Slashdot Mirror
Insurance Industry Warned of Nanotechnology Risks
SilentScream writes "Cordis reports that major reinsurance company Swiss Re has advised insurance companies that they may need
to reconsider covering products manufactured using nanotechnology until more is known about any possible side effects of the technology. The recommendation is detailed in a 57-page report titled 'Nanotechnology
- Small matter, many unknowns', which is available on the Swiss Re web site. The report acknowledges that
further research is needed but outlines the possible effects of nanotechnology on the human brain and the potential for an asbestos-like threat."
They also addressed climate change from a relatively broad range of perspectives a couple of years ago. See this report.
Of course, if we all go gray goo, there won't be anyone left to pay a claim to. :-)
Every technology is risky. We should go back to plowing fields with oxen and hunting with a bow and arrow, then we'd be safe from all of this horrible technology. Millions might die of hunger, but hey, at least they won't be killed by technology.
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
For those of us who are even slightly environmentally or health conscious, the effects of nanotech-related waste of one type or another should be of concern. From the mercury used to extract gold to the lead used in the solder of so many electronic devices, we now have a new potential threat in the form of nanomaterials.
It's not my intention to come off as a luddite, but these materials are potentially nasty. They react in very different ways than regular chemicals, and for the first time we have materials we can't assume that the natural environment of our planet will simply sweep them away to where we can't see them and where they won't affect us. We really need to be paying attention right here and right now because these materials can persist in our environment for a long time and are not easily incinerated or chemically treated.
The insurance industry should be taking a close look at covering the liability of companies involved in the manufacture and use of nanomaterials. The companies using nanomaterials ought to be held to the highest standards and employ rigorous manufacturing, environmental protection and recycling programs. Why should insurers be covering risk if their manufacturing plant is releasing carcinogenic and mutagenic material that embeds itself in the soil and never leaves it? I believe in conjuntion with government environmental protection agencies, companies will think carefully about employing such techniques. We can't afford to let it get to the point where the government or individuals start suing because of the damage, but neither can a company afford to get its insurance premiums hiked substantially or its coverage dropped.
The bottom line: if you're concerned about nanotech manufacturing facilities, live near a dump, or otherwise are going to be near these materials, get active and involved and start reporting the facts about nanotech materials to companies' insurers and other government agencies to ensure your safety and that of your children.
Also, on a slightly unrelated note, insurance companies are a great way to gain leverage against companies and organizations that screw you over. Whether you complain incessantly about unmaintained gym equipment, an apartment building full of mold, or an employer who insists on putting its employees in potentially dangerous situations, an insurer will always be interested in anything that's not disclosed to them that would affect their coverage risk. If you can find out who insures a company with such a "flaw," you can exact justice by simply documenting the issues with the insurer. Believe me, they DO listen and they WILL get on it.
But if lawsuits do happen, and the insurance companies don't charge the nanotech firms enough to , then the costs will get passed on to the consumer through higher insurance rates for everything else. In the end, it really doesn't matter... consumers will get screwed either way.
At least by raising rates, the insurance companies are encouraging more research into potenial health hazards of nanotech. Failing to research these hazards would be extremely unethical, and would be bad from a business sense (if there are problems once nanotech is widespread, a lot more R&D money will have been wasted than if they found it early on and could either abandon the research or find ways to make it safe). Once it can be shown that nanotech isn't going to be cause lung problems, etc., then rates will drop back down. This encourages nanotech companies to to conduct the research now (to get their rates down), rather than wait until we're hit by a wave of mesothelioma.
I can't believe I'm actually defending insurance companies :-/
Far from seeming to be technophobic zealotry, the report appears to ask questions from a philosophically disinterested perspective.
It does not say "It will all go horribly wrong", in a technophic vein.
Rather, asks open, critical questions, that lead to the question most important for the interests of the insurance industry:
"are we at risk of losing money?"
Hardly zealotry.
Skynet succeeds as a dramatic device, because of its resonance in our culture.
It is a reflection of healthy distrust.
We have learnt to love the beauty of scientific philosophy and the comfort it has brought us. ... the list goes on.
But, we had out fingers burnt by asbestos, thalidomide, dirty air,
Why should we cede automatic trust to those who can make huge profits now, and never have to pay more than a fraction of the cost when things go abominably wrong?
I for one, refuse to bow to our new nanotech engineering masters