back to article Boffins find evidence of strange uranium-producing bacteria lurking underground

Scientists have discovered bizarre evidence in the US state of Wyoming – that bacteria hidden deep within the Earth's crust secrete uranium. Uranium, the silvery white metal known for its radioactive properties and usage in nuclear power plants, is thought to occur within ore deposits in the form of uraninite. The uranium in …

  1. SkippyBing

    Domestos

    So bleach can stop nuclear proliferation is what I'm getting from this story.

    1. Martin Gregorie

      Re: Domestos

      I think you've misread leach as bleach in the Introduction section of the paper.

      The rest of the paper describes extracting Uranium compounds using nitric and hydrochloric acids (HNO3 and HCl) in combination with hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) in acidic solutions.

      Bleach, on the other hand, is quite strongly alkaline and mixing it with acids used to extract the Uranium compounds would merely neutralise the acids, making extraction less effective.

      1. A Non e-mouse Silver badge

        Re: Domestos

        I think you've missed SkippyBing's joke: By using bleach, you kill the bacteria that process the Uranium.

        1. asdf

          Re: Domestos

          1 teaspoon of 5% bleach being able to disinfect 30 gallons of water is impressive stuff.

      2. I just wish to be anonymous.

        Re: Domestos

        Upvote 'cos you've a bloody interesting website.

  2. G R Goslin

    The usual baloney

    I do wish reporters would get someone to read what they write. The laws of the Conservation of Matter indicate that you cannot make, or destroy matter, in any significance in our environment. So, you cannot 'form' or 'produce' uranium. You can break down its compounds and create new compounds, but the uranium you get was there before. Uranium is not particularly scarce. The one time head of the CEGB, ( I wish I could find the reference), Once invented the 'back yard unit' to put things into perspective. The 'back yard unit, was a volume of the soil in a typical housing plot. The plots in those days must have been a bit bigger than the present estate postage stamp sized plots. The average 'back yard unit', he said would hold about 2.5Kg of uranium, or a bit over 5lbs of the stuff. It's the reason for the past (and possibly present) rave against Radon emissions from soil. Bacterial sequestration is again, nothing new. I believe, at one time, the Japanese tried sequestration of uranium from sea water by nets of seaweed. Historically Iodine has been produced for years by burning seaweed. Reed beds are used to remove heavy metals from waste streams. The legumes (peas and beans sequester Nitrogen. The story goes on and on.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: The usual baloney

      "So, you cannot 'form' or 'produce' uranium. You can break down its compounds and create new compounds, but the uranium you get was there before"

      You, Sir, need to read up on the latest discoveries in Quantum Biology. You will be surprised at what is possible with a biologically small amount of energy, under the right conditions. Thinking in terms of elements, Protons and Neutrons is 19th Century Science :)

      1. Dr. Ellen

        Re: The usual baloney

        I have personally transmuted palladium into silver. The atom-smasher I used was a LOT bigger than your basic microbe. That uranium stuff, I didn't want to get involved. Who needs neptunium in the back yard?

        1. Pompous Git Silver badge

          Re: The usual baloney

          "I have personally transmuted palladium into silver."
          In 1964 I was told by one of my teachers, (King Edward VI Grammar School, Nuneaton) that transmutation of elements was complete and utter nonsense. Interestingly there's a lot of granite there and here in the backward colonies was taught that there's uranium transmuting to lead in it.

        2. Pen-y-gors

          Re: The usual baloney

          @Dr Ellen "I have personally transmuted palladium into silver."

          Well, that was a bit silly - current price of palladium - $26,600 per kg, price of silver $560/kg. Sounds like a very expensive and complicated way of losing money.

          Now, if you could transmute silver into gold (or green)...

          1. Mage Silver badge

            Re: Alchemy

            Sadly while you CAN change lead into gold, now, changing anything to approximately iron is probably easiest?

            1. Chemist

              Re: Alchemy

              "now, changing anything to approximately iron is probably easiest?"

              But not too easy, eh ?

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: I have personally transmuted palladium into silver

          This is kind of like alchemy, but where you *reduce* the value of the palladium by 495 times by turning it into silver, yes? Can you turn diamonds into quartz, too? Or how about inventing car polish that makes the bodywork rust, or a magic flavour-removing spoon for coffee? :D

          1. uncommon_sense

            Re: I have personally transmuted palladium into silver

            Carefull buddy, I think StarSucks have a patent on that already!

            The process is called "Dibblering"..

          2. Roj Blake Silver badge

            Re: a magic flavour-removing spoon for coffee?

            Easily done - simply coat the spoon in CoffeeMate.

          3. Ochib

            Re: I have personally transmuted palladium into silver

            "magic flavour-removing spoon for coffee"

            That has already be done by the likes of StarBucks etc

          4. Dr. Ellen
            Pint

            Re: I have personally transmuted palladium into silver

            In my defense, I didn't transmute very much, even on the microgram scale. And I had a government grant, so money was no object.

        4. Youngdog

          Re: The usual baloney

          "I have personally transmuted palladium into silver"

          See, I've done a few very cool things and tried my hardest to fill my life with varied experiences and achievements (and plenty for the benefit of others too) but none of them come close to sounding as cool as that. Is your first name Zaphod?

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: The usual baloney

        "You, Sir, need to read up on the latest discoveries in Quantum Biology. You will be surprised at what is possible with a biologically small amount of energy, under the right conditions. Thinking in terms of elements, Protons and Neutrons is 19th Century Science :)"

        This is either a troll or evidence of almost unbelievable stupidity.

        1. Pompous Git Silver badge

          Re: The usual baloney

          "This is either a troll or evidence of almost unbelievable stupidity."

          Er...

          Quantum biology

          "Recent evidence suggests that a variety of organisms may harness some of the unique features of quantum mechanics to gain a biological advantage. These features go beyond trivial quantum effects and may include harnessing quantum coherence on physiologically important timescales. In this brief review we summarize the latest results for non-trivial quantum effects in photosynthetic light harvesting, avian magnetoreception and several other candidates for functional quantum biology. We present both the evidence for and arguments against there being a functional role for quantum coherence in these systems."

          1. Pompous Git Silver badge

            Re: The usual baloney

            Jesus fucking Christ! Another downvote for referencing a reputable scientific publication. Where do you get your science from then? Christian Science Monitor or the Grauniad?

            1. Chemist

              Re: The usual baloney

              "Jesus fucking Christ! Another downvote for referencing a reputable scientific publication. Where do you get your science from then? Christian Science Monitor or the Grauniad?"

              I suspect the downvote might be because there's no suggestion in this paper that nuclear effects are possible. which is something that that was being suggested by the OP. So your ref. was to a non sequitur.

              As a chemist I accept that all chemistry involves quantum effects and many enzymes probably utilize tunneling but I don't see chemical (& therefore) biological systems having nuclear effects although as I mentioned in another post isotopes of lighter elements can show chemical differences.

              1. Pompous Git Silver badge

                Re: The usual baloney

                "As a chemist I accept that all chemistry involves quantum effects and many enzymes probably utilize tunneling but I don't see chemical (& therefore) biological systems having nuclear effects"
                Perhaps because you are a chemist and not a physicist?

                Biological Nuclear Transmutations as a Source of Biophotons A. Widom, Physics Department, Northeastern University, Boston MA USA

                Y. N. Srivastava, Physics Department & INFN, University of Perugia, Perugia Italy

                S. Sivasubramanian, Nanoscale Technology and High Rate Manufacturing Research Center

                Northeastern University, Boston MA USA.

                "Many electrons dumping their individually smaller energies into a single high energy nuclear reaction may contribute to a nuclear transmutation process with plenty of available biophysical energy.

                Due mainly to the lack of a clear and detailed biophysical theory of nuclear transmutations, the experimental data is considered by some to be controversial. The present lack of a biophysical theory of how the collective energy of many degrees of freedom is focused on a few nuclear transmutation events by no means reflects badly on the reliable experimental data which clearly indicates nuclear transmutations."

                Thirty odd years ago, I was farming organically and simultaneously investigating what scientific evidence could be mustered to explain why organic farming technologies worked. At that time I was told by what might be called the old guard of agricultural scientists such systems could never work. But I was reporting my findings in a regular rural newspaper column and found myself addressing audiences of farmers and ag. scientists. Today much of that "impossible" stuff is considered quite mainstream. And I take great delight each time some old observation is explained at The Scientist. YMMV...

                1. Chemist

                  Re: The usual baloney

                  This paper is extra-ordinary and contains content that I cannot believe. Shellfish making enough Calcium to replace their shells etc. No, sorry if this were true this would have set the whole of Biology/Chemistry/Physics on it's head and it hasn't.

                  This makes cold fusion look quite reasonable !

                  ( A lot of the 'evidence' comes from a guy called Corentin Louis Kervran who subsequently won an Ig Nobel prize for his 'work' )

                2. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: The usual baloney

                  You should check the citations of the material you quote.

                  "In 1993, Kervran was awarded a parodic Ig Nobel prize due to his "improbable research" in biological transmutation. The award description called him an "ardent admirer of alchemy."

                  http://www.improbable.com/2008/10/20/horesetail-kervrans-inspiration/

                  1993 Ig Nobel Biology Prize winner Louis Kervran’s discoveries (among other things, Kervran said that that the calcium in chickens’ eggshells is created by a process of cold fusion) inspired a video producer to make this micro-documentary. Most biologists are unaware of Kervran’s theories, just as Kervran himself may have been aware of much of biology.

                  1. Pompous Git Silver badge

                    Re: The usual baloney

                    "You should check the citations of the material you quote."
                    Back at you. I have read Kervran's Biological Transmutations having been given a copy several decades ago. Nowhere in it does he make the claim "the calcium in chickens’ eggshells is created by a process of cold fusion". He does mention a number of biological processes where one element increases and another decreases. There is no presentation of how this occurs.

                    When I read it, because education, I dismissed it. Sure elements transmutate all the time, but only in the presence of energy levels too high for biological processes to supply. So far, so good as they say.

                    About a decade ago, I ran across an acquaintance I hadn't seen since 1970/71. Like me he had become bored every ten years and commenced a new career. One of them for him had been prawn farming in Queensland. I cannot recall how the topic came up, but he had his inputs and outputs analysed and discovered anomalies: reduced K and increased Ca.

                    The problem is the where does the energy come from? The paper I cited claims that the energy is available, but I am not competent to comment on the physics.

                    "Most biologists are unaware of Kervran’s theories"
                    Even though I have read his book, so am I. He doesn't provide much in the way of explanation. What he does give is the results of experiment. As I said earlier in the thread, this was much the situation in organic agriculture 30 years ago. We had the results of experiments showing that certain things occur, but no scientific explanation. These days not so much.

                    1. Anonymous IV
                      Joke

                      Re: The usual baloney

                      > About a decade ago, I ran across an acquaintance I hadn't seen since 1970/71. Like me he had become bored every ten years and commenced a new career. One of them for him had been prawn farming in Queensland.

                      Since this sub-thread could clearly do with being lightened up a bit, might I suggest that the reason for your acquaintance's new career choice was that he wanted to come the raw prawn?

                3. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

                  Re: The usual baloney

                  Biological Nuclear Transmutations as a Source of Biophotons

                  Now that sounds rather far-fetched. Citation Needed! And no, a paper on the Arxiv is not acceptable (because the Arxiv is non-peer-reviewed-self-published stuff).

                  The energy levels of atomic nucleus changes are often more than the bacterium can take, unless it comes from Krypton.

                  1. Chemist

                    Re: The usual baloney

                    "And no, a paper on the Arxiv is not acceptable (because the Arxiv is non-peer-reviewed-self-published stuff)."

                    Worst than that publication requires a 'endorser' or some such which in this case was the lead author himself !

                    1. Pompous Git Silver badge
                      1. Anonymous Coward
                        Anonymous Coward

                        Re: The usual baloney

                        So you'd rather anyone could publish any crap, however unlikely/stupid/insane even if the gullible might/will take it all in.

                        1. Pompous Git Silver badge

                          Re: The usual baloney

                          "So you'd rather anyone could publish any crap, however unlikely/stupid/insane even if the gullible might/will take it all in."
                          My knee-jerk reaction to this is "No! Of course not!" But then on reflection when you consider that 80% of published scientific papers are crap... The fraction of the 20% that aren't crap and actually become part of the Received View will still be there.

                          Worth thinking about. A colleague went to an Acres gabfest, notorious for some pretty outlandish ideas. A friend of his also attended and asked said colleague WTF are you doing here? Friend said every new scientific idea is outlandish when first proposed. The most likely place to find the Next Big Thing is at a place where outlandish ideas are accepted.

                          BTW, the stupid and gullible take in anything you might publish and nothing is going to change that.

                          1. Chemist

                            Re: The usual baloney

                            "Friend said every new scientific idea is outlandish when first proposed."

                            You've still got to find a way to prioritize what you read and attend especially these days when any dingbat can 'publish' on the internet somewhere. Having been involved in peer review and also having friends who are currently reviewers I can say that we did/do our best to maintain standards in the chemistry, medicinal chemistry and biomedical journals we contributed to. Although by no means a perfect system it's much better than a free for all. One the other hand the e-pub in question cites highly dubious sources and is sponsored by its own author and as far as I can tell has never been published in a 'hard' journal. Nor is there any obvious evidence that any experimental work has been repeated.

                            New ideas that challenge the norm are hard to propagate which is why the standard of evidence needs to be so high. People are more likely to 'believe' high-quality, repeated and repeatable experiments even if they ( and any related hypothesis) challenge the status quo

                            (In particular one good piece of hard evidence beats any number of mere opinions)

                            1. Pompous Git Silver badge

                              Re: The usual baloney

                              "Chemist: You've still got to find a way to prioritize what you read and attend especially these days when any dingbat can 'publish' on the internet somewhere."
                              Actually I don't. I'm a free agent and can do whatever I feel like. FWIW, any dingbat has always been able to publish. Immanuel Velikovsky and Erich von Daniken both were published before there was an Internet.

                              "Chemist: Having been involved in peer review and also having friends who are currently reviewers I can say that we did/do our best to maintain standards in the chemistry, medicinal chemistry and biomedical journals we contributed to."

                              Quoting from: Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals

                              "Peer review might also be useful for detecting errors or fraud. At the BMJ we did several studies where we inserted major errors into papers that we then sent to many reviewers.3,4 Nobody ever spotted all of the errors. Some reviewers did not spot any, and most reviewers spotted only about a quarter. Peer review sometimes picks up fraud by chance, but generally it is not a reliable method for detecting fraud"

                              "Chemist: One the other hand the e-pub in question cites highly dubious sources and is sponsored by its own author and as far as I can tell has never been published in a 'hard' journal. "
                              Have you actually read any of Prof Widom's sources? If not, how do you know they are dubious? Yes, he is listed as self-sponsored. I take it that you are playing on the ignorance of other commentards here. ArXiv is a pre-print service that's been around the Internet since long before the Web. Initially for physicists only, it has broadened to include mathematics, astronomy, computer science, quantitative biology, statistics, and quantitative finance. [Not, I note, chemists.] As you must be aware, having a paper published can take years since you cannot submit simultaneously to multiple journals.

                              Authors with an academic position and track record of peer reviewed publication, like Prof Widom are self-sponsored. Those without such qualification need to be sponsored in order to publish. Some of course like the mathematician Grigori Perelman can't be arsed going through the mill of peer review and who can blame them? As John Maddox noted when he received the Watson and Crick paper, passing it to their peers would have merely resulted in them being pipped to the post by Linus Pauling.

                              "In particular one good piece of hard evidence beats any number of mere opinions"

                              Not according to Einstein. "If the facts don't fit the theory change the facts." The things you can get away with when you are a gatekeeper!

                              1. Chemist

                                Re: The usual baloney

                                "Have you actually read any of Prof Widom's sources?"

                                Oh yes and that made me even more dubious. The wretched story is so full of holes and bad science (if some of it can be called science).

                                As for Widom after reading some of his papers, some of his peer's comments and some from his students I couldn't comment. (for legal reasons)

                          2. Anonymous Coward
                            Anonymous Coward

                            Re: The usual baloney

                            "But then on reflection when you consider that 80% of published scientific papers are crap."

                            Aren't you the polymath !

                            1. Pompous Git Silver badge

                              Re: The usual baloney

                              "Aren't you the polymath !"
                              So I'm told. I prefer dilettante. "...generally applied more or less depreciatively to one who interests himself in an art or science merely as a pastime and without serious aim or study ('a mere dilettante’)."

                              Downvote wasn't from me; I gave you an upvote. Even though you used an exclamation mark rather than the required question mark...

                            2. Dr. Ellen

                              Re: The usual baloney

                              "But then on reflection when you consider that 80% of published scientific papers are crap."

                              Aren't you the polymath !

                              The canonical answer to this comment is 97%, though 42 is a close second.

                          3. Anonymous Coward
                            Anonymous Coward

                            Re: The usual baloney

                            "But then on reflection when you consider that 80% of published scientific papers are crap."

                            So why did you quote the one you did ?

                            1. Pompous Git Silver badge

                              Re: The usual baloney

                              "So why did you quote the one you did ?"
                              Because it seems to indicate that observation can be supported by theory. Simples, really.

                4. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: The usual baloney

                  "what scientific evidence could be mustered to explain why organic farming technologies worked."

                  Why was that necessary? Nature had been managing for millenia and humans had been using organic farming methods for many hundreds of years. The only thing that was necessary to prove was that organic farming could produce crops as good as more modern methods

                  1. Pompous Git Silver badge

                    Re: The usual baloney

                    "Nature had been managing for millenia and humans had been using organic farming methods for many hundreds of years. The only thing that was necessary to prove was that organic farming could produce crops as good as more modern methods"
                    Sorry, but Nature doesn't engage in agriculture; Nature is quite indifferent to human needs, perhaps even especially economic ones. Agriculture is definitely an economic enterprise.

                    Then there's the issue of do your agricultural methods enhance natural systems, or do they negate them and create a need for Yet Another Technological Fix? This latter strikes a wall when there's no feasible new technological fix in the offing as has happened with anthelmintics (intestinal worm control chemicals in livestock). The organic alternative, pulped garlic and cider vinegar works well; very much quicker than anthelmintics in fact. But the questions arise: How do you administer it to many hundreds of livestock; it clogs a conventional drench gun? Will it too eventually cease to work against important intestinal worms as they become adapted?

                    This is apart from how we define organic agriculture. That's a huge can of worms, so to speak. The greeny weenies hate me because I'm not gung-ho anti-chemical and never have been. Not really the time, place or topic for discussing this so I'll leave it there.

                  2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

                    Re: The usual baloney

                    "humans had been using organic farming methods for many hundreds of years."

                    Personally, I've always preferred organic food to inorganic. Salt and water are a very limiting diet.

                    1. Mage Silver badge

                      Re: The usual baloney

                      Actually the Romans gave Celts a bad press, they had a better (iron) plough with a knife to allow ploughing once (the Romans copied it later), fertilising with manure and crop rotation. It would take nearly a 1000 years to recover the culture the Romans destroyed.

                      Yes I know irrelevant. The whole "organic" thing started well enough but is now being exploited. It was a bad choice of label for food grown without artificial chemical pesticides, herbicides and polluting artificial fertiliser. Though perfectly natural fertiliser can cause as much pollution, spread parasites, kill fish cause algae blooms etc. We need sustainable farming practices rather than "marketing virtue labels".

                      1. Pompous Git Silver badge

                        Re: The usual baloney

                        "The whole "organic" thing started well enough but is now being exploited. It was a bad choice of label for food grown without artificial chemical pesticides, herbicides and polluting artificial fertiliser."
                        The term organic farming was coined by Lord Northbourne in his book Look to the Land (1939). He conceived of "the farm as organism," a holistic, ecologically balanced approach to farming. This was rapidly followed by Sir Albert Howard's An Agricultural Testament (1940) and Lady Eve Balfour's The Living Soil (1949).

                        While it's commonly believed that no "artificial" chemicals used in organic agriculture, this is not true. Copper sulphate, sodium silicate, potassium stearate, potassium permanganate, potassium sulphate, are all products of human industry and permitted when I was involved in the development of organic standards here in Australia.

                        "Though perfectly natural fertiliser can cause as much pollution, spread parasites, kill fish cause algae blooms etc. We need sustainable farming practices rather than "marketing virtue labels"."
                        If your "perfectly natural fertiliser" has deleterious effects on the environment then you cannot be certified organic under the rules. And yes, sustainable farming practises rather marketing virtue labels is a much better idea, but one that got me off-side with the greenie-weenies. So it goes...

                    2. Pompous Git Silver badge

                      Re: The usual baloney

                      "Personally, I've always preferred organic food to inorganic. Salt and water are a very limiting diet."
                      Definitely with you there Doctor! My cardiologist insists I restrict both.

                5. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: The usual baloney

                  There's a reason that paper is on Arxiv.org. The bit about shellfish synthesising calcium to make their shells from nothing? I just cannot imagine it passing peer review.

                  1. Pompous Git Silver badge

                    Re: The usual baloney

                    "There's a reason that paper is on Arxiv.org. The bit about shellfish synthesising calcium to make their shells from nothing? I just cannot imagine it passing peer review."
                    Please quote where the paper says shellfish synthesise calcium from nothing. Do understand that when one substance is transmuted into another that it's not creation ex nihilo. FWIW papers on ArXiv are not peer reviewed, but they are filtered by the moderators. And there are criteria you must meet in order to become an author there.

                    1. Anonymous Coward
                      Anonymous Coward

                      Re: The usual baloney

                      "shellfish synthesise calcium from nothing."

                      He doesn't say they make it from nothing he claims they transmute some other element !

                      1. Anonymous Coward
                        Anonymous Coward

                        Re: The usual baloney

                        "He doesn't say they make it from nothing he claims they transmute some other element !"

                        ...which is unspecified.

                        I probably ought to resist replying to Pompous Git because he so obviously doesn't have a science background. But here goes.

                        So far nobody - but nobody - has succeeded in breaking the laws of thermodynamics.

                        Nor has anybody demonstrated that under certain conditions e =/= mc2

                        Nuclear dynamics - the strong and weak forces - are extremely well tested.

                        If shellfish were genuinely transmuting some other element into calcium in quantities large enough to build shells - as the paper cited suggests - the amount of energy required for the nuclear transmutation would be enormous. You would have to add protons, neutrons or alpha particles to elements lower in the table, or remove them from higher elements. The energetics of these processes are in the MeV region. Biological processes running at a few eV don't do it. The mass defect involved in transmuting enough matter to make a shell is going to be very roughly of the order of a Nagasaki-size explosion, either emitted or absorbed.

                        We have to believe either that:

                        Thermodynamics is wrong and

                        The Standard Model is wrong

                        or

                        Someone did a junk experiment.

                        I think my preference is obvious. As to what the authors of the paper are seeing, I have a vague suspicion that it's photons arising from the Compton radiation due to the beta decay of potassium atoms, or something of the sort. The beta decay, by the way, merely converts a neutron into a proton in the nucleus; no nucleons are created or destroyed in the process.

                        I suspect that the authors of the paper actually read somewhere that potassium-40 decays into calcium. It does, emitting a 1.33MeV electron + antineutrino in the process. It also, about 10% of the time, forms argon and emits a gamma. But the half life is considerable - roughly a gigayear - and the shellfish would have to wait rather a long time to get a new shell that way. In the process rather a lot of energy is emitted, so if a magic biological process was somehow able to shorten the half life, even to a few weeks, the shellfish and, given the gamma output, the researchers would all be rather dead.

                        1. Pompous Git Silver badge

                          Re: The usual baloney

                          ""He doesn't say they make it from nothing he claims they transmute some other element !"

                          ...which is unspecified.

                          I probably ought to resist replying to Pompous Git because he so obviously doesn't have a science background."

                          And you ought to resist attributing a quote by an AC to me. You obviously have a reading and comprehension problem.

                          As it happens I do have a science background, just not a conventional one. A decade ago I was offered the opportunity to undertake a PhD even though I lacked the requisite degree. Recognition of prior learning and current competencies and all that.

                          If you reread what I have written in this thread you will discover that I refer to transmutation of potassium to calcium. That is very specific, not as you state "unspecified".

                          For all of the reasons you stated, I too thought for many years that the addition of a proton to a potassium atom necessarily entails more energy than is available in a living organism. I learnt my physics from Resnick and Halliday back in the late 60s and I doubt that the physics has changed much in the intervening 40+ years.

                          But then my prawn farming friend who does have a science degree and was for decade an agricultural researcher decided to grow his own prawn food. For what should be obvious reasons he had his inputs analysed and also decided to have the output analysed. Now X amount of Ca, Y amount of K, Z amount of P... should equal (with some specific uncertainty) the amounts of Ca, K, P... They didn't. My friend went to considerable trouble to confirm the results. Why didn't he publish? I think your and Chemist's response here explains that.

                          BTW, I find it amusing that you don't bother addressing the content of Allan Widom's paper that claims that the transmutation is possible and as a Professor of Physics must necessarily be aware of the thermodynamic and other issues. I can't, as stated earlier, but will pass it to one of my physicist friends for comment. Providing they haven't died as so many of my friends seem wont to these days.

                    2. Anonymous Coward
                      Anonymous Coward

                      Re: The usual baloney

                      Surely some isotope analysis would give a good clue where the calcium came from, somewhere big hot gaseous and most likely glowing red? :P

            2. TitterYeNot

              Re: The usual baloney

              "Jesus fucking Christ! Another downvote for referencing a reputable scientific publication. Where do you get your science from then?"

              You are completely correct in saying that quantum biology is a "thing".

              Photon activated electron pair entanglement is thought to behind magnetic navigation in the European Robin, quantum tunneling of protons is involved in the enzyme catalysed breakdown of collagen during amphibian metamorphosis, quantum wave behaviour (i.e the uncertainty principle) of photon excited electrons is thought to be behind the extremely efficient transfer of energy from a chlorophyll molecule to the chloroplast reaction centre during photosynthesis, quantum vibration is thought to be a part of the mammalian smell mechanism (i.e. why cyanide smells the same as almonds even though the molecules involved are completely different in size and shape so don't fit with the lock & key theory) etc. etc.

              I can only guess that your downvoter thought that you were agreeing with the AC's random ramblings about elements, protons and neutrons, which I highly doubt.

              1. Chemist

                Re: The usual baloney

                "why cyanide smells the same as almonds"

                You do know that crushing bitter almonds releases cyanide !

                "Bitter almonds may yield from 4–9 mg of hydrogen cyanide per almond[36] and contain 42 times higher amounts of cyanide than the trace levels found in sweet almonds.[37] The origin of cyanide content in bitter almonds is via the enzymatic hydrolysis of amygdalin.[37]"

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almond

                In fact the main odour from almonds is benzaldehyde which some people associate with cyanide. I can't smell hydrogen cyanide myself ( a issue for a chemist !) indeed a moderate percentage of people can't . But I can smell benzaldehyde !

                I'm not sure why you think that molecules of different shapes can't elicite the same response - for example sucrose and saccharin or one of the peptide sweetners.

                1. Pompous Git Silver badge

                  Re: The usual baloney

                  "I can't smell hydrogen cyanide myself ( a issue for a chemist !) "
                  Worse is a chemist with a stutter! All those long names...

                  1. LaeMing
                    Go

                    Re: The usual baloney

                    "Worse is a chemist with a stutter! All those long names..."

                    How do you think we invented long-chain polymers!

                    1. Pompous Git Silver badge
                      Pint

                      Re: The usual baloney

                      "How do you think we invented long-chain polymers!"
                      I thought it was down to long-chain polysaccharides in beer! Thanks for the best laugh this week :-)

                2. TitterYeNot

                  Re: The usual baloney

                  "You do know that crushing bitter almonds releases cyanide"

                  Yes, maybe I should have been a bit more specific, I was talking about why benzaldehyde in almonds (C6H5CHO) smells the same as hydrogen cyanide (HCN). The long accepted lock & key mechanism for explaining smell works on the principle that a chemical that produces a smell response in the brain does so because it fits into, and so binds with, a particular type of nasal receptor, triggering a response. That clearly isn't the case with benzaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide, as they have a very different size, shape and chemistry.

                  If you're interested in why it's thought that quantum vibrations have an impact on how smell works , it's down to research into the response of the extremely sensitive 'noses' of Drosophila (the fruit fly), which respond very differently to a particular musky molecule when its hydrogen atoms are replaced with deuterium, even though this has no effect on the molecules shape, size, or receptor binding. It simply increases its molecular weight, which supposedly affects the frequency of its quantum vibration.

                  As to sucrose and saccharine, they don't come into this as they don't smell - they are sensed by the tongue, not by nasal receptors in the nose.

                  1. Chemist

                    Re: The usual baloney

                    "If you're interested in why "

                    I know why - that's the difference between us having studied hundred of xtal structures and modeled ligands binding into receptors.

                    "As to sucrose and saccharine, they don't come into this as they don't smell - they are sensed by the tongue, not by nasal receptors in the nose."

                    They are still sensed by receptors in both cases and my point still stands. Ligands can bind in multiple ways to receptors and still produce a response.

                    And by the way what is this 'quantum vibration' ? In the case of deuterium substitution I find no problem with it having a small but measurable effect.

              2. Pompous Git Silver badge

                Re: The usual baloney

                "I can only guess that your downvoter thought that you were agreeing with the AC's random ramblings about elements, protons and neutrons, which I highly doubt."
                Actually I suspect that the rambling element in the original AC comment was somewhat tongue in cheek, but I could be wrong. I certainly didn't find it to be as mind-numbingly stupid as Faux Science Slayer for example.

            3. uncommon_sense

              Re: The usual baloney

              >Jesus fucking Christ! Another downvote for referencing a reputable scientific publication. Where do you get your science from then? Christian Science Monitor or the Grauniad?<

              Is that you, Herr Fleishmann?

              1. Pompous Git Silver badge

                Re: The usual baloney

                "Is that you, Herr Fleishmann?"
                Whoosh! Straight over my head:

                Herr Fleishmann

            4. This post has been deleted by its author

          2. oldcoder

            Re: The usual baloney

            At no time is "fusion" mentioned in the abstract - and that is the ONLY way to create uranium where it did not exist before.

            1. Pompous Git Silver badge

              Re: The usual baloney

              "At no time is "fusion" mentioned in the abstract - and that is the ONLY way to create uranium where it did not exist before."
              Do you think that might be because the word fusion doesn't occur in the body of the paper? Nor does it anywhere mention, even in passing, the creation of uranium where it did not exist before. The paper discusses the formation of rolling-front uranium ore deposits. Previously they were assumed to be formed entirely by an inorganic process. The evidence presented strongly suggests that the deposits at the Wyoming site are biogenic.

          3. Anonymous Coward
            Facepalm

            Re: Quantum Biology...

            Yes, organisms use Quantum effects (photosynthesis is one of them). Perhaps some ion/electron exchanges happen at times (as in photosynthesis), but this is still moving energy (and matter etc) from one place to another. It's not Quantum "magic", it's just "mechanics".

          4. uncommon_sense

            Re: The usual baloney

            Is this the next Cold Fusion?

            Concentrate, not Create or Produce..

            Making uranium used to need a lot of energy, like inside a star(?)

            Could Ye Olde Editor please take a look at this article again!

      3. handleoclast

        Re: The usual baloney

        @AC

        If you had not chosen to be anonymous you would have been able to use the "Joke" icon or the "I'll get my coat" icon, either of which would have resulted in fewer downvotes. It is a sad fact that some commentards are completely incapable of recognizing a joke unless you signpost it "This is a fucking joke". And then there's a couple of commentards who will downvote it because you used the word "fuck."

        *sigh*

        1. Outer mongolian custard monster from outer space (honest)

          Re: The usual baloney

          Sorry but someone had to downvote you for comedy value, you understand?

      4. Tannin

        Re: The usual baloney

        "Thinking in terms of elements, Protons and Neutrons is 19th Century Science"

        And you, Sir, need to read up on when the 19th Century happened.

        (Hint: it was long over when Rutherford first discovered the proyon in 1917. And 35 years gone when Chadwick discovered the neutron.)

    2. Phil Endecott

      Re: The usual baloney

      > you cannot 'form' or 'produce' uranium

      Well you can of course produce uranium from other elements by means of nuclear reactions,

      So some will get the impression from this story that there are some newly-discovered "biological nuclear" reactions that produce uranium.

      Of course that is false. (It's just too improbable. Beyond "cold fusion".)

      What's probably been discovered is that some uranium ores are the result of biological action, in the same way that limestone is a "calcium ore" produced by living organisms.

      This definitely shouln't have got past the sub-editor. But it's Friday evening, so they are probably in the pub.

    3. DNTP

      Re: The usual baloney

      sed -e 's/create/concentrate/g' ~/documents/article.txt > ~/documents/FTFY.txt

      edit: it appears the article was literally edited as I posted this, 'create' being replaced with 'produce' and thereof. Not bad, but I still think 'concentrate' is better.

      1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: The usual baloney

        "edit: it appears the article was literally edited as I posted this, 'create' being replaced with 'produce' and thereof. Not bad, but I still think 'concentrate' is better."

        I'd settle for "illiterately edited for the reason you state. The result, as it stands on Sunday, is still scientifically illiterate.

    4. G R Goslin

      Re: The usual baloney

      Lord Marshall of Goring, was the name I was trying to recall. A gentleman in every respect.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "You know you might have a big story when you discover something that will result in people having to rewrite textbooks,"

    Yeah, like the guy who rewrote the textbooks to include the Bosnian pyramids...

    I know, I know, this is Real Science, give it a chance, etc, etc. Just sayin' - "rewriting textbooks" is a bit of a grandiose statement for the results of a single study.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      rewrite textbooks?

      I don't think it will happen as half of the USA thinks that the world is only 4000 years old, that science is the work of the devil and evolution does not exist.

      There goes a good percentage of the revenue from new editions of textbooks.

      If you did rewrite them, then I'd expect a lot of Farenheit 451 events to happen in those states.

      1. Pen-y-gors

        Re: rewrite textbooks?

        "AC I don't think it will happen as half of the USA thinks that the world is only 4000 years old

        That is just so wrong - typical leftist socialist commie pinko atheist misunderstanding. They think the world was created in 4004 BC, like wot Bishop Ussher worked out, so they think it's 6000 years old.

        1. Pompous Git Silver badge

          Re: rewrite textbooks?

          "They think the world was created in 4004 BC, like wot Bishop Ussher worked out, so they think it's 6000 years old."
          There are many dates for the creation: Clement of Alexandria (5592 BC), Julius Africanus (5501 BC), Eusebius (5228 BC), Jerome (5199 BC) Hippolytus of Rome (5500 BC), Theophilus of Antioch (5529 BC), Sulpicius Severus (5469 BC), Isidore of Seville (5336 BC), Panodorus of Alexandria (5493 BC), Maximus the Confessor (5493 BC), George Syncellus (5492 BC) and Gregory of Tours (5500 BC)... [pauses for breath] and I think the vast majority of wrong-thinking people are right. It's actually 7,000 ya. Give or take...

          1. Youngdog

            Re: Maximus the Confessor

            "Yes I confess - I just nicked Panodorus of Alexandria's date"

    2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge
      Coat

      "rewriting textbooks" is a bit of a grandiose statement for the results of a single study.

      The textbooks are re-written every year. How else are all those underpaid university professors going to supplement their income and beat the second-hand book market?

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    WTF is this article?

    The bacteria might take existing uranium atoms and combine them into larger groups (more convenient for humans to mine) but they sure as hell aren't taking other atoms and somehow using fusion to create uranium atoms from them!

    Talk about a misleading title/article!

    1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: WTF is this article?

      So the bacteria "produce" uranium from uranium ore - in the same way that Alcor "produce" aluminium from bauxite

      1. Pompous Git Silver badge

        Re: WTF is this article?

        "So the bacteria "produce" uranium from uranium ore - in the same way that Alcor "produce" aluminium from bauxite"
        No, aluminium from bauxite requires energy and rather a lot of it. The bacteria in question derive energy from the chemical transition. Allegedly...

  5. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    Go

    yes the Uranium is being used as metabolic fuel for the bacteria.

    Other bacteria can secrete sulphuric acid to dissolve (IIRC) Copper and use it for similar processes.

    It's useful if Oxygen and sunlight are in short supply or non existent.

    Another example of evolution in action.

    The obvious tactic is grow a lot of this bacteria then inject it into a bore hole in a Uranium deposit and then suck it back up with the Uranium on board.

    Now if the bacteria absorbs U235 preferentially things could get interesting.....

    1. Allan George Dyer
      Boffin

      Re: yes the Uranium is being used as metabolic fuel for the bacteria.

      "Another example of evolution in action."

      Yes, but in which direction? Was metal reduction the dominant biological energy reaction until those pesky cyanobacteria evolved photosynthesis and destroyed the ecosystem with abundant free oxygen?

      1. Stoneshop

        Re: yes the Uranium is being used as metabolic fuel for the bacteria.

        "Another example of evolution in action."

        Yes, but in which direction?

        Nuclear powered bacteria.

        If these had been discovered in the 1950s, when people expected everything to become powered by atomic energy ...

    2. Neil Barnes Silver badge
      Mushroom

      Re: yes the Uranium is being used as metabolic fuel for the bacteria.

      Now if the bacteria absorbs U235 preferentially things could get interesting.....

      Only briefly.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: yes the Uranium is being used as metabolic fuel for the bacteria.

        Well, if you believe the claims about nuclear explosions in Earth's past (mainly promulgated by ancient aliens believers) perhaps this has happened.

        I don't know the veracity of the claims, but supposedly there is evidence in the form of byproducts of fission chain reaction explosions, and irradiation of some wood samples that show them to be of negative age (carbon dating of highly irradiated samples will show them being tens of thousands of years younger than they really are)

        1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
          Boffin

          "Well, if you believe the claims about nuclear explosions in Earth's past "

          What has been talked about is how uranium deposits with flowing water running through them, have been sufficiently concentrated to trigger the starting of a chain reaction. Water gets warmer, becomes a less efficient moderator, reaction quenches.

          Note this was about 1.7 billion years ago when natural Uranium would have had a concentration of 3% U235, not the current 0.7%. IOW it would already be at the enrichment level needed by modern reactors. It helps that most of the major fission poisons are gases and would be carried away by the water. the place was the Oklo region of Gabon.

          Since all nuclear reactions rely on statistics while a natural nuclear reactor is very unlikely it is not impossible, and it was a very long time ago.

          1. Pompous Git Silver badge

            Re: "Well, if you believe the claims about nuclear explosions in Earth's past "

            "Since all nuclear reactions rely on statistics while a natural nuclear reactor is very unlikely it is not impossible, and it was a very long time ago."
            The Oklo reactors were also very slow, though surprisingly numerous. sixteen are known. 1.7 billion years is plenty of time for geological processes to have obliterated others.

          2. Tom 7

            Re: "Well, if you believe the claims about nuclear explosions in Earth's past "

            Surely the water only becomes a less efficient moderator when it boils - its the neutron hitting the protons in the hydrogen that moderates them so it density not temperature dependant. So the reaction would only stop when it blew - but then deep down in the earth the pressure could allow some serious energy to build up before it went off.

      2. John Smith 19 Gold badge
        Unhappy

        "Now if the bacteria absorbs U235 preferentially things could get interesting....."

        "Only briefly."

        Physicists will tell you that there's no chemical difference between how different isotopes behave chemically, which makes them very useful for radioisotope tracking of chemical pathways through the body.

        So IRL it's very unlikely that bacteria would evolve to preferentially absorb U235, which in any case is very much in the minority of available Uranium.

        1. Chemist

          Re: "Now if the bacteria absorbs U235 preferentially things could get interesting....."

          "Physicists will tell you that there's no chemical difference between how different isotopes behave chemically"

          Chemists would tell you a somewhat different story. To be fair it's only the lightest elements that show sig. differences. For example replacing a hydrogen with deuterium slow significantly (~~2 fold) the metabolism of drugs at that point

          1. John Smith 19 Gold badge

            " For example replacing a hydrogen with deuterium slow significantly (~~2 fold) at that point"

            Now that sounds like a neat diagnostic trick, provided you have a supply of Deuterium handy.

            1. Chemist

              Re: " For example replacing a hydrogen with deuterium slow significantly (~~2 fold) at that point"

              "Now that sounds like a neat diagnostic trick, provided you have a supply of Deuterium handy."

              Indeed it is and has even been suggested for final drugs although I don't know of any that use it. Deuterium and indeed Tritium is widely used in pharma research. Deuterium oxide is widely used for NMR spectography as a solvent and admix to remove the signal from 'exchangeable' hydrogens

              1. John Smith 19 Gold badge

                Re: " For example replacing a hydrogen with deuterium slow significantly (~~2 fold) at that point"

                "Indeed it is and has even been suggested for final drugs although I don't know of any that use it. "

                Well technically I'd say all drugs use it.

                Deuterium is a naturally occurring isotope of Hydrogen so there's a natural background level of it which will find it's way into the bulk raw materials chain for drugs, just like anything else, unless actively filtered out, which I suspect remains pretty expensive.

                Likewise I would expect a drug with certain parts of made specifically with Deuterium would also be pretty expensive. As Dr RV Jones ( about using it for measuring "Aether drift") said it's "In the experimental locker if needed."

                1. Chemist

                  Re: " For example replacing a hydrogen with deuterium slow significantly (~~2 fold) at that point"

                  "I would expect a drug with certain parts of made specifically with Deuterium would also be pretty expensive."

                  No Deuterium is relatively cheap certainly as part of the overall cost of manufacturing drugs. 99.9% D2O is available from Sigma-Aldrich in 4L bottles for example. Cost ? ~~$1000/L in small amounts.

                  "a natural background level of it which will find it's way into the bulk raw materials chain for drugs." -very funny, you'll be mentioning the C13 & 14 next

                  1. Allan George Dyer
                    Pint

                    Re: " For example replacing a hydrogen with deuterium slow significantly (~~2 fold) at that point"

                    "99.9% D2O is available from Sigma-Aldrich in 4L bottles for example. Cost ? ~~$1000/L in small amounts."

                    WTF! That's expensive bottled water, is it available at Harrods?

                    I'll take the icon.

                  2. John Smith 19 Gold badge
                    Unhappy

                    No Deuterium is relatively cheap. $1000/L in small amounts.

                    I guess if you need such a drug then you'd need it pretty badly.

                    I made the comment because Deuterium is a natural isotope. Logically a certain (small) percentage of all Hydrogen will be Deuterium. A trivial Google search here says background level of D are 150ppm (and Oxygen 18 is 2000ppm). Should be insignificant in normal mfg but still present, which was my point.

                    Pharmacology assumes all humans are the same and most of the time that works. It's not always the case as, for example the British soldier who had his leg blown off in Afghanistan who discovered that his body could not process Morphine.

                    Given the likelihood you might need Morphine in combat it would seem a good idea to find out if it's going to work on someone. IIRC there was a report that said there are about 200 drugs that simply don't work on a certain percentage of the population. Someone who had more than one of these "immunities" could have some trouble if they developed a serious medical condition.

                    1. Pompous Git Silver badge

                      Re: No Deuterium is relatively cheap. $1000/L in small amounts.

                      "Pharmacology assumes all humans are the same and most of the time that works."
                      Used to, but at last it's changing. I was recently offered genetic screening by my pharmacist, though for me that's a tad too late. Already gone through the try this drug next bit.

                      Sadly, certain ethnic groups were opposed to pharmacological genetic screening as being "racist". It has been known for a considerable time that certain anti-hypertensives for example work well for Caucasians, but not those with a Very Deep Suntan, and vice versa. I seem to recall genetic screening proposals began around a decade or so ago and what an excellent idea it was.

                    2. Alistair
                      Coat

                      Re: No Deuterium is relatively cheap. $1000/L in small amounts.

                      @ JS19.

                      Indeed. We do. I have a list. Anaesthetists like my list.

                      1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
                        Unhappy

                        "Indeed. We do. I have a list. Anaesthetists like my list."

                        You'd have to be pretty desperate to do most kinds of surgery without an effective anesthetic. I dimly recall something about high pressure Xenon working but you need to operate inside a large pressure vessel.

                        I think one of them was one of the common headache remedies, which would be useless without being able to metabolise it, but some of the others are more serious.

                        I'm also guessing that very few people have more than one of these (rare?) deficient metabolic pathways, which is why it's taken so long to recognize that this can be a real problem. If you do have more than one you're kind of screwed.

        2. Pompous Git Silver badge

          Re: "Now if the bacteria absorbs U235 preferentially things could get interesting....."

          "Physicists will tell you that there's no chemical difference between how different isotopes behave chemically, which makes them very useful for radioisotope tracking of chemical pathways through the body."
          Well they don't know much about biology then. Humans can smell the difference between the usual form of benzaldehyde and the deuterated variant for example. There's sufficient difference between C13 and C14 chemical activity in biological systems that you need to take this into account when sampling for carbon dating.

          1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
            Happy

            "Well they don't know much about biology then. "

            A fact understood by most non physicists.

            A bit more "Rodney McKay" than Brian Cox?

          2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

            Re: "Now if the bacteria absorbs U235 preferentially things could get interesting....."

            "There's sufficient difference between C13 and C14 chemical activity in biological systems that you need to take this into account when sampling for carbon dating."

            You're partly right. Most carbon is C12. Back in '60s we started measuring C12/13* ratios by mass spec to get a measure of fractionation which was then used to correct the C14 measurements from radiation counting. AFAIK thse days C14 is directly measured by mass spec but I suppose there's still a correction applied from the C12/13 ratio.

            *These are both stable isotopes so any change in the expected ration is presumed to have been present at the time the material was deposited.

            1. Pompous Git Silver badge

              Re: "Now if the bacteria absorbs U235 preferentially things could get interesting....."

              "You're partly right. Most carbon is C12."
              I've been racking my 66 yr old brain to recall a conversation from a decade or more ago and all I keep coming up with is "Ilya Prigogine". It wasn't the analysis end, but where in the organism you sample because different isotopes do alter chemical reactions. Hitherto I'd accepted what I was taught at Big School chemistry in 1969.

        3. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

          Re: "Now if the bacteria absorbs U235 preferentially things could get interesting....."

          Physicists will tell you that there's no chemical difference between how different isotopes behave chemically, which makes them very useful for radioisotope tracking of chemical pathways through the body.

          Ah. The devolution of modern degrees. You just get nicely printed toilet paper and a debt certificate after 5 y of doing nothing at all (maybe getting schooled in the fine arts of politicial correctness).

          1. Pompous Git Silver badge

            Re: "Now if the bacteria absorbs U235 preferentially things could get interesting....."

            "Ah. The devolution of modern degrees. You just get nicely printed toilet paper and a debt certificate after 5 y of doing nothing at all (maybe getting schooled in the fine arts of politicial correctness)."
            Well fuck you then! My nephew spent more than four years research for his PhD in Zoology when he was told that someone else had published a paper covering the same subject matter. His supervisor at CSIRO told him he had to start all over again from scratch since it was against the rules to submit work that wasn't original.

            It's worth noting that preprints on ArXiv.org help prevent this sort of thing. Unfortunately, zoology is not one of the disciplines covered. And for those commentards wondering about the derogatory comments regarding the ArXiv, here's some editorial in Nature last year about a proposed overhaul.

    3. Sanguma

      Re: yes the Uranium is being used as metabolic fuel for the bacteria.

      "Now if the bacteria absorbs U235 preferentially things could get interesting....."

      Another example of evolution in action ...

    4. Roland6 Silver badge

      Re: yes the Uranium is being used as metabolic fuel for the bacteria.

      Now if the bacteria absorbs U235 preferentially things could get interesting.....

      Might be interesting to science geeks, but not to Holywood: Uranium eating bacteria v. Godzilla...

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Explosives Residues

    Explosives are often chemically pretty unpleasant, you don't want them contaminating the ground. So old testing sites are a bit if a problem to clean up, etc.

    Turns out that there's bacteria that quite happily chomp away at the residue using them as an energy source, helping doing the job for us. Amazing.

    What is even odder I think is that these bacteria have evolved specifically because of human activities, and done so within our lifetime, not as a result of naturally occurring conditions. I wonder how the creationists explain that?

    1. Voland's right hand Silver badge

      Re: Explosives Residues

      1. It does not help you unless the Uranium is bound into a chemical form which makes it easier to recover. That may be the case. Somewhat - you can easily dissolve carbonate with acids, but on the overall it does not work out for the volumes involved.

      2. An explosion site is contaminated with radioactive versions of the whole periodic table. Uranium is the least and the last of your worries.

    2. Chemist

      Re: Explosives Residues

      "What is even odder I think is that these bacteria have evolved specifically because of human activities, and done so within our lifetime"

      Even if this were true, which is unlikely*, bacteria are very versatile. In ideal conditions they may replicate in ~~20mins. Any successful mutations will survive, originals being crowded out. Any unsuccessful mutations (probably the vast majority) will disappear. There may be many, many dead-ends in just a few years ( that we don't see) . It didn't take too long for bacteria growing in the warm, nutrient-rich cooling water from power station towers to develop considerable resistance to chlorine bleach.

      * bacteria will metabolize all sorts. Even in humans p450 enzymes will readily metabolize materials they've never been exposed to before.

      1. DocJames
        Coat

        Re: Explosives Residues

        Even in humans p450 enzymes will readily metabolize materials they've never been exposed to before.

        CYP3A4 is induced by the PXR receptor, which is a promiscuous receptor - it has a mainly hydrophilic ligand binding pocket studded with a few hydrophobic points (iirc), allowing all sorts of molecules to bind. It's a nonspecific biosensor, designed to activate whenever there's something around, likely biologically produced, that might be harmful. Hence the reason pharma need to design drugs using PXR as a negative target - ie avoid it, due to all kinds of drug-drug interactions that cause hassle clinically.

        The white one, thanks.

    3. JimC

      Re: I wonder how the creationists explain that?

      If you already believe that the universe and all plant and animal species were created by an external agent: eg deity, and that the deity intervenes from time to time, then the creation of new species of bacteria as part of that intervention is hardly a stretch. Indeed if the existence of said agent is taken as a given it could be argued that specific creation of such bacteria by said external agent to assist with divine plan is rather more likely than them just having conveniently evolved by chance.

  7. herman

    Slime

    Some ores are created from bacterial slime - gold and uranium are two that I know of.

    1. Chris G

      Re: Slime

      "Some ores are created from bacterial slime"

      I recall quite a few politicians that may well have similar origins.

  8. JeffyPoooh
    Pint

    Asimov's Golden Goose story

    Isaac Asimov wrote a nice story about a goose that transmitted lesser elements into gold, providing an explanation of how a goose could lay golden eggs on a daily basis.

    Asimov was joking.

    This article contains so many poorly chosen phrases about creating an element that it is also a joke.

  9. Korev Silver badge
    Stop

    Environmentalists

    The biologically produced uranium can be mined, and is probably easier to mine compared to uraninite ores, since it's more soluble, Borch told The Register. This might be good news for mining companies but its bad news for environmentalists, as it means it could end up contaminating drinking water sources.

    Isn't contaminated ground water a problem for everyone and not just for "environmentalists"?

    1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: Environmentalists

      >Isn't contaminated ground water a problem for everyone and not just for "environmentalists"?

      Not on average. Contaminated ground water > 10km away from me isn't a problem for me, it is for environmentalists 1000km away

      1. Pompous Git Silver badge

        Re: Environmentalists

        "Contaminated ground water > 10km away from me isn't a problem for me, it is for environmentalists 1000km away"
        Australia's Great Artesian Basin "underlies approximately 22% of Australia—occupying more than 1.7 million square kilometres beneath the arid and semi-arid parts of Queensland, New South Wales, South Australia and the Northern Territory." Obviously you're not living over a major artesian basin.

    2. Brewster's Angle Grinder Silver badge
      Pint

      Re: Environmentalists

      "Isn't contaminated ground water a problem for everyone and not just for "environmentalists"?"

      Only if it's close to the site of a brewery.

  10. Hans 1
    Facepalm

    This is ridiculous

    Please stop, el'reg, remember, you are NEITHER news of the world nor Daily Fail..

    If this were possible, even in "scientific" theory, then we would have had bacteria that produce gold from lead a long time ago.

    I want the chemical/physical/biological reaction, energy exchange, and the source atom or I call this BS. Nothing living can produce uranium, from whatever atom you want ... IF produce means "to give birth or rise to", in this context, I cannot understand how another meaning of produce (it has several meanings) can be used in this context.

    Besides, if bacteria could produce uranium, then other bacteria could eliminate it and environmentalists would be more than happy. THE WHOLE BLOODY POINT OF WHY ENVIRONMENTALISTS DON'T LIKE URANIUM/PLUTONIUM IS BECAUSE WE ARE STUCK WITH IT FOR MILLIONS OF YEARS, my 8 yo daughter understands that, why don't you? WTF ?

    I read this article, I looked for the joke, got an NPE.

    This is by far (several galaxies) the worst piece of garbage I have come across on your site.

    1. JimC

      Re: This is ridiculous

      Its just a dubious headline. Assuming the effect occurs the bacteria will be producing Uranium by concentrating it, not creating it.

    2. Pompous Git Silver badge

      Re: This is ridiculous

      "If this were possible, even in "scientific" theory, then we would have had bacteria that produce gold from lead a long time ago."
      You might want to read the paper. El Reg gave us the link. Here it is again:

      Biogenic non-crystalline U(IV) revealed as major component in uranium ore deposits

      Biogenic: Produced by living organisms.

      1. Richard 12 Silver badge

        Re: This is ridiculous

        U(VI) and U(IV) are compounds - one of them is uranite, better known as pitchblende.

        They're both uranium oxides with varying amount of bound oxygen, and bacteria can strip off extra oxygen atoms and excrete the remainder.

        There are papers back to 2005 and earlier, so this isn't a new thing.

        1. Pompous Git Silver badge

          Re: This is ridiculous

          "They're both uranium oxides with varying amount of bound oxygen, and bacteria can strip off extra oxygen atoms and excrete the remainder."
          So they are still harvesting the binding energy of oxygen. There you go. I thought they were more like the bacteria that exploit the metalloids like arsenic and selenium. Thanks...

        2. Alistair
          Coat

          Re: This is ridiculous

          The title of the article is somewhat misleading.

          <cough -- UOTY@ElReg>

          My initial thought was that someone needed to fix this.

          Since *elements* aren't things that we can pop out of nowhere unless we're throwing electrons around at GeV or TeV.

          So: Corrected Title:

          Boffins note there are bacteria can eat and excrete uranium.

          I for one don't want that diet, they're welcome to it.

          Now, if we can figure out a way to get them to play with the isotope levels, the anti nuke crowd might just be convinced. Or confused.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon