Pathetic nanotech FUD

[maradydd]

Press release from an anti-nanotech group whose members protested topless outside the Eddie Bauer store in Chicago recently. A quote from the release:

Eddie Bauer’s line of water and stain resistant clothing utilizes nanotechnology, a radically new and untested technology that involves the manipulation of matter at the scale of the nanometer (nm), which is one-billionth of a meter. At this scale, materials behave differently than their larger counterparts, and can possibly be more reactive and toxic, posing unknown risks to human health and the environment.

No points for pinpointing the key FUDword here, guys: any claim which uses the word "possibly" and provides no supporting sources should immediately raise a red flag. They could just as easily have said any one of the following:

"At this scale, materials behave differently than their larger counterparts, and can possibly cause breathing disorders as loose particles become lodged in the lungs."

"At this scale, materials behave differently than their larger counterparts, and can possibly pose a fire hazard by clogging the lint trap in your dryer with fibers so small you can't peel them off like ordinary lint."

"At this scale, materials behave differently than their larger counterparts, and can possibly dance the tango and cause virgin births in mice."

Thumbs down to Howard Lovy for reprinting this tripe unremarked upon; if you're going to describe your blog as "independent nanotechnology information and commentary," then for God's sake comment on it. I can't comment on the science, because I don't know enough about what safety research has been conducted to be able to speak about it intelligently, though give me an hour of free time, a phone, and a web browser pointed at the materials science faculty page of any major university (or even an engineering-journals citation index) and I'll at least know where to look. I can, however, comment on the lack of intellectual rigor exhibited in the "article". Hell, for all I know their claims do have some substance: but without giving the reader that substance, all they're doing is spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt.

Well, okay, and boobies too.

Comments

[mycroftxxx.livejournal.com]

Actually, all of this is a gender thing.

No, really. The topless women involved were inviting a dialogue between their own gender and the traditionally nanotechnological gender, men. The development of lab-based nanotech has broken down the barrier between the concept of nanotech and traditional production of independent microscopic rovers - the most commonly though of form of NT. This was an inclusive, welcoming ceremony - women reminding men that this change does not necessarily exclude men from participating in the dawn of this new age.

If I ever see these compassionate women, me and this C60-doped bottle of water-soluable lubricant will be happy to join in the festivities. Together we will work to solve the "white goo" problems of the heart.

From Howard Lovy

[(Anonymous)]

That's pretty funny, since I'm usually accused of commenting too much. Had you read the "backgrounder" beneath the reprinted press release, you'd see that I've spent much of the past two years commenting on all angles of this issue.

Howard Lovy

[extropic-artist.livejournal.com]

Hmmm, I'm all for nanotech, and I'm all for boobies. I don not see these things as mutually exclusive.

Shit, if the nanoparticles can dance the Tango, bonus!

/luddites suck

[misterpriapus.livejournal.com]

Ah, the boobies. Except it bothers me to see boobies appropriated for political reasons. It's morally offensive to me in the sense that if a chick is going to pop her tittys out in public, it needs to be for either breasfeeding or lascivious debauchery, not for politics. That's basicly the grass roots equivalent of tacking on a neoprohibitionist smoking ban as a rider on a spending bill in Congress.

That's assuming that any of these well-funded "protests" are even remotely grass roots to begin with.