Well, fine. Call it what you want. Did you know that the zinc oxide nanoparticles in sunscreen produce free radicals when they absorb UV light? That's something that the old white sunscreens (that used zinc oxide microparticles) didn't do. That's the general problem with nanotech--the same material can be inert or toxic depending on its size, method of preparation, etc. The FDA is currently set up to deal with distinct molecules, and they have to decide when a nanotech product counts as a "distinct molecule."
I know you're trolling by calling the Union of Concerned Scientists a bunch of scientific hacks, but I'm compelled to ask, "Have you ever read anything by the Union of Concerned Scientists?" For example, they published one of my favorite books, The Consumer's Guide to Effective Environmental Choices, which is amazing precisely because it takes a scientific approach to environmentalism. It tells you, for example, that recycling is marginally beneficial but owning a smaller home saves lots of energy--hardly mindless hug-the-whales behavior. The Union of Concerned Scientists works hard to get past the politics in pursuit of good science. Maybe you should read more than one website before you pass judgement. Unbiased science should be important for all of us.
Of course it's nanotech. Nanotech is just something sized between 1 and 999 nm. I mean, I suppose you could call it 1/10microtech, but that sounds stupid, doesn't it?
How did this get modded insightful? From the article:
"Gary Adams, a chemist, sadly offers the names of friends and co-workers from the mid-1960's to late 1970's who were part of a small product development group...
All of them died after contracting malignant illnesses, most of them succumbing in their 30's and 40's. Incredibly, four of them died after developing brain cancer, a rare disease in adults."
Yes, IBM is a big corporation, but do you really think that a large number of cancer deaths in a group of chemists who often work with carcinogens is due to pure chance?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, fine. Call it what you want. Did you know that the zinc oxide nanoparticles in sunscreen produce free radicals when they absorb UV light? That's something that the old white sunscreens (that used zinc oxide microparticles) didn't do. That's the general problem with nanotech--the same material can be inert or toxic depending on its size, method of preparation, etc. The FDA is currently set up to deal with distinct molecules, and they have to decide when a nanotech product counts as a "distinct molecule."
--A Nanoparticle Chemist
I know you're trolling by calling the Union of Concerned Scientists a bunch of scientific hacks, but I'm compelled to ask, "Have you ever read anything by the Union of Concerned Scientists?" For example, they published one of my favorite books, The Consumer's Guide to Effective Environmental Choices, which is amazing precisely because it takes a scientific approach to environmentalism. It tells you, for example, that recycling is marginally beneficial but owning a smaller home saves lots of energy--hardly mindless hug-the-whales behavior. The Union of Concerned Scientists works hard to get past the politics in pursuit of good science. Maybe you should read more than one website before you pass judgement. Unbiased science should be important for all of us.
Of course it's nanotech. Nanotech is just something sized between 1 and 999 nm. I mean, I suppose you could call it 1/10microtech, but that sounds stupid, doesn't it?
How did this get modded insightful? From the article:
"Gary Adams, a chemist, sadly offers the names of friends and co-workers from the mid-1960's to late 1970's who were part of a small product development group...
All of them died after contracting malignant illnesses, most of them succumbing in their 30's and 40's. Incredibly, four of them died after developing brain cancer, a rare disease in adults."
Yes, IBM is a big corporation, but do you really think that a large number of cancer deaths in a group of chemists who often work with carcinogens is due to pure chance?