digg

Join DiggAbout
See the original image at eyeofscience.com

Bacteria Eating Uranium [img]

eyeofscience.com — Anaerobic bacteria that use metals to gain energy in the same way that humans use oxygen.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • covertress, on 05/06/2008, -5/+66This is the most outstanding thing I have seen all year!
    • afx1, on 05/06/2008, -0/+16looks delicious
      • dziban303, on 05/06/2008, -17/+1Its really amazing how many people think this is some kind of brand new science innovation, here to wean America's dependence on oil.

        These things have been around for a long, long, long time. They aren't new. We didn't just find out about them. And they won't have any effect on your miserable little lives. Thanks for playing!
        • sv650touring, on 05/06/2008, -1/+10What does your comment have to do with anything? It is a neat-as-hell science thingy. It doesn't matter if it isn't a "new science innovation"
          • Utopian, on 05/06/2008, -0/+9Yeah, that's basically just an "Old!" comment with 57 extra words.
          • RealmDown, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3Anaerobic Bacteria Man, Anaerobic Bacteria Man
            Does whatever an Anaerobic Bacteria Man does.....
        • mrsteveman1, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1You need to take a good look at the rest of the thread, no one said anything about oil here....

          You assumed thats why this was on the front page and proceeded to bitch about it.
      • sockpuppets, on 05/06/2008, -0/+12OM NOM NOM NOM
      • GunDownCCL, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2k seriously, what does that mean?
        • atarijedi, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2It's an internet metaphor for tasty, the sound you make when you eat, or at least, the sound that cookie monster makes when he eats.
    • searcade, on 05/06/2008, -0/+21"Geobacter sp. are anaerobic bacteria (living without oxygen) that use metals to gain energy in the same way that humans use oxygen."
      I have just learned a new thing, so can there be life on other planets which do not have oxygen?
      • halobender, on 05/06/2008, -42/+2WTF are you stupid?
        Anaerobic bacteria are everywhere on Earth but that does not mean they can survive in space. If you've never heard of Anaerobic bacteria you need to get an education.
        • Murdats, on 05/06/2008, -1/+26not everyone studied biology, and apparently you never even learnt basic comprehension.
          he said other planets, not space.
          also there are creatures that live at the bottom of the ocean that live off of the sulphur vents, large multi-cell creatures.
        • searcade, on 05/06/2008, -1/+17Thanks, im only 16, and like you said i didnt say anything about space i meant on other planets.
        • halobender, on 05/06/2008, -25/+2One doesn't have much to do with the other. Anaerobic doesn't mean vacuum. I think this is high school level science.
          • yikiad, on 05/06/2008, -1/+19 you're a dick.
          • natastna2, on 05/06/2008, -2/+10Yes, you are a dick.
          • halobender, on 05/06/2008, -15/+1I'm a dick. :(
            I'm going to have to change my name or I might be killed or harassed oh I forgot this is the internets I can't talk ***** all I want to.
          • AmaDaden, on 05/06/2008, -0/+10@halobender The internets is no place for tomfoolery! You better learn to behave your self or I will turn this Web 2.0 right around. Is that what you want? Dial up and BBSes?
          • searcade, on 05/06/2008, -2/+1You realy are a dick! pussy!
        • daok, on 05/06/2008, -1/+10halobender take less coffee before posting. Digg isn't a biology website so calm down.
        • ajkrik, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3You're just mean, dude.
        • br0ck, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3"Anaerobic bacteria are everywhere on Earth but that does not mean they can survive in space."

          Bacteria are perfectly capable of surviving in space: http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast01sep ...
        • stabbingkittens, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Cynics make the world go round. Gooo Halobender!
      • barius, on 05/06/2008, -1/+18Anaerobic bacteria were the first form of life on Earth (as per the Theory of Evolution). So, at one point in time all living things survived without Oxygen. The ability to metabolize Oxygen, however, gives an organism a large advantage because the amount of energy involved in such metabolic processes is much higher. Once the ability to metabolize O2 evolved, those organisms quickly spread and took over the planet. That's why you, I and most living things on Earth today are aerobic (Oxygen metabolizing) organisms. Anaerobic organisms still exist, but they are mostly confined to places where there is little or no Oxygen and therefore no aerobic organisms to compete with.
        • Stroggoth, on 05/06/2008, -6/+0People are able to walk because they are attacted to the Earth because of the Theory of Gravity.
          • barius, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1And I suppose the Atomic Theory is why matter is made of atoms, the Nuclear Fission Theory is why nukes explode and the Theory of Mathematical Equivalence is why 2+2=4...?
          • Stroggoth, on 05/07/2008, -0/+0It was meant to be sarcastic because you passed off the Theory of Evolution comment as if it was derivative.
        • Terr01, on 05/06/2008, -0/+8Well, there's also the neat story about the "Oxygen Crisis" :P

          Originally, there wasn't much oxygen in the atmosphere. It's a pretty corrosive gas, even though we're used to it and rely on a certain concentration.

          Then we got some microscopic organisms that could do photosynthesis, and they did well, but eventually started to put so much oxygen into the atmosphere that they started to poison themselves. (Cyanobacteria)

          Then we get some species that used respiration, where all that hovering corrosive nasty oxygen was "burned" for energy. (This includes plants.)

          And then there's the whole issue of eukaryotes and mitochondrial DNA and who-got-chloroplasts-from-who...
      • Brainmodder, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2WHAT! There can be life on planets with an oxygen atmosphere! Oxygen's an incredibly toxic gas!
      • S1ngular1ty1, on 05/07/2008, -0/+3There are also bacteria that live now that can metabolize Nylon that never existed before Nylon was invented by man. Evolution FTW.
      • Gryphon09, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Basically, yes!
        Although the only reason organisms on earth breathe oxygen is because we evolved on a planet that it is abundant on. On a planet with an atmosphere with, say, xenon replacing oxygen; the life that evolves there would require xenon the way we require oxygen.
        --at least my high school biology teacher told me as much--
    • ligyron, on 05/06/2008, -6/+5I'm sorry
    • sljepi, on 05/06/2008, -4/+1It is truly amazing!
    • GeekyGerge, on 05/06/2008, -5/+4Then you have obviously not seen the all-new goatse
    • johnomaz, on 05/06/2008, -5/+2Outstanding thing all year until you get a giant bacteria culture ravaging New York City. Eating cars and busses. Running a much craving more metal.
      • greyrat, on 05/06/2008, -1/+8Amok. Running Amok.

        amok - Pronunciation: ə-mək, -mäk Variant(s): or amuck ə-mək Function: noun Etymology: Malay amok Date: 1665 : a murderous frenzy that has traditionally been regarded as occurring especially in Malaysian culture
        • RealmDown, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1I thought it was when Vulcans got the seven year itch.
      • ajkrik, on 05/06/2008, -2/+5and that would be bad, because?
        • t0xen, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Metal-eating bacteria are ravaging NYC. Is this awesome y/n?
      • Stormwern, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Hey, I think I saw that movie!
    • msk275, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1This. Is. The. Future. Period.
    • rodgerdodger5, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2More info on Uranium here;
      http://www.theodoregray.com/PeriodicTable/Elements ...
      and more info on Geobacter here;
      http://www.geobacter.org/
      and here;
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geobacter
      The fact that this stuff might be able to eat oil and plastic waste makes it pretty interesting. From my quick reading it also appears that it might be able to generate power as a byproduct of processing the waste which makes it even more interesting.
    • pdbailey, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1You do realize that it does not get rid of the uranium but just changes it from what they call a water soluble form to an insoluble form. i.e. there is just as much uranium after they are done with it, but it shouldn't get washed away. We already have methods for this (glassification) but presumably this is cheaper. That said, everything is somewhat water soluble, and we still have to find a way to store the waste.
    • Duggan360, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Then you need to get out more, Or see the image section on Digg!
    • mrbeagle, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2That thumbnail looks very smokeable
      • Majhem, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2"This is gonna blow your mind, dude..."
    • nofrickenway, on 05/06/2008, -2/+0You've obviously never seen a breast up close.

    • Brainmodder, on 05/06/2008, -0/+6You ain't seen nothing yet! The radiation tolerant bacteria Deinococcus Radiodurans, comically refered to as Conan the Bacterium by microbiologist, can withstand 15,000 gray of radiation(10 gray can kill a human), the vacuum of space, intense ultraviolet light, and toxic environments. If Chuck Norris were a bacteria, he would be this one.
      • DeathJux, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1It sounds like that bacteria would mop the floor with Chuck Norris.
    • Conseal, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Aw, so cute and fuzzy.
    • Vigilo, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1I swear digg has eroded since i remember maybe we can get a virtual version of this bacteria to eat the garbage that is now on this site. Diggs new name should just be: Look at this image!!! wow cool (make spit bubbles drool) seriously talk about the dumbing down of society. What happened to the Digg i remember that broke stories that MSM later picked up, now its all just crap. BTW the nuclear industry just dumps the waste they don't actually use this method, they just dump it in a lake or bury it in the ground.
  • stilesja, on 05/06/2008, -10/+221That is quite cool. Lets start putting up more Nuclear power plants and give these guys something to eat and give us some cheap energy.
    • Chahrlie5, on 05/06/2008, -9/+6Agreed
      • Duggan360, on 05/06/2008, -5/+3Hey guys!!!! Chahrlie5 agree's!!! Isnt that amazing? Wow, I mean, ***** its just so fantastic that he told us =D
    • ism70605, on 05/06/2008, -14/+13Do you think the uranium just disappears when eaten by this? When you eat food is it gone forever? The uranium would just become integrated with the cell or metabolized and left behind as waste.

      And besides nuclear reactors produce plutonium; uranium is what we need to cause nuclear fission. Concerning this story, why should we produce more nuclear power plants again?
      • chanop, on 05/06/2008, -2/+7True. There is mold that eats radioactive particles on chernobyl. It doesnt get rid of the radation, it's just inside the mold now
        • PolarBearCa, on 05/06/2008, -0/+5But we do have some cool, glowy mold...
      • brianbennett, on 05/06/2008, -5/+11Safe. Clean. Cheap.
        • pdbailey, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2In what sense is it safe/clean? It is exactly as radioactive as it was before it was bacteria excrement.
        • stilesja, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Safer and easier to store.
      • Chahrlie5, on 05/06/2008, -2/+21Because people bitch about oil use and want to use more electric powered vehicles blah blah, and it's a ***** tonne cleaner than coal, and way more efficient than building a thousand wind turbines or a billion solar panels etc.

        • erichhealy, on 05/06/2008, -1/+8People rip on wind and solar energy because they view it as being less efficient than energy derived from fossil fuels or even nuclear materials. The way I see it, the "green" sources of energy are more efficient and utilizing them would be a wise move politically and environmentally.
          If nuclear or any other fuel based system were implemented as our main source of energy, we would be continuing to produce energy with considerable waste and allowing the next super suppliers of energy to emerge.
          Solar energy does not produce waste and we have a free, endless supply of sunlight. Wind energy does not produce waste and we have a free, endless supply of wind.
          Nuclear and fossil fuels may be more potent sources but their downsides make them an unpractical option as a primary energy source.
          I believe America's energy needs should be met by incorporating equal amounts of renewable and fuel-based systems, taking into consideration an area's resources and demands.
          • PolarBearCa, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1What blows my mind is when people say stuff like "but wind can only provide 15% of the overall needs".

            Well, isn't that 15% LESS of something else we need to use that produces pollution? Doesn't that mean that whatever resource it was will last 15% LONGER now (well, oversimplified math, but you get the idea)?

            If everyone stuck a solar panel and a windmill on their house, it may not eliminate the need for generating stations and a power grid - but it would reduce the need for it.

            Amazing how Climate Change alarmists talk about doing "little things" all the time - but this simple connection to emission-free energy of any amount can't be made by the general public.
          • afruff23, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Maybe if governments stopped subsidizing nuclear power with Katrina-like insurance which covers way more than it will actually protect (Price-Anderson act) and stopped subsidizing it with waste disposal (Yucca mountain) we could find out what is truly the cheapest form of energy. Until then, we'll have to let bureaucrats keep guessing.
        • pdbailey, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1But there is no life-cycle analysis of the greenhouse gasses emitted in uranium refining and reprocessing. How can you know if it is cleaner than coal?
      • oldhick, on 05/06/2008, -4/+4We should produce more nuclear plants to generate cheap energy. Concerning the story.... Who cares?
      • truthhammer, on 05/06/2008, -3/+9"why should we produce more nuclear power plants again?" Because of our reliance on their oil, the middle east has us by the balls. Do you think we'd be in Iraq if it was located in the middle of Africa? No. Oil is a major reason why we're there. Nuclear power wouldn't solve this completely, but it's a step in the right direction.
        • 15thPD, on 05/06/2008, -6/+1Preach on hippie man.
        • ism70605, on 05/06/2008, -7/+5Good way to take what I said out of context you ***** idiot. I said, "Concerning this story, why should we produce more nuclear power plants again?" The question was not aimed at you; I was addressing someone else. Obviously we need another power source. I did not deny our need for another power source. I WAS ASKING HOW THIS DISCOVERY SHOULD CHANGE OUR OPINIONS ON NUCLEAR FISSION.

          Thanks bye.
          • truthhammer, on 05/06/2008, -2/+2"Good way to take what I said out of context you ***** idiot." It's amazing how tough people are when they're behind a key board instead of face to face. You responded to a post encouraging more nuclear power plants. You asked why we should build more. I answered. Nuclear power is the answer right now. Get off the high horse and over yourself. By the way, caps lock is annoying.
      • warriorscot, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2The Bacteria would store the uranium as long as it is able to gain energy from it, there is no real problem with storing waste in terms of space it is containment. What these bacteria do is entrap the material and allow it to be contained. So as long as the bacteria are active waste leakage will become a much smaller risk, and then add that onto the fact you could possibly get energy from it that would be a big plus.

        Also nuclear reactors depending on their design produce different waste, you can put in one type of fuel and get another kind out you can fuel it with plutonium and get uranium waste or another heavy metal if you kept on using it as fuel.

        Nuclear power plants have allot of advantages, they are very safe(the only major incidents are with plants that were designed with power generation as a secondary goal. They produce very clean power with no greenhouse emissions and the waste while dangerous as long as it is handled responsibly it doesn't necessarily present a big problem. But who would possibly want cheap clean energy instead of dirty expensive energy with a very finite fuel source that we could use for better things than energy.

        • pdbailey, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Just a reminder, three mile island was a major incident in that there is happenstance not a design decision or action taken that the time that meant that it didn't burn through all containment and dig a hole in the Earth.
        • Darkone253, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Three Mile Island was not a major incident. Chernobyl was a major incident.
      • dafragsta, on 05/06/2008, -1/+4Deposit the waste on uninhabited planets or the moon.
        • danconia, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3Still only a temporary solution. I think shooting it into the sun would be interesting but that's just me. I'm not that worried about it though because where there's a demand for something (solution to radioactive waste storage), science will prevail eventually with a solution. Heck plasma converters might eventually be able to disintegrate radioactive waste in a way that also gets rid of the radiation. Where there's a will there's a way...
        • pdbailey, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Problem with this is that rockets breakup on launch regularly.
        • Rileyluck, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3whose ready for the black hole they are makin in a couple of months? i am :-)
          • dafragsta, on 05/06/2008, -0/+6That makes no sense whatsoever. In this house, we obey the rules of thermodynamics.
        • caramba420, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1I've always said that we should shoot a bunch of nukes at the moon every 4th of July. That would be awesome.
        • Razormane11, on 05/07/2008, -0/+5Do you have any idea of what that would cost and the risks entailed? It currently costs around $10,000 per pound of material shipped into space. There is roughly 90,000 tons of Nuclear fuel stored around just our nation at this time. That would be about $1.7 trillion right off the bat. Furthermore the max payload of a shuttle is about 30 tons meaning roughly 3000 launches. Shuttle launches so far are 119 successful out of 121 attempts. That's about 50 launches with nuclear fuel exploding in our atmosphere. Still a good idea?
    • truthhammer, on 05/06/2008, -6/+19"Lets start putting up more Nuclear power plants ". Yes.
    • DonnieMarco, on 05/06/2008, -10/+6Just not an option, uranium costs are set to go through the roof as the most readily available deposits are reaching exhaustion. This means that getting into deeper deposits is expensive and actually becomes as CO2 intensive as fossil fuels. Plus there is the nightmare of storing the waste..
      • dafragsta, on 05/06/2008, -2/+3That all sounds like hearsay. Uranium is everywhere. There is enough uranium to get us through to the next big energy breakthrough, which is all we need. You can't count on an addict to go clean, but if there is something better than the current addiction, you can bet they'll find it.
        • caramba420, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Uranium is everywhere, but there are great costs associated with separating it from the ore, and then enriching it.
          • pdbailey, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1I can't believe I got buried for that! Check it out, google USGS's NURE program and look into it yourself!
      • Chahrlie5, on 05/06/2008, -2/+3Kind of like how we were supposed to run out of oil 50 years ago, and then we were supposed to run out every decade after that yet keep finding big deposits?

        • pdbailey, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1No, because uranium is much easier to search for (it's radioactive and not as deep)
    • HonestAbe, on 05/06/2008, -0/+12Nuclear waste is not just uranium.
    • Frnnkdlxx, on 05/06/2008, -6/+1***** BACTERIA! THAT'S BUSH'S JOB!!!!!
      • thirteenthcor, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1He should eat it... No NO WAIT! HE would gain it's power and become.... SUPERBUSH!!! TEN THOUSAND TIMES IGNORANT OF OUR ECONOMY! ABLE TO LEAP THE PROTESTS OF LIBERALS AND CARING PEOPLE IN A SINGLE BOUND!! MORE POWERFUL THAN AN ANEMIC CONGRESS!

        Seriously though, I would love to watch him choke on a bowl of Urani-O's with Oil instead of milk.
    • Kindjal, on 05/06/2008, -2/+3You should read the article, they turn it from a soluble form (one that can mix with water) into a solid form. They do not neutralize the radioactivity, that would be indeed an awesome trick.
  • OneLess, on 05/06/2008, -3/+44I love SEM photos :)
    • temporaryescape, on 05/06/2008, -1/+9what got my attention is that i thought i saw a really nice ganja bud... but this is cool i guess
      • Armagetto, on 05/06/2008, -0/+8Yeah, but see after it eats your ganja it gets the munchies for some uranium...
    • epadafunk, on 05/06/2008, -5/+3I agree, SEM is much better than HDR.
    • Soccer4786, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3I love gummies :)
    • danconia, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2Oh I must not be cool because I don't understand your guys acronyms. Let me guess: Something Electronic Microscopy, right?
      • Scottievm, on 05/06/2008, -1/+4Scanning Electron Microscope. Probably something less cool would know about, so I guess you're cool. For now...
    • Erik1, on 05/06/2008, -0/+8I thought SEM images were black and white, were these images colored afterwards?
      • Ramble, on 05/06/2008, -0/+7All electron microscopy images are black and white, it's artificially coloured.
      • S1ngular1ty1, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2They have to be colored afterwards because electron microscopy can't be in color. You aren't using light for taking the image. You are bombarding the sample with electrons and you detect the electrons as they bounce back off the object. The angle they bounce back at, the energy they come back with, and other properties of the return signal are used to make an image.
  • dleesgeetar, on 05/06/2008, -9/+8thats really awesome, so the practical uses are pretty much all eliminating radioactive pollution i guess?
    • chanop, on 05/06/2008, -1/+12doesn't eliminate radiation, injest, becomes part of creature or poops it out
      • samhorn, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3no he was right. it puts it in a lower oxidation state that's no longer water-soluble, so the precipitate collects and makes it easily to clean in-situ. it doesn't become part of the bug.
    • S1ngular1ty1, on 05/07/2008, -0/+3No he is wrong. Radioactive particles are still radioactive until they decay. Since the decay rate of toxic waste can be on the order of thousands of years, I'd say this doesn't help much.
    • soulpiercer7, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1I think they just change it's form from a soluble form to a solid one. they would be great for cleaning up water with radioactive waste in it. pour these puppies in and then just scoop up the solid waste at the bottom.
  • KokomoNYC, on 05/06/2008, -1/+87It's not exactly "eliminating" the pollution, but the bacteria are certainly making it more manageable by converting it from a dissolved to a solid form. There isn't any biological pathway, that I know of, anyway, that can eliminate radioactive isotopes.
    • tsotha, on 05/06/2008, -0/+37Heh. If you find a bacterium that actually changes the number of protons in an atom you're up for a well-deserved Nobel prize
      • staffa, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Ah nuts, my bacterium can only change the number of neutrons. More stable uranium just isn't good enough for ye olde Nobel.
        • tsotha, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1I was thinking about that after my update time expired. Wonder how many people caught it.
          • KokomoNYC, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1I did...kind of. I was wondering if you meant (and this is fantasy, but interesting) that it could accelerate the rate of decay by breaking the atom apart into smaller atoms, rather than change the number of neutrons to get a stable uranium atom. It would be similar to taking the explosive reaction of metabolism and breaking it into small, non-explosive steps, which is, of course biologically possible. What you sounded like you were suggesting was taking basically a nuclear explosion and breaking it into smaller, enzymatic steps. Maybe in a Michael Chriton novel.
    • CarStan, on 05/06/2008, -1/+7Shoot them into the sun
      • aznhomig, on 05/06/2008, -1/+6Even with 99% success rates, that 1% chance of failure of the rocket malfunctioning/exploding in the atmosphere's going to prove quite catastrophic, won't it? It's going to take thousands of trips by the way, I look forward to the 10 or so failures.
      • Seannaz453, on 05/06/2008, -0/+13First comes space elevators.
        • fahrenheitlf, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1And then a giant orbiting catapult! :D
      • Stormwern, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2What we really need is a good rail gun, then we can pack it in steel and shoot it into space without those unreliable rockets..
      • Brainmodder, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4Or we can just mix the waste in with sand and melt it into glass and store it underground. It is cheaper and much safer.
    • Stormwern, on 05/06/2008, -0/+13You can compare it to soaking up puke with sawdust. It's alot easier to shuffle, but it's just as disgusting. Sorry if I ruined someone's apetite, best example I could think of.
    • bbart3d, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Way to go, Buzzkill
    • fuzzybeard, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1So...would their doots glow in the dark?
    • Vigilo, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Yup Koko you are correct. All this makes for cool images but in the end radioactive waste just gets dumped into a lake, stream or buried in the ground. They don't do this to the waste but showing us this makes us think they have it all taken care of and they don't pollute just we pollute so change your light bulbs or we are all dead.
  • StanDevia, on 05/06/2008, -42/+281nom nom nom
    • Ranvier, on 05/06/2008, -14/+235It's OM NOM NOM NOM dammit!
    • Velvolver, on 05/06/2008, -8/+31I can haz raydeashun?
      • recruz, on 05/06/2008, -1/+9im in ur raydeashun eatin ur uraniumz
    • greeniemeani, on 05/06/2008, -1/+7What animal is in your avatar picture?
    • twertyto, on 05/06/2008, -6/+7Let it die damnit! Let....it.....die!
    • SwedishNinja, on 05/06/2008, -8/+2is i can haz uraniumz??
    • iFrikkenR, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3POWER UP!!!
    • atticus8, on 05/07/2008, -0/+4I wish they changed the digg algorithm so that whenever a story with the word "eating" or some other synonym for consumption was used, it would automatically and immediately post a comment saying "OM NOM NOM NOM". This would benefit everyone, as you wouldn't have to scroll down to find the person who says it in order to dig them up. It'd be right there on top. Plus, I think visitors would marvel that the digg algorithm had the capability to associate the simulated sound of eating with articles that contain eating, thus proving it was a sentient self-aware entity equal in capability to the average human poster.
      I would do it myself but I'm working on this automatic xkcd submitter.
  • dafide, on 05/06/2008, -10/+5Yummy!
    • jasg, on 05/06/2008, -3/+1and Ewww..for some weird reason its both Yummy n Ewww
  • roosterjack, on 05/06/2008, -14/+9Ewww.....
  • Johneeeee, on 05/06/2008, -6/+4How cool!
    • etnuts, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1you too, this aint youtube this is digg for ***** sake
    • Vigilo, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1omg some seriously lame posts. What has dig become. I used to visit the site a lot, now its just images and US election results. I think digg has been paid to nurture the stupid instead of having real news.
  • CaptainAmerica1, on 05/06/2008, -9/+56Apparently, these little buggers enable the metabolism of soluble radioactive contaminants into insoluble harmless forms. That really is an incredible capability that would help with the concern about the use of nuclear power in the US as one of the ways to get us off the teat of foreign oil.

    But...don't worry...the anti-nuke crowd will come up with something of concern and block efforts to use the technology and in the end, this will never be adopted.
    • Murdats, on 05/06/2008, -3/+15and will force us to keep using coal power while complaining that we need to turn out lights off.
    • Chahrlie5, on 05/06/2008, -3/+12While at the same time whining about energy prices
      • SealandRes1, on 05/06/2008, -6/+2Nuclear power is only cheap because of the low demand for it right now, once more nuclear plants are built, it'll inevitably become more expensive.
        • ninepointfive, on 05/06/2008, -0/+6you seriously have no clue about supply and demand
        • SealandRes1, on 05/06/2008, -3/+1More nuclear powerplants means more demand for uranium, and uranium's price will rise as a result.
        • ace10414, on 05/06/2008, -2/+3No, where did that logic even come from?

          If more plants are build that means there is more supply...
        • chrisj33, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Nuclear power is cheap because it takes so little to create energy. I forget what the exact conversion is, but it's something like 1 kg of Uranium comes out to something like 50,000 tons of coal.
        • SealandRes1, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Let's try this again.

          Right now, nuclear power is a cost-effective solution for producing power (only because uranium is relatively cheap), if you build more nuclear power plants, the price of power will decrease as a result (because of increased supply), but because of the increased demand for uranium, nuclear power plants' cost will go up while their income (from charging people for power) goes down.

          If the trend of increasing nuclear power sources continues, there comes a point where producing power from nuclear sources will not be cost-effective, and this will force money losing nuclear power plants to shut down, lower the demand and price of uranium, and increasing the price of power.
    • briguymaine, on 05/06/2008, -1/+9but how do we kill the super bacteria?
    • wolferz, on 05/06/2008, -0/+27I'm not anti nuclear power... but I feel the need to point out (as a devils advocate) that they do not make nuclear waste harmless. They simply make it more manageable and less likely to seep into water supplies, etc.
      • Chahrlie5, on 05/06/2008, -1/+10That's a plus. Will make it that bit safer for storage.
        • SealandRes1, on 05/06/2008, -4/+1....But will still remain dangerously radioactive for millions of years. Read MILLIONS. As in x,000,000 years.
          • Chahrlie5, on 05/06/2008, -1/+5fortunately we bury it thousands of feet below ground.

            THOUSANDS, as in x,000 ft
          • SealandRes1, on 05/06/2008, -2/+1Yes, good luck trying to guarantee its safety from earthquakes for millions of years.

            You have no idea how long a million years is do you? Just think about it, this is 2008. First homosapien was 100,000 years ago.
          • SealandRes1, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2Heck the evolution of man (Genus *****) took around 2 million years!
          • Chahrlie5, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Well as long as we don't end up like Morlocks living underground it won't be a problem.
          • SealandRes1, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1You're oversimplifying that potential issues that will occur over the course of a million or more years, you can't possibly assume that the Earth will be what it's like today in a million or more years.

            Oh by the way, the waste has million of years of half-life, meaning it can easily take over a quarter or half a million years for the waste to decay completely.
          • omgJOHN, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1That sounds like a problem for FUTURE humanity to deal with.
          • SchmuckofNI, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Thats why we place the waste on rockets and shoot it to the sun. Or better yet create a waste space elevator to be on the safe side..
      • noahhoward, on 05/06/2008, -1/+7"less likely to seep into water supplies"
        That's what is meant by harmless in this case, the radioactive harm is easy to avoid, don't go near it, the big problem was seepage.
    • PabloMac, on 05/06/2008, -4/+11"...the anti-nuke crowd will come up with something of concern..."
      Now that you mention it, this does appear to be a violation of the bacterias' civil liberties. Better call in the ACLU on this.
      • HonestAbe, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3How so? I think it would be pretty rad to live on a mountain of food.
    • theberlindoctor, on 05/06/2008, -8/+5These do nothing to reduce the threat of a nuclear meltdown, thermal pollution, nor reduce the proliferation of sites to potentially generate weapons grade uranium. These reduce the harm caused by waste, however nuclear is far from a perfect energy source. Renewables (wind, water, solar) + hydrogen are still by far the best option. I'm not anti-nuclear, its just that if we're going to spend all this money on energy research and generation, why not spend it on the one with by far the most promise?
      • theberlindoctor, on 05/06/2008, -5/+2So i'm dugg down and no one will contest my statements? Weak.
      • wbeavis, on 05/06/2008, -2/+7Your determination of "Best Option" is renewability? Wind, water and solar are NOT viable solution to meet current energy demands, not to mention future ones. The manufacture of solar cells and various batteries is probably as equally harmful as nuclear. Nuclear is several orders of magnitude more productive per acre than all of your options combined. Plus Nuclear could exceed all proposed future energy demands today. Wind, water, and solar (and others) are good suppliments, but not for primary. There exist technologies today that would recycle nuclear waste and in the end the waste material is only hazardous for less than 100 years. Nuclear reactor designs are not such that they could explode like a nuclear weapon (they don't use weapons grade material). Meltdown is the worse possible disaster. Simple proper measure can avoid this, or in worst case give plenty of warning for evacuation. The threat from nuclear is less than coal.
        • Majhem, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Current Energy demands... LOL
          If you think about the situation the world is faced with today (the world. ie: not just Nth America) then surely you must come to the conclusion that we cannot possibly and responsibly maintain our greedy lust for energy. Is Vegas really necessary?
          How can you say energy demands will increase in the future, did your crystal ball tell you so? Or are you simply ignoring the fact that with better technology comes greater efficiency.
          Re: Energy use in the future, we simply have to use less of it, AND be more efficient with it.
          p.s. "There exist technologies today that would recycle nuclear waste and in the end the waste material is only hazardous for less than 100 years" -cough ******* Do you even understand the concept of the 'Radioactice Half-life'?
      • CaptainAmerica1, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Here is the answer -- oil and biofuels from algae. Don't laugh...

        http://www.oilgae.com/
      • HonestAbe, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Renewables just don't output any significant power. People need to learn the difference between kilowatts and gigawatts. And the safety issues are a huge problem when you compare with the total amount of energy produced. (Comparing deaths from Chernobyl with deaths from wind is unfair when wind has only produced 1/1000th the amount of energy that nuclear has. You need to look at deaths per megawatt-hour for a fair assessment of the dangers.)
  • DiscoLando, on 05/06/2008, -8/+133Uranium eating bacteria would be more useful, imo.

    Although I have to admit, I didn't know uranium could eat anything!
    • wc3452, on 05/06/2008, -2/+30I see what you did there
    • Kalimotxo, on 05/06/2008, -1/+5I almost made the same mistake.
    • uberchaoslord, on 05/06/2008, -1/+8GrammarCat is grammatically correct.
    • dnl2ba, on 05/06/2008, -6/+10"Bacteria-eating uranium" is not the same as "bacteria eating uranium."
      • Oppslagsverk, on 05/06/2008, -3/+3Dont kill the joke.
      • CrackyJSquirrel, on 05/06/2008, -5/+3I see how you failed there..
      • mhuggins, on 05/06/2008, -3/+3dnl2ba is right, and I was going to make the same correction until I saw he already did. So technically, the submitter and dnl2ba are correct, while DiscoLando is incorrect.
    • accessviolation, on 05/06/2008, -3/+44Actually you've got it wrong. The current title is correct. "Bacteria eating uranium" is a sentence fragment (a noun clause in this case) where bacteria is the subject, eating is the verb, and uranium is the direct object. "Here is a picture of bacteria that are eating uranium."

      There is a difference between "Bacteria eating uranium" (the actual title) and "Bacteria-eating uranium." If we took your proposed title, it would read "Uranium eating bacteria" or "Here is a picture of uranium that are eating bacteria."

      Perhaps it would help you to think of it this way: "cows eating grass." Obviously that is not saying that we have cow-eating grass on our hands.

      Sorry... I'm done now.
      • DiscoLando, on 05/06/2008, -13/+7Did anyone else hear that whooshing noise?
        • accessviolation, on 05/06/2008, -7/+4If your post was supposed to be a joke, then it was. But not in a funny way.
        • Shrubber, on 05/06/2008, -2/+2I don't think he cared that you made a joke, I think he just wanted to make sure people understood that the title is correct. I'm okay with that.
      • kutateli, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3Dugg for taking the time to explain it.
      • krete, on 05/07/2008, -2/+1or was he saying that it would be better if your ass (uranium) ate the bacgeria?
    • AmICoolNow, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2I'm visually aware of what you did there.
  • DaviDaviDaviD, on 05/06/2008, -9/+5It's amazing to think that we are so worried about what might happen if Uranium gets loose, bacteria truly is the greatest living creature on this earth.
    • fezzasus, on 05/06/2008, -0/+5what?
    • SumBodyUNotKnow, on 05/07/2008, -0/+0Hey what about us humans? We can kill them with pesticides. It is the people way.
  • markp93, on 05/06/2008, -1/+61then they infect poor unsuspecting lab worker, and ... jeez... here we go again with another superhero
    • jasg, on 05/06/2008, -3/+4i thought that writers strike was over, what r u doing on digg ?
    • wrs123, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1Don't worry! The Incredible Uranium-Eating Man will save us! Wait, what? He's full? *****. Pack it in folks, we're doneski.
  • trogdorBURN, on 05/06/2008, -19/+4wait for it...OM NOM NOM NOM
    • PabloMac, on 05/06/2008, -1/+5It's been done already. Thanks for sharing.
  • Kyle0wnsyou, on 05/06/2008, -19/+14Looks like a fat juicy 420 nug.... but I wouldn't smoke that unless I was promised superpowers.

    SUPER STONER CAN SHOOT SNICKERS FROM HIS FINGERS!
  • jasg, on 05/06/2008, -11/+3*insert Uranus jokes here*
    • supermanred, on 05/06/2008, -1/+7Please no more Uranus pictures...too many moons!
      • jasg, on 05/06/2008, -5/+2took me some time..but finally cracked it..man it hurts understanding ur jokes.
        For avg digg user:: Planet Uranus as lots of moons circling around it..and u know what mooning is, righ ?
        Your Beloved Buzz killer :) Mmmmmuah :*
  • DonSlice, on 05/06/2008, -11/+24I, for one, welcome our uranium eating overlords.
    • GlassAgate, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1All that we have to do now is to
      use those little spy bugs to carry
      them to where ever someone
      is hiding nukes, inject them
      into the warheads, and
      poof...duds!!!
  • Stonehenge360, on 05/06/2008, -3/+3I can't imagine the smell of Uranium compost...
  • irishjays, on 05/06/2008, -2/+9Why don't we just have superman throw our uranium into the sun?
    • wrillo, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3superman eats uranium for breakfast
    • wolferz, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2were aren't really sure what adding a whole bunch of extra fissionable material would do to our sun.
      • Ogedei, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3I am not sure dumping our entire earth into the sun would count as a whole bunch in terms of the Sun...
      • gta3uzi, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Agreed with the above. I suggested to my mom that we simply shoot all of our unusable nuclear waste in to the Sun. She said why? Why take a chance shooting all of that stuff in to the sun? You don't know what it would do!

        Yes I do, it'd flipping vaporize before it hit the "surface".
      • drpleau, on 05/07/2008, -0/+0surface?
    • irishjays, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1It's obvious that it creates Nuclear Men, who are inherently evil.
  • KipEvil, on 05/06/2008, -3/+12Yellowcake!
    • bigsteve, on 05/06/2008, -1/+10DON'T. DROP. THAT. *****. Pray to GOD you don't drop that *****.
    • 3amboo, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4do YOU know what you can do with YELLOWCAKE?
  • londubh, on 05/06/2008, -15/+1I for one welcome our new uranium eating overlords.
    • PabloMac, on 05/06/2008, -0/+5It's been done already. Thanks for sharing.
      • londubh, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1wasn't there when I submitted. The other guy probably submitted just before I did.
  • zantos420, on 05/06/2008, -2/+31looks like some dank
    • trizzlelv, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Yeah man I wanna smoke some of that *****.
      • 3amboo, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2i guarantee that you still won't be able to make babies
    • Suprfire, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1some stank
    • rentmitchum, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Weird I figured I was the only person who would think this. I control+F'd "looks" to see if anyone said "It looks like" and lo and behold someone thought it looked like a nugget.
  • kuronukurosu, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1Uranium is the most delicious element ever :P
  • Ghoztt, on 05/06/2008, -3/+63Step 1: Build nuclear power plant in the middle of nowhere Nevada, one mile underground.
    Step 2: Use bacteria to take care of waste
    Step 3: Wait, that would mean cheap energy for our peons... CANCEL STEP ONE! ABORT! ABORT!!!!!
    • trizzlelv, on 05/06/2008, -1/+19Hey! Keep your nuclear waste out of my state. Nevada doesn't need any power, we have the Hoover Dam. According to the History Channel's "After We're Gone", Las Vegas will be the only city able to sustain power independently for years, without human intervention!
      • hinchb, on 05/06/2008, -0/+10Not with all those lights
      • Atomic05, on 05/07/2008, -0/+2Err, no. The Hoover Dam itself will survive for a long time because it's well engineered and really damn thick, but the machinery that generates power would fail within a few years without regular maintenance.
    • BuddyDoQ, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4Only one problem. Enriched uranium suitable for power plant operations (~5%) ain't cheap, or easy. As a small part of a full scale "green" conversion effort, sure, but you'll still need considerable energy collecting the uranium and then separating those isotopes. This of course, assuming the bacteria works, and is safe to humans/environment...
    • jasg, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Step 4: Post the pictures of it on Digg N Feel Good about it !
    • sjalt, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2well, these things really aren't "taking care"of the waste. . . they actually poop out radioactive substances after they munch! so we are still in the boat of encasing the waste in glass for the next 250,000 years. . . :-( Nuclear fusion, on the other hand, would be awesome, its waste products are generally non-radioactive (something like helium i believe) and it produces more energy than the nuclear fission used in power plants. Unfortunately the only way we are able to get enough heat to begin fusion on a sustainable scale is in a nuclear bomb, so. . . bummer, solar it is
    • sw1ft, on 05/06/2008, -3/+31. Build nuclear power plant in the middle of nowhere Nevada, one mile underground.
      2. Use bacteria to take care of waste
      3. ???
      4. PROFIT!
  • ironicsans, on 05/06/2008, -6/+5Uranium? I barely even know 'im!

    Thank you, I'll be here all week. Don't forget to tip your waitress.
    • TDot1980, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1Try the veal!
    • TheHappyRobot, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2What's with airline peanuts? Who they trying to keep out of those things?
  • julianwan, on 05/06/2008, -8/+2Picture looks like weeeed
  • gen2ux, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3I could see this going down the same road as Stan Meyer (created the water powered car...needed to be stopped and was poisoned)
    • NucleaRR, on 05/06/2008, -1/+0Stan Meyer's plans for his water fuel cell are posted everywhere online. So they failed at stopping him. No one else has proceeded with his fuel cell design because it is a modified idea centered around electrolysis.
  • sladehawke, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1What do they eat when they run out of uranium?
  • usgovterrorists, on 05/06/2008, -11/+2Lets throw some bacteria eating uranium in the doomed Chernobyl reactor, and then it can be buried in giant steel coffin.
    These neocons want to fool you into thinking using Depleted Uranium isn't going to be the disaster of the century!
    Do you have any idea how many people have been maimed or killed by Depleted Uranium?
    Do you think you should find out?
    • TheSlats, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3Home many people have been maimed or killed by Petroleum Products? do you think you should find out?
      • TDot1980, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2Exactly. Any one of us could be tragically killed in a freak gasoline fight accident.
    • bumblefoot, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3where do you think this bacteria was found? thats right in the doomed chernobyl reactor ;-)

      far less than have been maimed or killed by motor vehicles/petroleum products
      of course these "neocons" are the ones starting wars over crude oil supplies already, imagine what it'll be like when the crude oil supplies start to run out?

      do you think there are more important things to do with your life than troll digg? don't you think you should find out? ;-)
      • usgovterrorists, on 05/09/2008, -2/+1I didn't want anyone to have a false hope the terrorist United States Government had a cure!
    • kryptonite514, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3Do you have any idea how many people have been maimed or killed by iron, aluminum, lead, zinc...refer to periodic table...

      I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you know absolutely nothing about radioactive decay and even less about people. Let the smart people deal with these issues, you just have fun in your own little world.
    • InRussetShadows, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2Once again, I salute the fearful verbal slice-and-dice skills of people who actually think on Digg. USGovTerrorists is now that thin-sliced salami that you can get at the grocery store.
  • wafflesomd, on 05/06/2008, -4/+3That's one weird bud.
  • RustyJ, on 05/06/2008, -1/+9That's what the teenage mutant ninja turtles looked like as infants.

    Turtle and a half shell, Nuclear Power!
  • Doomsan, on 05/06/2008, -11/+3ready?... OM NOM NOM NOM
    • ninjasaurus, on 05/06/2008, -0/+9I was ready nearly 5 hours ago when it happened the first time.
  • etx313, on 05/06/2008, -3/+2Science is cool.
  • SSCrow, on 05/06/2008, -2/+5Huh, I thought Uranium would be more "glowy".
  • tboutcher, on 05/06/2008, -8/+10Uranium is an element, "Elements cannot be reduced to simpler substances by normal chemical means." http://www.answers.com/element&r=67
    So unless this bacteria can smash atoms it can't break down Uranium.
    Its a fundamental principle of chemistry. Think before you bury
    • flashingcurser, on 05/06/2008, -4/+5Yes but they may create a much more stable molecule than a pure element. Something to think about.
      • ericthesalmon, on 05/06/2008, -4/+2No that is not how nuclear chemistry works.
      • HappyScrappy, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Yes, a stable molecule with a radioactive element in it.
    • rationalist, on 05/06/2008, -1/+9Dugg you up for good science, but RTFA:
      These bacteria "turn the uranium waste from a soluble form (that can contaminate water supplies) to a solid form."
    • kryptonite514, on 05/06/2008, -4/+2That sentence you quoted is claiming that chemical reactions can't break down atoms into their lesser components of quarks and bosons and such, not that atoms can not be changed, after all there is a little thing called chemistry that is the study of that very thing.
      • ericthesalmon, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2Regular chemistry (including what enzymes can do) doesn't mess with nuclei, it's just the electromagnetic interactions between electrons and nuclei. No strong/weak force business.
      • JakeyG14, on 05/06/2008, -1/+3Do you not mean quarks and leptons, the only bosons that are considered elementary particles are mediating bosons are they not?
        • skyroket, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2YES!! EVERYONE BURY THE SMARTYPANTSES...
    • SumBodyUNotKnow, on 05/07/2008, -1/+0Don't be a smarty pants.
    • skeez86, on 05/07/2008, -1/+0Breaking down elemental uranium is extremely simple. In fact, it will do it itself! it's called radioactive decay. That definition is fundamentally flawed, unless natural radioactive decay is not considered "normal chemical means." (which is even taught in a high school general chemistry class)

      Since the article (as rationalist said) is discussing soluble uranium waste as the starting material, that means that it isn't even elemental uranium. Check out the pourbaix diagram for uranium and you can see that there is no way it could be elemental uranium.
  • MrZaiko, on 05/06/2008, -2/+3This gives being "green" a new literal meaning
  • lazerflesh, on 05/06/2008, -8/+1Wait... so doesn't this mean we have a way of permanently disposing of nuclear waste ?

    Awesome !
  • roho76, on 05/06/2008, -2/+2I don't know if I trust this stuff enough to be putting it in the water but using it to combat radioactive waste is pretty cool. I just think we need to keep it away from the water supply until we know everything that there is about it and then some.
    My 2¢
    • ODwyer02, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Why are you worried about it being put into the water? Nobody ever suggested putting it in the water.
      • roho76, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1It says in the article that they could even use it in water to clean up Petroleum based spills. Read the article, before commenting.
  • bobbinika, on 05/06/2008, -4/+17its still radioactive you tards
    • garboko, on 05/06/2008, -2/+3yah, but it doesn't leak into nearby water supplies...
      • etnuts, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1uhm bacteria can go anywhere let me rephrase that it is everywhere
  • louiebaur, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1That thing looks cool
  • ajkrik, on 05/06/2008, -3/+2It's kinda cool to think that an organism could utilize the energy from radioactive materials. It has implications for how long the organism could benefit from a few atoms of this . . . conceivably for years, centuries. What a great science fiction concept. Combine radio active materials into human cells and you could live without oxygen for long periods of time, or with out energy source foods.
  • kayvman78, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1Cooooool.
  • TheBigBlueShoe, on 05/06/2008, -4/+4This doesn't mean it isn't radioactive anymore, it's just as dangerous.
    • DeFex, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1and now its on the move!
    • Namaha, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1No, it's not as dangerous because it's much easier to contain.
      • TheHappyRobot, on 05/06/2008, -1/+1Moving alive things are easier to contain than lumps of rock?
    • Brainmodder, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1No, it makes the uranium insoluble which means, it's less likely to end up in someone's drink.

      But, with current nuclear waste vitrification techniques(mix the waste in with sand, melt it into glass), which lock up the nuclear very well and also prevent it from getting into the water supply. One study basically shot a firehose at vitrified nuclear waste, for months and months and months, with a recirculated water supply, and detected no radiation leakage.(Souce my chemistry professor)
  • DeFex, on 05/06/2008, -1/+2now we need radioactive bacteria eating mites to eat them, radioactive mite eating bugs, radioactive bug eating birds which ***** pure uranium again.
    • fuzzybeard, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Yeah, but think of what would happen to the paint on your car when they ***** on it!
  • diecastbeatdown, on 05/06/2008, -2/+3i was a bit worried that by looking at the image people in my office might think i was lookin at some choice buds.
    • Humboldt1337, on 05/06/2008, -0/+0lawl.
      They DO have that "sticky icky green" color, eh?
  • Jaitls, on 05/06/2008, -4/+4I was like "Bacteria eating Uranium"!!....title should be Uranium eating Bacteria.
    • skyroket, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1They already discussed this up above. You guys should seriously read all the comments, or at least search for whatever you want to post, to see if someone smarter than you already posted it. Ctrl F opens search on all good browsers.
  • garboko, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Schwenella is another bacteria being looked into as a candidate for uranium site cleanup. Stuff has been known to eat the iron in oil pipelines.
  • itskarangarg, on 05/06/2008, -9/+22 things
    1) Will those bacteria become radio active after they eat :)
    2) Even Cow Dung (yes cow excetea) blocks Radio Activiy , (Hindu mythology facts which is true)
    • Stevin, on 05/06/2008, -0/+4***** saves the day!
    • Brainmodder, on 05/06/2008, -0/+3You are correct cow dung does block low energy alpha radiation, then again so does human skin, and pretty much anything else.
  • ericthesalmon, on 05/06/2008, -0/+2It would be more accurate to say that these bacteria "breathe" uranium by using it as a terminal electron receptor.I think. It's also possible they're reducing sulfur compounds (which is very similar to oxygen) and making the uranium precipitate as uranium sulfide.

    Organisms like this usually don't grow very well because there's nothing quite like oxidizing organic compounds all the way down with oxygen to produce a lot of electrons for oxidative phosphorylation.
  • Rosco, on 05/06/2008, -0/+1Nice artifact, I wonder how much I can get for it at the 100 Rads Bar?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 110 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.