11–20 of 25 posts
Whether it's made by microbes or industrial processes, the dye is still chemicals. Every physical object is chemicals. The microbes are made of chemicals and make chemicals.
> Using DNA sequencing found in nature, scientists can copy the genetic code for the blue in a butterfly wing. The blue morpho is actually blue from iridescence, not pigment.
Damn, you got to this before I did! The pigmentation of the morpho butterfly is a result of the microscopic shape of the scales which refract and diffract light. The actual pigmentation of those scales is not blue. If you took the DNA for the pigments in the butterfly scale you'd probably get some dull color. This phenomenon is called "structural color" The genetic and developmental pathway for butterfly scales is ac…
Whether it's made by microbes or industrial processes, the dye is still chemicals. Every physical object is chemicals. The microbes are made of chemicals and make chemicals.
There's a few reasons to think that would tend to be the case, but any given compound isn't magically safe for human exposure because a micro-organism synthesized it.
> Instead of mining oil or boiling vats of chemicals, Colorifix uses engineered microorganisms, (essentially programmable microbes) to grow colours in the lab. Biotech is cool, but the title is wrong. "colour without chemicals" refers to "we don't need chemicals", e. g. industrial scale-level chemicals. But you actually do, you just use different chemicals; in particular all energy given to the bacteria, all material…
> Instead of mining oil or boiling vats of chemicals, Colorifix uses engineered microorganisms, (essentially programmable microbes) to grow colours in the lab. Biotech is cool, but the title is wrong. "colour without chemicals" refers to "we don't need chemicals", e. g. industrial scale-level chemicals. But you actually do, you just use different chemicals; in particular all energy given to the bacteria, all material…
From the title I was expecting that they are creating structural colors, which you could "grow" and which don't need chemicals. Finding out that it's chemical dye made by bacteria really feels misleading
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the title I was expecting that they are creating structural colors, which you could "grow" and which don't need chemicals. Finding out that it's chemical dye made by bacteria really feels misleading
I mean, even then you're growing it from chemicals. Unless you're straight up converting energy to matter (in which case, it would be kind of odd the first practical application they think of is making colors).
Of course, I doubt you can do that to any random substrate, since the color will depend on the properties of the material.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, even then you're growing it from chemicals. Unless you're straight up converting energy to matter (in which case, it would be kind of odd the first practical application they think of is making colors).
Well, the counterargument is that in theory, you can imagine a way to create structural color regardless of substrate. So imagine a technology that shines a laser on a car or a block of concrete and makes it blue; I'd argue that's correctly "without chemicals". Of course, I doubt you can do that to any random substrate, since the color will depend on the properties of the material.
So imagine a technology that shines a laser on a car or a block of concrete and makes it blue
And here is a video explains it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsGHr7dXLuI
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the title I was expecting that they are creating structural colors, which you could "grow" and which don't need chemicals. Finding out that it's chemical dye made by bacteria really feels misleading
I mean, even then you're growing it from chemicals. Unless you're straight up converting energy to matter (in which case, it would be kind of odd the first practical application they think of is making colors).
Whether it's made by microbes or industrial processes, the dye is still chemicals. Every physical object is chemicals. The microbes are made of chemicals and make chemicals.
Probably more importantly though, there's no particular reason the chemicals made by bacteria should be safer or less impactful to the environment. There's a few reasons to think that would tend to be the case, but any given compound isn't magically safe for human exposure because a micro-organism synthesized it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, even then you're growing it from chemicals. Unless you're straight up converting energy to matter (in which case, it would be kind of odd the first practical application they think of is making colors).
In the sense that everything is chemicals, yes. But you typically wouldn't describe a butterfly growing a wing or a welder making a blue weld from metals that are normally very much not blue as "growing from chemicals". I guess you could argue about the butterfly, but I think few people would say that chemicals are involved in welding steel, despite iron, carbon and tungsten being chemical elements
eg: https://youtu.be/nfNvuTMDXNg?t=1420
In which a good machinist from Queensland, Australia discovers a crack and states he'll have to get the metal tested before he can repair the crack.
You know, to match the chemical composition, expansion rates, etc.