Slashdot Mirror
The Issues of Nano-Safety
Ineffable 27 writes "Today's New York Times has an interesting article looking at some of the emerging research into the health and safety risks of nanotech and nanomaterials." Free reg. blah blah. It's a decent article, but it's the same type of questions that groups like The Foresight Institute have been thinking about for a long long time now.
If we had thought about wussy things like "safety" back in the 40's we wouldn't have developed the atom bomb. And that, good sirs, would be a travesty, because there would have never been any Duke Nukem Games.
A good book on the topic is "Nanotechnology: A Gentle Introduction to the Next Big Idea" (ISBN: 0131014005). In it some of the problems of Nanotech are discussed (in addition to the benefits of course).
IMHO though, this is just another snag in the means of progress. We develop Genetic engineering and people are suffering from allergies to Gene spliced tortillas (that was Del Taco IIRC), or for a worse idea, we develop advanced shipbuilding and watch the Titanic sink (over and over again...).
However will Nanotech help society as whole more than it will hurt? IMHO yes. Though it truly remains to be seen whether or not a bunch of Nano-bots will destroy us all from our insides (I think that was from the book), or a bunch of clumped Nano-tubes will get in our lungs (as the article said).
...in bed
In related news, the release schedule of Duke Nukem forever seems to follow the half-life of Uranium-234
Here are some other links about issues with nano-tech http://www.theecologist.org/searchResults.html?arc hiveOnly=1&searchString=nanotechnology&Search=Sear ch
and here is a one that talk abouts issues with brain implants to boost intelligence.
Consensus is good, but informed dictatorship is better
Frequent linking to pages which require registration is further eroding the publically accessible nature of the web as we knew it. Sites which pollute public-web search engines with results which are not directly and freely accessible should be shunned, not supported by linking to them.
May a thousand nanobots attack the cells of anyone posting a "welcome our new nanobot overlord" post.
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
You realize that by posting the New York Times article, this has become a story about Foresight, right?
:)
Seven of Nine can't be the only thing sexy about Nanotech. It sounds wonderful, if you think about the possibilities of controlling the world at a molecular level. But what about the costing of Nanotech? This means that instead of charging for a lump sum of material, the manufacturers can charge by the molecule!
Talk about a get rich scheme!
So guys, how can we prevent this from getting out of hand?
Nanotech, appears to be all it's chalked up to be... a great new path for a new industrial revolution. Think of the ways we can help the environment, our bodies, our society. We could build pure substances, and refine better goods.
We could grow better fruits and vegetables.
We could clone better animals.
And what would it do to us? I think it's worth risking to find out.
...about asbestos. Full speed ahead!
Will it be moderated and will individual bots get dinged for constructing/deconstructing flamebate?
Some would say that viruses are God's nanotech. Small, self-replicating, non-living, and very very potent. The damage that a virus can do to an ecosystem depends on its programming, but even the most mild of viruses can cause serious reactions in hosts.
I'm not sure that we have come to the point of understanding where we can control nanobots. If the biggest software company in the world can't put out a bug free software package, how can we expect that a handful of scientists to put together what is in effect a man-made virus. It would be a sad day if one of these (excuse the pun) bugs were released and some error was caught too late.
. .
This sig is a test. If this had been an actual sig, you would be reading something quite a bit wittier than this now.
Here's a link to the page, no login required:
LINK!
Sig & Below
Sig & Below
Yuck Fou
The NYT article actually presents some valid, observable concerns with existing technology and our bodies' abilities to deal with particles on that scale. A surprisingly interesting read.
"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea...."
RFC 1925
I imagined from the moment I heard of nanotech, that we could have devices implanted in ourselves that, when we're in the sun, could bring chlorophyll to the surface of our skins and create food from it. That way we can all use up CO2 from the atmosphere to offset the CO2 emissions of industry, and help industry along all the more!
We get the benefits of industry, with free food, and a way to combat one of the current downfalls of industry!
My other nanotech dream is that nanobots in my body could change me into a lesbian and I could go have hot lesbian sex each night, but I don't mention that one much
Well, I consider this a perfectly acceptable mortality rate extrapolated up to humans considering the vast array of benefits that will be derived from nanotubes, like ...ummm, well, I'm sure there are really fantastic benefits to be derived from nanotubes or researchers wouldn't be working on them so fervently. And that's good enough for me.
To me, the most interesting part of any given technology are the cultural implications, especially as how with every advance in technology, our options become more manifest and manifold. (And if that last sentence didn't make sense, blame my cold.)
Stephenson's Diamond Age is a fascinating examination of this. Now, given that the book was written on a victorian framework (which shapes what issues are pondered) it is still an enjoyable read, and an even more enjoyable thought experiment into nanotech.
When people have the ability to build anything they want from the atom up, the only thing constraining us will be those constraints that our society dictates. (Everything else is merely requires sufficently talented engineers.) Unfortunatly, the dangerous aspects of nanotech also are only constrained by our society.
Worries about grey-goo scenarios and DNA plagues shouldn't stop us from researching nanotech -- if only for the reason that solutions to these problems can only be found through nanotechnological means.
Anyways, I digress -- for a fascinating study of nanotech, read the Diamond Age.
I hope nanotech doesn't eventuate for at least another century. The regulations to ensure it doesn't get out of control aren't in place and I don't see anyone beginning to care much about this for a long time. Read information here. When people are injured by normal technology, they are just injured or killed and the rest of the world moves on. When people will be injured by nanotech, the changes will be small perhaps undetectable even, but could involve controlled changes to things as basic to us as humans as our DNA, the food we eat, and our brain systems Government rewiring of our brains some day? Can't be too far in the future.
So, let me see if I get it: We haven't proven our nanotech products are safe, but nobody can afford to prove that they aren't. Since there is no proof that they aren't, we'll assume they're safe and dump them wherever it's cheapest. By the time anyone can prove that they aren't safe, we'll have made our money and then some.
The surest way to stifle innovation is to demand that the innovator prove that the invention will cause no harm. As we all know, proving a negative is a daunting task and 'harm' is a nebulous concept. All articles like this do is spread FUD. Fear of the unknown, Uncertainty about the future, and doubt in the benefits of progress.
There is one, and only one, thing that makes me positively scared of Nanotechnology.
And that is at the time that it becomes technologically and economically feasible, Microsoft will probably still be around.
Before we start looking into the safety of nanotechhnology, I think the question of whether nanotech will ever be feasible should be addressed. Here are a few basic problems that I've yet to see any solutions for:
1. How is energy going to be supplied to the nanobots?
2. How are the nanobots going to be produced, economically?
3. How are they going to move (wheels, flying)?
I don't understand why there is so much emphasis on such a poorly-defined field of technology that has shown so little promise so far. The smaller you make things, the more difficult and expensive they are to produce. Nanotechnology seems to be just a convenient "magic" technology useful only for SF writers.
It seems a little early to worry about nano-bot safety when regular occupational workplace safety, especially with respect to smoking cigarettes and alcohol consumption issues, are still widely protested. In other words, you'll die of lung cancer before a miniature robot accidentally recombines your DNA.
stuff |
Way to stick it to THE MAN, bro! Vive el cyberevolution!!!
Nanotechnology will allow Apple to finally make a reality their patent on computers that can dynamically change their case color.
Or from the outside. To go into 100% tin foil hat mode if indeed nanobots started replicating like nobody's business, surely it'd be more efficent for them to exit someone's lungs and let the wind carry them about?
Where we need Good Nano in us to watch for bad Nano and destroy it. However in order to create the good that watches for the bad...
Which would then bring up Nano-patch management. Think we need to get Macro-patch management down fist.
The article shows how companies look at the numbers, rather sad.
First.
No one has yet created a realistic test for the effects of inhaled nanoparticles; such a test could easily cost more than $1 million to design and carry out, toxicologists say.
Then.
the federal government's projection that sales of products based on nanotechnology will reach $1 trillion by 2015
Yeah, I got infected by some nasty grey goo last week, and now my tinfoil hat doesn't appear to work. Darn!
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
... thought about it about 30-40 years ago. ...
1. Build nanotech
2.
3. Profit!
4. Death.
NANOSHA ...?
If we placed nanotubes strategically into our lungs, we could smoke completely without reprocussions!
With a death penalty cap of 250K per person, a company can kill off 4 people at that price.
WHAT A BARGIN!
I thought we already learned our lessons about nanotechnology when Wesley fell asleep. In the end all our problems will be solved by tachyons.
DPH
And just what happens when the idea zealot get a hold of this? Gives whole new meaning to the term 'Dirty Bomb'. Imagine 2 - 3 kilos of nano carbon attached to TNT and detonated over Manhattan at say 50 meters during rush hour or lunch? Where does that put the fifteen percent mortality rate?
Actually, yes it is going to be quite some time in the future. Current "nanotechnology" relies almost entirely on processes developed for the semiconductor industry. It's great for creating objects stacked on top of each other in 2D, but when you're trying to make use of the technology to create even micro-scale mechanical devices (also known as MEMS, Micro Electro Mechanical Systems) it has some very severe limitations. For example, right now we can make great pressure sensors using MEMS, and some nifty fluidic devices, but no micro-scale "robot" of any type has yet been developed. And, without a massive paradigm shift away from Silicon, I doubt it will.
Further, all the negative hype about nanotech is in my opinion, totally undeserved. The smallest scale we could possibly create anything useful with is about on the order of a virus. And, nature has already shown us what something that size is supposed to be like (a virus). Can Electrical Engineers create something more complicated, deadly, or even useful than what Nature has had a few billion to cook up? I doubt it.
Nanotech is a buzzword in search of a technology in search of a market. Don't be concerned. (Not that it's not cool, it is what I do my research in, just ignore the hype).
to an Inbox near you:
Nanobot pills to increase your penis-size, make it hard at will and generate all the pheromones you need to attract naked clones of Natalie Portman's.
that is, provided you send some money to a guy in Nigeria who has the money and technology to make you rich and well-endowed.
Mmmmmmmmm...grey goo
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
And I'll note that 24 hours later, the other 85% seemed perfectly healthy, the assumption being that the nanotubes clumping stopped them from getting into deep regions of the lungs and allowed them to be expelled by coughing.
So, with specifics of 15% mortality in mice from nanotube exposure, does that warrant concern?
And that is at the time that it becomes technologically and economically feasible, Microsoft will probably still be around.
To say nothing of Diebold.
[SCREAMING AND CARNAGE AS SEATTLE IS DISASSEMBLED AT THE MOLECULAR LEVEL BY VICIOUS NANOBOTS, THE ENTIRE CITY, BUILDINGS AND INHABITANTS ALIKE, BECOMING MERELY A FINE BLACK MIST RISING OVER CANADA]
Diebold Spokesman: "The diebold milkshake-manufacturing nanobots have been certified by independent experts and are known to work accurately. We have absolute confidence in them and are certain that the vicious attacks on us are politically motivated. It saddened us that the creators of the so-called "safety" report on the nanobots did not seek our input when compiling their report. It is clear that those claiming the diebold nanobots are unsafe are merely afraid of new technology, much like those who complained about nuclear energy in the 40s claimed that it would cause the end of the world."
But the $4 million it expects to award next year for risk studies is barely measurable against the $847 million in federal money that President Bush has proposed for nanotechnology research and development for the 2004 fiscal year.
Couple this with the fact that companies will be more than willing to invest their own dollars in nanotechnology (but not studying risks), it is clear that we are not doing enough to study the environmental impacts of such stuff. This is brand new territory, with new rules and new concequences. It is stupid to think that the old rules to protect people and the environment will be adequate. Environmental messes are *horribly* expensive to clean up by comparison.
To call this FUD is really irresponsible. You don't jump in head first to a pool of water unless you know how deep the pool is, no?
it is just trial lawyers trying to hurt hard-working corporate owners
what do you suppose the mortality rate is for injecting water into the lungs?
... Zero. This saturday I was playing waterpolo, and I ended up getting quite a bit of water in my lungs... it hurt, but I coughed most of it up (and lost possession of the ball, but that's another story).
Under normal circumstances (ie, where they can cough and brethe)
Most animals are very good at coughing up a resonable amount of foreign substances with no long-lasting ill effects. This just was not true with nanotubes, 15% died. It is not like the researcher tried to "drown" the poor rat in nanotubes.
While Feinman doesn't touch on the negatives of nano-technology, much of Drexler's ground breaking book is related to developing nano-machines WITHOUT risk to the human race.
Jake had those nano-bots get into his blood stream accidently and he doesn't seem any worse for the wear. Although he did have a close call a couple of weeks ago when they needed to be rebooted.
Anyone who thinks there is no downside to this technology is kidding themselves.
quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.
I wonder what the mortality rate is for mice with common dirt released directly into their lungs?
Did you even bother to look for the actual research. I did a very quick search on google, and found this report. I'd love an actual link to the study, but I don't have time to do more searching.
This report talked about a study which compared particles of 20 nanometers (deadly) with ones of 130 nanometers (not deadly) in the same concentrations. Certainly these results are not perfect, a better study would make these nanoparticles into an areosol, as this would be the most likely form of real-life delivery.. that is, a light dust cloud breathed by a human after some object was moved containing nanotubes. In any case, I'm sure the same concentration of plain-old dirt would not even be noticed.
If you want to argue the results... do you own study. Oh wait, that was the point of the NY Times article wasn't it... that not enough studies were being done. Amazing.
Just because you think of nanobots in traditional terms of metal and Energizer batteries doesn't mean that is how they are. Perhaps you should do some research in the field first. The most promising (INAN - I'm Not A Nanoscientisit) designs will follow closely to nature - ie virus and bacteria like genetically designed and perhaps controlled by electromagnetic fields. Nature has already given us extremely efficient designs for self-growing structures and organized modification at a chemical level of these structures. I would suggest reading up on the subject as there are many excellent books published on the subject.
Posthuman since 2001.
Greenpeace UK commissioned a report into nanotechnology back in July 2003 which can be downloaded from here.
It was commissioned of Imperial College London with the brief that it should cover existing applications, current research and development - including the associated organisations with the incentives and risks they have for such initiatives.
1) Don't leave lid open on 'experimental' nanites while working late-night on a school project.
2) Should this happen, be sure to let an adult know immediately instead of trying to quietly solve the problem yourself.
3) Should they multiply and infect the computer core, do not try to fry them out of the core; results will be disastrous.
Humans, however, have removed much of the external pressures on their immune systems and, arguably, the population is becoming less fit for the environment we live in. We certainly seem to be and more susceptible to novel pathogens, whether, like viruses, they evolve spontaneously or, like nanotech, they are deliberately created. The increase in detected immune-response problems, from allergies to HIV/AIDS, suggests, again arguably, this may be the case. To survive as we are, we must rely on artificial medical intervention.
The example of the (over)use of antibiotics leading to resistant bacteria, shows how difficult it is to assess the effects of new technologies apart from their immediate effects.
The problem, really, is the value we place on human life. By assuming that saving, or rather, extension, of human lives affected by amenable diseases is paramount, we implicitly assume that a current human life is worth more than a potential future life, and hope we will be equipped to deal with any future problems that are caused by the technologies we've used.
Past events, from the discovery of brewing to the invention of atomic power plants, suggest that we have already made that choice, and we will have to use all the technology we can discover to maintain ourselves, and the environment around us, in a state that won't kill us.
That said, nanotech is actuarially unfathomable and legally questionable. It's only morally defensible. In other words, the question boils down to whether people would rather (a) do what's right for their great-great-grandchildren in years to come, or (b) maintain the current profitability of legal and insurance firms.
This of course means that if you get it on with your lady friend outside, you can have green nookie just like Capt. Kirk.
-Z
I don't think those regulations will be in place until the relevant technology has been devised. It's pointless trying to legislate about something that hasn't even come to pass yet -- we need to invent the car before we can decide how fast it should go.
-chris
I hope nanotech doesn't eventuate for at least another century. The regulations to ensure it doesn't get out of control aren't in place and I don't see anyone beginning to care much about this for a long time.
Regulations will be as effective against hostile nanotech as they are against dangerous viruses: not very. Technological solutions are needed to combat technological menaces.
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
The parent is not a troll. Scare tactics may have a stimulating effect on any industries budget from the increased level of stockholder and public concern. This is not bad press. The oil companies say, "We have to make double hull tankers now after the E-Valdez; we will pass on the costs to you." No one argues with this, because they can't in a market economy. Our only method of protest is to organize boycotts which never materialize (at least in the US).
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
If you've been following the progress of Duke Nukem Forever, you might come to the conclusion that there still aren't any Duke Nukem games!
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
There are colored LCDs - I'm not talking about the kind in laptops and whatnot, but more like the ones in wristwatches. Some automakers fiddled with using them for sunroof windows because you can make them opaque and approximately the same color as the car electrically. The opacity is variable. If you had red, green, and blue layers, and a variable backlight, you could change the case color and brightness.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
After all, I would just say:
The Republicans are no Democrats.
This of course applies only to those funded by Diebold & co.
the medical industry seems to be a target for nanotech killer apps, so maybe it is appropriate for the manufacture of nanotechnology to make us sick.
The manufacture of CD produces all kinds of environmentally dangerous chemicals, but that is just of cost of time-shifting Yanni.
The problem, really, is the value we place on human life. By assuming that saving, or rather, extension, of human lives affected by amenable diseases is paramount, we implicitly assume that a current human life is worth more than a potential future life...
:))?!?!
What are you saying here?
this sounds like some of that "but what about the children" hysteria (at best)
like bill hicks says "at what age do i drop off your love list?"
saving, or rather, extension, of human lives IS paramount and i don't see why that has to be mutually exclusive with saving future lives and even if it was, yes, we should be concerned first about the people who are already here. if they die, there won't be any children. Restated, if the parents die before the children are created, then who have you saved?
Also, it sounds like you are saying that it is not important to save (or, pardon me extend) the lives of certain people who are susceptible to certain diseases, because if we let them die, future generations will be bred by people resistent to these diseases. I'm sorry, but that is not an acceptable or prudent strategy.
Believe me, I'm all for nanotechnology, it's inevitable anyway, but human safety has to be of the highest priority or we wont last long enough to enjoy it.
perhaps i've misunderstood you, but you did start that paragraph off with "The problem, really, is the value we place on human life."
It quotes a scientist at DuPont saying that he's never seen anything as deadly as inhaled nanotubes and quotes some biotech VCs saying that there are real problems with buckyball-based pharmaceuticals because nobody knows how to assess the toxicity.
Actually, most modern nanotech doesn't need power. The largest nanotech markets are not for bots or other active devices, but for monodispersed crystals or ceramic dust. The cosmetics industry buys large quantities of nanotech for use in makeup and skin creams.