Slashdot Mirror
Ministry of NanoEthics?
hlovy writes "Here's part of a blurb that promotes, Nanotechnology: Atom and Eve in the Garden of Eden," an upcoming conversation between Foresight Institute founder Eric Drexler and ETC Group head Pat Mooney: "Recent studies indicate that nanoscale materials now being commercialized pose potential hazards for human health and the environment." The "studies" were actually incomplete surveys of inconclusive toxicology reports, commissioned by ETC Group, itself. Even Greenpeace admits that no complete scientific study of the toxicity of nanomaterials has been yet been performed. Read Howard Lovy's NanoBot for commentary."
for people tosee that nano tech can be used for ill and will be very hard to stop?
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
IMHO the ministry is used for governing the use of nano-tech by human beings - after all, there are some potentially serious implications in deploying, or even developping nano tech (take Billy Joy's article, or, for that matter, Vonneguts Ice-9).
Now it doesn't really matter if those scenarios become reality anytime soon, but the mere thought of them becoming real convinces me that a governing body is needed, the sooner the better.
Nanoscale particles can pass through the skin, and therefore can be dangerous if the particles in question contain toxic substances. It is important that this is studied proerly and the appropriate regulations put in place before manufacturers start selling us carcinogenic toothpaste. It's also refreshing that they're addressing real issues, rather than paranoid sci-fi nonsense like grey goo.
If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
GM foods bad! Embryo research bad! Cloning bad! And now Nanotech bad too. Obviously scientists have no morality or sense of social responsibility. Arse!
It's similar to a lot of technology that has really become commonplace in the media. Recently, a local TV news headline in my area had the audacity to say, "Food from Cloned Animals... IS IT SAFE?" Everyone in the room who knew a bit about cloning rolled their eyes. But later that evening, my grandmother called me, wanting to know if I was going to watch the broadcast.
"Recent studies indicate that nanoscale materials now being commercialized pose potential hazards for human health and the environment."
Yeah, and milk from cloned cows is going to make you grow three stomachs! Details at 10!
+5, Female
Wow! Greenpeace said that!? I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm convinced. Greenpeace being such a noble and trustworthy source of things that are true. </sarcasm>
I'm sure they're right in this case, but citing Greenpeace's opinion as the be all and end all of an argument is just stupid, IMHO.
Looks can be deceiving. Or CAN they?
I work in the field of micromechanics/nanotechnology and at a meeting with some guys from Philips I heard that nanotechnology is so overhyped that even the suits were aware of it being overhyped. And I seriously think it is overhyped; there are so many promises done by many 'specialists' that we don't even begin to know how to start to make true, like the nanobots that repair you body from the inside, and the machine that makes tomatos out of thin air... Micromechanics turned out to be a big disappointment to many people I know who work/worked in this field (in that only a tiny fraction of the promises that people did ten years ago have come true), but the way things are going now nanotechnology could be worse. And that is a pity because it certainly, like micromechanis, has the potential for use in many interesting areas, just not as spectacular as is promised by many people.
-- Cheers!
It isn't that I don't trust scientists in particular... I just don't trust people in general.
I do some work for one of the national laboratories, and some (not all) of the scientists have enormous eogs. Any time someone has ANY incentive in their work (business==profit, science==prestige), there is an opportunity for someone to put themselves above the rest of the world (eg Hmm, I'm pretty sure this new nano substance is safe, so an environmental release should be no big deal)
What ever happened to slow and sustainable growth? I'd rather slow down the process and study the hell out of these new technologies (yes, that includes GMO foods, too) before they are commercialized.
Take the case of microsilica AKA silica fume. This is a material used in a vast number of products but perhaps most famous for making ultra-high strength concrete.
There are two common forms known as amorphous and crystalline microscilica. The amorphous product is not known to produce the lung disease silicosis while the larger scale crystalline variety does so quite readily.
So, substances don't necessarily become more dangerous at smaller scales, the opposite can also be true.
Well, microscale materials are toxic. Why shouldn't nanoscale materials be dangerous, too?
Crystalline silica (quartz) is totally harmless in bulk form. It is, quite literally, a rock. You could eat one and it wouldn't do you any harm, unless it was pointy. Large crystals of it are kind of pretty; I have some polished on my shelf for decoration.
Silica particles on a micron scale, if inhaled, cause scarring in the lungs and an steeply increased risk of lung cancer. Oops. And I thought silica was harmless...
We're used to thinking of iron and aluminum as noncombustible. Fine metal powders can be touched off with a spark, and burn rapidly and with high heat.
The properties of materials are indeed dependent on their scale. Yes, rampant paranoid and running around shouting "Gray goo! Gray goo!" should be curtailed--but there are indeed toxic (and other) effects that merit further examination.
~Idarubicin
Oh, your system is great at nutrition and has no problem with hunger, women are safe, and causes no health problems.
because their "goverments" are stupid and evil
Hm, yes, we should bring these international criminals to justice. Oh, wait...
there's a plank in your eye.
Damn those pesky terrorists