![Biotech Biotech](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/biotech_64.png)
![Science Science](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/science_64.png)
The Issues of Nano-Safety 183
Ineffable 27 writes "Today's New York Times has an interesting article looking at some of the emerging research into the health and safety risks of nanotech and nanomaterials." Free reg. blah blah. It's a decent article, but it's the same type of questions that groups like The Foresight Institute have been thinking about for a long long time now.
Safety? Ha, who needs it! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Safety? Ha, who needs it! (Score:3, Funny)
Disasters and benefits, oh my... (Score:5, Interesting)
IMHO though, this is just another snag in the means of progress. We develop Genetic engineering and people are suffering from allergies to Gene spliced tortillas (that was Del Taco IIRC), or for a worse idea, we develop advanced shipbuilding and watch the Titanic sink (over and over again...).
However will Nanotech help society as whole more than it will hurt? IMHO yes. Though it truly remains to be seen whether or not a bunch of Nano-bots will destroy us all from our insides (I think that was from the book), or a bunch of clumped Nano-tubes will get in our lungs (as the article said).
But will nanotech even be developed? (Score:5, Insightful)
1. How is energy going to be supplied to the nanobots?
2. How are the nanobots going to be produced, economically?
3. How are they going to move (wheels, flying)?
I don't understand why there is so much emphasis on such a poorly-defined field of technology that has shown so little promise so far. The smaller you make things, the more difficult and expensive they are to produce. Nanotechnology seems to be just a convenient "magic" technology useful only for SF writers.
Re:But will nanotech even be developed? (Score:3, Insightful)
Those are pretty damn small, and they seem to work ok. Cells may or may not be nanotechnology depending on your definition but there are definately precedents in nature that show us that nanotechnology is feasible. Viruses might be a better (smaller) example.
Re:But will nanotech even be developed? (Score:4, Insightful)
Produced, by other nano-assemblers.
Nanoassemblies should be the cheapest and most efficient production system around -- having many many many small machines "placing" molecules on an on-demand fasion (generally at the place of consumption.) What else do you need? There are no middle-men, there are no shipping costs, there are no store costs. Simply ship atoms and some quantity of data to you, and poof! you've got whatever.
How are they going to move? Depends on the structure and the task, just like things of today. Flying is trivial for nanotech, since (assuming sufficently strong nanotech production abilities) it's really easy to make things lighter than air. Once you do that, simply add 3 turbines going through the center of the device for thrust, and poof!.
The principle premise of true "nanotech" is that we can create machines on the molecular level. Given that the initial machines will probably be quite expensive, the initial machines can then make the next generation of machines that make machines (etc..) simply at the cost of a little energy and the moluecules necessary. Nothing else. Miniturization is only a pain when you're talking about going from a macro scale to a micro/nano scale. When your assembly lines operate on that scale, making things on the same scale is trivial.
Re:But will nanotech even be developed? (Score:5, Insightful)
Right. And, conveniently, we don't even have to fully go from macro to nano-scale - biological systems can supply us with many of the tools needed for nanoscale assembly. There is a lot of promising work done in the field of self-assembling nanostructures on DNA and protein basis.
Some minor nitpicks, though. I don't think that the concept of a battery in the classical sense is applicable on this scale. Energy supply will have to be organized in a more biological kind of fashion - just put your nanomachine in some kind of energy gradient, be it thermal or chemical in nature. The first generation of nanomachines will undoubtely be stationary anyway, so you could put them on top of a membrane separating for example a high-proton from a low-proton medium and let them harvest energy from the proton flux along the gradient - again a working concept established in many biological systems, for example bacteria or mitochondria.
For the same reason, I would not be concerned about movement at this stage. Later, though, I don't think it will be as simple as you put it. On the nanoscale, the fluid behavior of gaseous media is completely different from what we know, so your put-in-turbines-and-let-them-fly concept most probably won't work. But, again, we can look to biology - flagella and cilia are quite efficient ways of propulsion in media of relatively high viscosity.
Re:But will nanotech even be developed? (Score:3, Insightful)
2) The long-term theory is to create self-replicating, self-powering nanobots, which solves problem #1 and #2 at the same time. If you can produce a single one, then all you need is a tub of oil/whatever energy source and raw materials. Drop one in, come back ten hours later, and you're good to go. It's like drug research: making that first pill is a PITA, but after that
Re:But will nanotech even be developed? (Score:2, Interesting)
Anything that is (accurately) self-replicating in this fashion will be indistinguishable from life. And if there is then even the slightest possibility of error in the replication, you will then have survival of the fittest and evolution.
After that, watch out...
-- Brian
Re:But will nanotech even be developed? (Score:3, Insightful)
doesn't that seem like an awfully large problem, though? can we even make useful robots at normal scale that self-replicate? this seems like the barrier of the sort of faster-than-light travel. possible intheory, but so far remved from what we can do that it pushes the things beyond it into the realm of pure speculation. (which is, of course, a fine activity, but let's not confuse it with things connected to thereal world.)
Re:But will nanotech even be developed? (Score:2)
Well to product a robot at a normal scale, you'd have to produce parts with very high precision: motors, electronic,etc..
So in fact, producing true self-replicating "normal bots" is almost as difficult as producing nanobots.
We could probably produce, self-replicating bots which use lego-like elements, but what would be the point?
And there is BIG difference between going higher than the speed of light and creating nanobots.
The first on
Nano don't need no stinking batteries (Score:2)
Actually, most modern nanotech doesn't need power. The largest nanotech markets are not for bots or other active devices, but for monodispersed crystals or ceramic dust. The cosmetics industry [smalltimes.com] buys large quantities of nanotech for use in makeup [apt-powders.com] and skin creams [loreal.com].
Re:But will nanotech even be developed? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:But will nanotech even be developed? (Score:2)
I'd say the best evidence for nanobot feasibility is the existence of microscopic animals. They prove it is indeed possible for an object of that size (and nanobots will most likely start out far larger) to be self-powering, self-propelled, and manufactured in large quantities.
Re:But will nanotech even be developed? (Score:2, Interesting)
With nanotech, the policy people are trying to stay ahead of the curve. This will mean that once the technology is ready, we will already have the details taken care of. There will be some changes, but the methods of shaping the argumen
Re:But will nanotech even be developed? (Score:2)
RTFA (Score:2)
It quotes a scientist at DuPont saying that he's never seen anything as deadly as inhaled nanotubes and quotes some biotech VCs saying that there are real problems with buckyball-based pharmaceuticals because nobody knows how to assess the toxicity.
From the inside? (Score:2)
Or from the outside. To go into 100% tin foil hat mode if indeed nanobots started replicating like nobody's business, surely it'd be more efficent for them to exit someone's lungs and let the wind carry them about?
Re:Disasters and benefits, oh my... (Score:2)
Our only hope is to mitigate this in part with testing, in part with education, etc. I imagine that there may have to be
some other links (Score:5, Informative)
We can hope (Score:3, Funny)
Re:We can hope (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:We can hope (Score:1, Funny)
Re:We can hope (Score:1)
On a side note, as far as practical applications go, I really dont see nanotech leaving controlled environments. This will limit its use to manufacturing (where it will see the most usage), military, and eventually medical (in some form).
However, in no way will it ever reach the hype generated for it several years ago; its not much of a coincident that the crazy ideas envisioned for nanotech were thought up at the same time as the crazy ideas of the 'new economy
Seven of Nine (Score:2, Interesting)
Seven of Nine can't be the only thing sexy about Nanotech. It sounds wonderful, if you think about the possibilities of controlling the world at a molecular level. But what about the costing of Nanotech? This means that instead of charging for a lump sum of material, the manufacturers can charge by the molecule!
Talk about a get rich scheme!
So guys, how can we prevent this from getting out of hand?
Nanot
Re:Seven of Nine (Score:2)
But don't forget the possible dangers involved. Not every technology that comes along is all positive and no negative.
Like this poster [slashdot.org] said, it depends on how our society as a whole uses it.
We as a modern human race seem to fail badly whenever we get swept up in the hot-new
Re:Seven of Nine (Score:3, Insightful)
Lets just say tommorrow some researcher at [insert some amazing research facility] puts out a press release stating that they've found the key. They can assembler/disassemble on the atomic and molecular scale, the whole thing scales and they can control the whole thing reliably.
Firstly, do you think big business or government would ever let this technology get into the hands of Joe Average citize
Re:Seven of Nine (Score:2)
Re:Seven of Nine (Score:2)
Re:Seven of Nine (Score:2)
Jim Bob here built himself a bunch of shotgun shells that pump the sonofabitch ye shoot fulla Ricin... what's Ricin again Jim Bob?
Course, that's kinda a moot point... if you take a shotgun blast......
Theory stands, with proper nanoassembly techniques there's not a whole lot of chemical difference between a vinal chair and a contai
Re:Seven of Nine (Score:2)
Here's something to think about... so you murder someone and throw all the evidence into one of these machines and tell "Disassemble and use components to make a clock radio"
Re:Seven of Nine (Score:2)
Re:Seven of Nine (Score:2)
Re:Seven of Nine (Score:2)
The reason you are not likely to see one of these in your home has to do with the major limits on nanotechnology, time and energy. Energy is the ultimate currency of life. The reason why you don't see our existing nanobots working with even small chunks of metal, much less a Ferrari is because there is no "money" i
Re:Seven of Nine (Score:2)
One would hope that the researcher would be ethical and anonymously release the information onto the Internet. There's no controlling information once it's that widespread.
Oh no! How will John Q. Factory Worker feed his family, when all the factories shut down? Wait, everyone will have nanoassemblers, they'll just dump a shovel
Re:Seven of Nine (Score:2)
You wouldn't need to manufacture anything! You could just program them to EAT THE WORLD UNLESS YOU PAY ME ONE-BILLION DOLLARS!!! <evil laugh>BWAH HAH HAW!!!</evil laugh>.
Of course, not that I'd ever think of doing that or anything...
Re:Seven of Nine (Score:2)
A Ferrari is not worth $155k because it is a performance automobile that can talk the talk a
Re:Seven of Nine (Score:2)
I'm talking about the US's opinions here... the rest of the Western World is a great deal more enlightened.
Nanotech devices represent a number of really key ideas. Starting with affordable water filtration devices and moving all the way up to super efficient energy, nanotech could bring the 3rd world
Re:Seven of Nine (Score:2)
How in the hell do you figure that? Enlightened france will sell weapons to almost anyone, and most of the other european countries are no different.
Face it, most goverment in the world don't care about the 'little people'
Re:Seven of Nine (Score:2)
How about remove our bodies? Just imagine at some stage in the future, we have the technology to offload what's stored in our brain to a machine directly. We could get rid of our feeble bodies. Instead of having to send heavy spacecraft out with life support, you ARE the spacecraft. You just choose a body for your needs - self repairing, thanks to nanotechnology. Perhaps our ultimate evolution is away from fragile flesh and bones, and
The luddites said the same thing... (Score:1, Funny)
Viruses and playing God (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not sure that we have come to the point of understanding where we can control nanobots. If the biggest software company in the world can't put out a bug free software package, how can we expect that a handful of scientists to put together what is in effect a man-made virus. It would be a sad day if one of these (excuse the pun) bugs were released and some error was caught too late.
Re:Viruses and playing God (Score:2)
Re:Viruses and playing God (Score:2, Informative)
It's just we have got better at patching these holes, and detecting bugs before they cause major harm... And the massive redundancy at the DNA level helps too...
We're more like a failover cluster than a single machine...
Re:Viruses and playing God (Score:1)
I completely agree with your observation of our lack of understanding, though. But I guess that is why all this research is being done; to better understand nanotechnology.
Re:Viruses and playing God (Score:4, Insightful)
It is unlikely that any nanobots we'll be dealing with in the forseeable future will be self-replicating. In fact, I think the opposite problem - how to keep the damn things functional long enough to do their job - will be the more prevelent one.
As such, the major issue facing nanobots is more likely to be analogous to the "space junk" problem (what do you do about large numbers of "dead" nanobots) than to be a "gray goo" or "runaway virus" problem.
DG
Re:Viruses and playing God (Score:2)
Re:Viruses and playing God (Score:2)
Re:Viruses and playing God (Score:2)
Re:Viruses and playing God (Score:2)
Viruses aren't self-replicating. The smallest things that can handle that task are bacteria.
A virus needs to hijack the synthesis machinery of a cell in order to make more viruses. As noted by someone else on this thread, a virus is more like a quine [clueless.com]--code that generates another copy of itself as output, but you still need a compiler to execute it.
In the sense of independent self-replicating mac
Re:Viruses and playing God (Score:2)
It already happened on Mars. Didn't you see Cowboy Bebop [rottentomatoes.com]? The moral of the story is that we need to be able to manipulate the weather to deliver the antidote. Your fears about human hubris are clearly without merit.
This "Get Rich Scheme". . . (Score:1, Funny)
. .
Yet another article (Score:5, Informative)
LINK! [nytimes.com]
Sig & Below [sp00fed.net]
Re:Yet another article (Score:2, Informative)
As Uses Grow, Tiny Materials' Safety Is Hard to Pin Down
By BARNABY J. FEDER
When researchers fashion nanomaterials so small that their dimensions can be measured in molecules, the unusual and potentially valuable characteristics of those materials tend to show up immediately. But as businesses race to exploit those benefits, investors and policy makers are finding that pinpointing the potential environmental and health impacts of
A convincing read (Score:2, Redundant)
The NYT article actually presents some valid, observable concerns with existing technology and our bodies' abilities to deal with particles on that scale. A surprisingly interesting read.
Re:A convincing read (Score:2)
Um, other than the fact that if such a grey goo is possible, don't you think that one would have evolved already? The reason why we have not seen a grey goo, or a superbug is that there are significant trade-offs that favor specialization. Also
One of my nanotech dreams. (Score:5, Funny)
We get the benefits of industry, with free food, and a way to combat one of the current downfalls of industry!
My other nanotech dream is that nanobots in my body could change me into a lesbian and I could go have hot lesbian sex each night, but I don't mention that one much
Re:One of my nanotech dreams. (Score:2)
The problem with that one is that per your first nano-tech desire, you'd have to hit on hot, puke-green lesbians.
15% mortality rate (Score:2)
Stephenson's the Diamond age (Score:5, Insightful)
Stephenson's Diamond Age is a fascinating examination of this. Now, given that the book was written on a victorian framework (which shapes what issues are pondered) it is still an enjoyable read, and an even more enjoyable thought experiment into nanotech.
When people have the ability to build anything they want from the atom up, the only thing constraining us will be those constraints that our society dictates. (Everything else is merely requires sufficently talented engineers.) Unfortunatly, the dangerous aspects of nanotech also are only constrained by our society.
Worries about grey-goo scenarios and DNA plagues shouldn't stop us from researching nanotech -- if only for the reason that solutions to these problems can only be found through nanotechnological means.
Anyways, I digress -- for a fascinating study of nanotech, read the Diamond Age.
Re:Stephenson's the Diamond age (Score:2)
I agree, but I am still worried that the failure rate of a nanobot has to be nonzero, now no matter how small it may be, in order for nanotech to work, billions upon billions upon billions of nanobots are needed. I see probability 1 of failure.
Re:Stephenson's the Diamond age (Score:3, Interesting)
For the sake of this discussion of failure, you simply mean a given machine "doesn't work." And stops. For other instances of failure, other discussions should apply.
But, given that definition of failure, the beauty of nanotech is that we can create thousands of machines for any given task, and even if 10% fail right off the bat, we've still got a ton of machines to do our work for us. Even if they do fail -- it's just a few dozen/hundred molecules of junk floatin
Re:Stephenson's the Diamond age (Score:3, Interesting)
Likewise, the failed nanobots may simply not work at all - just floating lifelessly until they're destroyed, b
Re:Stephenson's the Diamond age (Score:4, Interesting)
Nanobots in the form of bacteria, have been on the Earth for billions of years. The extensive history of activity at this scale deflates both the claims of grey goo pessimists and the claims of boundless possibility constrained only by society. Regardless of the talent of engineers, physics and chemestry pose some very hard constraints on what is possible.
Re:Stephenson's the Diamond age (Score:2)
Gibson's San Francisco Trilogy deals with it sometimes (it's central to the overall plot, but not mentioned much).
Nanotechology disposal (Score:4, Interesting)
So, let me see if I get it: We haven't proven our nanotech products are safe, but nobody can afford to prove that they aren't. Since there is no proof that they aren't, we'll assume they're safe and dump them wherever it's cheapest. By the time anyone can prove that they aren't safe, we'll have made our money and then some.
Re:Nanotechology disposal (Score:1)
They assume it's safe because gravel is safe in larger sizes! What idiots!
Re:Nanotechology disposal (Score:2)
Re:Nanotechology disposal (Score:3, Insightful)
There is no product or substance that is 'safe'. Water drowns, oxygen burns (or makes other things burn), helium... that should be safe, it just makes your voic
FUD (Score:3, Insightful)
You missed the 15% mortality rate thing (Score:5, Interesting)
And I'll note that 24 hours later, the other 85% seemed perfectly healthy, the assumption being that the nanotubes clumping stopped them from getting into deep regions of the lungs and allowed them to be expelled by coughing.
So, with specifics of 15% mortality in mice from nanotube exposure, does that warrant concern?
Re:You missed the 15% mortality rate thing (Score:1)
I say again... FUD.
Re:You missed the 15% mortality rate thing (Score:1)
Right at the beginning of the article was the discussion of the 15% mortality rate of mice exposed to nanotubes
You are not taking into account how they where exposed. The nanotubes where released directly into their lungs. I wonder what the mortality rate is for mice with common dirt released directly into their lungs? I am pretty sure that the mortality rate for releasing dihydro mono oxygen [think about it, that right H2O] directly into a mammals lungs is greater than 15%. If there was a 15% mortality
Don't dismiss peer-reviewed research so stupidly (Score:4, Informative)
Did you even bother to look for the actual research. I did a very quick search [google.com] on google, and found this [neu.edu] report. I'd love an actual link to the study, but I don't have time to do more searching.
This report talked about a study which compared particles of 20 nanometers (deadly) with ones of 130 nanometers (not deadly) in the same concentrations. Certainly these results are not perfect, a better study would make these nanoparticles into an areosol, as this would be the most likely form of real-life delivery.. that is, a light dust cloud breathed by a human after some object was moved containing nanotubes. In any case, I'm sure the same concentration of plain-old dirt would not even be noticed.
If you want to argue the results... do you own study. Oh wait, that was the point of the NY Times article wasn't it... that not enough studies were being done. Amazing.
How is this article FUD? (Score:4, Interesting)
Couple this with the fact that companies will be more than willing to invest their own dollars in nanotechnology (but not studying risks), it is clear that we are not doing enough to study the environmental impacts of such stuff. This is brand new territory, with new rules and new concequences. It is stupid to think that the old rules to protect people and the environment will be adequate. Environmental messes are *horribly* expensive to clean up by comparison.
To call this FUD is really irresponsible. You don't jump in head first to a pool of water unless you know how deep the pool is, no?
Re:How is this article FUD? (Score:2)
You can always find an excuse to not do something and you can never have enough knowledge or data to prove that nothing bad will ever happen.
Let's get concrete then. Is spending 1/20th (or less) studying what could go wrong adequate? This is not about studying something to death, it is about looking to see if you can see the bottom of the pool... or finding a stick to measure where the pool bottom is. According to the art
Re:FUD (Score:2)
But isn't FUD sometimes prudent when dealing with a substance that is proposed to be released into the environment in large quantities? After all, we had the "better living thro
To me (Score:3, Funny)
And that is at the time that it becomes technologically and economically feasible, Microsoft will probably still be around.
Re:Look on the bright side (Score:2)
A little too forward-thinking? (Score:3, Insightful)
Were almost reaching a chicken and egg situation (Score:1, Funny)
Which would then bring up Nano-patch management. Think we need to get Macro-patch management down fist.
... and Stanislaw Lem (Score:1)
1. Build nanotech
2.
3. Profit!
4. Death.
Can you say (Score:3, Funny)
Wesley Crusher (Score:2, Funny)
DPH
Re:Wesley Crusher (Score:3, Funny)
Obligatory Homer Simpson quote (Score:2)
This is old, old, old news (Score:2, Interesting)
While Feinman doesn't touch on the negatives of nano-technology, much of Drexler's ground breaking book is related to developing nano-machines WITHOUT risk to the human race.
Unpredictable nanobots (Score:2, Funny)
Anyone who thinks there is no downside to this technology [upn.com] is kidding themselves.
Greenpeace report on Nanotechnology (Score:2, Informative)
It was commissioned of Imperial College London with the brief that it should cover existing applications, current research and development - including the associated organisations with the incentives and risks they have for such initiatives.
Nano-Safety (Score:3, Funny)
2) Should this happen, be sure to let an adult know immediately instead of trying to quietly solve the problem yourself.
3) Should they multiply and infect the computer core, do not try to fry them out of the core; results will be disastrous.
Republicans vs. Democrats (Score:2)
The Republicans are no Democrats.
This of course applies only to those funded by Diebold & co.
Re:Safety? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Safety? (Score:2)
Re:Safety? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Safety? (Score:2)
Regulations will be as effective against hostile nanotech as they are against dangerous viruses: not very. Technological solutions are needed to combat technological menaces.
Re:Free reg bla bla (Score:1)
Sigh, time for... "-1 Off-topic"... well, I earned it at least.
Re:thinking about for a long long time now... (Score:4, Insightful)
First.
No one has yet created a realistic test for the effects of inhaled nanoparticles; such a test could easily cost more than $1 million to design and carry out, toxicologists say.
Then.
the federal government's projection that sales of products based on nanotechnology will reach $1 trillion by 2015
Re:thinking about for a long long time now... (Score:1, Insightful)
WHAT A BARGIN!
Re:thinking about for a long long time now... (Score:2, Interesting)