Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth Science

Teen Discovers Plastic-Decomposing Bacteria 209

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the here-comes-the-study-claiming-it-causes-cancer dept.
ganelo writes to tell us that 16-year-old Waterloo Collegiate Institute student Danel Burd has made quite a stir with his plastic-eating bacteria discovery. For his efforts Burd won top prize at a Canada-wide science fair claiming a $10,000 prize and a $20,000 scholarship. "Tests to identify the strains found strain two was Sphingomonas bacteria and the helper was Pseudomonas. A researcher in Ireland has found Pseudomonas is capable of degrading polystyrene, but as far as Burd and his teacher Mark Menhennet know -- and they've looked -- Burd's research on polyethelene plastic bags is a first."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Teen Discovers Plastic-Decomposing Bacteria More

Teen Discovers Plastic-Decomposing Bacteria

Comments Filter:

  • Well, Ma'am.. (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 24, 2008 @12:42AM (#23525410)
    Now when people come back into my store and complain about their shopping bags breaking, I can tell them why!
    • I for one would like to welcome our new plastic bag eating bacterium overlords. I hope their stay is a pleasant one, as they dont want to eat us, just our plastic credit cards.

  • hey I know (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ILuvRamen ( 1026668 ) on Saturday May 24, 2008 @12:45AM (#23525426)
    You know what would be cool is instead of just saying ooh I wonder if it eats plastic too and finding out it does, though that's definitely stll amazing...put some bacteria that are at least close to maybe being able to eat X substance and put it on the surface of that substance and blast them with regular, mild radiation every day until some mutate until a colony mutates and starts eating the rubber/plastic/whatever. I've heard very little about forcing mutations randomly to try and get a given result but it seems like a good idea to me. I mean if this kid had found that the bacteria couldn't eat plastic, I doubt anyone would have given him the funding and stuff to try and alter them so they do. And yes, before anyone posts it, keep the test area damn well sealed too so supergerms don't get out (duh!).

    • Re:hey I know (Score:5, Interesting)

      by wizardforce ( 1005805 ) on Saturday May 24, 2008 @12:58AM (#23525474) Journal
      a similar technique to what you describe has already been used to generate a strain of bacteria capable of cleaning coal of various hydrocarbons. the basic idea is that you can breed bacteria and put a selective pressure on them while slowly changing the chemical environment they live in. in the case of coal, you start with oil digesting bacteria and slowly acclimate them to larger quantities of hydrocarbons typically found in the presence of coal while lowering the concentration of the original "oil" hydrocarbons. it is my understanding that the process I am referring to has been patented although I do not believe that radiation/mutagens were used in the breeding process. so in principle your idea, though not new, would/does work and is being used to some extent.

    • Re:hey I know (Score:5, Interesting)

      by skirmish666 ( 1287122 ) on Saturday May 24, 2008 @01:12AM (#23525520)
      This reminds me of that episode of sliders where a bacteria created to eat plastic waste escapes and eats the worlds petrochemical supply.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by nloop ( 665733 )
      I think they tried that in the 80s. the result [wikipedia.org] has been impossible to get of. I think they scrapped the project with the help of a "Shredder"

    • Re:hey I know (Score:5, Informative)

      by Pedrito ( 94783 ) on Saturday May 24, 2008 @08:16AM (#23527106)
      Actually, bacteria mutate fairly quickly as it is. First of all, they don't have nearly the same level of DNA repair ability that eukaryotes (that's all multi-celled creatures and some single-celled) do. Second of all, their sheer numbers are enormous. In a small container, populations many orders of magnitude larger than the human population, can be grown. So out of the huge populations alone, you can expect a much larger overall mutation count.

      Finally, different species of bacteria can share genetic material (DNA plasmids) through a type of "mating" called conjugation, allowing species to trade traits with other species.

      Any mutations that makes them more efficient reproducers and better able to create energy from their environment is likely to ensure survival and ability to out-reproduce their peers.

      Through these various methods, you should get a fairly high rate of mutation. Adding radiation may actually be detrimental to the overall success of the intent. Mutations tend to be detrimental, so if you increase the rate too much, you end up killing them off too fast. You also increase the risk of killing off the small populations with the new positive mutations you want, before they have a chance to spread.

      It wouldn't surprise me if you went digging through a bunch of dumps that have been covered up years ago, to find bacteria that have evolved to eat some of that garbage. I suspect that the time required for our garbage to decompose is actually lower than we predict since we don't really factor in the possibility of bacterial mutations which can make them good consumers of the garbage. I suspect these mutations will happen in far less time than the natural decomposition period of the materials in question.

      • I suspect that the time required for our garbage to decompose is actually lower than we predict since we don't really factor in the possibility of bacterial mutations which can make them good consumers of the garbage.

        The fact that actual studies of landfills indicate exactly the opposite notwithstanding...

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Pedrito ( 94783 )
          The fact that actual studies of landfills indicate exactly the opposite notwithstanding...

          There are studies? Cool. Can you point some out? Google seems to be returning a bunch of results that appear to lean towards supporting my position, so I'd be happy to see some examples that contradict it. Thanks
    • There are, predictably, plenty of comments here and elsewhere on the interwebs about the doomsday scenarios conjured by plastic-eating bacteria. Of course, those scenarios have been covered in sci-fi for decades (Mutant 59, Andromeda Strain, Pandora's Genes, on Sliders, etc).

      What isn't getting much notice is the fact that this story is just really good news: it turns out that plastic bags biodegrade through bacterial action just like wood or paper. Where are the cheers?

      Wood and paper don't liquify overn

  • a top secret death squad under the auspices of the upper corporate echelon at ikea have been dispatched from stockholm to deal with this potentially profit decimating threat

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by FriendSite.com ( 1208220 )
      I would have thought Ikea would have loved this, to get their furniture to self-destruct after 2 years... 1. Build Plastic Furniture 2. Create Mutant Plastic Eating Bacteria 3. Bacteria Eats Plastic 4. Customer needs new furniture 5. ??? 6. Profit

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by dwater ( 72834 )
        I have several pieces of Ikea furniture, and almost none of it is plastic - it's wood and/or metal, mostly.

        Is it different in the USA?
        • How many times I've been eating on my large plastic garden table in my student time!

          This plastic (and pretty cheap) table has served me long in my house..

          Now it's in the way of everything, standing against the wall, maybe those bacteria would have been the solution for a long time to a more classy lifestyle ;)
      • I must be your nemesis, as I've found the error in your evil plan...

        Ikea furniture self-destructs in far less than 2 years to begin with.

  • The mishap (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 24, 2008 @12:56AM (#23525468)
    Actually, the bacteria was introduced after the teen discovered the cure for cancer in a plastic dish; however, before the cure could be analyzed in order to replicate it, the bacteria ate the dish and the cure. The Associated Press quoted the boy saying "God damnnit!"

    • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

      by kitsunewarlock ( 971818 )
      It ate chemotherapy?
      I jest, and I know its a horrible, body damaging and many times unsuccessful treatment.
      I should have said something along the lines of "It ate whatever was keeping the FDA going?", but that's too much of a stretch.

  • Absolutely Beautiful (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Walter Wart ( 181556 ) * on Saturday May 24, 2008 @01:00AM (#23525482) Homepage
    It was kitchen table science done by himself with no budget, no grant and no assistants. You aren't supposed to be able to do Real Science(tm) like that anymore. So how did the kid do it?
    1. He thought a of a simple problem that hadn't been solved
    2. He investigated the obvious avenues first
    3. He used the resources at his disposal instead of trying
    4. He chose something where success and failure would both be easy to demonstrate
    This was really good science. If he keeps it up look for his name with the words "Full Professor" in front and a list of patents afterwards some time soon.

    • Re:Absolutely Beautiful (Score:5, Insightful)

      by v(*_*)vvvv ( 233078 ) on Saturday May 24, 2008 @01:58AM (#23525674)
      5. Got lucky.

    • You aren't supposed to be able to do Real Science(tm) like that anymore.
      Says who?
    • My (cynical) two cents:

      1. Choose an area of current scientific research (bacterial polymer degradation)
      2. Do some basic experimentation on improvement with the limited means he has available
      3. Compare results to existing scientific publications.
      4. Get a local newspaper to blow the achievement out of proportion.

      I can understand a local Daily wanting to celebrate school science award winners, but this is Slashdot. Unless he shows us how to build a plastic-bag-reactor as a continuous power supply for a server,

  • Mutant 59 (Score:4, Funny)

    by Maximum Prophet ( 716608 ) on Saturday May 24, 2008 @01:03AM (#23525494)
    Shouldn't this be tagged, "Mutant 59"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kit_Pedler [wikipedia.org]

  • But is it a good thing? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by taniwha ( 70410 ) on Saturday May 24, 2008 @01:07AM (#23525512) Homepage Journal
    right now we're putting more CO2 into the atmosphere that we're taking out - largely by digging it up out of the ground and burning it. Plastic bags are largely made from fossil carbon - surely we're better off sequestering this carbon (by dropping it in a landfill, or down an old oil well, or coal mine) than we are breaking it down presumeably to CO2 which is released into the atmosphere

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by lattyware ( 934246 )
      That presumes that putting CO2 into the atmosphere does something bad. Which it does not. (Rises in temperature CAUSE a rise in CO2. CO2 is dissolved in the oceans. When the temperature rises, water evaporates, and CO2 is released. Graphs show CO2 actually rises directly after an increase in temperature not before.)

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Maelwryth ( 982896 )
        It doesn't just end up in landfills though, does it [wikipedia.org].
      • Come back when your "ocean evaporation" theory can explain why Venus is twice as hot as Mercury....

        • Re:No cigar.. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by arodland ( 127775 ) on Saturday May 24, 2008 @03:35AM (#23526014)

          Come back when your "ocean evaporation" theory can explain why Venus is twice as hot as Mercury....
          Dur, because Mercury has no atmosphere to speak of? Half the distance from the sun that Earth is, a twentieth the mass, and tidally locked into three rotations for every two revolutions? Not exactly the ideal candidate for climate study... and Venus? You realize Venus has an atmosphere that not only is more than 95% CO2, compared to 0.04% on Earth, but is also nearly a hundred times denser? To what degree do you think that observing the difference between 95% CO2 @ 90 atm and 0.04% CO2 @ 1 atm, or the difference between 95% CO2 @ 90 atm and 3% CO2 @ ~0 atm will give you insight on the difference between 0.04% CO2 @ 1 atm vs. 0.045% CO2 @ 1 atm?

      • Re:But is it a good thing? (Score:5, Informative)

        by v(*_*)vvvv ( 233078 ) on Saturday May 24, 2008 @02:03AM (#23525698)
        This is global warming myths 101.

        The above is true, and rise in temperatures caused from CO2 are ALSO true.

        That is why once you start increasing CO2 levels, it gets warmer FASTER because it triggers even more CO2 to be created, and all of it causes more warming.

        Get with the program people. This is science not politics.

        • Get with the program people. This is science not politics.

          Ummm do you really think those two areas are mutually exclusive? Any professor at any university can tell you that isn't true. Although it might only be the ones with tenure who would actually say it out loud.

          And the general population isn't competent to judge whether any particular thing being presented as science is actually science and if so whether it is "good" science or "bad" science.

          When the UN committee on climate change says "there

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by pembo13 ( 770295 )
        Well good or bad, humans can't (yet) breathe CO2... so it can't be all that good.

      • Re:But is it a good thing? (Score:5, Informative)

        by Nullav ( 1053766 ) <moc@lia[ ]valluN ['mg.' in gap]> on Saturday May 24, 2008 @02:41AM (#23525798)

        Graphs show CO2 actually rises directly after an increase in temperature not before.
        You know, there's a reason for the term 'runaway greenhouse effect'. Hint: That extra CO2 released by the increased heat doesn't help cool anything.

      • Re:But is it a good thing? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by RodgerDodger ( 575834 ) on Saturday May 24, 2008 @03:49AM (#23526052)
        *sigh* It's called a positive feedback loop. Increased temperatures do result in increased CO2 levels. Increased CO2 levels then result in increased temperatures. And thus the cycle continues upwards until something causes it to stop. The real big giveaway is that the temperature increase always accelerates as CO2 concentrations goes up.

        This is a simple laboratory experiment that anyone can do. Heck, they did it on MythBusters.

        And yes, it's true that natural processes put out a lot more CO2 than humans do. That's not the point. Natural processes are more or less balanced; what nature puts out, nature absorbs. What we are doing is upsetting the balance so that there isn't enough capacity. One of Dicken's characters said "Annual income 20 pounds, annual expenditure 19 six, result happiness. Annual income 20 pounds, annual expenditure 20 pounds ought and six, result misery." - his point was that all you need to do is live just a little beyond your means to cause big problems.

        Heck, it doesn't even matter if we _are_ the main cause or not. If we're not the main cause, we're still contributing to the problem at least a bit. Personally, I'd rather be the cause - it would imply that we could fix it.

      • That presumes that putting CO2 into the atmosphere does something bad. Which it does not. (Rises in temperature CAUSE a rise in CO2. CO2 is dissolved in the oceans. When the temperature rises, water evaporates, and CO2 is released. Graphs show CO2 actually rises directly after an increase in temperature not before.)

        Riiiight, and the water levels for the oceans isn't rising due to things like the polar ice caps melting.....

        Maybe your theory would make sense if there were less liquid water in the oceans as the temperature of the world increases. However, what we are experiencing is the opposite.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by blind biker ( 1066130 )
      I have been thinking along the same lines for a long time. I came to the conclusion that landfills are, in a weird way, good for the planet in the long run, if filled with carbon-containing trash - this is, as you noted, a carbon-sequestering mechanism of sorts.
      But this seems even less politically correct to say, than that nuclear plants are more ecologically sound than coal plants, so I don't expect your post to be modded very high. Slashdot can be extremely PC.
      • Actually, it's rather appropriate that you mention nuclear plants, because the big benefit of nuclear plants is essentially same benefit of not trying to decompose our plastic landfill waste (specifically, that the waste is easy to contain compared to carbon dioxide emissions).
    • If only somebody could come up with a way of taking the CO2 out of the atmosphere...
      • Trees?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by taniwha ( 70410 )
          yup - trees - let me take my thought one step further and suggest that sending your newspaper to the landfill rather than recycling it (and I have been diligently for years) might also be a good thing ....

      • If only somebody could come up with a way of taking the CO2 out of the atmosphere...
        ...and turning it into plastics!

  • Ah, this story (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Haoie ( 1277294 ) on Saturday May 24, 2008 @01:19AM (#23525538)
    When I first came across it, I thought that it was an idea that needs some serious development. Plastics take up a huge amount of landfill space worldwide, and this is of use in the future.

    That and recycling plastics, obviously.

    • When I first came across it, I thought that it was an idea that needs some serious development. Plastics take up a huge amount of landfill space worldwide, and this is of use in the future.

      The problem is - it's not clear where the components of the plastic are going after being 'eaten'. (There should be more coming out of the system than 'water and tiny levels of carbon dioxide'.) Nor did he measure the volume of the plastic remaining after being 'eaten', only it's weight and gross mechanical properties

  • That's pretty neat, kiddo... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by syd02 ( 595787 ) on Saturday May 24, 2008 @01:25AM (#23525570)
    "...you came up with an answer to 29 million tons of non-biodegradeable plastic being added to landfills each year, so here's 10 grand. Yep, 10 big ones. Oh, and go get yourself a bit of education."

    • Re:That's pretty neat, kiddo... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Ihmhi ( 1206036 ) <i_have_mental_health_issues@yahoo.com> on Saturday May 24, 2008 @02:18AM (#23525736)

      But doesn't he own the process? Unless the rules stated that any experiments become the property of the organization running the fair, he is going to make $30K on top of whatever money he will be pulling out of this discovery in the future. If he doesn't squander it away on Xbox games and hookers he's set for life.

      • Squandering the money would be spending it on things other than games and hookers, surely?

      • If he doesn't squander it away on Xbox games and hookers he's set for life.

        You've got it wrong. He's going to spend a lot of money on games and hookers. The rest he'll squander (with apologies to George Best [wikipedia.org]).

      • If he doesn't squander it away on Xbox games and hookers he's set for life.
        No room for Daniel Burd, huh? Well, he should start his own science fair, with video games and hookers! In fact, forget the science and the video games!
    • In all due respect, the science fair that paid out probably doesn't have that much money to give away, there was a prize they set up, he won the fair, and that is what he was given. I'm sure he will be getting grants and recognition from other sources in the near future.
  • Since the bacteria produce heat as a byproduct in addition to a negligible amount of CO2, perhaps this could be used to replace older trash incinerators to act as a type of greenhouse, with the heat coming not from trapped infrared, but from the microbial waste.

  • Next up: What he does the next $100,000 (Score:3, Insightful)

    by terbo ( 307578 ) on Saturday May 24, 2008 @01:26AM (#23525574) Journal
    I wonder how hes going to turn that $20k into $100k so he can actually get a college degree.
    • Wait a year, then convert to American dollars. At that time, American Dollar will have dropped enough, but many Universities will still be good.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by superflex ( 318432 )

      I wonder how hes going to turn that $20k into $100k so he can actually get a college degree.
      He doesn't. He turns it into $40k and gets a bachelors degree at pretty much any Canadian university he wants to attend.
      Or he registers in an honours co-op degree program at his local university [uwaterloo.ca] and then his $20k, plus what he earns on co-op work placements, pays for his bachelors degree entirely.

  • Unintended consequences (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Starvingboy ( 964130 ) on Saturday May 24, 2008 @01:40AM (#23525618)
    I can't help but wonder about untindended consequences. Looking around at all the plastics, having them inadventantly eaten by bacteria would be a BAD thing.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Z00L00K ( 682162 )
      So the evolution will claim new victims.

      But I'm hardly surprised that these bacteria exists - considering that oil-eating bacteria already has been found!

      The issue is otherwise at what rate they can consume plastics and which conditions that are required.

    • No not all plastics are the same however a LOT of plastics are made out of polyethylene. Fortunately not many structurally important ones. Many are made from polycarbonate now.

      As for unintended consequences, all I could think of was the Andromeda Strain as I read this topic :)

    • I can't help but wonder about untindended consequences. Looking around at all the plastics, having them inadventantly eaten by bacteria would be a BAD thing.
      EXACTLY! This is terrible news for global warming, since there won't be any fuel for Mr Fusion if these bacteria become widespread, and thus cars will still be using petrol/diesel engines!

  • Proof of evolution (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 24, 2008 @01:57AM (#23525672)
    Like the evidence of Nylonase [wikipedia.org] this shows a new life forming to fill a niche of edible material.

    In 1975 a team of Japanese scientists discovered a strain of Flavobacterium living in ponds containing waste water from a factory producing nylon that was capable of digesting certain byproducts of nylon-6 manufacture, such as the linear dimer of 6-aminohexanoate, even though those substances are not known to have existed prior to the invention of nylon in 1935
    Yet another hammer in the coffin for the nuts who want to deny reality.

  • And the code name for this bug is: (Score:4, Funny)

    by misterhypno ( 978442 ) on Saturday May 24, 2008 @02:02AM (#23525692)
    The Andromeda Strain.

    as if anybody hadn't thought of THAT one yet!

  • Love those journalists (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MrMr ( 219533 ) on Saturday May 24, 2008 @02:48AM (#23525824)
    This sounds like an excellent high school project, combined with crappy PR and lazy Journalism.

    but as far as Burd and his teacher Mark Menhennet know -- and they've looked
    Yeah right, so googling 'biodegradation Sphingomonas polyethene OR polyethylene' doesn't return any hits in Canada.

  • We can only hope that people will not promote these plastic-eating bacteria. I sort of like the fact that we have -- other than metals -- a material that has no shelf date.
    Laptop cases don't decompose right now. I hope I don't live long enough to see a time when they do.

  • Doomwatch (Score:3, Interesting)

    by BigBadBus ( 653823 ) on Saturday May 24, 2008 @05:01AM (#23526286) Homepage
    This was the basis for an episode of the BBC drama series Doomwatch in the early 1970s. The bacteria was heralded as a way of disposing with plastic litter ... until it escaped into the wild. Well worth watching IMHO.

  • Said that this was a bad idea more than 30 years ago. So did Kit Pedler & Jerry Davis "Mutant 59: The Plastic Eaters"
  • . . . Man's prosthetic arm is lost to plastic-eating bacteria. Necrotizing fasciitis afflicted community takes a moment of silence. There is no escape.
  • Most hot tubs and swimming pools have a chlorine/bromine-based water chemistry, to kill bacteria. But there's an alternative treatment, based on biguanide polymers, that IIRC weakens the cell walls of the bacteria. (It's sold as BaquaSpa and BaquaCil, among others.)

    The most common bacteria in hot tubs? Pseudomonas.

    So... who wins that battle?
  • SO does this mean that all the Environmentalists now have to shut their traps about paper or plastic? (I know.. they now want everyone to bring their own canvas bags to the store).

    Seriously though... if there are natural bacteria that decompose both polystyrene and polyethylene... doesn't that just mean that the studies that showed that those materials would last for a really long time in landfills were just plain wrong, and that we should stop feeling guilty about throwing them away - as far as polluting t
  • Wasn't bad read as I remember.
  • now he needs to get someone to sponsor him to dump some of this in the middle of that large plastic floating island...

Slashdot Top Deals

It's currently a problem of access to gigabits through punybaud. -- J. C. R. Licklider

Close