Slashdot Mirror
Nanocosmetics Used Since Ancient Egypt
Roland Piquepaille writes "French researchers have found that Egyptians, Greek and Romans were using nanotechnology to dye their hair several thousands years ago. Nanowerk Spotlight reports they were using lead compounds which generated lead sulfide (PbS) nanocrystals with a diameter of only 5 nanometers. At a moment where many people wonder if the use of nanoparticles is safe, it's good to know that nanotechnology has been widely used for a very long time."
...is hardly the same as using nanotechnology to repair your brain or otherwise ingest.
And aside from that, I'd hardly call this "nanotechnology" just because a hair dye process deemed effective by ancient Egyptians coincidentally happened to generate particle small enough to meet the definition of "nanoparticle".
Additionally, this is yet another questionable Roland Piquepaille submission.
Well...humans have done other things for a long time that were none too healthy. A few examples:
So just because people used to do something for a long time doesn't necessarily make it harmless.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
This is another Roland Piquepaille article.
Didn't the great Egyptian, Greek and Roman civilisations all collapse?
Huh? I'm pretty sure the Egyptians didn't do a lot of work to decide if it was safe. The lead used would be unsafe regardless of the nanoparticulate nature of the compound. Lead was used in lots of other ways through history, too. That doesn't make it safe.
That explains why history repeats itself, don't we ever learn?
It must be safe! I mean... their life spans were totally almost half of ours.
At least we can turn to the knowledge of a civilization that isn't around today for "some reason" for guidance. I for one welcome our nontech using overlords.
the fact that they didnt live much past 30 doesnt bode well... not saying it had anything to do with the crystals.. just that it is a little hard to get a long term study when everyone who uses it died from some ailment or another within a decade or two.
These same people were drinking wine from lead goblets, I don't know if they are the ones we should be looking at for safety advice.
...that doesn't mean they were doing so *safely*. We don't know the health risks ourselves now, let alone what health problems the Egyptians, Greeks or Romans experienced - hence this is completely irrelevant.
At a moment where many people wonder if the use of nanoparticles is safe, it's good to know that nanotechnology has been widely used for a very long time.
Rubbing your head with lead sulfide definitely sounds safe enough, I guess that proves that nothing can go wrong with using technology.
We've made enough and more mistakes along the path of our history to assume one of our "reinventions" is safe merely because somebody else used it before. Mad hatters, heavy metal colours, hallucinogenic potions, trepanning - just find a more upto date list.
Unless you want to add some mysterious oriental magic to it ... *meh*
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur
a 100% mortality rate does not bode well for the method...
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
...and all of those ancient empires *ended*!
But at least now we know how it all happened. Nano-science did 'em in.
Next thing they'll tell us is that nature is involved in some of these mysterious 'nanoparticles'. Nonsense - the mustard seed is as small ad it gets in nature, and that's it - the Bible says so right there (Matthew 13:31-32)! The noiyve of these scientists and historians, I tells ya!
Ryan Fenton
When I hear genetic engineering, I think manipulating DNA/genes directly, not selective breeding by humans.
What do you think of when you hear nanotechnology? To me merely having nano-scale particles doesn't quite cut the mus, it dilutes the definition of nanotechnology.
Ok first we have to look at all of these civilizations ... If my history is correct they have all disipated. I would say that this would have to do with some of their "crazy" leaders going to war and other outlandish civil projects.
Some speculate that the rampent crazyness in the upper classes in greece and rome was caused by lead pipes ! ... but maybe it was because of their hair dye. My guess is that not all of the lead was turned into this "nano" tech, there for people who could afford to dye their hair actully ended up ingesting lots of lead over their life time. This seems far more likely then the lead plumbing as not alot of lead will flake off when used as pipes.
People have been smoking for much longer than the tobacco companies have been selling cigarettes. They've also been drinking alcohol for even longer than that. Neither of those is safe today (the former more unsafe than the latter).
I have successfully created room-temperature fusion power by putting my phyladendron on the kitchen window sill.
Lead sulphide? Galena? Safe? Yeah, let's also make orange and red pigments from orpiment and realgar while we're at it.
The fact ancient peoples used something does NOT necessarily make it "safe" in any sense.
Bah.
This is chemistry.
Now, if the ancient Egyptians had been synthesizing lead sulfide nanoparticles inside a pyramid-shaped fab, I'd call it nanotechnology and bow to the wisdom of the ancients.
When, exactly, did Slashdot become so retarded?
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go appoint my horse to the Senate, "bathe" in oil, and marry my sister.
While lead sulfide[PDF] isn't particularly hazardous, I wouldn't categorize it as safe. Lead poisoning is on my list of things to avoid. YMMV.
Insisting on "correct" English is like saying that there is only one, definitive recipe for chili.
And how many ancient Egyptians, Romans, and Greeks do you see walking around today? That's right. None. Safe, indeed!
Without a doubt, this is the worst post ever.
The Egyptians used nano-particles? There's a world of difference between a very small mineral grain and a synthesized nano-bot.
Get a clue.
-B
of substance abuse, or rather the use of dangerous substances for purposes of medicine, cosmetics and even polishing hats, should I trust nanotechnology based on the evidence that we will stick the stupidest things on and in our bodies?
Promote Charity on Myspace, Show Your Colours!
Here it is... http://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid=791.php
In general, any "nanotechnology" that isn't encapsulated will have this problem; a very large specific surface area can make things hazardous even if the substance is otherwise chemically inert.
And I'll second parent's assertion that it's not actually nanotechnology; it's friggin' chemistry. When you can program it, or it can reproduce, *then* you can call it genuine nanotech; not before.
When do people get this into their thick heads: Correlation does not equal causation. I know this might not be the best application for quoting this, but the fact that nano particles were 'accidentally' used does not make this 'nanotechnology'. Yet another attempt to hype this new term and in the process completely obfuscate and dilute its true meaning. Nanotechnology is the science and technology of building devices, such as electronic circuits, from single atoms and molecules. I'm fairly certain the ancient Egyptians were a few steps behind that technological achievement. I'm even miffed when they call microparticles (e.g. sunscreens, lubricants, etc.) a result of 'nanotechnology' - it's a grayzone yes, but we should keep our definitions in check.
People in ancient times making use of chemistry. amazing!
Well if they're so smart, then why are they all dead? Noodle THAT one for a while!
That green slime had it coming.
Right. Unless they were rubbing lead onto their bodies.
Dude, nanotechnology or not, they were using lead. Lead is toxic, remember?
OK Slashdotters, let's all get on the Nanotechnology Is Modern Cool And Futuristic And Is Therefore A Good Thing So It Must Be Safe In All Cases bandwagon.
FFS, is /. so desperate for articles that it's now a means for someone's BLOG to build traffic?
Rob, this is really sinking to a new low for content... :(
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Editorializing and erroneous conclusions lie within!
Lots of lead was used to make a lot of paint and pipes for 100's of years before we realized how bad it was - something being in use for a long time doesn't necessarily mean it is safe.
So I guess using lead for water pipes is safe and healthy, right?
Q: "When, exactly, did Slashdot become so retarded?"
A: During the Bush admistrations war on science, reason, morals and ethics.
Need Mercedes parts ?
I wonder how often they had to get their roots (excuse me, we're supposed to call it "regrowth" now) touched up. Did they make a follow-up appointment the same day they got their dye job? Did people keep appointment calendars back then?
Refusing to dye your hair is like telling the truth -- you never have to remember to go back to touch it up, and you never have to try to remember what you said. I'm always amazed that people aren't content with their natural hair color. A dye job may look pretty cool when it's frshly done, but nothing looks worse than black roots peeking through on a blonde or gray roots starting to show on a redhead.
But there must be some very basic desire to change the color of one's hair, since this practice dates back at least to ancient Egypt.
it's good to know that nanotechnology has been widely used for a very long time." :)
By civilizations that are long extinct...
jackass
This is just a ploy by archaeologists to get a slice of the sweet, sweet VC money out there.
Technically, when I use a pencil to write on a piece of paper, I am using nanotechnology to write on that paper. I mean, carbon molecules that make up the 'lead' in my pencil can be measured with the term nano. And I highly doubt that the ancient egyptions knew that they were doing something that would do nothing more than get some scientist name in a book. Big whoop.
Click Click Bloody Click PANCAKES!
Also, talking on mobile phones is also safe, since new data has uncovered that ancient Egyptians used to talk as well!
Send email from the afterlife! Write your e-will at Dead Man's Switch.
calling what the ancient egyptians were doing with PbS "nanotechnology" is like saying me popping my zits is "ecosystem terraforming"
"At a moment where many people wonder if the use of nanoparticles is safe, it's good to know that nanotechnology has been widely used for a very long time"
oh yeah! i just farted! therefore, global warming isn't a threat to mankind!
that's about the same level of logical deduction there dear author!
who wrote this crap and who greenlighted it?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
enough of the blow jobs for Roland Piquepaille. Let's have some real tech news.
At first glance, it would appear that someone somewhere has to have a difficulty with the word "nanotechnology" for them to confuse chemistry with "the art of manipulating materials on an atomic or molecular scale especially to build microscopic devices (as robots) [m-w.com]."
But then I saw the first two words.
I've read some posts about "good for you", and "bad for you" discussion here that this article seems to have brought up.
As we sit baking in EM radiation from our monitors and every other circuit in our immediate environment, while not getting enough exercise, and breathing formaldehyde from carpets and furnishings, and ingesting copious amounts of additives in our food, and taking risks like driving, walking, or blinking, and a few (at least one of us here has had sex)... Omg the risks...
Its amazing that all of us aren't dead.
Personally I intend on living until I die, and yes its a fact. Living is bad for your health.(TM)
Make the world better. Quit hating.
so if it's not so dangerous, where are these ancient nanotechnolgy societies now?
Pewter is not inherently a problem since it is primarily tin with a bit of copper, with possibly some other non-toxic metals. You can still get pewter drinking vessels and utensiles, which are safe to use.
The problem is that some pewter contains lead to add color and change the hardness. This is especially true of older pewter. This pewter is not safe.
Modern pewter is generally not a problem.
I read with some skepticism the negative comments[1] regarding Roland Piquepaille, some postulating that some staff member of Slashdot has a secret agreement to accept his submissions.
...
1 743091 735211 685241 579791 57186
Well, now, this takes the cake. Egyptians using nanoparticles? This is news?
Ahem, In Other News
When Gandhi incited civil disobedience against British rule by picking up a pinch of salt from the sea, those sodium chloride particles were less than one nanometre across![2] OMG! The Indians used nanotechnology to overthrow the British!!! WTF! Is this a harbinger of the war-like uses of nanotechnology??? BBQ!!!1!!11!one!1!
Can we have a topic devoted to Roland Piquepaille so that we can adjust our viewing preferences in accordance with the amount of adoration we feel for this Submitter of Many Slashdot Articles?
-----
Footnotes:
[1]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?cid=14501811&sid=
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?cid=14436063&sid=
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?cid=14049437&sid=
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?cid=13236725&sid=
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?cid=13188470&sid=
[2] (Yeah, I know the actual particles of salt he held were more than 1nm across, but then it dissolved into the sweat from his fingertips, and the salt regrouped into nanoparticles that spread out in a thin layer across his fingertips.)
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]
Romans and Greeks used lead paints to make their faces white. After the fall of Rome, people selectively poisoned themselves with arsenic to make themselves look paler. And, given the health impacts of stuff like silicosis and asbestos damage, both of which are related to particle size and shape, I'd say that any small particle had better be eyed pretty warily by anyone with brains, no matter what idiots in the past have done with it.
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
"At a moment where many people wonder if the use of nanoparticles is safe, it's good to know that nanotechnology has been widely used for a very long time."
And what was the life expectancy of people? And exactly why was it that long?
Simply because something has been used a long time doesn't mean that it's safe.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
At a moment where many people wonder if the use of nanoparticles is safe, it's good to know that nanotechnology has been widely used for a very long time
Ok, all the comments about lead-not-safe and this-isn't-nanotech aside, I think there's something to be said for regulating compounds differently based on particle size.
We do know that some substances changes chemical properties depending on their particle size. We also haven't yet researched the health risks of nanotubes very well, but I think we should do so before spreading tons of the little critters around in field emission displays. They might be quite hard to clean up after the fact.
This is not a call for "safety above all" - it's just an appeal to consider what is already known. (A comparison with cell phones, for instance, would show that cell phone frequencies are by known physics very unlikely to influence chemical reactions beyond thermal effects, hence allowing them per default is quite sensible).
Oh, and why did I write "nanotech" instead of nanotech? Because the term has become a buzzword so broad as to be almost meaningless, not least because thousands of labs have gained access to funding by putting a "Nanotech lab" sign on the door while continuing their usual work. (My place is partly like that). So be careful when using the term "nanotech" - it might mean vastly different things to different people and the ambiguity is being exploited.
Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
Useless prefix?
"At a moment where many people wonder if the use of nanoparticles is safe, it's good to know that nanotechnology has been widely used for a very long time"
Their lifespan was 30 or 40 years... nanotech must be safe! Nanotech also did wonders for their environment - the Giza plateau is still one of the most lush and fertile in the world!
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
...all three civilizations are extinct. In fact, every single civilization with a hair style that drew comments has become extinct! It's not the nanoparticles, it's the alien creatures that infect people's hair and eats their brains out from the scalp down!
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
what a worthless stupid article.
"Nano, nano, nano!"
If you post it, they will read.
I use nanotech every time I cover my face with a folded handkerchief to avoid breathing smoke. Or light incense to absorb odors.
Romans used lead water pipes in ancient times. But that didn't prove it was safe, even if they didn't realize they were getting lead poisoning.
Archeological studies of ancient chemistry and other technologies has a lot of value informing our modern applications of related technologies. As well as teaching us to respect our elders. But we shouldn't worship the ancient tech as if it's harmless.
--
make install -not war
The Romans were big on stuffing asbestos into everything as well. Its good to know such tiny little fibers were used for a very long time...
Well that about an absurd a statement as linking them to nanotech. Just because a process they used generated nano particles does not mean that they understood what they were doing and made concious engineering decisions to build nano particles.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Just look at the facts, look at those Greeks, Egyptians and Romans - they are all dead now. I mean they used that stuff, and now they are dead.
So use it at your own risk - that "might attract babarian hordes" warning label is not there for nothing, ya know.
+++ MELON MELON MELON +++ Out of Cheese Error +++ redo from start +++
"At a moment where many people wonder if the use of nanoparticles is safe, it's good to know that nanotechnology has been widely used for a very long time."
That doesn't mean it's safe, just that it was being used. That's like saying thermo-nuclear
power plants are safe because we're using them. You can't say they are safe unless you back
them up evidence to the contrary.
-- main(s){printf(s="main(s){printf(s=%c%s%c,34,s,34
Y0U CAN'T SP3LL R0LAND WITHOUT "LARD N0"
In another story researchers found out, that human beings living in a time wildly known as the stone ages used fire - very likely for cooking. Fire is a fast chemical reaction which is basically atoms changing their quantum states. It's good to know that quantum physics has been widely used for a very - VERY - long time.
This is funny AND it's at Roland Picklepail's expense.
... by a civilization that's gone. Maybe not the best role model.
Game... blouses.
But I can't seem to find lead cookware to boil juices down to dribble on fresh snow that has been ran down the mountain by a messenger for me.
Given the obviously questionable 'science' of Roland's submissions I just looked into his background. First [1], he works as an IT consultant and worked with performance computing / visualization in the past. If he were producing any sort of useful scientific interpretation or appreciable contribution to the identification and popularization of interesting science, I might understand his high frequency of successfully posted articles on Slashdot. However, as a professional scientist myself (working in the field of bionanotech research), I find his choice of scientific material and discussion to be downright silly.
e rs?site=0105910&group=radio1
Second, I found that this Slashdot story is the currently second ranked source of hits to his blog [2]. Given that he is obviously spinning bunk science (and his own maligned conclusions from it) for profit, I strongly encourage fellow slashdotters to avoid contributing more hits to his site.
Third, after checking his blog (in effort to locate his bio and being embarrassed for adding another hit to his site) I found nothing more than some crap text surrounded on three sides by Google ads. Given the very high advertisement density and lack of any useful development of his blog, I also wonder if Roland has some sort of connection with at the ever-pressing Slashdot editorial team.
In short, Roland is not a scientist and draws poor conclusions from an ad-revenue-motivated and not science-motivated site. An open question to the editorial team: if not due to some backroom deal, why does his blog continously show up in the science section of slashdot?
[1] http://blogs.zdnet.com/bio.php
[2] http://radio.xmlstoragesystem.com/rcsPublic/refer
Ignoring the whole nanoparticle issue for the obvious absurdity, people have been using unsafe items to make themselves more attractive since the first monkey noticed how luxurious his fur was when he ate arsenic.
A brief list of methods used to enhance appearance that cause long-term damage:
And we're supposed to entertain the idea that the Egyptians using nanoparticles in cosmetics is somehow a sign of safety. I have just one question. What the hell are you smoking?
Smoking of ANY form is bad for you. Inhaling 200+ degree ANYTHING is going to scar and damage your lungs. Go buy a vaporizer, already, the only byproducts are water, nicotine, and glycerin for tobacco when vaporized, and nearly pure THC, CBD, and CBN for pot when vaporized.
Smoking is so 1700s.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
At a moment where many people wonder if the use of nanoparticles is safe, it's good to know that nanotechnology has been widely used for a very long time."
Safe? You do realize that they all have dyed a long time ago, don't you?
Have you read my journal today?
http://bash.org/?4281
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Yeah, the ancients used it, so it must be safe.
Must be nanotech, too, since the particles are very small.
Hell, cutting people up with obsidian arrowheads and knives must aslo count, since the edge of an obsidian blade is only a few atoms thick.
Hint: Just because something's nano-scale, and is a technology, does not ipso facto make it a nanotechnology.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
...look what happened to the Egyptian luge team! It's a calamity!
It's good to see that my health concerns about nanotechnology have been put to rest... by the ancient use of nontech lead compounds that poisened the ancients.
Well, do YOU know of any living ancient Egyptians, Greek or Romans? Clearly, the use of nanoparticles -> death in 100% of cases.
When they say that the average lifespan was 36 year back then, it doesn't mean that adults died when they were around 36. It means that they had a very high infant mortality rate.
Lots of old people lived to be the same age they do now, but you had a hell of a lot of infants and otherwise young people who died because there wasn't any good health care.
So, is like that common product deadly?
Should they advertise that they are using nanotechnology?
The word "nanotechnology" has truly lost all meaning.
Back in the 1980s we (and by "we" I mean people who read Engines of Creation) knew what nanotechnology meant: molecular-scale, atomically precise machines, robots, and things built by them. It meant nanomachines with gears, levers, motors, processors, power storage, etc. We dared hoped by this time (2006) the technology just might have come to fruition. So. . . What did we get instead? We got people slapping the "nanotechnology" label on any kind of material with small particles, in the hopes that investors will then shower them with money. If real nanotechnology ever appears, we'll have to figure out a new name for it.
I mean seriously... Not one, not one single ancient Egyptian is alive. Think about it they all used nano tech and they are all dead. Coincidence? I think not! (Have you any idea how hard it is to act like a Bush with a straight face. :) )
I'm sorry, I'm to tired to be witty at the moment so this message will have to do.
So Egyptians used nanoparticles, but does-it mean that those nanoparticles were safe?
We don't know..
Romans's use of lead doesn't mean that lead is safe, just that they haven't linked it with the illness created.
Also even if the nanoparticles used by Egyptian were safe, does it means that other nanoparticles are safe either?
No way!
Note that nano or not, ideally we should test every components (especially new one, new molecules or new shape/size of the particles) to avoid asbestos|lead like problems.
Of course the problem is finding a test suite which is able to show the problems these component could create..
way back when it was called chemistry.
"At a moment where many people wonder if the use of nanoparticles is safe, it's good to know that nanotechnology has been widely used for a very long time"
as it's good to know that people painted watches with radioactive dye and kids used to buy mercury as a toy...
but i must reckon, nice word play there. congrats.
How much does /. get out of posting this idiotic nonsence ?
Whats the idea ? The more casual nanonews we get will make it acceptable all of a sudden that the nanotech field is a mess run by reckless managertype people with dollarsigns in there eyes ?
Slashdot,
Subliminal messages for critics.
Stuff that pays
See you when you choked on a bucky ball.
It's not that easy.
The "average life expectancy at birth", yes, is heavily influenced by infant mortality. We know from Roman census data after they took over Egypt that it was really really low indeed even that late. E.g., for women it was 22 years.
But that's only hal the story. We also have a ton of mummies, records, plaques, etc, which make a nice sample. We can divide them by the age when they died and plot that. It looks sort of a gauss curve, plus a major spike right in the first years. You know where the apex of the rest of the curve is? (I.e., without the infant mortality spike) In the 30's for the old kingdom era and in the 40's for the new kingdom. That is for men, btw, so childbirth deaths don't enter the equation either. For women it was lower.
So, yes, even if you didn't die in your infant years, odds were that you wouldn't make it past 40 in the old kingdom or past 50 in the new kingdom. Seriously. If you took a group of people born in the same year, by the time they got to 40 in the old kingdom times, you'd be past the apex of the gauss curve and more than half would have already died.
Yes, like any gauss curve, not everyone died at the same age. Yes, you can find 2 pharaohs who lived over 90 years. But that's the far trailing edge of the curve, _not_ the norm. The average bugger would be dead a _lot_ earlier.
As for what they held for an ideal life expectancy (or "perfect age"), it was mostly because their numerologists considered it a perfect number, and partially what they considered an absolute upper limit. In any case not the norm. It also was 110, not 90. I don't know where you got the "four score and 10" number. But anyway, it was what they thought to be the absolute maximum that someone can possibly live, not something that every Tom, Dick and Harry could take as a norm. As I was saying, we know of a whole 3 in several millenia who actually achieved that, and they were considered even then an outstanding exception and achievement, not something common.
And let me give you another bit of info there: because 110 was a perfect number, the phrase "he diet at age 110" was quite common but did _not_ mean literally that. It actually meant "he lived a perfect life." It meant that guy had helped others and the community and very was well liked. It bore no relationship to the actual age where he died. You could die at 28 and have "he died aged 110" written on your tomb, just because you had been a really helpful guy.
That's one thing that screws up statistics when you don't know what it actually means. It can make it look like "look what kind of a long life many people had back then", when in reality they didn't. Egypt was a crappy place, as life expectancy went. Yes, even without the child mortality. It wasn't Rome.
Heck, even in the 20'th century, with all the medicine and hygiene and all, most people didn't live to the age of 90. So if you're trying to tell me that ancient Egypt had it even better, I'll say, "put down the crack pipe."
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Well, I don't know about you Luddites, but I have been using dihydrogen oxide to facilitate transfer of molecules into my body. I can't believe people are so stuck on "nanotech".
I also use this other great molecule, which is my personal favorite example of picotech. I don't know if anyone else has discovered it, let alone the Egyptians, but ethanol is great. If you get a chance, you should try both. You won't know how you lived without them.
This "article" - in fact, a press release - is a fine example of marketing-speak BS.
Nanotechnology implies a deliberate manipulation of matter at the molecular or atomic level.
The poster and the editor should be smacked.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Can we protest or possibly vote off posters like this... Not that there are many if hardly any on /. but I mean looking back it seems Roland either doesn't have his head screw'd on right or he's honestly (and shamelessly) plugging himself and his site... I mean come on... They say you have to love yourself before you can love anyone else but even Narcissus(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissus_( mythology)) gave something to someone else at one time... Roland all we ask is if you would give us something other than yourself...
:) HA
Heratiki
PostScript: Click my name it will take you to my site.
Didn't the victorians in England have problems with poisoning from cosmetics - possibly lead based? They were so keen on the idea that pale looked healthy that they were into blood letting and all sorts.
Of course nowadays we try to get suntans and pale is seen as unhealthy. You go pale when ill. Interesting how things have changed.
Captcha was "Commoner" - probably what I'd be in victorian england.
Anyway, the tag "pigpile" is an apt description of Piquepaille's submissions to slashdot and I will begin using it as well.
Guys, we've all know that the Goa'uld have been experimenting with nanotech for a long time. No wonder the Egyptian got some of it.
Roland Piquepaille's articles are shit and a waste of time.
Thanks.
SURELY NOT!!!!!
Egyptians, Greek and Romans were using nanotechnology to dye their hair several thousands years ago. Egyptians, Greek and Romans disappeared several thousands years ago.
That only goes to show that the term "nanotechnology" is greatly misapplied today. Originally, it was referring to the use of nanomachines: little, active, mechanical devices. It would have been meaningless ot define the term as referring to the use of any nanoscale structures because many nanoscale structures have indeed been used for thousands of years and they didn't need a new term.
As for "being safe", the Romans probably lived to the ripe old age of 35 on average. They used lead compounds to sweeten their wine. I don't think that "the Romans used it, too, so it's safe" is a very persuasive argument.
It's hardly comforting to hear that the ancients used compounds that happen to qualify as nanocrystals. Making hair dyes out of plants is really not quite the same as researching DNA manipulation. Not to mention, that this "nanotechnology" commonly uses lead compounds, which last I remember is highly toxic.
...Ancient Egyptians all dead; had no well-controlled studies able to reveal why. Film at 11.
Nanoparticles! Killing customers since 500 BC!
This article is completely irrelevant. If they had detailed medical information from the period it might be useful but in most cases not since the application of the technology is vastly different in most cases.
how much did Roland get paid for the distribution?
"French researchers have found that Egyptians, Greek and Romans were using nanotechnology to dye their hair several thousands years ago.At a moment where many people wonder if the use of nanoparticles is safe, it's good to know that nanotechnology has been widely used for a very long time."
Yes, but all of these people are now dead, many under yet to be determined causes. I think it is clear that using nanotechnology on or near your head for prolonged periods causes near 100% fatality.
I for one wouldn't mind seeing the lead sulfide hair compound make a comeback. I mean not only does it contain nanotech buzzwords, but its far more stylish then the tin foil hats of today. You get the best of both worlds... you can go out in public with style while at the same time block those mind reading government/alien rays.
Lead safety concerns? Ahh, little things.
I don't know about this. All those ancient Egyptians, Greek and Romans are dead now. Do you know what killed them? I sure don't.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Because they used LEAD to decorate themselves!
(It's never too late to join the Renaissance)
Ya right, I guess it's safe. Too bad these people probably died of lead poisoning...
But the problem is not if nanotechnology is safe or not. The answer to that is: sometimes it's safe, sometimes it's not. The real issue is uncertainty: the low probability that our assessment of risk probability is certain. It is the means of assessment and the assessment of risk of all the variety of nanotechnologies that is uncertain and unknown. Uncertainty is a meta-risk far more dangerous that risk itself.
This won't be resolved any time soon because nanotechnologies interact with biological systems at the level of the operational mechanisms of those biological systems themselves. There is no statistical aggregating effect like there is for micrometer or larger physical systems. Nanoparticle interaction is 3-D rather than 2-D as it is in the latter systems.
In other words, you will only know a priori if nanotechnologies are dangerous if you understand and can simulate the 3-D interactions of nanoparticles within living biological systems at the genome, proteome and metabolic levels because these particles are of the same physical size as DNA, protein and other biological structures.
As we are just starting to be able to understand (and we will need to replace a generation of biologists with a new one having working knowledge of advanced math and physics to grok anything) such simulations won't be possible until well into the late 21st or even early 22nd century. So a reliable a priori risk assessment will remain highly unlikely until that point.
This leaves a posteri risk assessment as the only practical alternative. That is: release the technology first and measure the impact to assess actual risk - in other words let everyone be a guinea pig. We already see this strategy in applied genomics and see the d posteri risk in practice as leaked DNA to wild species ("Thanks Monsanto!"). Given that there are existing examples of extremely dangerous nanoparticles, it is prudent and rational, given the extreme uncertainty to proceed with great care and safeguards which collect as much data applicable to risk assessment as possible.
I am a techie, more specifically, a hardware techie so it's not that I think nanotechnology should be "shutdown". I don't, and I even work with nanotechnology today. Rather, with what I know about physics, molecular biology and risk, I know that nanotechnology is different in its risk profile from what we have dealt with in microtechnology. That said, this shift is no larger than the shift that industrial organic synthesis of arbitrary new molecules brought in the 20th century. But it's exactly because of what we now know about that risk and what wasn't anticipated that warrant us to "be smarter" this time around.
JG
Lead, copper, aluminium -- not good to put on or in one's body...
Seriously, could you have possibly found a worse example of ancient nanotechnology to argue its safety?