-
Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).
6 ways mushrooms can save the world
- Thread starter hug46
- Start date
Paul Stamets is a guy with many great ideas that could work wonders in theory, however practical application of his ideas is hindered by the many pitfalls. For instance, his ethanol-from-fungi demonstrations is not met with the rigour of numbers that show that it is a viable alternative for biofuel production. Without going into too much detail, the whole process sounds already very energy- and time- consuming to be of any practical significance. In a similar way, a whole lot of seemingly "clever" and "potentially beneficial" ideas fall flat on their face when you try to plug in some numbers.
I have read his book mycelium running and I can say that it is great to stimulate younger people, but not much to astonish and convince the die-hard practical types. The latter is because most of his ideas, albeit clever are not extremely very well thought - if you try to bring the to life you will be met with many pitfalls. Stamets is also notorious for poor and non-existent citation of most of his claims.
I have read his book mycelium running and I can say that it is great to stimulate younger people, but not much to astonish and convince the die-hard practical types. The latter is because most of his ideas, albeit clever are not extremely very well thought - if you try to bring the to life you will be met with many pitfalls. Stamets is also notorious for poor and non-existent citation of most of his claims.
I don't think I understand the question - maybe edit out misspellings and/or incorrect syntax?hug46 said:
Now, I am not trashing the guy, in fact I like his ideas very much and I believe they work in a small / amateur / for teh lulz scale. Definitely worth trying them in your farm if you have time and resources. But how about bigger scale? Are they cost-effective at all? How do they compare with other solutions and technologies out there? His book with the ideas was published in 2005, i.e. 8 years ago; has any of his ideas been put into more testing, especially by others? Most importantly, none of his experimentations described in the mycelium running has been subjected to peer-reviewed scrutiny, which is a big minus and a serious attack in the credibility of his claims.
Often, it is not good enough for an idea to work nicely in practise. Applicability of this idea in real life and how well it compares with other ideas is what often is more important.
As an example of the non-applicability of Stamet's ideas, please refer to this recent document:
...where Paul stamets says that to get rid off the contaminating radioactivity in Japan, especially the Cesium 137 all you gotta do is to make mushrooms grow around the radioactively infested area; musrooms will suck up the radioactivity and then you can get rid of these mudhrooms.
He suggests in step 5 to cover the radioactively-infested area with mulch of 12-24 inches, or 30-60cm, using fallen trees and wood from destroyed houses. Damn, does anyone knwop how much mulch this is? Would that ever be a realistic project? One cannot just say "yeah, we'll cover the area with hald a meter of mulch" as it is easy-peasy
He then goes on to say in step 6 deciduous and conifer trees, along with hyper-accumulating mycorrhizal mushrooms, particularly Gomphidius glutinosus, Craterellus tubaeformis, and Laccaria amethystina. Hell, how long is it going to take before this system takes off? 10? 20? 30 years till the trees and mycelia are big enough to sustain a rigorous growth of mushrooms? How much time AND care for these new trees is it going to take before mushrooms will be able to fhourish and start allumumating the radioactivity? Note that Cesium 137 with a half life of 30 years and its high solubility in water might anyway gone in a matter of 30 years. And will the Gomphidius glutinosus, Craterellus tubaeformis, and Laccaria amethystina REALLY grow andf flourish in this area? Who will be willing to be taking care of this artificial and dangerous-to be-around ecosystem?
The rest of his suggestions are fine and logical, but overall there are no fail-safe suggestions and alternative plans in his schedule. His plan asks for the mobilization of HUGE resources and materials, and provides no proof of success. It is a good idea for the hippie dudes to say "yeah man, the shrooms will suck up the radioactivity so Mother Earth will get clean" but which practical, caring person would really go about following such plans? This latest document of Stamets preaches to the usual choir of "Mushrooms can do anything" but man, isn't it an overally unrealistic proposal the more one thinks about it?
...where Paul stamets says that to get rid off the contaminating radioactivity in Japan, especially the Cesium 137 all you gotta do is to make mushrooms grow around the radioactively infested area; musrooms will suck up the radioactivity and then you can get rid of these mudhrooms.
He suggests in step 5 to cover the radioactively-infested area with mulch of 12-24 inches, or 30-60cm, using fallen trees and wood from destroyed houses. Damn, does anyone knwop how much mulch this is? Would that ever be a realistic project? One cannot just say "yeah, we'll cover the area with hald a meter of mulch" as it is easy-peasy
He then goes on to say in step 6 deciduous and conifer trees, along with hyper-accumulating mycorrhizal mushrooms, particularly Gomphidius glutinosus, Craterellus tubaeformis, and Laccaria amethystina. Hell, how long is it going to take before this system takes off? 10? 20? 30 years till the trees and mycelia are big enough to sustain a rigorous growth of mushrooms? How much time AND care for these new trees is it going to take before mushrooms will be able to fhourish and start allumumating the radioactivity? Note that Cesium 137 with a half life of 30 years and its high solubility in water might anyway gone in a matter of 30 years. And will the Gomphidius glutinosus, Craterellus tubaeformis, and Laccaria amethystina REALLY grow andf flourish in this area? Who will be willing to be taking care of this artificial and dangerous-to be-around ecosystem?
The rest of his suggestions are fine and logical, but overall there are no fail-safe suggestions and alternative plans in his schedule. His plan asks for the mobilization of HUGE resources and materials, and provides no proof of success. It is a good idea for the hippie dudes to say "yeah man, the shrooms will suck up the radioactivity so Mother Earth will get clean" but which practical, caring person would really go about following such plans? This latest document of Stamets preaches to the usual choir of "Mushrooms can do anything" but man, isn't it an overally unrealistic proposal the more one thinks about it?
As an example of the non-applicability of Stamet's ideas, please refer to this recent document:
...where Paul Stamets says that to get rid off the contaminating radioactivity in Japan, especially the Caesium 137 all you gotta do is to make mushrooms grow around the radioactively infested area; mushrooms will suck up the radioactivity and then you can get rid of these mushrooms.
He suggests in step 5 to cover the radioactively-infested area with mulch of 12-24 inches, or 30-60cm, using fallen trees and wood from destroyed houses. Damn, does anyone know how much mulch this is? Would that ever be a realistic project? One cannot just say "yeah, we'll cover the area with half a meter of mulch" as it is easy-peasy
He then goes on to say in step 6 deciduous and conifer trees, along with hyper-accumulating mycorrhizal mushrooms, particularly Gomphidius glutinosus, Craterellus tubaeformis, and Laccaria amethystina. Hell, how long is it going to take before this system takes off? 10? 20? 30 years till the trees and mycelia are big enough to sustain a rigorous growth of mushrooms? Most importantly, what will be the output of the system, i.e how much of the radioactivity one can get rid of in one crop? How much time AND care for these new trees is it going to take before mushrooms will be able to flourish and start accumulating the radioactivity? Note that Caesium 137 with a half life of 30 years and its high solubility in water might anyway gone in a matter of 30 years. And will the Gomphidius glutinosus, Craterellus tubaeformis, and Laccaria amethystina REALLY grow and flourish in this area? Who will be willing to be taking care of this artificial and dangerous-to-be-around ecosystem?
The rest of his suggestions are fine and logical, but overall there are no fail-safe suggestions and alternative plans in his schedule. His plan asks for the mobilization of HUGE resources and materials, and provides no proof of success. It is a good idea for the hippie dudes to say "yeah man, the shrooms will suck up the radioactivity so Mother Earth will get clean" but which practical, caring person would really go about following such plans? This latest document of Stamets preaches to the usual choir of "Mushrooms can do anything" but man, isn't it an overall unrealistic proposal the more one thinks about it? A bunch off half-thought ideas is what describes his proposal best.
...where Paul Stamets says that to get rid off the contaminating radioactivity in Japan, especially the Caesium 137 all you gotta do is to make mushrooms grow around the radioactively infested area; mushrooms will suck up the radioactivity and then you can get rid of these mushrooms.
He suggests in step 5 to cover the radioactively-infested area with mulch of 12-24 inches, or 30-60cm, using fallen trees and wood from destroyed houses. Damn, does anyone know how much mulch this is? Would that ever be a realistic project? One cannot just say "yeah, we'll cover the area with half a meter of mulch" as it is easy-peasy
He then goes on to say in step 6 deciduous and conifer trees, along with hyper-accumulating mycorrhizal mushrooms, particularly Gomphidius glutinosus, Craterellus tubaeformis, and Laccaria amethystina. Hell, how long is it going to take before this system takes off? 10? 20? 30 years till the trees and mycelia are big enough to sustain a rigorous growth of mushrooms? Most importantly, what will be the output of the system, i.e how much of the radioactivity one can get rid of in one crop? How much time AND care for these new trees is it going to take before mushrooms will be able to flourish and start accumulating the radioactivity? Note that Caesium 137 with a half life of 30 years and its high solubility in water might anyway gone in a matter of 30 years. And will the Gomphidius glutinosus, Craterellus tubaeformis, and Laccaria amethystina REALLY grow and flourish in this area? Who will be willing to be taking care of this artificial and dangerous-to-be-around ecosystem?
The rest of his suggestions are fine and logical, but overall there are no fail-safe suggestions and alternative plans in his schedule. His plan asks for the mobilization of HUGE resources and materials, and provides no proof of success. It is a good idea for the hippie dudes to say "yeah man, the shrooms will suck up the radioactivity so Mother Earth will get clean" but which practical, caring person would really go about following such plans? This latest document of Stamets preaches to the usual choir of "Mushrooms can do anything" but man, isn't it an overall unrealistic proposal the more one thinks about it? A bunch off half-thought ideas is what describes his proposal best.
Infundibulum said:
Sory for the miss spellings and bad syntax, i answered too quickly before rushing out but i think you answered my question with your reply. The part of the video which really appealed to me was where the mycelium absorbs oil and breaks it up with enzymes, but i am no scientist, or much of a hippie . I am not bothered whether you trash the guy, i just posted this because it looked interesting and other people"s (perhaps more scientific minded people) opinions are also interesting.
In refernce to the Japanese fallout scenario, i read that they were having problems from fallout up to 180kms away, so yeah thats alot of mulch. (7634070148 m/cubed i think with 30cms of mulch).
But as you say, they are interesting ideas, that could possibly be developed over time.
Thank you for the clarification,
It is indeed a very interesting and thought-provoking observation that mycelium absorbs oil (I assume you mean mineral oil, like petrol here)and breaks it down. Question is, how are you going to use it? The bigger problems with oil slips are in the sea and seashores, where the mycelia Stamets was using ( I think it was Pleurotus spp?) won't even grow...Then there is most certainly oil contamination in the land; in these cases how much mycelium do you need to grow and tackle the problem? How long does it take to clean as opposed to other microorganisms (that can do similar job to mycelium)? Are we better off preventing oil contamination in the first place? In which areas does this mycelium grow? Is it possible that the mycelium will convert the oil to something else, toxic to the ecosystem? Is it possible that introducing a mycelium to an environment where this mycelium not normally grows might have a long-term negative impact in the environment?
It is not that you have an oil spillage, you throw mycelium and BHAM! the problem disappears. In a way, I'd go as far as saying that Stamets is responsible for cultivating the incorrect impression that many problems can be realistically tackled by his mushroomy ideas.
It is indeed a very interesting and thought-provoking observation that mycelium absorbs oil (I assume you mean mineral oil, like petrol here)and breaks it down. Question is, how are you going to use it? The bigger problems with oil slips are in the sea and seashores, where the mycelia Stamets was using ( I think it was Pleurotus spp?) won't even grow...Then there is most certainly oil contamination in the land; in these cases how much mycelium do you need to grow and tackle the problem? How long does it take to clean as opposed to other microorganisms (that can do similar job to mycelium)? Are we better off preventing oil contamination in the first place? In which areas does this mycelium grow? Is it possible that the mycelium will convert the oil to something else, toxic to the ecosystem? Is it possible that introducing a mycelium to an environment where this mycelium not normally grows might have a long-term negative impact in the environment?
It is not that you have an oil spillage, you throw mycelium and BHAM! the problem disappears. In a way, I'd go as far as saying that Stamets is responsible for cultivating the incorrect impression that many problems can be realistically tackled by his mushroomy ideas.
I wonder how large of an area Stamets was proposing with the 'mulch and mycoremediate' idea. I know radiation above background levels due to the Fukushima disaster has been detected at great distances, but that has more to do with radiation being easy to detect in minute quantities by its very nature than it does with any actual danger being present. Even a strategically-placed 50-meter square bed of mulch, inoculated either with cultivated spawn or with sporulated oil as described by Stamets' other works, could have a significant impact on radiation in the area and provide useful data.
By 'strategically-placed' I am thinking perhaps of a natural low-point near the epicenter of high radiation levels where water might collect (since you mention cesium being water-soluble).
Thanks for the criticism of Stamets. I'm a huge fan and very attracted to bioremediation / mycoremediation and it's great to have my conception of how these things work challenged.
By 'strategically-placed' I am thinking perhaps of a natural low-point near the epicenter of high radiation levels where water might collect (since you mention cesium being water-soluble).
Thanks for the criticism of Stamets. I'm a huge fan and very attracted to bioremediation / mycoremediation and it's great to have my conception of how these things work challenged.
I wholeheartedly agree that it is almost always to try his ideas, especially this one in a reasonable scale as you suggest above.Yerba said:
Thank you for the receiving my criticisms to Stamets well. As a matter of fact, I find it weird that there is no criticism of his ideas at all. Surely, not ALL of his ideas can be flawless. Often, regardless if an idea is revolutionary, if it is really good it catches up quickly. Think of cell phones, toilet paper, facebook etc. I personally do not think his ideas will be catching up any time soon...Yerba said:
