I remember this! Couldn't put my finger on it when I was reading about the Stanford study earlier.
The new study, however, is a controlled one that raises mealworms strictly on styrofoam and compares their health to a control generation. It's more about the fact that they can digest styrofoam continuously and with no ill effects than that they can do it at all. After all, worms that die of plastic toxicity or something after a couple days (perhaps bc the bacteria wear themselves out) aren't a very effective solution.
Yes, it's quite interesting to see how they go from whether they can eat this to whether they can survive on it.
Incidentally, I presume that was merely a slip of the tongue, but since it so often causes confusion, I should point out that mealworms aren't 'worms' (annelids), but insects (coleopterans--i.e. beetle larvae).
Stanford's press release reads like they discovered this plastic eating mealworm like a new idea but it really wasn't. To me the new study is just a continuation of the previous discovery.
Also, there are so many Intel ISEF awarded research projects each year. But most of them seem to have gone nowhere. Rarely, some of them turned out to be very good ideas many years later. I wonder what the disconnect is.
Well, science certainly builds on itself incrementally, and the further exploration of an existing idea is no less valid a direction of study than a "new" idea. As for the ISEF stuff... well, who knows. Hopefully it gives young folks a bit of a push in the right direction, though.
I wish I had access to the full paper, though - it may be that they referenced the 2009 study but Stanford didn't think it necessary to include that in the press release - which is, after all, a press release.
I downloaded the paper. It does not credit the highschool student's discovery. The authors take credit for the discovery themselves:
"Recently, we reported that waxworms (the larvae of the
Indian mealmoth or Plodia interpunctella) were capable of
chewing and eating PE films, and two bacterial strains capable
of degrading PE were isolated from the gut of the worms, i.e.,
Enterobacter asburiae YT1 and Bacillus sp. YP1. During the
same research period, we found that mealworms, the larvae of
the mealworm beetle or Tenebrio molitor Linnaeus (a species of
darkling beetle), which are much larger in size than waxworms
(typically approximately 25 versus 12 mm in length), can eat
Styrofoam as their sole diet."
They seem to have duplicated the 2009 highschool student's work. Here is the highschool student's abstract:
"The observation that mealworms might be able to feed on styrofoam sparked a curiosity to answer whether mealworms could digest styrofoam, and if so, how could they remain alive. First of all, these mealworms were fed in different kinds of food to insure the mealworms can digest styrofoam. The results showed that mealworms can indeed feed on styrofoam only. The hypothesis of this study is that microbes inside the digestive tracts of mealworms are responsible for the decomposition of styrofoam. To further test this hypothesis, microbes from the digestive tracts of mealworms were cultured at 37 C in LB medium under anaerobic conditions. There were many kinds of microbes isolated. From those microbes, a kind of bacteria forming red colonies was confirmed responsible for decomposing styrofoam. The growth conditions and strain characteristics of the bacteria forming red colonies were further examined. These results imply that the red bacteria isolated from the digestive tracts of mealworms may shed light on solving the serious environmental pollution caused by styrofoam."
I would say that the use of the phrase "we reported" is acknowledging that it is someone else's work. At my University such words have specific meaning.
Even assuming that's true, is it really too much to ask for the student to have a credit? Plenty of papers that build on work by non-academics do that.
The Stanford researchers could have been unaware of the Taiwanese student's work. It would not be surprising given the volume of scientific work that gets published every year. Independent discoveries happen all the time.
I don't know any other way to respond to this than to flat out contradict you: it is easy to miss something, even in a specialized subject where you know the 15 other groups working on similar stuff. Things are hidden in M.Sc. theses, Ph.D. theses and even papers with titles that didn't lead to you to suspect there was something relevant for your specific subject in them. There's just too much being published.
While I think you for the links, what's the use of the bracket notation if you're just putting the link on the same or next line? It's meant for footnotes, yes?
It was proably not published in a "propper" way, so it's ok. There are bizare idears who is the first to publish something, for example that pre-print don't count, because ... well I don't know.
And here the Stanford paper performed a long term study on mealworms and a styrofoam diet as opposed to a control. As for why they didn't reference the previous discovery, it could be for a couple of reasons:
1. The primary author(s) were not distinctly aware of the discovery.
2. If nothing was published in the 2009 Intel International Engineering Science Fair, then there is little to reference. Referencing a news article in a journal is not often considered good practice, and in many cases can be considered unacceptable.
This is a case where I would say "do not attribute to malice...", as I don't see any direct benefit to the researchers for excluding this reference in their paper. Their study focuses on long-term results, not merely "mealworms can eat styrofoam, news at eleven."
I would be very surprised that Intel IESF awarded prize to research projects without a paper! Also, from the links referenced above, I clearly saw the high schooler was presenting in a whiteboard with her research paper with diagrams.
Granted, I am unsure if the paper was published in any established academic journals/magazines etc. or gone through any peer reviews. But considering she was a 16-year-old at the time, with only more than a year of research into this subject matter and with a fairly accurate conclusion.
I think the real scary question is what happens if we do.
One of the main reasons we use plastics is because they are great barriers against bacteria and other grossness. We wrap food in plastic, put dirty diapers and dog poop in plastic, put garbage in plastic, wrap raw meat in plastic, use plastic for medical equipment. All because it reliably keeps out (or in) the bad stuff.
What happens if there are plastic-eating bacteria all over the world? Imagine what it would feel like if everywhere we currently used plastic we were using uncoated paper instead? What kind of sanitization problems would we be experiencing?
These bacteria aren't going to be Andromeda-strain like superbugs that can eat through plastic in seconds. Plastic that is dense and strongly crosslinked will take much longer to decompose, fortunately.
Instead of uncoated paper, what about waxed paper? It's impermeable on a reasonably long timescale, and is fully biodegradable too.
It doesn't have to happen that fast to be bad. Such bacteria would be like rust to metal. A lot of our things are based on plastics; it would not be good if suddenly everything started to "rust" and break.
Then again, some companies might like the fact that it could be another form of forced obolescence...
Personally, the inertness of plastics really suggests recycling and reusing; it's somewhat sad that we've invented materials that can last almost forever, and yet so many people are treating them as disposable and creating waste in the process.
I was thinking more along the lines of contagious plastic-eating rust destroying civilization by attrition, but yours is a scary thought as well. As for plastic waste, I just vented out about it yesterday. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10308556.
I have a form of cystic fibrosis. People with cystic fibrosis sometimes die from infections that normal people simply do not get. I looked up some of these infections, and some of them are used by scientists to biodegrade petrochemical spills because they eat petrochemicals. Plastics come from petrochemicals.
So I quit driving and I avoid styrofoam, etc. My hypothesis is that people with CF get these infections because we hang onto petrochemical residues greater than average. I want as little as possible to do with them. I have gradually gotten healthier.
Based on that, my guess is that if you do not have CF and do not have an inordinately high level of plastics/petrochemicals in your system, you are probably not at risk from microorganisms that biodegrade such things. For most humans, these microogarnisms are not dangerous. In fact, some of the infections that kill people with CF are incredibly common -- literally as common as dirt and found in dirt -- and are generally deemed harmless to normal humans.
One way to test your hypothesis is to start reducing your exposure to soft plastics and materials that offgas VOCs at high rates. See if that makes any difference.
However, do realize that common wisdom in alternative medicine groups (and South American tribal medicine men, etc) is that first the bad stuff has to come out. Kind of like with drug withdrawal, if this helps, it will get worse before it gets better. Much like drug withdrawal, that interim transition stage can be hellish.
I do consume sodas sold in 2 liter bottles. So I don't completely avoid all plastics. But I try like hell to avoid styrofoam and other soft plastics. When offered a choice at the deli, I ask for the hard plastic container instead of the styrofoam one.
"One way to test your hypothesis is to start reducing your exposure to soft plastics and materials that offgas VOCs at high rates. See if that makes any difference."
No, that's a very bad way to test your hypothesis. Assuming your goal is to really get to the root of a problem, you really shouldn't be allowing/asking individuals to test their ideas on themselves.
Have you spoken to doctors about your issues with plastics? It could very well be that your problem is to do with something else, but you're masking it by making premature assumptions based on what you think might be the cause. Perhaps even on faulty causal links that could do with some domain-knowledge, rather than guessing.
I have a completely different condition than psoriasis. Someone else replied that they think their psoriasis is related to plastics. I made a suggestion on how they can explore their own hypothesis about their own condition, if they so choose/desire. I am not asking anyone to test my hypothesis about my condition.
>"I have a form of cystic fibrosis. People with cystic fibrosis sometimes die from infections that normal people simply do not get. I looked up some of these infections, and some of them are used by scientists to biodegrade petrochemical spills because they eat petrochemicals. Plastics come from petrochemicals."
You self-diagnosed based on what appears to be a rather shaky link. And it appeared like you were suggesting to the other person to do the same for their condition because of an argument that appears to look like this:
P1. "People with cystic fibrosis sometimes die from infections a,b,c"
P2. "Some of the a,b,c 'infections' are used by scientist to biodegrade petrochemical spills"
P3. "Plastics come from petrochemicals"
P4. "People with CF hang on to petrochemicals (why? because of their condition?)"
C1. Therefore plastics make cystic fibrosis worse.
or
C2. Avoiding plastics makes cystic fibrosis symptoms better.
Either way, shaky links means assumptions are being made. Rather seek medical attention, or at the very least read the literature regarding any causal links between these things.
No, I did not self diagnose based on a shaky link. I stopped doing things that made my condition worse based on firsthand observation of what I experience every day. Afterwards, I learned a few things that led to a personal hypothesis as to why I react badly. My original point, relevant to this topic, was that based on knowing a bunch of semi obscure things, it is unlikely that microbes that eat styrofoam are dangerous to humans. I am also an environmental studies major. So it is kind of an intersection of things, not just what I know about my medical condition.
Then someone with psoriasis said they think plastics may be an issue for them. Suggesting someone reduce their exposure to a thing they think they are reacting negatively to is the most conservative suggestion you can make. It is a basic first step that does not require consulting a physician first to make that decision for yourself. Such a suggestion does not preclude them also seeking medical attention. Nor does it preclude them from reading up further.
You are making an issue out of absolutely nothing. You are also butting into my choices about how I take care of myself and asking me to justify them to you, which is incredibly inappropriate. I don't owe you an explanation or justification and commenting on my anecdotal experience related to the topic of styrofoam and microbes was in no way an invitation for people to insert themselves into my life in that manner.
So, I am done here. I would appreciate it if you would let it go.
>"You are also butting into my choices about how I take care of myself and asking me to justify them to you, which is incredibly inappropriate. I don't owe you an explanation or justification and commenting on my anecdotal experience related to the topic of styrofoam and microbes was in no way an invitation for people to insert themselves into my life in that manner.
So, I am done here. I would appreciate it if you would let it go."
Sorry, didn't mean to upset you. I'll just leave it.
It's pretty easy to defeat this. No bacteria would likely be able to indiscriminately consume all different types of plastic, regardless of the substantial differences in molecular composition. It is very common in the plastics industry to make multi-layered plastics (for things like oxygen barriers to protect meat, for example), so it would be a simple task of producing film with a thin layer of nonconsumable plastic protecting the consumable material.
To degrade the plastic, all you need is mechanical action (shred) to increase the surface area of the edible plastic. 98% biodegradability is better than 0.
There are already plenty of microbes which have evolved to eat plastic in the sea [1]. Luckerly for us Nature finds a way, as otherwise the ocean would be in even worse shape than it is.
[1] http://news.discovery.com/earth/oceans/plastic-eating-microb...
> Imagine what it would feel like if everywhere we currently used plastic we were using uncoated paper instead?
Probably what it feels like now when people predominantly use paper bags and paper wrap. Plastic is great, material-wise, but it's hardly our single defense against health problems.
It's funny you should bring that line up -- "The Andromeda Strain" (also by Crichton) features a microbe that's able to decompose plastics and rubbers.
There is some really amazing biochemistry going on here. The essential enzymes involved (and understanding their exact mechanism) would be of inestimable value for several reasons; a very large one you (jobu) suggest right here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystyrene#Biodegradation
"... rates of styrene degradation ranged from 0.14 to 0.4 a−1. This is an order of magnitude faster than the most rapid rate of polystyrene degradation identified... Pseudomonas putida is capable of converting styrene oil into the biodegradable plastic PHA. This may be of use in the effective recycling of Polystyrene foam, otherwise thought to be non-biodegradable."
If they're in the gut, odds are they're anaerobic and don't live long if exposed to the atmosphere. Could work for incubation vats or maybe buried landfills.
If that were possible then you'd expect to see landfills teaming with beetles already. As that isn't mentioned, perhaps something else in the landfill stops them?
I don't know if they're not teaming with beetles....anytime I've had the misfortune of being rather close to a landfill they seemed teaming with all manner of insects.
Anaerobic bacteria thrive inside landfills and compost [1], just not so much at the surface. The awful stink (and methane) from dug up trash or wet compost is from anaerobic bacteria.
Landfills, specifically, are built to be as isolated from the environment as possible[1], will generally kills most anything inside and reduces the rate of decomposition.
Admittedly, that is being a bit pedantic, the question would still seem to hold if you were talking about traditional waste dumps, I have no idea about the environmental makeup of those. Although my understanding is that the number of dumps, in the U.S. at least, has dramatically decreased of the last few decades.
Santa Cruz, CA has banned it for at least the 7 years I've been here... Jamba Juice serves in paper cups instead. I see no practical difference between the paper and the styrofoam (except I hate the handfeel of styrofoam).
It seems like companies have the processes in place to not use styrofoam if compelled to.
I'm not sure if that's an issue. If you get a Tim Horton's tea in a paper cup, it's still scalding hot even after 10 mins (and it tastes like piss, so I wouldn't recommend it BTW). If you want your drink to be hot 2 hours later I'm not sure a styrofoam cup is going to do much better. You probably want to get them to put your drink into a travel mug.
Coffee places usually give you cardboard sleeves where your palm goes, that help with insulation.
If your hand is big enough and the cup is light enough you can support bottom of it with your pinky and the top of it with your thumb while horizontally balancing it with the rest of your fingers, you have three-finger redundancy if your coffee is too hot.
The problem with the latter approach that little finger supports most of the weight of the cup and I can't hold more than a medium coffee.
> Should be illegal based solely on the sound it makes when it rubs together.
Lots of folks have been discussing, playing with (exploiting?), and researching [ASMR](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_sensory_meridian_re...) over the last few years. However, I've yet to see any discussion about the possibility of a connection between ASMR and [misophonia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misophonia). I experience both (your comment caused me to shudder) and have a hunch that they form a duality or, if the distinction isn't that clear, are related.
Your car probably has it (behind the bumper cover). Helmets have it. Your home may have it. It's light, it insulates, it absorbs the energy of impact (once at least).
I don't know if there are effective, inexpensive substitutes for those uses.
A complete idealist in me wishes that had we used appropriate material in the right places the world would have been much better place.
Using styrofoam in helmets, car bumpers and refrigerators is a completely legitimate use case as it solves more problems than it creates, but using styrofoam in cups is just such a complete waste that only gives someone a tiny bit of convenience.
For some things, it's the best material. I don't think most reasonable people would say we should ban styrofoam when it's the best material in a safety application.
For others, like food containers, it's almost purely for cost reasons when other solutions exist.
I've seen popcorn used instead of styrofoam for packing fragile thing nhsbfor ahipping. However the idea of putting a bucket of popcorn on my head to ride a bike doesn't seem that good.
That puts us one step closer to eliminating styrofoam in bicycle helmets. It may be that there are other very good or better materials that are currently too expensive, but whose prices could be brought down by widespread adoption.
I'd be surprised. It's used in motorcycle helmets as well and there's definitely a market for pretty pricey motorcycle helmets if you could claim they were better in any marginal way.
"An ordinance passed last year requires all food and beverages prepared for dine-in or take-out to be placed in reusable, recyclable or compostable packaging.
That includes plates, serving boats and to-go containers -- cups and bowls have until April 22, 2017 to continue using non-recyclable plastic-lined paper.
The ordinance includes all restaurants, food trucks, grocery store delis and other mobile or seasonal vendors."
I don't know if it's banned or just expensive where I live, but I haven't seen a styrofoam cup, container or packaging for a very long time.
Everything is cardboard and paper wrappers.
You can still by styrofoam disposable cups at the supermarket though, so maybe it's just a consumer based thing - consumers associate styrofoam packaging with cheap/nasty food.
can't comment on why styrofoam is not banned, but paper doesn't break down as easy on landfills as you would expect, due compaction and lack of oxygen for microorganisms to exist.
It is a lot cleaner to burn, though. I dunno why we don't make better use of burnable waste materials to generate electricity, rather than sticking them in landfills. Emissions-wise, it is no more dirty than burning coal or other biomass products that we are already utilizing (I've seen the emissions numbers for a plant that once burned creosote-treated wood products, and has now switched to whole-tree chips). Storing a shovel-full of ash in the landfill is more efficient than storing the uncombusted products.
Even sitting in a landfill paper still poses way fewer risks than styrofoam, as soon as it gets exposed to air it starts to break down, fish and birds don't usually eat it and when they do, paper doesn't stay in their guts forever.
> The worms converted about half of the Styrofoam into carbon dioxide, as they would with any food source.
I'm certainly not a chemist, but given that polystyrene is equal parts carbon and hydrogen (C8H8) and that carbon is roughly 12 times heavier than hydrogen I'd say that if the worms managed to convert only half of the polystyrene (by weight) into CO2 that looks much better than burning it, which -if done properly- would have converted all of the carbon into CO2.
However, I don't know how much energy can be harvested from burning it, and how to take that into account in order to decide whether it's better to burn it or to degrade it with the worms.
Plastic is inert in a landfill, but occupies a lot of space. If it's burned, CO2 is released into the atmosphere and toxic ashes are left behind, although way less space is occupied. If all plastic is degraded by these bacteria, apparently no disadvantages seem to be present.
I can just imagine history classes in 2115, "... then they took those valuable hydrocarbons and turned them into one use disposable cups. Then they fed the cups to mealworms removing them forever from productive use as either fuel or plastic. This insanity was common practice until the planet ran out of accessible oil reserves in 2075."
We could try recycling? Dig up dead organisms, turn them into brightly coloured cups, use them once and throw them away to be turned into worm food. What an odd system.
Of course I had to google it, and I seem to have missed whatever's so disgusting about it (guessing an insect-infested wound or something based on reactions here).
"Trypophobia is a claimed pathological fear of holes, particularly irregular patterns of holes. ... Shapes that elicit a reaction were said to include clustered holes in innocuous contexts such as fruit and bubbles, and in contexts associated with danger, such as holes made by insects and holes in wounds and diseased tissue."
I wish I hadn't googled that. It may be time to license photoshop on a certain kind of ethical requirement to not create certain images. Those images are so disgusting, my teeth hurt.
Yes, c02 is the basic building block of life, able to be converted into all manner of living things. Much better to turn old plastics back back into c02 as a raw life material than to leave it trapped in the ground.
Use Google Translate if you don't read traditional Chinese. [2]
[1]: http://archive.is/27Jb [2]: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=zh-CN&tl=en&js=y&p...