On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 05:07:53PM +0300, Peter wrote:
> 
> Replacing simple technology with complex technology requires lots of 
> nines. Which are rare and far between so far:
> 
> http://pubs.acs.org/cen/news/84/i15/8415nanotech.html

The slashdot discussion on that pointed out the absurdity of regulations
in Germany that treated nano-particles of existing materials as the
materials themselves, meaning new safety certifications weren't needed.

Hell, the silica sounds nasty enough on it's own, that stuff is why
potters get so fanatical about keeping clay dust cleaned up. It'll do a
perfectly good job of messing up your lungs if the particles are the
right size, re, nanoparticles...

Me, I suspect the manufacturer never did any real testing of the stuff.
80 people immediately becoming sick is something that would have been
probably been caught in animal testing for one... That or what was
produced was different then what was tested due to manufacturing errors,
quiet possible too if it's a novel process.

Anyway, what you want to worry about with nano-tech is the weird effects
that'll show up *much later* That's why we produced so much DDT before
it was banned...

-- 
pete@petertodd.ca http://www.petertodd.ca
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist