0
3

[–] CrazyGrape 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

The researchers report that a community of Ideonella sakaiensis working this way could break down a thin film of PET over the course of six weeks if the temperature were held at a steady 86 degrees Fahrenheit.

Probably not gonna be seeing this bacteria being put to a wide-scale use. To be fair though, it was also touched upon in the article that this bacteria itself may not be the most helpful, but it is a start, and now they know what kind of biological mechanisms to look for in other microbes.

0
0

[–] supernatendo ago 

It used be true that the wood of trees was not biodegradable. Until bacteria and fungus adapted that could eat it. It took several million years for fungi to naturally decompose wood.

Life will find a way.

Source: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mushroom-evolution-breaks-down-lignin-slows-coal-formation/

[–] [deleted] 1 point -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] supernatendo ago 

Where's your source? The microbes that ate wood did not arrive until millions of years after various plants evolved into trees.

0
0

[–] Men13 ago 

That's why I hate all the "plastic degrades so slowly it'll still be here in a million years!!!!1!" alarmists.

It's the same logic that says "if the baby continues to grow at this rate, he'll be the size of a house by the time he's 10!". It assumes nothing changes over time, while in reality the world changes and adapts.

0
5

[–] softdown 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

It is not the same logic at all. This is the science forum. Your insight contains no science whatsoever. Plastic does degrade slowly. There is a patch of trash floating around in the Pacific Ocean that is roughly the size of Texas. Apparently a large part of it is empty plastic bottles.

1
-1

[–] Men13 1 point -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

Plastic degrades slowly NOW. That is the CURRENT state. Extrapolating that the rate of decay will stay the same as it is NOW for millions of years isn't science. It isn't even guessing. It's just wrong. It assumes something (that the eco system will stay the same for millions of years) that science already KNOWS is wrong.

That's why it's like the baby example - in that case the calculation assumes something we know is wrong (that the baby's rate of growth will stay the same for 10 years), and in this case the calculations also assume something we know is wrong (that the rate of plastic decay will stay the same for millions of years).

FFS, it took less than 100 years to get organisms that can (start to) bio-degrade plastic. How do you imagine plastic will stay around for millions of years?

0
1

[–] Maxcactus [S] 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

I haven't heard that plastic took a million years to degrade before. Or were you just exagerating for comic effect? It is hard to tell when someone is joking here.

0
0

[–] Men13 ago  (edited ago)

http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/how-long-does-it-take-for-plastics-to-biodegrade.htm

Based on this logic, it's safe to argue that plastic will never biodegrade

http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/do-plastic-bags-ever-decompose/Content?oid=1739045

Researchers fear that such ubiquitous bags may never fully decompose

https://www.csuohio.edu/sustainability/fun-stuff-and-fast-facts (a university website!)

Did You Know? Here’s How Long it Takes for Certain Products to Decompose:

[...]

Plastic Jug: 1 million years

And of course, Lee Anne Campbell's "Plastics Are Forever." published in 1989 and widely cited by many scientific papers. I'd link it, but I can't find a version online. Although it doesn't say "millions of years" - it does claim plastics will stay around "forever".


These "millions of years" alarmists are mostly pre-2000 "science". It's something that was widely popular to say 2 decades ago, but not so much now.