Actually, there HAVE been problems reported with nanotechnology - some time ago a company had to withdraw a bathroom cleaning fluid that contained nanoparticles and was supposed to be sprayed on shower walls. Customers developed lung problems, and it was feared that nanoparticles from the spray would make it into the lungs (as they're small enough to do that...). The company withdrew the product from the market.
That's not really a problem with nanotechnology per se, as very small particles are bad for your lungs whether they're man made or not. As a well-known example, asbestos is a natural material which exists in very small fibres and is extremely bad for your lungs. That nanotechnology was involved in this particular example is essentially irrelevant - the problem was poor design, using small particles in a product which would allow them to be inhaled - which would have occurred whether the particles were a man-made "nanotechnology" product or otherwise.
Maybe I should have formulated it differently - it's not Nanotech as such that is morally unacceptable, but rather the idea to simply go and use it, without bothering to think what might happen.
Nanoparticles don't occur in nature all that much, so it's quite possible there will be a lot of stuff that can happen that will surprise us. Getting nanoparticles into the lung that (unlike dust) don't get out again is only the start... Asbestos doesn't get sucked into the cells themself, but maybe nanoparticles are? Are nanoparticles small enough to get through the walls of blood vessels, what will they do within the body once they get in the bloodstream... the grey goo isn't going to happen anytime soon, but it's morally unacceptable to introduce such a revolutionary technology without doing a LOT of research on possible harmfull side effects first.
This would be a good post with some sort of reference. Without it's just an urban myth. I'm sure there's an element of truth - do you remember anything specific about it?
"I'm a college student looking for a new laptop, but almost all of my media I receive digitally. I'm looking for a laptop, not a netbook, without an optical drive, and budget sensitive. The optical drive will just be a waste of space, when I can have thinner laptop. What's out there?"
The most commented posts on Engadget over the past 24 hours.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Actually, there HAVE been problems reported with nanotechnology - some time ago a company had to withdraw a bathroom cleaning fluid that contained nanoparticles and was supposed to be sprayed on shower walls. Customers developed lung problems, and it was feared that nanoparticles from the spray would make it into the lungs (as they're small enough to do that...). The company withdrew the product from the market.
That's not really a problem with nanotechnology per se, as very small particles are bad for your lungs whether they're man made or not. As a well-known example, asbestos is a natural material which exists in very small fibres and is extremely bad for your lungs. That nanotechnology was involved in this particular example is essentially irrelevant - the problem was poor design, using small particles in a product which would allow them to be inhaled - which would have occurred whether the particles were a man-made "nanotechnology" product or otherwise.
That still doesn't have anything to do with being morally unacceptable. Dangerous? Maybe, but what isn't potentially dangerous?
Wowzors. Small particles getting into the lungs!
I knew there was something wrong with this whole breathing gubbins...
"Hey, that guy's got a machine to breathe for him! And here I am using my lungs like a sucker!"
Homer Simpson.
Maybe I should have formulated it differently - it's not Nanotech as such that is morally unacceptable, but rather the idea to simply go and use it, without bothering to think what might happen.
Nanoparticles don't occur in nature all that much, so it's quite possible there will be a lot of stuff that can happen that will surprise us. Getting nanoparticles into the lung that (unlike dust) don't get out again is only the start... Asbestos doesn't get sucked into the cells themself, but maybe nanoparticles are? Are nanoparticles small enough to get through the walls of blood vessels, what will they do within the body once they get in the bloodstream... the grey goo isn't going to happen anytime soon, but it's morally unacceptable to introduce such a revolutionary technology without doing a LOT of research on possible harmfull side effects first.
This would be a good post with some sort of reference. Without it's just an urban myth. I'm sure there's an element of truth - do you remember anything specific about it?