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."

37 of 693 comments (clear)

  1. Pictures? by eggoeater · · Score: 4, Funny

    So where are the pictures of these protestors?

    1. Re:Pictures? by AltGrendel · · Score: 5, Funny

      Believe me, we all know that there are people that SHOULD wear clothes. And these were probably them.

      --
      The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination

      - Douglas Adams

    2. Re:Pictures? by Locke2005 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Oops! Well, at least now I know what NSFW means -- "Not Suitable For Work." Anybody know of any firms that are hiring software developers in the Portland, Oregon area?

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    3. Re:Pictures? by Clock+Nova · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hmmm. Those are certainly NOT ugly fat chicks. I've seen my share of them, and these women do not qualify. As the parent said, these women are quite average... which anyone who gets out of their basement and away from their computers for a few hours a day would quickly realize.

      --
      There they were, sitting in the van with all those dials, and the cat was dead. -V. Marchetti, CIA
  2. Here we go... by Datamonstar · · Score: 4, Funny

    And thus begins the Nanotech protests... Don't let the grey goo... Hey! a naked chick!!!

    --
    The eternal struggle of good vs. evil begins within one's self.
  3. Yeah.. by MaGGuN · · Score: 5, Funny

    Nano bad.. let's get naked!

    1. Re:Yeah.. by databyss · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah, nothing says that you're serious about an issue like getting naked!

      --
      Hmmm witty sig or funny sig? Maybe elitest techy sig!
  4. I'm confused! by goldspider · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I thought the Evil Religious Right(tm) had cornered the market on unreasonable opposition to scientific progress. What am I supposed to make of this??

    --
    "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    1. Re:I'm confused! by PaxTech · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's really very little difference between radical environmentalists and religious fundamentalists.

      Both want to control what everyone else does and thinks based on their own unreasonable and unprovable beliefs. "The end of the world is nigh" indeed.

      --
      All movements for social change begin as missions, evolve into businesses, and end up as rackets.
    2. Re:I'm confused! by el-spectre · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Noooo, has nothing to do with "want", has everything to do with evidence.

      I'll take a theory based on current science over a 5000 year old myth any time.

      --
      "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
  5. Love those khakis by Dancin_Santa · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Love those khakis by IceAgeComing · · Score: 4, Informative

      They claim that the pants contain teflon, which is in a family of chemicals that can be absorbed through the skin. It is known that this same family of chemicals accumulates in the body, that most Americans have some level of this in their bodies, and that there is research to show that it damages immune systems in other animals.

    2. Re:Love those khakis by Jimmy+Nail · · Score: 4, Insightful

      All the great properties of Teflon are due to its total and complete chemical inertness and stability. It doesn't react with anything in any capacity (not even on a van der walls level, thus its non-stick properties). Sure it might be harmful like helium and water if you breath too much of it or eat nothing else, but as a chemical, Teflon is probably one of the least dangerous things you can put in your body. I guess it could do something like asbestos (due to its mico-mechanical properties, not chemical), but as far as I know nothing like this is known.

  6. No grey goo... by lilmouse · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So sad, grey goo is unlikey to come from this... But we could still get cancer!

    The problem with nanotechnology is that we don't really understand why much of it works, and we don't have any idea how the special properties it has will affect our bodies. Nano-whiskers? Great - I'm sure they help keep stains from getting on clothes. But what the *hell* are they going to do in my lungs?

    As we've seen time and again, what we don't know really can hurt us...

    --LWM

    1. Re:No grey goo... by qbwiz · · Score: 4, Funny

      Okay, let's just suppose that you are a green, unobtanium-plated robot from Wolf 359, who is on Earth solely to post on Slashdot.

      --
      Ewige Blumenkraft.
  7. Kneejerk Activism by The+Kryptonian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I was standing in line to see a movie years ago - I forget which one - when I was approached by petitioners from PETA who were upset about the treatment of the horses in the latest Conan movie.

    They showed me a letter from the Spanish Department of the Interior which said, basically, "Gosh, if you say they were abused, then we believe you." Then they waved this letter around claiming the Spanish Government corroborated their claims.

    People who run up and start protesting before they know a damned thing about what they're protesting just make me laugh. I hope at least that the people who took off their clothes had nice butts, because apart from some tittilation, that's all they accomplished.

    1. Re:Kneejerk Activism by cecille · · Score: 5, Insightful

      While I do think that protesting is a valuable tool, I think there are too many people who get into it without sufficient knowledge and then refuse outright to change their positions. It becomes more about winning and less about wanting to do some good.

      Let me give you a quick example. At my university, there was a large number of people protesting against coke (the cola). Boiled down to the basics, and skipping some important details, basically, they argued we shouldn't drink coke becuase of their business practices in columbia...they were endagering and/or killing (depending on who you talk to) workers and being anti-union. Since I'm an avid coke drinker, the possibility of loss of coke disturbed me, but I felt I should learn a bit about it. I went to talk to one of the protesters and ask some questions. One of my questins was along the lines of "do you know that the columbian government investigated this and found coke not guilty? Do you also know that they have the highest union rates in the country even though you're accusing them of being anti-union?" Her response was that the columbian gov't couldn't be trusted, and coke should still have more union workers even though they have the most per capita already. I forgot about the union thing and asked who would be able to provide objective evidence to convince her that coke was innocent. The columbian gov't couldn't, so who could? Her reply? No one. No one could ever convince her. So I asked if she really though that her opinion was more informed than every legal body in the world, despite the fact that she didn't have access to the facts presented to the courts. She told me engineering students were morons who should keep out of social issues.

      I don't have an opinion on the coke issue really. I don't know for sure what happened down there, but I continue to drink coke. Maybe I'm a bad person, who knows. But the point is that both sides of these types of arguments need to step back and evaluate the merits of the other side, and determine what level of confidence they have in their positions, what evidence they have backing them, and what type of evidence would convince them not necessarily to change their mind, but to at least re-evaulate their positions. In the case of a protest against something, this is hard since it's impossible to prove conclusively that something is safe, but at some point the benefits outweigh the risks. At the point where you are saying that no amount of reasonable evidence contrary to your position will cause you to change your mind, this should serve as a realization that you are being irrational. And while everyone has their irrational issues, it's not these people who should be leading and articulating the views of their side of the argument, since a that point it is not fact being argued, but irrational opinion. It's a pipe dream that this will actually happen, I know, and I'm far from innocent on this matter, but it's something to consider.

      --
      ...no two people are not on fire.
    2. Re:Kneejerk Activism by uqbar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I was at a performance of a Japanese Butoh troop. Outside protesters were doing their thing complaining about the live bunnies used in the performance, and explaining that bunnies get "stage fright."

      Now I am a fairly hardcore animal rights activist who won't eat meat or wear leather (but I keep my beliefs to myself mostly since I know that people have to come to their own conclusions on these issues).

      My response to these leather shoe wearing idiots was, what about the dead cows on your feet? How is a bunny's stage fright a more important cause than killing animals?

      It seems like nanotech pants is a minor issue compared to far scarier stuff, like say antibiotics in groundwater causing young girls to enter pueberty years early. While it's nice to see people being active, I wonder what would happen if these efforts were guided towards threats that are more pressing.

  8. Send in the Clowns by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I really enjoyed the "Penn & Teller: Bullshit!" episode about environmental activists. +1 Funny AND Insightful, highly recommended viewing.

    I think the thing that stuck with me the most is that the environmental activists started out decades ago with a good idea, and then were usurped by anti-American/anti-Capitalist propaganda peddlers.

    --
    Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    1. Re:Send in the Clowns by doconnor · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's easy to be anti-American/anti-Capitalist when viewing the website gives this error: "We at Showtime Online express our apologies; however, these pages are intended for access only from within the United States."

    2. Re:Send in the Clowns by Solder+Fumes · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I hope I'm not the only one who sees something wrong with a person who believes that a cable channel's website is reason enough to hate me.

    3. Re:Send in the Clowns by doconnor · · Score: 4, Funny

      I don't hate you because of the cable channel's website. I hate you because you took my post too seriously.

  9. Don't get excited... by lottameez · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's probably just some guy standing out there waving around his nano-penis. On the other hand, I suppose it's an interesting twist on the "does size matter?" question.

    --
    Yeah? Well I think you're overrated too.
    1. Re:Don't get excited... by Enigma_Man · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The hilarious thing is these pants don't have the specific definition of "nanotechnology" in them at all. They are deliberately skewing the use of the word from the specific common-use meaning of "very small machines" to a very general case "very small manmade things". ALL it is is very small fibers of teflon, which is not a machine at all, just some molecules.

      So, this is retarded every way you look at it. The protesters are protesting something that isn't even nanotechnology as it is commonly referred to in the first place!

      -Jesse

      --
      Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
    2. Re:Don't get excited... by Rei · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.
  10. Already seeing signs by joelpt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We're already seeing signs of problems to come: buckyballs appear to cause Alzheimer's-like damage when they get into the brains of fish.

    http://www.newscientist.com/channel/mech-tech/nano technology/dn4825

    I have been eagerly awaiting the first self replicating nanomachines ever since reading Engines of Creation (http://www.foresight.org/EOC/) but the tech probably has a long convoluted road ahead to acceptance and safe use. If we are seeing problems already with buckyballs - perhaps the simplest example of nanotech - the implications will be far greater for something like airborne nanobots that clean the air, or your bloodstream.

  11. Re:Whats so bad about this? by wolfgang_spangler · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm going to start wearing nanotech all the time if it draws protesters like these.

    Apparently you didn't see the pictures...

  12. Re:WTF? Protesting pants?! by lilmouse · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Yes, of course, the dangerous effects of pants on humans.


    Yeah, and people weren't scared of wall paneling either, when it contained asbestos.

    --LWM
  13. eesh by aztektum · · Score: 5, Funny

    NSFW? That's NSFVAA = Not Safe For Viewing At Anytime

    --
    :: aztek ::
    No sig for you!!
  14. Stupid by weston · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Merits and dangers of technology aside, activists seem more and more stupid these days. Yeah, shock value gets you *attention* -- but not credibility. MLK had protestors dress up in their sunday best, looking dignified. If they'd run through the streets nude and shouting, it would have been a fine spectacle, but we'd probably still have seperate water fountains.

    So yeah. Fight the man. Spark debate over nanotech, GM food, war, whatever. Just do it with some sense, OK? Protest is already in danger of becoming dead as a vector for social change. Turning it into an easy parody of itself isn't helping.

  15. Re:someone enlighten me please by Ibiwan · · Score: 5, Informative

    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!)

    --
    -- //no comment
  16. There are real risks by Rei · · Score: 5, Insightful

    First off, let me preface this by saying that I'm a huge nanotech fan. The sort of leap-forward potential that nanotech provides in superconductors, photovoltaics, betavoltaics, computing, LEDs, medical tracers, antibiotics, genetics, materials, rocketry, and just about everything that you can think of are of such a huge scale, it's hard to even picture.

    However, it would be wrong of us to pretend that there aren't serious risks. And, no, I'm not talking about dumb "grey goo" scenarios. Look at CNTs, for example. Very stable, aerosolizable in some situations, and very easily penetrates cells. Add various functional groups onto them (like many projects are doing) that might damage cell internals, and it sounds like a ready-made health nightmare. The problem with many nanoparticles is that they're very small, and thus able to get to places that their non-soluable relatives couldn't. They often tend to be either very stable or very reactive in comparison to their large-scale relatives.

    Oh, and before all of the poorly thought out "nanoparticles like CNTs occur in nature in candle soot!", that's like arguing that since cyanide occurs in many fruits, we shouldn't worry about pure cyanide.

    We shouldn't hold up research; far from it, the varying fields of nanotech really look to be the next leap forward in almost every scientific arena. But we also need to put them under great scrutiny, or we'll have another DDT on our hands.

    --
    Sigur RÃs: I didn't know that Heaven had a rock band.
  17. heh a bigger worry... by rebelcool · · Score: 5, Interesting

    would be nonstick cookware, which is where most people's daily encounter with teflon is. Obviously the easiest route to ingestion would be food cooked on it, compared to wearing pants. Especially if you use a metal utinsel to stir the food and accidentally scratch the pan, releasing the teflon.

    So why arent they protesting sellers of kitchenware?

    --

    -

  18. The precautionary principle. by rumblin'rabbit · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The trouble with the precautionary principal is that it can be applied to anything at all.

    I bet there's a great deal about malt scotch that we don't understand at the molecular level. Does this mean we should be purging Balvenie from the shelves? Saints preserve us!

    This does not mean we blindly rush into things, but to say "we don't understand everything about it" or "there's a possibility that it gives cancer" is just stating the blindingly obvious. We need a better assessment of the risks than that.

  19. Re:Teflon is bad by msblack · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
  20. Well, it kills birds... by CommandoB · · Score: 5, Informative
    So why arent they protesting sellers of kitchenware?

    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.
  21. Re:And this is different, how? by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sounds like any of thousands of protests going on world-wide. Protesters who haven't a clue about what they're protesting, but protesting it none the less. It makes them feel important. Facts don't enter into the equation.

    Or, the only protests getting reported on are the silly ones. Have you ever talked to one of these "Tree huggers" or are you going by what you hear on CNN and Fox? I don't think these protesters feel important exposing their unattractive bodies --but maybe a little less powerless. It's pretty hard to get off work and then do something that you know is going to be ridiculed. There could be a culture of people where this is just the "thing to do". Or it could just be people who care enough to act. I'm too selfish making a living for my family --but at least I realize that I am the one who is not doing enough.

    Note; It may not be nanotechnology being protested, but the pollution created in the process. 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. While I doubt the Nano-fibers on these pants use Carbon nanotubes (but I don't know that they don't), they can have a very different environmental impact. Just having tiny particulates creates a health hazard for workers breathing it. You have a much higher risk for lung cancer by just inhaling fibers from insulation --which is essentially just glass. So health impacts aren't always so simple to predict --in fact, they never are.

    By taking off their clothes, these protestors got the Michael Jackson fixated press to cover it. If they had a thousand people with signs that said; "micro particulates can cause lung cancer, so we need to study this." nobody would have covered the protest. You have to say; "NanoTech" because the insipid media is so dumbed-down that they only cover the "hot button" words. CNN would not cover "particulates" or "fibers" --but if it had been Nano Stem Cells, they'd be on Fox. They couldn't go to the factory where it is made, because that is either overseas or in a poor neighborhood in Alabama --so again, nobody would cover it. So in this regard, they were successful. Of course, getting anyone to actually find out more about the issues when the Pavlovian response is to say; "idiots" to any protest is a very depressing prospect. But at least they were successful in getting the media to actually cover it. It will be of more interest when we cover cancer or birth defects ten years from now. Of course, the message then will be "old story, time to move on."

    What is an example of a stupid protest that you've seen? I admit that some of the people have been a little too fluffy animal extreme. But many of the issues I've seen protested like the World Bank, G7/G8 Summit, lumber clear cutting and strip mining operations have actually made a lot of sense, because the damage from some of these operations has been extensive, while the benefits have only helped a few.

    People who protest are probably always going to be a little extreme and on the edge--even unbalanced. I've never protested in my life. But I have benefitted from those with the courage, or even the craziness, who have given up their time to change the status quo.

    Or would you prefer to continue separatism, child labor, or black lung? I'm impressed by people who can overcome their own hangups, and selfishness to try and make the world a little bit better. Often, these protesters can get jail time and I don't know of anyone who has made a living of going out and getting arrested --except for maybe a few rock stars. They could be wrong about what they are protesting, but how can any of us say we are better than they?

    --
    >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"