Prev: looking for electronics help in Seattle area
Next: idiots messing with systems they don't understand
From: Greegor on 26 May 2010 19:13
PH > I wonder if anyone has developed a
PH > dispersible oil eating bacteria safe
PH > for use in the open ocean.

JA > Already there, on site. The Gulf gobbles
JA > oil naturally, about 5,000bbl / day, just
JA > not all gushing from one hole.
JA >
JA > Bacteria love it. After all, hydrocarbon + O2
JA > is pretty close to carbohydrate, yes?

When these bacteria/enzymes break
down oil, what compounds result?

SP > It would be wonderful if it could grow underground too.

What would that bacteria do if it got into
a pocket of oil we should be pumping to use?

What would that bacteria do if it got into
groundwater and into a human gut?

Can that bacteria go after oils in
living animal/human tissue?

From: Greegor on 27 May 2010 02:03
> In 2046 nanoscale self-replicating robots were dispersed in the Gulf of
> Mexico to clean up an oil spill.  Unfortunately a subtle programming
> error caused their consumption target to be changed from "hydrocarbons"
> to "all carbon based substances", and within a week the world was turned
> to dust. :(

That's called the "grey goo" scenario.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_goo

More recent analysis has shown that the danger of grey goo is far less
likely than originally thought.[8] However, other long-term major
risks to society and the environment from nanotechnology have been
identified.[9] Drexler has made a somewhat public effort to retract
his grey goo hypothesis, in an effort to focus the debate on more
realistic threats associated with knowledge-enabled nanoterrorism and
other misuses.
From: Bitrex on 27 May 2010 03:24
Greegor wrote:
>> In 2046 nanoscale self-replicating robots were dispersed in the Gulf of
>> Mexico to clean up an oil spill. Unfortunately a subtle programming
>> error caused their consumption target to be changed from "hydrocarbons"
>> to "all carbon based substances", and within a week the world was turned
>> to dust. :(
>
> That's called the "grey goo" scenario.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_goo
>
> More recent analysis has shown that the danger of grey goo is far less
> likely than originally thought.[8] However, other long-term major
> risks to society and the environment from nanotechnology have been
> identified.[9] Drexler has made a somewhat public effort to retract
> his grey goo hypothesis, in an effort to focus the debate on more
> realistic threats associated with knowledge-enabled nanoterrorism and
> other misuses.

Nanoterrorism? O_o
From: dagmargoodboat on 28 May 2010 10:25
On May 26, 6:13 pm, Greegor <greego...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> PH > I wonder if anyone has developed a
> PH > dispersible oil eating bacteria safe
> PH > for use in the open ocean.
>
> JA > Already there, on site.  The Gulf gobbles
> JA > oil naturally, about 5,000bbl / day, just
> JA > not all gushing from one hole.
> JA >
> JA > Bacteria love it.  After all, hydrocarbon + O2
> JA > is pretty close to carbohydrate, yes?
>
> When these bacteria/enzymes break
> down oil, what compounds result?

A bunch I'm sure, but biochemistry ain't what I do.

> SP > It would be wonderful if it could grow underground too.
>
> What would that bacteria do if it got into
> a pocket of oil we should be pumping to use?
>
> What would that bacteria do if it got into
> groundwater and into a human gut?
>
> Can that bacteria go after oils in
> living animal/human tissue?

I don't know the particulars, but many people have mentioned that
bacteria are already used for bioremediation of oil spills. The
difference is, while they do digest the stuff, they can't gulp
thousands of barrels a day. It's more a way of cleaning up a static
deposit, AIUI, and it's slow.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur
From: dagmargoodboat on 28 May 2010 10:49
On May 28, 3:05 am, Martin Brown <|||newspam...(a)nezumi.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
> On 28/05/2010 01:15, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote:


> > Look, it's all bad.  It's a disaster.  The Prez will seize BP and make
> > everyone feel better.
>
> It seems BP have also lied about the extent of the oil leak.

Lied? They've supplied streaming video of the plume. ISTM they
simply guesstimated. It's not like they could catch it and count the
buckets.

> Independent
> experts are putting it at more like 30,000 barrels a day and some give a
> figure nearly 3x higher still. Either way it is now the largest US oil
> spill in history. Perhaps in future oil rig inspections will be just a
> little bit more thorough.

If I were a left-wingnut, I'd point out that BP gave Mr. Obama $1M and
imply they got special treatment.

Or that Mr. Obama's appointee to head the supervising agency, was a
light-weight environmentalist, a Harvard (environmental) law review
buddy, a crony, and not a qualified master of her assigned duties.
IOW, another egg-head Marxist in control of stuff she doesn't
understand.

The whole incident is really a wonderful advertisement for the power
and efficacy of government oversight. Like with Freddie Mac and
Fannie Mae's boatloads of regulators, and how effectively they
protected us all.

"Whoopsie, missed that. Must've been an oversight."

--
Cheers,
James Arthur
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: looking for electronics help in Seattle area
Next: idiots messing with systems they don't understand