Why are they not using bioremediation on the Gulf oil spill ? Evidently these are naturally occuring microbes, available in powdered form, which feed on the oil and digest it into harmless compounds.

Since nothing else seems to be working and dispersants are just as toxic to wildlife, what would be the downside here ?

I’m hoping someone with more scientific knowledge than I could provide some insight on this.

A friend of mine sent me an email about it and it sounds pretty sensible to me. But I’m not a scientist so would like the knowledge of others on this.

When I checked it out, a sort of parralel concept sprang to mind. For people whose pets go out in their yards and pick up fleas, they have a new non chemical treatment now. Namely, the use of nematodes, which feed on flea eggs and larvae has markedly improved flea control during the warmer months. This is a totally natural biological remedy without having to treat the ground with harsh toxic chemicals.

I realize that oil eating microbes are different from nematodes, but the underlying principle seems the same, doesn’t it ?

The website looked legit and the video was evidently produced by the Texas State Dept. of Wildlife so I’m trying to figure out why either BP or the govt. isn’t using this option.

I mean, it’s not as if anything else they’ve tried has produced such stellar results. More like no results at all.

And evidently the cost of this method is a fraction of other remediation techniques. Wouldn’t it make sense to give this a try ? Why are they adverse to even trying it out on a small area, if nothing else instead of allowing the marshes and entire ecosystem to be destroyed ?

So, what’s going on here ? I’m puzzled.

www.spillfighters.com