Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Health & Wellness

Nanotech: Why Something So Small Can Be So Dangerous

By Carole Bass, Yale Environment 360. Posted June 23, 2008.


Nanotechnology is booming. But concern is growing that its development is outpacing our understanding of how to use it safely.
Advertisement

"It's green, it's clean, it's never seen -- that's nanotechnology!"

That exuberant motto, used by an executive at a trade group for nanotech entrepreneurs, reflects the buoyant enthusiasm for nanotechnology in some business and scientific circles.

Part of the slogan is indisputably true: nanotechnology -- which involves creating and manipulating common substances at the scale of the nanometer, or one billionth of a meter -- is invisible to the human eye.

But the rest of the motto is open for debate. Nanotech does hold clean and green potential, especially for supplying cheap renewable energy and safe drinking water. But nanomaterials also pose possible serious risks to the environment and human health -- risks that researchers have barely begun to probe, and regulators have barely begun to regulate.

What's more, the potential damage could take years or even decades to surface. So these tiny particles could soon become the next big thing -- only to turn into the next big disaster.

Nano enthusiasts see it as the next "platform technology" -- one that will, like electricity or micro-computing, change the way we do almost everything. While that prediction is still unproven, there's no question that nanotech is booming. Universities, industry, and governments around the globe are pouring billions into creating and developing nanoproducts and applications. A range of nanotechnologies is already used in more than 600 consumer products -- from electronics to toothpaste -- with global sales projected to soar to $2.6 trillion by 2014.

Environmentalists, scientists, and policymakers increasingly worry that nanotech development is outrunning our understanding of how to use it safely. Consider these examples from last month alone:

  • An animal study from the United Kingdom found that certain carbon nanotubes can cause the same kind of lung damage as asbestos. Carbon nanotubes are among the most widely used nanomaterials.
  • A coalition of consumer groups petitioned the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to ban the sale of products that contain germ-killing nanosilver particles, from stuffed animals to clothing, arguing that the silver could harm human health, poison aquatic life, and contribute to the rise of antibiotic resistance.
  • Researchers in Singapore reported that nanosilver caused severe developmental problems in zebrafish embryos -- bolstering worries about what happens when those antimicrobial products, like soap and clothing, leak silver into the waste stream.
  • The U.S. Department of Defense, in an internal memo, acknowledged that nanomaterials may "present... risks that are different than those for comparable material at a larger scale." That's an overarching risk with nanomaterials: Their tiny size and high surface area make them more chemically reactive and cause them to behave in unpredictable ways. So a substance that's safe at a normal size can become toxic at the nanoscale.
  • Australian farmers proposed new standards that would exclude nanotechnology from organic products.
  • The European Union announced that it will require full health and safety testing for carbon and graphite under its strict new chemicals law, known as REACH (for Registration, Evaluation, and Authorisation of Chemical Substances). Carbon and graphite were previously exempt, because they're considered safe in their normal forms. But the U.K. study comparing carbon nanotubes to asbestos, along with a similar report from Japan, raised new alarms about these seemingly harmless substances.

Old Materials, New Risks

The EU's move is a critical step toward recognizing nanomaterials as a potential new hazard that requires new rules and new information.

The raw materials of nanotechnology are familiar. Carbon, silver, and metals like iron and titanium are among the most common. But at the nanoscale, these well-known substances take on new and unpredictable properties. That's what makes them so versatile and valuable. It also makes them potentially dangerous in ways that their larger-scale counterparts are not.

Yet governments are only beginning to grapple with those dangers. Japan's labor department issued a notice in February requiring measures to protect workers from exposure to nanomaterials: It may be the world's first nano-specific regulation affecting actual practices. Previously, Berkeley, California -- ever ready to stand alone -- had adopted what is apparently the only nano-specific regulation in the United States: a requirement that companies submit toxicology reports about nanomaterials they're using.

At the federal level, the EPA launched a voluntary reporting program in January; industry participation has been anemic. Both the EPA and the Food and Drug Administration have so far declined to regulate nanomaterials as such, saying they're covered under existing regulations. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has issued recommendations for handling nanomaterials, but the agency has no enforcement power.

The European Union, by contrast, is taking a precautionary approach. While U.S. regulators generally presume products to be safe until proven harmful, the EU's new REACH legislation demands that manufacturers demonstrate the safety of their chemicals. Just last week, the EU released a document concluding that nanorisks "can be dealt with under the current legislative framework," with some modifications. For example, the document says that under REACH, when companies introduce nanoforms of existing substances, they must provide additional material about "the specific properties, hazards, and risks" of the nanomaterials.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: health, environment, nanotechnology

Carole Bass is an investigative journalist who writes about public health, the environment, and legal affairs. She is a 2008 fellow of the Alicia Patterson Foundation, reporting on toxic chemicals on the job. Her work on health and environmental risks of nanotechnology has recently appeared in Scientific American and The New Republic.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Health and Wellness! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
SHUT UP AND GIVE NANO A CHANCE !!!!
Posted by: maxpayne on Jun 23, 2008 8:42 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's a hell of a lot better than coal or nuclear and at a time when fossil fuels are getting sapped out, there's nothing to lose by giving this a try. Quit allowing the pols, business elites, and religious fundies to stifle science. This is what has caused manufacturing, jobs, ideas, and even education itself to be shipped overseas for the past 3 decades. So SHUT THE FUCK UP and give nanotechnology a CHANCE !!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And by the way, every new technology has its pluses and minues but that doesn't mean that we should
Posted by: maxpayne on Jun 23, 2008 8:45 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
kill it. There will be ample time to correct the issues if you work at it instead of complaining about it. Nano technology is far better than desperate drilling for finite resources just to keep outdated technologies built on fossil fuels on life support.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nano's Application Should Have Sensible Limits
Posted by: Bill Cook on Jun 23, 2008 9:34 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I just finished reading the special report on alternative energy in the Economist. The section on PV solar and biofuels continually refered to nanotechnology.

Thanks for bringing to light some of the negatives. Exposure to cancer-causing or neurologically toxic agents is not worth having extraordinarily strong tennis rackets and bacterially-resistant socks; even at Wal-Mart prices. It's hard not to feel helpless in the face of industries pushing convenience.

I wish the EPA valued precaution.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Carole Bass should shut up until she has a degree in science
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Jun 24, 2008 1:20 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Carole Bass is another humanities graduate spouting nonsense
about something she knows nothing about. Have you noticed
how ignorance of the subject never interferes with making
pronouncements?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» In defense Posted by: abbadon2007
» RE: In defense Posted by: aonghus36
» Rebuttal Posted by: abbadon2007
» RE: In defense Posted by: HoboHomo
Like fire retardents and teflon nano tech will be in our bodies
Posted by: greentime on Jun 24, 2008 5:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
in no time.

I am all for new technology but as with any technology we must apply the "first do no harm" concept. For those who say every technology has hazards... perhaps... but all technologies need to be kept in balance. Some are simply not worth introducing if more harm will be done to an already overwhelmed and endangered ecological system.

How smart a species are we if we don't fully think through that which we create? Haven't we learned anything from past mistakes? Are we destined to thoughtlessly destroy just for the sake of our egoic creations?

We are pushing everything to the brink in a humans behaving badly spree not unlike that of a reckless drug addict. Nature has limits and we seem hell-bent to find them. It is a foolish and dangerous game. And we could lose.

Nanotechnology may be part of the solution but only if we utilize this technology responsibly.

First, do no harm.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE:BRAVO! Posted by: magiquarian1969
oldfreedomdude
Posted by: oldfreedomdude on Jun 24, 2008 5:11 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is likely that nanoparticles will be harmful to health! As the author points out, they are much smaller than natural particles and can slip by natural defense barriers. It is really just common sense. Living organisms have evolved over millions years in a natural environment, in such a way as to take in the nutrients they need while excluding harmful substances and organisms in the environment. Suddenly introducing large amounts of materials that are much smaller than the particles encountered in nature will bypass those defenses and pollute the internal environment of living organisms, most like to the detriment of those organisms.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: oldfreedomdude Posted by: rotorooter
Technology gone wild!
Posted by: countingdaisies on Jun 24, 2008 11:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems that just because it is possible to create something, it has to be used! Technology has taken a wrong turn by developing more harmful products. How about using all that knowledge to make this a safer, cleaner world?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Carbon nanotubes
Posted by: Gaubladt on Jun 24, 2008 3:16 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author referred to research that studied carbon nano-tubes of a certain size that were inclided to be trapped in the mesothelia, much like asbestos.
But smaller asbestos particles pose other problems. They are mutagenic; they lodge in dna and disrupt the process of cell division. White blood cells can destroy the errant cells and send them into the waste stream for extraction from the organism. But, asbestos is inert. The disintigration of unhealthy cells only frees the asbestos to lodge in the dna of other healthy cells.
So, my question is: Are the smaller carbon nanotubes fairly inert? Would that make them mutagenic?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Carbon nanotubes Posted by: Lauren
» RE: Carbon nanotubes Posted by: benzene
» RE: Carbon nanotubes Posted by: BigRedTarget
» RE: Carbon nanotubes Posted by: HoboHomo
Teeny, Tiny Things
Posted by: talkville on Jun 27, 2008 4:02 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Natural processes provide us with a multitude of little, tiny, minute, diminutive, material entities and organisms which we inter-act with all the time: germs, viruses, microbes, amoebas, paramecia, etc. etc. AND etc.

But this is Man! and Man Makes; Man Manufactures; Man Imitates and Improves Nature. Man can Improve on these material entities and organisms, because Man can Control, Man can Defeat, Man can Dominate, Nature. Man can insert a Will, a Slave, a little tiny Soul and Self into these manufactured Analogs. They can do what Man WANTS, what Man Wills, what Man desires. And the elected Man of God, the Expert, the Master of these tiny will-full and desiring little entities will respond unquestioningly and reverently to the Man of God's Commands. And this Man of God, this Expert Technologist, will thus stand Proudly, Confidently, Successfully, and introduce these into all us capital-letter-less men and animals and plants and Nature itself and in this way help and improve us. Kneel before the God-Man, Maker of virus-slaves, microbe-slaves, amoeba-slaves, tiny little teeny entities-- this time endowed with a tiny little Soul and Self of their own - entirely and totally subservient to the All-Knowing Capital Letter Man-God, himself endowed with the Pure, Perfected, Elected and entirely auto-designated Soul-Self of the All-Knowing All-Controlling Uni-Verse.

Scientific Method, meet these fine persons, Religion and Faith; now go forth and Rule the World, make it over in your Perfect and Pure and Well-Formed Image. Not Truth awaits your Efforts, but Paradise! Right here, and Soon!

Nietzsche commented to his sister: "If you seek Happiness, Believe; if you seek truth, Inquire.

Let's Inquire: what does nano-technology seek? What do nano-technologists seek? For whom and why? "Yes, we Can" says Mr Obama; and indeed in large measure we can. Let's Inquire: who is this 'we'?

Is "The Scientist" a Savior? Perhaps a worker in the fields of searching for Knowledge (a word intimately tied to the word Science)? Is the Scientist a Priest? Perhaps a Missionary?

Who knows? For myself, I prefer the more tedious and long walk of Inquiry to the all-too quick and all-too-human propensities to Belief and Dogmas. Thus I prefer not to dive too hastily and zealously into the Belief in Nano-tech or, more importantly, the Belief in Nano-technologists. After all, they too are merely human beings, no capital-letter, no magical powers, no guarantees of perfection or 'purity' or such socio-cultural and ideological constructions.

Still and all, we still will have all these tiny, teeny, little itty-bitty entities and organisms we must always inter-act with.

"Cast Nature out with a pitch-fork; she always Returns" -- Horace

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Teeny, Tiny Things Posted by: benzene
» RE: Teeny, Tiny Things Posted by: HoboHomo
» RE: Teeny, Tiny Things Posted by: talkville
» RE: Teeny, Tiny Things Posted by: HoboHomo
Hummm ... no mention of what the Military Industrial Complex is ...
Posted by: TarryFaster on Jun 27, 2008 5:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
doing with it!!! Link

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

OMG, no more baby corn in my salad? The humanity!!!!
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Jun 27, 2008 5:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Australian farmers proposed new standards that would exclude nanotechnology from organic products.

Buffet lines across the world cry for vengeance.

Sigh, there are precautions that must be taken nanotech, just like any other technology. That doesn't mean the tech is "bad tech", or that it shouldn't be pursued full-bore.

In other startling news, eating computer chips is even more dangerous than ingesting potato chips, and these new-fangled thangs--these so-called "paved roads"--are a menace to those who don't take the time to look both ways.

You have been warned, citizens.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

cosmo-d
Posted by: wwahid on Jun 27, 2008 6:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Readers please read Gerry Mander"s book "In The Absence of the Sacred". It is by far the most comprehensive look at technology, nano technology and how it endangers the very human species. One of the things that blind us is the failure to accept our responsibility for the mess we are in. And as two year old children do (two thousand years old western civilization), instead of growing up, admitting our errors, we pout and throw tantrums. We look for new ways to cover up our errors instead of correcting them. We will not survive on this earth until we learn how to live, and we will not learn how to live until we understand Earth as the indigenous, original Indian Inhabitants. And I am not speaking of Asian Indians, but the Native American Indian. Nanotech in the hands of misguided men is what Einstein greatest fear was for humanity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: cosmo-d Posted by: Lauren
» RE: cosmo-d Posted by: aonghus36
» RE: cosmo-d Posted by: kk33deg
Nanotechnology scavengers for heat wasted from burning fossil fuels
Posted by: GrantBurkeVT on Jun 27, 2008 6:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid=4083.php

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Solar and Nano Technology could team up for the best
Posted by: GrantBurkeVT on Jun 27, 2008 6:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
beware the hype
Posted by: zooeyhall on Jun 27, 2008 7:01 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am rather skeptical of the "techno-geeks" when something new comes out. Nano-technology is just the latest thing to be trumpted to the skies with all sorts of benefits and wonders untold. However this is being put out by the investors and researchers who obviously have good reasons to declare that their work and their developments are the best thing since the Incarnation.

There was the same thing with cloning. Blasted to the skies as a New Dawn by Venture Capitalists and the researchers involved. However cloning has proved unreliable, and with serious problems.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: beware the hype Posted by: Dboy
» RE: beware the hype Posted by: HoboHomo
The Diamond Age
Posted by: frantaylor on Jun 27, 2008 7:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Neal Stephenson wrote a fascinating book about nanotech called "The Diamond Age". Lots of interesting stuff about the technology and a great novel to boot. If you liked "Snow Crash", you'll love "The Diamond Age".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Stating the obvious
Posted by: Anarchy'sSon on Jun 27, 2008 8:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Nanotechnology is booming. But concern is growing that its development is outpacing our understanding of how to use it safely. "

This could be said about damn near every evolving technology since the wheel. Hell we were making bombs out of fissionable material before we were making energy out of it. It is human nature to exploit science for it's own gains, and human nature to ignore or remain ignorant to the possible ramifications. Let the chips fall where they may is the modus operandi. To think that nano will be any different is pollyannish.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Stating the obvious Posted by: HoboHomo
seemed pretty balanced to me
Posted by: Drclaw on Jun 27, 2008 9:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Her point only was that there is reasonable a priori evidence that nano-tech could be a problem, and that a lot more money has been spent on research and (sometimes frivolous) product development than on understanding environmental and health effects. Nor do I see calls to at least understand the potential risks and determine safe practices to be Luddite or hysterically anti-science. We do this all the time with other products and NT should be no exception. In fact, there are now major calls from NSF to examine environmental effects of nanotech, so scientists agree that this issue deserves investigation. No need to shoot the messenger here, or make this out to be something more than it is, a plea for common sense.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Before We Throw the Baby Out with the Bathwater...
Posted by: kk33deg on Jun 27, 2008 10:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...we also need to look at the positives of nanotechnology. For example one nanotechnology offers an inexpensive way to filter arsenic from groundwater. Arsenic, a proven human carcinogen, is prevalent in groundwater in parts of the developing world, where groundwater is the only source of drinking water for most people; this particular nanotechnology could literally save hundreds of thousands of lives and prevent immense amounts of human suffering. Should the human health effects and environmental effects of nanotechnology be studied, and should society proceed with caution in developing and propogating nanotechnology? Of course. But should nanotechnology research and development be stopped, as some have suggested? That would be just plain stupid.

As far as technology in general, it is not in and of itself evil - it is our greed-fueled, unsustainable culture that's the problem. Put another way, one could make an argument to ban antibiotics completely. But the problem isn't antibiotics, which are very beneficial when used properly. The problem is the pharmaceutical industry, which pushes doctors to prescribe antibiotics for conditions like influenza, for which it is totally ineffective, and the agricultural industry, which saturates food animals with antibiotics in order to make factory farms possible, thereby maximizing profits. Technology, when properly applied can improve the quality of life for everyone and protect and restore the environment. The problem, which should not be minimized, is ensuring that technology is not misapplied.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nanotech needs to be looked at in a cold, sober way.
Posted by: nightgaunt on Jun 27, 2008 12:22 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It can be a boon to humanity in many areas though letting it run wild by those in the Capitalist sector whose first priority isn't safety or even good use just maximum profits. I find my self actually if reluctantly agree with Michael Crieghton on that particular point.

We are having problems already with the synthetic chemical and biotech industries for the same problems that loom with unrestrained and unchecked nanotechnology research and applications. Unfortunately it is going to be used for war first before we have a chance at it. The fascists are in charge and don't care what we think or what they do to us or the world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Grey Goo
Posted by: benzene on Jun 27, 2008 3:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's a nanotech doomsday scenario where someone engineers a self-replicating nanobot whose function is to eat. And thusly the nanobot eats and makes more of itself, which in turn eat and make many more of themselves, which also eat and make many many more of themselves, ad nauseum. The doomsday part of this is that there would be no way to stop the nanobots, which would continue to grow exponentially until all consumable matter available was consumed.

That being said, nanotech holds great promise. As part of a class project in college, I helped design a nanotech system for detecting the level of functionality of lipoprotein (cholesterol carrier) receptors in the liver to help diagnose and treat cholesterol metabolism disorders. The team I was with on it decided to use shelled buckyballs, C24 and C60 with the C60 having a protein hinge that would cause it to open up when it bound to a receptor. The idea was that the C24 would be a cage for a paramagnetic molecule that would be detected with MRI once it was released from the C60. Unfortunately, we didn't do thorough enough toxicology work and got slammed when the professors grading the project realized that studies had shown that unhydroxylated C60s and C24s had been shown to induce thrombosis in rats, and that our magnetophore was acutely toxic and explosively reactive in aqueous solutions (like blood). Oops.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NanoTech: bad ideas & weaponization...
Posted by: BlueBerry PickN on Jun 27, 2008 4:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
you know its true, all that glisters is not gold

bad production runs
bad ideas
bad project management or testing
...

& the obligatory, "hey! let's use it for espionage & power games!"?

Anybody here ever read Neal Stephenson's science fiction novel, "The Diamond Age: Or, a Young Lady's Illustrated Primer"

How about Oryx & Crake by the visionary & prolific Margaret Atwood??

JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN do something... doesn't mean WE SHOULD...

Our experiences both collectively & personally testify these concerns are not a figment of fiction... consumers' rights should be no less restricted than human rights.


┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄
BlueBerry Pick'n
can be found @
ThisCanadian
┄┄
"... tolerance of intolerance is cowardice... " ~ Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
"We, two, form a Multitude" ~ Ovid.
┄┄
"Silent Freedom is Freedom Silenced"
┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄┄

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We must FEAR what we don't understand!
Posted by: BigRedTarget on Jun 27, 2008 9:05 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
FEAR!!!

Just like we feared a round Earth, books, television, cloning...

FEAR!!!

Science must be regulated by people who know better, like governments, regulators, priests, and judges.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nature, hmmm
Posted by: BigRedTarget on Jun 27, 2008 9:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The only people who live in harmony with nature are those who don't understand it or aren't technologically advanced enough to exert some sort of control over it.

All of human kind has struggled for thousands of years to rise above the chaotic power nature has over us. To live in harmony with nature is to be subject to its random whims. Nature harbors no malice nor compassion. It has no consciousness, and it will wipe out scores of human with disease, weather, geological events, and extra-terrestrial events.

The only thing that allows us to crawl out from beneath the cruel boot that is nature is technology.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Keep your nano technology, Chinese poison, and GM crops away from me
Posted by: blogbooks on Jun 29, 2008 9:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I want them all labeled.

I want to eat organic food, not poisonous Chinese garbage.

I want to wear clothes made of natural fibers, not nano particles that don't exist naturally anywhere in the known universe.

I want to eat food that evolved naturally and/or through selective breeding, not genetically modified crops that are an abomination.

I work with technology and I love it, but there are limits people. We're playing with fire and we're going to get burned.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]