2 ms·
> Of course, the bacteria are not harmful to humans or the environment, as seen in the chemical and microbiological tests that were conducted. I have no idea w
by SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
> Of course, the bacteria are not harmful to humans or the environment, as seen in the chemical and microbiological tests that were conducted.
I have no idea why that would get an “Of course,”. But otherwise, ok, great, if this scales and makes it outside the lab. Which is a big if considering the details of how you starve the bacteria into eating iron quickly aren’t explained for a scale operation.
- coldtea 5y ago>as seen in the chemical and microbiological tests that were conducted. Why would these tests be conclusive? Why would these tests be trusted in the first place? (Given that finding a reproducible research paper without errors and bad methodologies is a crapshot) Was there a conflict of interest that could influence presenting them as safe? (e.g. was this the same lab that developed them and sell them as a solution, or an independent lab with nothing to gain from their success?) Can these bacteria mutate (and potentially become harmful)?
- possiblelion 5y agoReminds me of the time the U.S Navy launched balloons filled with Serratia marcescens bacteria (the same kind that causes pink slime in showers) all over the Bay Area coastline, believing them to be completely harmless for humans. Of course it wasn't and multiple people got hospitalized and even died. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serratia_marcescens#Role_in_biowarfare_testing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serratia_marcescens#Role_in_bi...) Very interesting bacteria however, also believed to be responsible for the miracle bleeding of religious monuments.
- mort1merp0 5y agoMy impression is that English is not the authors first language. So I usually give them some slack rather than being quick to criticize.