Originally Posted by Jorge1907
are you a fool?
Jorge, has no-one told you it's important to play nice??
I thought it was a fair question, because I've seen too many generated postings. Seeing as how your response seems too rude for anything but a person...
In response to dutilapia, the speed of bioremediation might be slow, but if it's more effective in doing the job, time is not always the overriding concern.
As for jorge's comment about pollutants decreasing over time, I think you need to look at the figures again. China alone has been polluting itself in increasing amounts each year. I believe that 3 of the 10 most-polluted towns on the planet are Chinese (please correct me if the figure is wrong). Add to that the rest of the planet, and I don't think anyone can imagine the world is getting less-polluted...
The issue of overcoming the local flora is something that will be of highly variable importance. Where there has been a large pollution spill, such as an oil tanker leakage (think Exxon Valdez), bioremediation might be the only effective method. The bioremediation testing done with the Valdez suggested it would be the only way to remove the oil, rather than just take it out of sight (as was the case with the traditional methods of cleanup). Slow it might be, but if it gets rid of the oil it has done its job.
For those who didn't hear the details, the traditional method (using high-pressure hot water) caused the oil to leach down into the subsoil. Bioremediation broke down the oil to a depth of ~2m.