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?
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!)
--
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Dude, teflon is WAY outdated.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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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