitude.

      Okay, so the odds aren't really that bad but the event you fear is really, really unlikely. And no, don't take it from me. You've got the greatest tool for finding information - in the palm of your hand. Go look for yourself.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    5. Re:No reason for alarm by evilviper · · Score: 1

      I don't think there is anything to be concerned about. They didn't engineer this bacterium, they discovered it.

      That's not good news, that's BAD news... Nature is getting better at destroying the things we use because we thought they were effectively indestructible.

      The lead in Flint Michigan's water will look like a quaint inconvenience when bacteria figure out how to feed on the innumerable PVC and ABS pipes municipal utilities have directly buried, to distribute water to homes and businesses.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    6. Re:No reason for alarm by LesFerg · · Score: 1

      I guess it was the suggestion of a bunch of wide-eyed scientists going 'wow' at a new discovery. You just know they will try to genetically modify this organism in the name of "cleaning up the pollution".

      --
      If I had a DeLorean... I would probably only drive it from time to time.
    7. Re:No reason for alarm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've got the greatest tool for finding information - in the palm of your hand. Go look for yourself.

      To be fair, the tool many folks reading this on the interwebz have in the palm of their hand is designed for distributing genetic information, although when used unwisely it is susceptible to acquiring a virus just like the item you had in mind.

    8. Re:No reason for alarm by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      I don't think there is anything to be concerned about. They didn't engineer this bacterium, they discovered it.

      That's not good news, that's BAD news... Nature is getting better at destroying the things we use because we thought they were effectively indestructible.

      The lead in Flint Michigan's water will look like a quaint inconvenience when bacteria figure out how to feed on the innumerable PVC and ABS pipes municipal utilities have directly buried, to distribute water to homes and businesses.

      Do we really need pipes that last hundreds of years? Civilization will be just fine if we have to replace our pipes every couple decades. We did just fine before the invention of plastic with iron pipes that eventually rusted. Things rot, we replace them. As another poster pointed out, we still make plenty of stuff out of wood and there are lots of things that can eat wood.

    9. Re:No reason for alarm by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      The lead in Flint Michigan's water will look like a quaint inconvenience when bacteria figure out how to feed on the innumerable PVC and ABS pipes

      Did you even read the summary, let alone the actual article? A bug has been discovered that can (slowly and inefficiently) digest polyethylene terephthalate. That is a very different plastic to both poly-vinylidene chloride (PVC) and the acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) family of plastics. Surprisingly, the different names of the plastics reflect their different chemistries, and therefore their different chemical susceptibilities to attack.

      We didn't start using plastics because people thought they were "effectively indestructible" ; we had that with gold and added physical durability with platinum-iridium alloys in the late 1800s. We started to use plastics because they were (mostly) injection moldable and/ or extrudable, and were reasonably long-lived.

      (OK, I have an advantage on most people having grown up in the house of a plastics chemist ; but really, anyone with 16+ school chemistry should have been able to work this out for themselves while still at school.)

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    10. Re:No reason for alarm by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Civilization will be just fine if we have to replace our pipes every couple decades.

      The cost to replace such pipes in an urban area is positively ASTRONOMICAL. So no, civilization will have extremely difficulties with the drastically increased price of water, due to the need to frequently replace delivery infrastructure.

      we still make plenty of stuff out of wood and there are lots of things that can eat wood.

      Wood is treated with harsh chemicals which will kill most pests that would otherwise eat it. In addition, there have been hundreds of years of engineering knowledge channeled into designing wood structures which are highly resistant to termites (any house that has wood in contact with the ground will fail inspection and illegal to occupy), in addition to an incredibly expensive pest control industry that has developed high-tech chemicals to kill wood-eating pests if they do manage to find a way in. And even with all of that, wood-eating pests do billions of dollars in damage, every year.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  7. Hopefully it won't involve the 59th mutation... by lavaboy · · Score: 1

    http://www.amazon.com/Mutant-59-Plastic-Eaters-Kit-Pedler/dp/0670496626

    --
    Steve -- If you have to call it a system, you don't know what it is.
    1. Re:Hopefully it won't involve the 59th mutation... by rmdingler · · Score: 2
      It possible humankind will be destroyed by toying around with this science stuff that is beyond our ken.

      Of course, there are so many other candidates lining up that it makes an unintended mutation a very long shot. I could point out how science has already saved you from starvation and many horrible childhood diseases, but I won't.

      Let's just agree it is fortunate nature hasn't bio-engineered a way to break down the material all of our homes are made of.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    2. Re:Hopefully it won't involve the 59th mutation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because something is beyond your ken, does not mean it is beyond mine.

  8. polymer polymor polyman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    says in the manual there may be some fatal side effects? no wonder the moms are crying all the time now?

  9. I wonder what could go wrong... by wb8wsf · · Score: 1

    Read the book "Mutant 59: The plastic eaters"

  10. GM bacteria that eat plastic? by bradley13 · · Score: 1

    Be careful what you wish for. You might get it.

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
  11. Recycling????? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought we were supposed to be recycling our plastics.

    1. Re:Recycling????? by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1

      You better give up on recycling - if you make a bike out of plastic, the bugs will eat it!

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  12. Of course by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    PET is common in the waste stream because it's common in use.

    This means that the moment we figure out a way to use this to consume pet efficiently, everything in the works that depends on pet to function is now threatened if the organism gets into the wild, compelling scientists to research a coating or addative that repels it...and then we are back to square one.

    --
    -Styopa
  13. PET is already very recyclable by Thruen · · Score: 5, Informative

    PET is one of those plastics that's very easy to recycle already, people just don't do it. And I mean really easy to recycle, I make and sell poker chips that are made largely out of recycled bottles (that's PET) and any bad part can simply be ground up and thrown back in the hopper so the material is used again. Obviously there's a little more to recycling used bottles and whatnot, but the point is it's already really easy to recycle PET compared to many other materials. While I understand this isn't the same as nature being able to break it down, I don't understand what the big benefit to this over standard recycling. There is a much larger problem when it comes to recycling and that's the willing participation of the general population. Where I live we get fined for failing to sort recyclables, and people still don't do it. Solving that seems more important if you ask me.

    1. Re:PET is already very recyclable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In terms of bottles, there's always the option of making people pay $0.xx more, which they get back (as store credit) when they take the bottle back to the store. That's a system that works reasonably well in some countries. Unfortunately those same countries haven't extended that to smaller bottles, so plastic water bottles still litter the sides of highways.

      In terms of recycling in general, it should be made more convenient. Nothing is more convenient than just tossing trash in the trash bin - whether that trash is paper (so recyclable), glass (super-recyclable) electronics (e-waste), batteries/cfl bulbs/various chemicals (some can be refined, but more importantly these should not end up in a trash heap in the first place). But outside of public avenues, airports, I rarely see separate public recycling bins as it is - and if somebody did want to collect trash separately, there's little infrastructure to do so. Provide a strongbox for the chemicals, have schools or sports clubs collect paper waste and reward them for it, put battery disposal bins in grocery stores, let stores that sell electronics also accept e-waste, collect food and gardening waste as frequently as normal waste (so people aren't stuck with a stinking pile for a month - not everybody wants to make compost). Lower the barriers and more people will be inclined to actually separate out trash.

      Also, be honest with people about it. Don't put a glass recycling bin somewhere with slots for white (clear), green and brown glass only for them to fall into the exact same area (they would have to sort them out later anyway due to people putting the wrong color in the wrong slot, and in which of these 3 categories does 'blue' fall, exactly?). Don't let make them separate out metals when those can be separated out at the processing plant very easily. There's nothing more damaging to recycling efforts than people realizing that the energy they put into doing so either gets undone or is not the most efficient way of doing it.

      Then again, when you realize that your neighbor may have a different trash company collecting their trash than you, and your neighbor's neighbor has another company doing it yet, I feel like there's some other wasteful things that should be addressed first.

    2. Re:PET is already very recyclable by godrik · · Score: 2

      While getting people to recycle in their home is an issue. It is not an issue a microbiologist can help with, a politician or an activist maybe, but a scientist, likely not.
      Different people can contribute to the problem in different way. Because PET is not the number one problem in recycling does not mean it should not be addressed or improved.

    3. Re:PET is already very recyclable by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 5, Informative

      I was listening to a podcast and they brought this up. Unfortunately I listen to a number of science ones and I can't find which one it was. But what I got from the interview was that they would like to be able to engineer the bacteria so that it would stop eating the plastic part way leaving it as the copolymers that went into making the plastic in the first place.

      The reason that PET plastics are durable is that the bonds between atoms and molecules are strong. To break these bonds requires a lot of energy. Most recycling of plastics takes the old plastic, chops it into pellets, and melts it into the new product. But the new product is almost never as good in quality as the original. Drink bottles don't go back to drink bottles. They use virgin plastic. Drink bottles get recycled into carpet or benches. Very useful things but you still need something to create the drink bottles from.

      The idea is that if you can use the bacteria to break down the PET into the copolymers without using a lot of energy then you can create "virgin" plastic suitable for any use without having to use fossil fuels as a source for plastic as you do today. There are projects looking at replacing fossil fuels with oils obtained from agriculture and those will still be needed since our demand for plastic is growing and our recycling rate is 100%.

    4. Re:PET is already very recyclable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One application might be to deal with ocean-borne plastic particulate, as one might find in the Great Pacific garbage patch:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_garbage_patch

      While some people are trying to filter out the plastics mechanically, this might be a neat complementary solution, depending on what the critter excretes.

    5. Re:PET is already very recyclable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In terms of recycling in general, it should be made more convenient. Nothing is more convenient than just tossing trash in the trash bin - whether that trash is paper (so recyclable), glass (super-recyclable) electronics (e-waste), batteries/cfl bulbs/various chemicals (some can be refined, but more importantly these should not end up in a trash heap in the first place). But outside of public avenues, airports, I rarely see separate public recycling bins as it is - and if somebody did want to collect trash separately, there's little infrastructure to do so.

      Pretty much every town around here went to single-sort many years ago. Participation is much higher when people can just throw everything into one bin and it gets sorted at the recycling facility. Electronics and home improvement stores have bins right up front for batteries, CFLs, and such. The only issue is hazardous liquids, those you have to take to the facility yourself (except for used motor oil, that you can drop off at most auto parts stores) but those number of people needing to dispose of that type of stuff is considerably lower in general.

    6. Re:PET is already very recyclable by Thruen · · Score: 1

      I wish I could mod you up, this is helpful. Thanks. I did look it up and it's apparently an issue of sterilization rather than quality, but I never realized it was an issue at all before now. Assuming this bacteria doesn't grow out of control and eat civilization, I could see it being pretty beneficial.

    7. Re:PET is already very recyclable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you get everything thrown into recycling even what's not recyclable. Too stupid to ask, look it up, or ultimately put it in the trash if they're not sure. The problem is the majority of the population are too stupid and lazy to do the smart thing (sort).

    8. Re:PET is already very recyclable by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      Yes, when I was listening to the podcast that was my worry. Imagine them engineering a fast acting bacteria for the industrial process and then having it escape. I doubt that it harm life on earth but it would be devastating to the economy as we'd have to come up with another way to store things long term. It would also make way to do industrial sabotage. Imagine introducing this into the plastic of a bottler and in a few weeks all of their bottled goods start springing leaks (or bursting if they are under pressure). Maybe I should write a book about that.

    9. Re:PET is already very recyclable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The unwillingness to recycle has nothing to do with actual willingness to recycle and everything to do with the moronic work-ethic in the USA, which is "Live to Work!" instead of what it should be; "Work to Live!". Hence, we have a population that feels utterly overwhelmed with WORK and is unwilling to spend even a few minutes of their precious free-time doing something like sort the fucking garbage. I know I'm sure as hell never going to do that, even if it takes a minute a day. Let's get work-weeks back to a reasonable, honest, 40 hours a week and stop flooding citizens with unnecessary, complicated, paperwork etc. Heck, I spend a bare-minimum of 2 hours per week just on useless paperwork that some effing company or government entity needs *me* to accomplish for no legitimate reason whatsoever. We are overworked, underpaid, and fucking sick of it. I guess I'm not a good patriotic "merican" because I don't believe in being bent-over and ass-fucked by the 1%ers is really the American Dream...

  14. What could possibly could wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh I dunno... that bacteria getting into the stuff we are actually still using and breaking them apart...

  15. Increased global warming by beernutmark · · Score: 3, Interesting

    While all the plastic is a pain, at least the carbon is sequestered in it. Or was. If all the plastic in all the landfills and the ocean was biodegraded I imagine we would see quite the CO2 increase in the atmosphere.

    1. Re:Increased global warming by slashping · · Score: 2

      About 3% of the oil is used as feedstock for plastics, so it would only mean a modest increase in CO2. Besides, plastics in the ocean are already being (bio)degraded.

    2. Re:Increased global warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The catch-phrase is currently "Climate Change" because "Global Warming" was too specific and didn't catch on.

  16. solving the wrong problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Plastic that gets collected can get recycled already. The real problem is that it is often not collected, just dumped. That bacteria is not going to do a whole lot of good if the plastic is allowed to end up in the oceans in the first place.

  17. Ice-nine? by milgram · · Score: 1

    I am sure others had flashbacks of "unintended consequences"? How well can this be contained?

    Sounds like a big WHOOPS opportunity...

  18. "Break down," not "breakdown." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Grammar matters.

  19. And then... by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 3, Funny

    "...And then it mutated and ate all the plastic in the world," said Og, as he threw another stick on the fire, huddling in the ash gray wasteland that used to be New York.

    "The scientists said it was 'totally safe' and 'nothing could go wrong'," Og continued, "but you kids don't remember that because that was back when we had electricity and people talked into little boxes they carried in their pockets."

    The children all laughed at Og, he always told the biggest lies because he was so old (almost 30!) and so his stories could not be believed.

    "What's a 'sy-en-tiss'?" whispered Janey.

    "They were the people that knew stuff and made the world run." Og said.

    The children laughed again, "No one makes the word run, silly!" they hooted.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  20. Problem In Joy Land by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The shit left behind could be highly toxic and we would not have any way to deal with that.

    Ha ha

    Spin the bottle again, boys.

  21. The andromeda Strain by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    Someone should write a book about this.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:The andromeda Strain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Daybreak (3 novel series)

      http://www.amazon.com/Directive-51-A-Novel-Daybreak/dp/0441020410/ref=pd_bxgy_14_img_3?ie=UTF8&refRID=0FQE58WAXW5MPJ2ME9TN

  22. SciFi by JohnnyCanuck2013 · · Score: 1

    Mutant 59: the Plastic Eaters. I read this book as a kid in the '70's. It scared me a bit to think how much we depend on plastic and how bad off we'd be if something came along and destroyed that for us.

  23. old, old news and well known fact by rubycodez · · Score: 1

    It's been known for decades that there are bacteria that break down the common plastics, you can even grab plastics buried in a dump and find them chomping away.

    Even the kid in this article from 2008 didn't really discover something new:

    http://www.wired.com/2008/05/t...

  24. Now they can call PET biodegradable! by mark_reh · · Score: 1

    That should increase demand and production about 100X!

  25. Begining of the end by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mutant 59: The Plastic-Eaters are on the way to London

  26. So now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So now they do the research to gene-engineer it to eat plastic faster and better. And maybe to eat any plastic...

    So, will it always see our skin as different from plastic? I hope?

    1. Re:So now by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Conventional breeding may be quicker than genetic engineering.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"