Slashdot Mirror
A Review of Nanotech's Future
captainsaavik writes "A Washington Post article today reviews nanotechnology - 'Nanotechnology, the hot young science of making invisibly tiny machines and materials, is stirring public anxiety and nascent opposition inspired by best-selling thrillers that have demonized the science -- and new studies suggesting that not everything in those novels is fantasy.'"
Nanotechnology may yet become the AI of the 21st century. As the nightmare stories about the risks of runaway tech will undoubtedly appeal to the enviro folk out there, I anticipate heavy resistance to widespread adoption of the results.
--- Bill
Comment removed based on user account deletion
With so much good fiction out there why did they have to take a book that got the science unbelieveably wrong. If they wanted something closer to the mark they could have at least taken Diamond Age. Some of the predictions in that book have allready come to pass.
new technology that has been abandoned, or even significantly delayed, through alleged (or real) risks
Nuclear energy.
- - - - - - - - - - -
I am a programmer. I am paid to produce syntax not grammar. Deal with it.
Not to mention DDT which could stop millions of deaths due to malaria.
Which was killed by enviromental groups to increase their political power despite being no danger to anything but insects.
And thank God we live in a world where humans don't purposly try to kill millions of their own kind.
Oh, wait....
I think one of the more realistic fears is not the new toys of spying and things that might creep into our personal freedoms, but rather environmental issues. And here, I don't mean the nasty chemicals needed to produce these things, but rather nanotube detritus finding it's way into our ecosystem and food sources. Certainly there is now and there has always been nano dirt in our air and finding it's way into our bodies, but these new engineered shapes may have unforeseen health issues, much like asbestos in the last 30 years.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Nanotech if it takes off like predicted will basically change society like electricty did.
:)
Want a new car?
Dump some scrap metal in the factory, load up the car image you torrented off the internet last night, and in a few hours you have your new ferrai.
We might start getting beer that is free as in software.
Not to mention DDT which could stop millions of deaths due to malaria.
Which was killed by enviromental groups to increase their political power despite being no danger to anything but insects.
So you watch nightline, or 20/20, or whatever show that "give me a break" shill is on.
DDT accumulates in the food chain. The beluga population is severly affected by DDT poisoning to this day even though it has been banned for a very long time.
I watched that part of the programm because I wanted to hear why he claimed that aspartame was totally safe. He didn't, he just talked about DDT after having named aspartame as one of the products that are "falsely" considered harmfull.
I am very sensitive to aspartame, if I absentmindedly accept a sugarless mint or gum from someone, I'll suffer a severe migraine wich renders me totally incapable of doing anything for hours. Safe my ass...
Give ME a break.
You can't take the sky from me...
All of us on /. like to cheerlead the coming wave of nanotech, but it's looking more all the time that while we may be on the cusp of a new industrial revolution, like the first IR, it will bring horrors to match its benefits. Probably the most significant point made by the article is that while this tech could be very beneficial, due to our lack of understanding of surface chemistry of most living organisms, some of the byproducts could be toxic to levels previously unknown to exist.
Significant is this bit from the article:
On average the reactions [to nanotube inhalation] were worse than those in mice given equal amounts of quartz particles, which toxicologists use as their "serious damage" standard.
And this is from one dose, and they further state that even without continued exposure, the existing particles continued to produce damage, presumably beyond what a single exposure to quartz dust might produce.
I fear that we'll rush headlong into this without thorough research, and do significant damage to ourselves and the rest of the world. Yah, that sounds all "tree huggy," but when they talk about accidentally killing all soil microorganisms over a large area, frankly, that kind of scares me.
I'm starting to tilt towards a rant, so I'll keep this short, but given our recent history (asbestos, PCBs, tetraethyl lead), we're probably going to find ourselves chasing waste streams yet again, only much worse this time around.
I'm not even going to try to refute anything on junkscience.com. The guy just picks whatever studies seem to back up his agenda, and. Like when he claimed that abestos insulation would have prevented the fall of the WTC towers. And when somebody points out the flaws in his claims (abestos is not that superior to other kinds of insulation), he just insists that he never said what you think he said. That makes any link to his site a non-argument. And plenty of reputable scientists do consider DDT a health hazard. Hey, by the time it was banned, it was reaching toxic levels in human milk.
I am very sensitive to aspartame, if I absentmindedly accept a sugarless mint or gum from someone, I'll suffer a severe migraine wich renders me totally incapable of doing anything for hours. Safe my ass...
So what? If my brother eats a brazil nut, he'll keel over and die... Should we ban them? I can eat them till the cows come home and I'll just get fat(ter). Some people are allergic to some shit. Some people get sick/headaches/whatever if they eat msg, but to 99% of the population, it's just like salt with an evil name.... it simply makes your food taste a little better.
And there goes my mod points i gave to the grandfather post, too...
Send lawyers, guns, and money!
Oh yes, every time someone invents a motor that violates the laws of thermodynamics, it's Big Oil that steps in to silence them!
I have yet to find a single credible source explaining how the "Water engine" is supposed to operate. Perhaps you can point me to one?
It's always put up or shut up. Talk all you want but proof is proof. So far every nutball that claimed to build an engine that runs on water or an overunity device or inertial propulsion system has denied anyone credible from examining their invention.
Big Oil my ass. Maybe it just doesn't actually work? What could you possibly do to the water to get out more energy than you put in, or use the energy more efficiently by manipulating water than using it directly? Got any credible sources? If you do please share, I'm willing to accept the concepts if they are properly represented with lucid facts and backed by real data.
=Smidge=