Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Biotech Science

Uranium Eating Bacteria Help Cold War Cleanup 51

Posted by timothy from the until-they-awaken-and-attack-us dept.
Shipud writes "Scientists from UMA have used metal-metablozing bacteria, Geobacter, to "eat" uranium. The uranium is converted from a soluble form to an insoluble one, thus preventing water contamination. Cold-war era uranium processing has left many contaminated sites in the US, and worldwide. Details are here."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Uranium Eating Bacteria Help Cold War Cleanup More

Uranium Eating Bacteria Help Cold War Cleanup

Comments Filter:
  • I wonder if they could also be trained to eat other sorts of metal..... *evil grin*

  • Radioactivity vs. Toxicity (Score:3, Informative)

    by Henry V .009 ( 518000 ) on Sunday October 12, 2003 @05:46PM (#7196216) Journal
    I notice this is mainly talking about the toxicity of uranium. This makes me think that depleted uranium from munitions might be a main target for cleanup. It is a heavy metal and all, but I wonder how dangerous it really is once you get past all the media crackpottery on the subject.
    • Depleted uranium is probably just as toxic as lead. But we have seen that even someone who chewed on too many paint chips as a kid can grow up to be president.

    • Re:Radioactivity vs. Toxicity (Score:4, Informative)

      by KnightNavro ( 585943 ) on Sunday October 12, 2003 @11:54PM (#7197607)
      You're probably correct; the bugs are there to get rid of U because it's toxic. I did my senior design project on U removal from drinking water. The stuff poses a much greater threat as a heavy metal than as a radioactive atom when injected. The microbes wouldn't do anything to the atomic structure of the atoms, and hence do nothing to reduce radiation, but making it insoluble removes it from drinking water and makes it less mobile.

      Of course, I said pretty much the same thing when the story was run two months ago. [slashdot.org]

    • We have plenty that needs clean up here. Rocky flats here in colorado is still loaded with Plutonium and Uranium. This site was used to produce the nuclear trigger for fusion. There are plenty of other sites such as throughout Russia.

  • What about the poor bacteria?! (Score:3, Funny)

    by psyconaut ( 228947 ) on Sunday October 12, 2003 @05:52PM (#7196235)
    Nobody spared a thought for the fact the bacteria's children are born with three heads and only one leg due to the radioactivity!

    -psy
  • Sounds like a great idea, could save billions of $'s. Could someone help me with the characteristics of uraninite (level of radioactivity, level of toxicity)? They are having a big problem with heavy metal contamination from the abandoned gold and silver mines from the last century, out west, with the honey comb pathways left, ground water is moving faster and covering more area resulting in contamination that is a bigger issue then most would admit, perhaps this bug could help this situation...also.
    • As the article says, it's insoluble,(as in, doesn't dissolve in water) so it doesn't contaminate the water anymore .

      But you can find more here [mindat.org]. Or just try a Google Search [google.com].

      • Thanks for the information, I suppose what I was thinking and did not write was; Will the uraninite have to be dug up and disposed in a land fill or such or will be left as it is and the site be declared safe. Though it does not dissolve in water it can still be carried by water if the particles are small enough. hence my question

  • Obligatory UF link (Score:3, Funny)

    by erpbridge ( 64037 ) <steve@erpbr[ ]e.com ['idg' in gap]> on Sunday October 12, 2003 @06:27PM (#7196390) Journal
    Yellow Cake [userfriendly.org]. Wonder if the bacteria will grow up to look/act like Hastur?

    Egads, I hope not!
  • Untill lysol is classified as a WOMD?
  • That is great news. Makes nuclear power plants all that more attractive, as if their short-term-pollution-free power wasn't attractive enough already.

    Daniel
    • Gonna go out smashing looms tonight, huh?
    • This only has small bearing on nuclear power. The bugs only help to ease the toxic properties of heavy metals (in particular Uranium). The radioactive properties are not affected. I believe radioactivity is the larger concern with respect to nuclear power.

      • Re:Excellent (Score:3, Informative)

        by KDan ( 90353 )
        Solubility is the major concern. The fact that they are radioactive is irrelevant when they're stuck in those bunkers deep underground. The problem is when they dissolve slowly into the underground lakes and such, which currently happens no matter where they're stored. That the bacteria make the Uranium insoluble is a major breakthrough.

        Daniel
  • The bacteria converts the uranium to insoluble form. So instead of having contaminated water, we just have contaminated land. Somewhere in this process I must have missed the description about how the contamination is removed from the environment completely.
    Don't get me wrong, I believe nuclear power is a good thing, and is inherently less polluting than any other form of energy. But this stuff smacks of bad science.
    Apparently I must be the only person that remembers my Jr Hi grade biology class. We had to
    • Uranium has to go somewhere. I guess you could say before it was mined it was in the mountain and the "mountain" was contaminated for millions of years. The point is, if you bury the stuff and it has no chance of getting in the ground water its as harmless as its ever going to get.

    • The only "away" in most people's idea of the word, is rather "out of their sight". If its not in their backyard, or home or street, then it is effectively "away".

      I think this development is an excellent thing as it _helps_ deal with the waste we have already made. However, it is certainly not a solution and shouldn't simply be used as a way of encouraging Nuclear Power proliferation.

      At Roxby Downs (a mine near a town in outback Australia) 5 million cubic metres of liquid had leaked from its tailings reten

      • Your mine tailing problem is not unique to uranium mines. I used to live in Colorado, and I can personally attest that almost all the mountain streams have been sterilized by copper and gold mine tailings. Uranium mines are rare, nonradioactive mines are quite common. Expending effort to clean up uranium mines will give negligible returns, cleaning up mining in general will give huge returns.
      • However, it is certainly not a solution and shouldn't simply be used as a way of encouraging Nuclear Power proliferation.

        Neither, however, should a narrow view that fails to take into account the big picture be used to discourage anything, much less nuclear power. A mismanaged mine paints a stunning picture on it's own, but so does a city with that dreary feeling from soot encrusted buildings and a general poor public atitiude due to everybody having a family member or two with lung cancer. Better some st

        • Neither, however, should a narrow view that fails to take into account the big picture be used to discourage anything, much less nuclear power.

          I don't see how you could think I was taking a 'narrow view' when you quote my final point: To measure the degree of environmental impact of any form of power, you need to measure not just the end product, but everything that happens between it being pulled from the earth until its final end product.

          You see, I was talking about the 'big picture'. People need

          • I don't see how you could think I was taking a 'narrow view' when you quote my final point.

            Saying you're looking at the big picture does not make it so. You're initial narrow statement was at odds with your later declared philosophy.

            The fact remains that there are only three ways to generate electricity that we are presently aware of where we have the capability to manage the downsides. Those are non-photovoltaic solar, wind, and nuclear. Of those three, I would argue that nuclear is the only one that is
    • It's the soluble stuff that's a "contaminant." Otherwise, the stuff was there to begin with. If you lock up the contaminants in an unsoluble form, then the problem is essentially solved. As for the mining of other metals, the same solution applies, except for the arsenic & cyanide that was introduced. This needs additional attention.

  • I, for one... (Score:3, Funny)

    by inertia187 ( 156602 ) * on Sunday October 12, 2003 @10:10PM (#7197311) Homepage Journal
    I, for one, welcome our new Uranium Eating Bacterial overloads.
  • Lets see.. genetically engineered bacteria, radioactive waste, underground aquifer.. Anyone else think this is a recipe for a comic book?
    • except these are anything but genetically engineered bacteria. these are native species, as the first sentence in the article points out.

      bacteria tend to do some seriously amazing things. apparently, all the scientists in this paper did was supply enough food to stimulate the present (but not so populous) geobacter species to fluorish. presumably with different nutrients available, the metabolic pathways of the bacteria were altered such that they mineralized uranium.

      • Anyone else notice that the bacteria's favorite food is "acetate"? Can you say, "film-eating bacteria"? Turn a truckload of those suckers loose on Hollywood...

        Too bad the recent crap the RIAA's been churning out isn't recorded on acetate...8-)

  • by developing enough weapons of mass destruction to destroy the entire planet several times over, and failing to use them for fear of them working, we ended up hurting only our own population.

    Now, we have developed uranium-eating bacteria. Bacteria that will also eat through uranium containers, allowing the substances to contaminate surounding land with the radioactivity of uranium, if not urandium itself.

    I have a better idea. Let's dump all of our used uranium in Iraq in exchange for oil. Then we
  • "metal-metablozing bacteria"

    Science has changed so much since my last biology class... I can hardly recognize any of the terminology anymore!
  • My chemistry is a bit rusty (HA! PUN!). But if I recall, uranite reverts to a soluble form when it is exposed to oxygen. So, while these bacteria might be a good short-term solution, one would have to take care that the resultant uranite is isolated in an anaerobic atmosphere, to prevent it from turning soluble again.

    • It is actualy the oxidation that makes U precipitate as U3O8. Thats why uranite sediments formed only after there was enough oxygen in the atmosphere.

      U is not very radioactive, but inhaling the dust and especialy the decay products (radon) can give you lung cancer. And U ingested in soluble form will knock out your kidneys by damaging the glomerulles and also impair the imune system rather quickly, within few days.

      I have seen a guy who poured accidentaly a little bit of solution of aceto-uranylate-sodium
  • What we need is a conversion of that nifty gizmo from muppet labs which Dr. Bunsen Honeydew used to turn gold into cream cheese.

Slashdot Top Deals

It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.

Close