4 ms·
That's a good question. I'm not sure at this point if you could deploy enough of them to make a dent. Even if you could magically ban all polluting industry to
by X86BSD 10y ago
That's a good question. I'm not sure at this point if you could deploy enough of them to make a dent.
Even if you could magically ban all polluting industry tomorrow unless scrubbers were installed within 30 days and all cars were burning natgas I don't know if it would be enough. At some point real soon I imagine water is going to start reaching toxic levels from rain pulling all the toxins out of the sky. And then ecosystems starting to collapse.
- MichaelBurge 10y agoSomeone should design a bacteria that can eat pollution.
- X86BSD 10y agoIf I remember right but I may not be I think I have read they found one that eats arsenic. I'm going to have to double check that though.
- ars 10y agoArsenic is an element, you can eat it, but it's still there, just inside the bacteria. However different compounds of arsenic have different toxicity - elemental arsenic is most toxic, organic arsenic less so, so perhaps that's what they do - convert it to a less toxic form. Interestingly mercury is the opposite - elemental mercury isn't very toxic (because it's a metal and just doesn't absorb, it just stays as a clump of metal). But organic mercury is very toxic because the organic part makes it available to interfere with biological processes.
- ars 10y ago> water is going to start reaching toxic levels from rain pulling all the toxins out of the sky Nah, that stuff in the sky is mostly carbon (from burning straw, and other low temperature fires) which is not toxic to drink (in fact at low levels it makes water taste sweet) and perhaps some random hydrocarbons which would rapidly decompose. The worse stuff is various nitrogen compounds (acid rain), but even those don't accumulate in water. Those are made in engines, not from regular fires. Drinking and breathing have very different profiles for what is toxic.