Slashdot Mirror
Nanotech Protests Begin
ByteWoopy wrote to mention a Wire.com story discussing the danger of nanotechnology, and the beginning of a backlash against the branch of technology. From the article: "...environmental activists sauntered into the Eddie Bauer store on Michigan Avenue, headed to the broad storefront windows opening out on the Magnificent Mile and proceeded to take off their clothes. The strip show aimed to expose more than skin: Activists hoped to lay bare growing allegations of the toxic dangers of nanotechnology. The demonstrators bore the message in slogans painted on their bodies, proclaiming 'Eddie Bauer hazard' and 'Expose the truth about nanotech,' among other things, in light of the clothing company's embrace of nanotech in its recent line of stain-resistant nanopants."
I've got several pairs of those nanotech khakis. They don't stain at all, even with coffee spilled on them. It doesn't seem to be "real" nanotech, though, just some kind of nylon polymer treatment for the material that makes it water-resistant.
Eddie Bauer makes some nice jeans too. Levis always seem to feel better, but I get a lot more compliments when I'm wearing my Eddie Bauer jeans.
I'm not sure what they are trying to protest. Maybe they can get some mites rolling around naked in the store or something. That ought to give them something "nano" to worry abuot.
here is one (possibly NSFW)
pictures?
Here(NSFW)
I wear nano-pants... These particular pairs are known as Dockers "Stain Defenders (tm or something)" and really do , uh... defend against stains. Case in point: I was in a restaurant, and someone moved a plate which moved a cup which moved a soup bowl into my lap. I stood up, brushed my hand down my pant leg once to flick the soup off, and sat down again. The table took more cleaning than this amazing material did. I love 'em and swear by them. (wrinkle-resistant too, as a bonus!)
--
Examples of nanomaterials already on the market include nanoscale titanium dioxide used in some cosmetics and sunscreens, nanoscale silica being used as dental fillers, and nanowhiskers used in stain-resistant fabrics like Eddie Bauer's nanopants. Plus, nanoclays and coatings are being used in a range of products from tennis balls to bikes to cars to improve bounce, strengthen high-impact parts or render material scratch-proof.
Okay, so bascially these people in a huff because manufacturers (Read: not Eddie Bauer) have managed to create extremely fine powders and fibers out of readily available, garden variety stuff. Obviously, these folks are the cream of the crop, Oxford educated types who clearly understand that nanotech is the death of us all. Wow.
Now unless they protesters are similarily endowed, I don't see how being nude is going to help make a point about how nano-anything is bad.
Meanwhile, expect to see people flocking to Eddie Bauer to pick up some of the newly-renamed "Stain-proof Pants", all the while looking for people to suddenly drop-trow by the register.
Isn't this protest about the toxicity of Teflon, not nanotechnology?
Dude, teflon is WAY outdated. In fact, Dupont already created genetically engineered bacteria that degrade teflon (hence, it's biodegradable now).
Nanopants use specially designed molecules that make them stain-proof because of their hydrophobic properties.
what a jip.
First of all, it's spelled "gyp", not "jip."
Secondly, you probably were blissfully unaware of it, but the word has racist origins.
It's short for "gypsy", and the common use implies that all Romany people (14th-Century immigrants to Europe from Northern India) are swindlers and crooks.
It's kind of like how if a bigot is given a low-ball offer on something they are selling, they might use "Jew" as a verb to describe what happened to them.
I'm the last person to tell somebody else what words to use and what not to use, but now that you know better, I wish to suggest that you keep in mind that the Internet is a big place, and there are some folk out there who will have hurt feelings every time you use a slang derivitive of their ethnic background to describe getting ripped off.
Now you know... and knowing is half the battle.
Go Joe!
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Nanotechnology != Nanomachines. Nanomachines are a subset of nanotechnology.
Please keep this in mind. The most realistic uses for nanotech, many of which are right on the horizon, have absolutely nothing to do with machinery. They take advantage of the fact that A) at the nanoscale, it is more realistic to make structures that are 100% free of impurities, and B) many materials have radically different properties at nanoscale levels.
For example, gold. We all know what normal gold is like. Golden, lustrous, very unreactive. Nanospheres of gold, though? They can be ruby-red in color, and quite reactive.
Or look at carbon nanotubes: they're just rolled up graphite, but simply by varying the number of carbons and how they connect, you can make them incredible electric insulators or better than the best superconductors. They can resist heat incredibly well laterally and channel it along their lengths far better than any other material, or resist it all together. They can have almost ridiculous strengths, compared to brittle graphite. And many, many more odd properties.
This is nanotech. Nanotech isn't little robots swimming around your bloodstream hunting down invaders - at least not in the present. If you mean to talk about those things specifically, say "nanomachines".
Sigur RÃs: I didn't know that Heaven had a rock band.
Actually, "very small man-made things" is indeed the definition of nanotechnology that's accepted by virtually all scientists and engineers who work in physics, chemistry, or electronics. Any material or structure that's conveniently measured on a scale of nanometers (billionths of a meter)is generally considered to fall under the umbrella of "nanotechnology". Machines that could be measured conveniently on that scale are still little more than fantasy.
Many bird owners are aware of the dangers of Teflon. Cooking with Teflon cookware will kill your birds. Not cooking their food, but any food. Teflon delaminates from the cookware and gets into the air. This isn't from crazy environmentalists; it's a real danger.
signature pending slashdot approval
Insects develop DDT resistance because of their fast breeding rate. Larger animals do not. DDT already in the system will outlast you and I, and may well outlast a number of endangered species that it is helping to make extinct.
DDT is hardly the only chemical available nowadays for killing malaria-spreading mosquitoes nowadays - for example, pyrethoids seem to be completely safe in testing, but more effective than DDT and seem to have the same cost potential.
It is certainly a complex issue, but lets not forget what DDT does, and how long it lasts in the ecosystem. DDT half-life estimates are generally measured in decades. In addition to weakening egg shells to the point of singlehandedly endangering several species and assisting the decline of others, it is genotoxic, very carcinogenic, neurotoxic, damages the liver and kidnes, is teratogenic, and is transferred in breast milk.
If you really want a way to end malaria, by the way, the best thing would be to spent the money instead on recessive lethal "selfish genes", or other such approaches to make the malaria-spreading species of mosquitoes go extinct once and for all.
Sigur RÃs: I didn't know that Heaven had a rock band.
Because you're not wearing your kitchenware in the form of tiny teflon fibers.
By the way, Teflon pans are deadly to birds when overheated. A gas is formed which can kill your pet in a matter of minutes. Does it affect humans? Dunno. You can read DuPont's assessment of the danger to birds here.
I'd like to find out exactly what the hazards of Teflon are, especially since we just bought a Teflon-treated couch. The fabric is awesome and inexpensive, but I want an objective assessment of the health risks.
Please don't let your distrust of activitists and love of the acronym FUD obscure the issue. The signal-noise ratio on slashdot is bad enough as it is.
Not that I post on slashdot or anything.
Weather is short-term, geographically-isolated environmental effects. Climate is long-term trending over larger areas.
Saying "how can we predict climate when we can't get the weather forecast right" is about as insightful as saying "but it was COLDER than average today! How the hell can we be experiencing global warming???"
Not that I disagree with you in principle, mind you - we seriously lack data to know just what is going to happen long-term. Just keep in mind that through all the talk about cliamte change, no one is claiming that "it will be 5 degrees hotter on July 21, 2007 in Peoria".
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
Well, he said "...better than the best superconductors." That does not indicate the way in which they're better. I suspect he meant that they are capable of superconduction at a higher temperature than other existing superconductors.
"Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
Very small man made things have been around much longer than the term "nanotech". Before that, it was called "chemistry". It still is.
"The term Nanotechnology was created by Tokyo Science University professor Norio Taniguchi in 1974 to describe the precision manufacture of materials with nanometre tolerances. "
Drexler further popularized the term to describe very small *manufacturing*. It has since been hijacked by media and scientists alike in order to attract grant money, most notably from the National Nanotechnology Initiative, which ignores molecular manufacturing entirely in favor of buzzword-compliant "nanomaterials" research.
Sure, if you accept that popular usage is what defines a term, then Nanotech has supplanted chemistry. That's not where it came from, though.
More info on this confusion, and the Eddie Bauer "nude-ins"
here.
Wow, I remember when comments on Slashdot used to be thoughtful and informative. Now they're reactive, ignorant and shallow. Did any of the dorks calling these people "stupid hippies" actually read any of the details of why they're protesting?
CHICAGO, Ill. -- On Saturday, at 1 pm, dozens of concerned citizens joined the public health group THONG outside of the Eddie Bauer flagship store on Michigan Avenue to protest the company's use of untested "nano-fibers" in their "nanotex" clothing line which also boasts the "Teflon" label and are "wrinkle free". THONG is a local Chicago public-interest group that uses nudity to educate people on detrimental threats to human health and the environment.
"We're out here naked so people can SEE THE PROBLEM, nanotech is such a radical and unpredictable new technology, like biotech, that it takes something highly visible, like a naked body, to get people to focus on the need to stop corporations from using humans as guinea pigs for new, untested, and unstable new technologies!" said Kiki Walters of THONG.
"The Royal Society in the UK has issued their own report, recommending regulation to control exposure to nanotechnologies. We believe they have a point to make. We just wanted to make it even more obvious to people."
Eddie Bauer's line of water and stain resistant clothing utilizes nanotechnology, a radically new and untested technology that involves the manipulation of matter at the scale of the nanometer (nm), which is one-billionth of a meter. At this scale, materials behave differently than their larger counterparts, and can possibly be more reactive and toxic, posing unknown risks to human health and the environment. Though nanoparticles are not regulated by any government in the world, many products containing them are already on the market, including food, clothing, cosmetics and sunscreens, without proper safety testing for toxicity, posing risks to the health of consumers and retail workers. Nano-Tex(TM) clothing contains nano-fibers coated with Teflon particles. Nanoparticles have been found to penetrate the blood brain barrier. Inhalation of many types of nanoparticles have been proven to be toxic to animals in lab tests.
"Even the largest re-insurance company in the world, Swiss RE, has stated that they will not insure nanotech at this time. At least this major financial player has openly admitted the potential toxicity of nanoproducts, and that these products present what they call long latent unforeseen claims." said Natalie Eggs, another THONG member.
The real toxic issue here is not nanotech, but the fact that nanotech is being used to further promote the use of substances such as Teflon, which is known to be toxic and dangerous and is already outlawed in many countries. People wearing these outfits with the special nanotech-enabled teflon-based chemicals embedded within them, are exposing themselves to toxic chemicals that are widely recognized around the world as being dangerous!
Teflon is inert for MOST materials. There are a few things that make it swell but you are, mostly right. It is the most chemically inert substance I personally know of.
Just a minor clarification.
So, although they bury this information on their web page, and don't use the word Teflon (AKA PTFE), the information is there on their own web page.
(Btw, I didn't know any of this until I read about it myself in this thread.)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
If you mean to talk about those things specifically, say "nanomachines".
You mean, I'm not allowed to say "nanobots"? Well, if you say so. I guess I'll have to go change my resume now.
There's a set of books by Peter Hamilton (The Reality Dysfunction, The Neutronium Alchemist, The Nakid God) which uses the term "nanotechnology" a LOT. But never in the sense of nanobots or gray mater. Good books btw. (Not a great ending though)
"That's so plausible, I can't believe it!" - Leela
Of course there are hazards with small stuff - for instance the problem with asbestos is due to size and shape of the particles (and the fact the stuff is effectively chemically inert, so once it gets in the body it stays there) but these things can be dealt with depending on the nature of the hazard.
It's a pity that nanotech has shifted from the cool stuff Drexter wrote about to absolutely anything below a certain size.
I have heard a bit about how the BuckyBall carbon molecules don't break down and react strangely with the body. So nano tech is hardly inert. The BuckyBall issue, while made from simple carbon, is a different shaped molecule. And could result in another health issue like asbestos fibers.
Are you aware that buckyballs are a major component of soot? Along with many of the other carbon nanostructures (many of which are manufactured by sorting them out of soot).
Humans have had a very long time to evolve defenses against these particular carbon compounds that "react strangely" with the body - along with a lot of other combustion products.
One of the dioxins, for instance, is a low-grade carcinogen for humans, instant death for birds (as in they literally fall out of the sky, which is how a chem prof told me at least one accidental release was detected) at similar concentrations, and extremely toxic for just about all other animal life.
I'm sure nanotech will soon come up with something novel and nasty to humans - if it hasn't already. But, odd as they are, buckyballs aren't it. We've been breathing them in quantity since the domestication of fire.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way