Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

How do!

A repository type thread to share news from the world of Science. Because there’s interesting stuff afoot, some of which could change our world.

Quick caveat? News reporting of Science is typically oversimplistic, and quite often overhyped. So pinch of salt at hand. Though I’m happy to say our inaugural link seems…fairly balanced?

BBC News reports on a method to incorporate the spores of plastic eating bacteria into plastic products, which will activate in compost

The bacteria exists. And in this application are genetically modified so the spores survived the process of making the plastic.

Seems an intriguing and encouraging development. And whilst I don’t disagree with the comments in the article about reducing reliance and use of plastic is probably a better idea? I say “why not both?”

The best thing we can do with plastic is recycle it. It can only be recycled in a traditional way so many times before it degrades too much, though there is a way to reduce degraded plastic to its polymers, essentially turning it into oil which can then be made into plastic again.

Of course we don’t live in an ideal world where all plastic is responsibly sent to recyclers. Still, I don’t see much benefit in deliberately making plastic that can be composted (as the article mentions).

Also I have concerns about making vast quantities of a bacteria that we don’t know much about. Apocalypse ahoy.

It seems the idea behind it is you can still recycle it, but if it is say, thrown from a moving car into a hedgerow? It will decompose.

Not necessarily swiftly, but eventually. Which is considerably preferable to the current state of affairs.

How long until that bacteria brings down a Boeing?

Boeing don’t need the help.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
How long until that bacteria brings down a Boeing?

It did make me think of an obscure Judge Dredd story where a bacteria from the Cursed Earth starts devouring Polypropylop.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
BBC News reports on work being done to make white bread just as healthy as whole meal.

Interesting stuff. Me, I like a whole meal or seeded loaf for soups and dips and that. But white bread/roll for sandwiches.

El Torro wrote:
The best thing we can do with plastic is recycle it. It can only be recycled in a traditional way so many times before it degrades too much, though there is a way to reduce degraded plastic to its polymers, essentially turning it into oil which can then be made into plastic again.

Of course we don’t live in an ideal world where all plastic is responsibly sent to recyclers. Still, I don’t see much benefit in deliberately making plastic that can be composted (as the article mentions).

Also I have concerns about making vast quantities of a bacteria that we don’t know much about. Apocalypse ahoy.

Unfortunately, most plastic in single stream recycling ends up a landfill, often exported to developing countries so we never have to see it again. The best thing we can do is simply to stop using plastic as much as possible, with biodegradable plastics like this being a far second.

Laughing Man wrote:
Unfortunately, most plastic in single stream recycling ends up a landfill, often exported to developing countries so we never have to see it again. The best thing we can do is simply to stop using plastic as much as possible, with biodegradable plastics like this being a far second.

As my Environmental Science teacher observed more than 30 years ago, landfills are basically recycling storage bins for future generations. We've already learned that the methane generated by decomposition in them can be tapped for renewable energy. Storing plastics (and metals) for future use isn't a bad idea.

Honestly, I thought this thread was about why cold beer tastes better.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
How do!

A repository type thread to share news from the world of Science. Because there’s interesting stuff afoot, some of which could change our world.

Quick caveat? News reporting of Science is typically oversimplistic, and quite often overhyped. So pinch of salt at hand. Though I’m happy to say our inaugural link seems…fairly balanced?

BBC News reports on a method to incorporate the spores of plastic eating bacteria into plastic products, which will activate in compost

The bacteria exists. And in this application are genetically modified so the spores survived the process of making the plastic.

Seems an intriguing and encouraging development. And whilst I don’t disagree with the comments in the article about reducing reliance and use of plastic is probably a better idea? I say “why not both?”

I can't help but feel that whilst it might have a use, its not the best approach

Building a bio-degrading element into plastics that's based on a bacteria activating sounds to me like a disaster in the making for people if those bacteria spread. "Compost" is a diverse term. Would you have to worry that putting your plastic cup down on a muddy hill for a few hours whilst working could activate its bacteria and the next thing you know is your plastic mug bacteria has now spread to everything else in the cupboard and is eating its way toward your Warhammer!

I think bacteria at a controlled facility is far better; you control it and it reduces the chance of it getting out and doing funky bacteria things like evolving or spreading!

 Overread wrote:

Building a bio-degrading element into plastics that's based on a bacteria activating sounds to me like a disaster in the making for people if those bacteria spread. "Compost" is a diverse term. Would you have to worry that putting your plastic cup down on a muddy hill for a few hours whilst working could activate its bacteria and the next thing you know is your plastic mug bacteria has now spread to everything else in the cupboard and is eating its way toward your Warhammer!

I think bacteria at a controlled facility is far better; you control it and it reduces the chance of it getting out and doing funky bacteria things like evolving or spreading!

Being able to eat plastic doesn't make this bacteria any better at protecting itself from the typical ways to control them, so even if it does start coming for your plasticrack you can control it.

And honestly if the worst that could happen is plastic eating bacteria might occasionally eat away at your unused dishes I think it would be worth the downside. Remember that this bacteria will still need the rest of the stuff that they need to grow, proper temperature, moisture, as well as food. The simple act of putting your cups through the dishwasher and drying them would probably make any worry a non-issue even if this bacteria did become endemic to the environment at large or was built into your plastic.

And if the spores are built into the plastic, they will only activate once the plastic is damaged in some way. The spores on the surface will be killed by you using it, washing it, etc... as they will activate and become vulnerable to those things. This will only leave the spores buried inside the plastic itself. Which presumably will only be exposed at some point when your plastic has been disposed of. Either crunched up in a facility for the biodegrading of the plastic itself OR left on the metaphorical side of the road where it can activate and the bacteria will be allowed to do their thing.

Yeah, thing is if the plastic already has to be damaged to activate surely its better to have that at a processing plant level; since there will surely be plastics on the market that the Bacteria won't work with.

Of course that's a very 1st world viewpoint where we can have effective waste collection, sorting and disposal. Poorer nations or those with less developed infrastructure might well welcome self degrading plastics as they won't have the infrastructure in place. Though honestly I suspect proper plastic control will require such infrastructure t obe developed anyway.

The way I see it from my limited knowledge and perspective? It’s a promising development and proof of concept, which in due course could be applied more widely and efficiently. The main thing being “we’ve genetically engineered the bacteria to be heat resistant” widening its possible applications.

And seriously, for dealing with carelessly discarded plastic? It’s a solid solution.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
The way I see it from my limited knowledge and perspective? It’s a promising development and proof of concept, which in due course could be applied more widely and efficiently. The main thing being “we’ve genetically engineered the bacteria to be heat resistant” widening its possible applications.

And seriously, for dealing with carelessly discarded plastic? It’s a solid solution.

Given that our main non-chemical method for killing bacteria is heat, I’d want some rigorous testing done before those genes get released into the wild.

There was that wonderful incident back in the 90’s where somebody reengineered a soil bacteria (Klebsiella planticola from a quick Google) so that it directly produced ethanol as a potential green fuel, but only tested it in sterile soil. Fortunately right towards the end of the project someone thought to test it in real, non-sterile, soil and discovered that it could replace / interbreed with normal soil bacteria and the ethanol levels could severely affect domestic crops. It’s often touted that it could kill all plant life, which seems to be an exaggeration, but a significant, widespread reduction in crop yields would not be pretty for human society.

Make damn sure you understand all of the potential consequences, before you take something out of the lab.

so a case study for high temperature resistant bacteria that is inserted into plastics so that the material is decomposing over time

yet they don't know if there are any negative side products (aka poisonous chemical compounds) and if the bacteria is really decomposing the plastic and not just generating micro plastic

count me impressed that the basic idea for the future of "just make less plastic" is still set aside with "maybe we found a solution so better wait some years to see if this is going to work"

More worryingly is that bacteria the ultimate way for GW to enforce you to upgrade your armies each edition change?

Wild Orang Utan observed using medicine to help heal a wound

This is pretty cool!

I recall reading about a paste (I think again from Orangutan) which they thought would help with rheumatic pains.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Wild Orang Utan observed using medicine to help heal a wound

This is pretty cool!

Talk about some viral marketing.

Apes together strong.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

Laughing Man wrote:
Unfortunately, most plastic in single stream recycling ends up a landfill, often exported to developing countries so we never have to see it again. The best thing we can do is simply to stop using plastic as much as possible, with biodegradable plastics like this being a far second.

As my Environmental Science teacher observed more than 30 years ago, landfills are basically recycling storage bins for future generations. We've already learned that the methane generated by decomposition in them can be tapped for renewable energy. Storing plastics (and metals) for future use isn't a bad idea.

That would be nice if plastics stayed in the landfills. Unfortunately, they don't, with microplastics and chemicals leaching into the water supply. Landfills account for about 40% of the world's microplastics.

Child’s hearing completely restored following successful gene therapy

Well this is pretty exciting stuff.

That's wild! That kind of targeted repair could be a huge thing for a lot of people born with a whole variety of conditions. Heck being able to repair DNA in theory could also mean eventually being able to limit effects of aging since a lot of aging is basically DNA picking up errors after being copied so so so many times (here endeth my limited medical understanding)

It could be major for stuff like Sickle Cell Anemea, which is probably the genetic illness that first comes to my mind as being particularly widespread.

Certainly as a proof of efficacy and not just concept? This feels like a major step forward.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/algae-evolution-agriculture-plant-history-b2539453.html

No biggie... It's only happened twice before - the last time it resulted in plants; the first time it resulted in all eukaryotic (non-bacterial) life forms...

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Child’s hearing completely restored following successful gene therapy

Well this is pretty exciting stuff.

Very interesting.

I suspect cystic fibrosis will be next, the respiratory tract is also very amenable to a viral vehicle.

Sickle cell will be a bit harder because it would require a virus that can reach the bone marrow, and most of those could have pretty serious consequences if the attenuation is unsuccessful (like HIV).

I think I’m more blown away in my medical ignorance because gene therapy actually works!

I’ve been aware of it as a thing since Stargate Atlantis. But to see it actually doing the job? That’s astounding.

Crispy78 wrote:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/algae-evolution-agriculture-plant-history-b2539453.html

No biggie... It's only happened twice before - the last time it resulted in plants; the first time it resulted in all eukaryotic (non-bacterial) life forms...

Interesting. Starting to look like that’s not behind the Fermi Paradox then.

I thought this was important..
https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive-that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat-earths-gravity/

TLDR: Anti-grav technology is real now.

 SirDonlad wrote:
I thought this was important..
https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive-that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat-earths-gravity/

TLDR: Anti-grav technology is real now.

Be very, very sceptical of this kind of claim. This sounds like another version of the EMdrive, which has been knocking around for two decades at this point without having any definitive evidence that it actually works. Any anomalous results in independent testing of the device have eventually been traced to errors or artefacts of the test setup.

Fundamentally, if someone tells you they’ve invented something that breaks or rewrites the laws of physics, they are almost certainly wrong. Or trying to scam you.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
It could be major for stuff like Sickle Cell Anemea, which is probably the genetic illness that first comes to my mind as being particularly widespread.

Certainly as a proof of efficacy and not just concept? This feels like a major step forward.

But the mutation that makes sickle cell anemia widespread is also responsible for immunity or heightened resistance to malaria. Which is why a deleterious (well, for those of us in malaria-free countries) mutation like that was able to spread in the first place.
Wonder if gene therapy can fix one without touching the other.

From memory, SCA is due to receiving TWO copies of the mutant gene (i.e. from BOTH parents), one copy gives you a slight resistance to malaria but not the other issues.

Like Haemochromatosis requires two copies of a specific gene (one each from both parents) or a few other inherited conditions.