It's a small, small world

  • Article by: Karen Youso , Star Tribune
  • Updated: August 5, 2008 - 9:29 AM

Socks that don't stink. Clothes that repel stains. Golf clubs that hit balls longer and straighter. As we exploit the riches of nanotechnology, do we know the consequences?

  • 12
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
don1960Aug. 4, 08 4:58 PM

is an interesting, entertaining, thought provoking, albeit fanciful book that takes nanotechnology to a horrific end result. The issues raised in this article are almost as potentially horrific as in Chrichton's book. This could well be the next persistant chemical scare, a la ScotchGuard.

9
5
biwabik517Aug. 4, 08 5:07 PM

but it was so small you couldn't see it.

42
3
PayPuhAug. 4, 08 5:40 PM

Nanoparticles are the least of my concern when things like drunk driving and prescription med abuse occur often and pose a more imminent threat. Most of the elements used to produce nanoparticles are actually good for the human body (silver, gold, etc.), it'll just take some tinkering with science and technology before it will be better understood to prevent ecological hazards. Replanting algae at water treatment facilities isn't much of a problem. I don't understand why silver should be classified as a pesticide.

4
23
spicebearAug. 4, 08 7:18 PM

"Stocks that don't sink." I guess you can tell where my mind is.

10
1
porcupine12Aug. 4, 08 7:25 PM

everything that you do and say... is in the pill you took today. ever wonder why we are a nation of obese? ever wonder why we are voting for....? ever wonder why ______ is rampant? Where a buck is concerned you never know.

4
6
haugeeAug. 4, 08 8:51 PM

Hey Paypuh....don't comment on things you know nothing about...metals can be toxic to the body even in very small amounts...they can cause things like autism and alzheimers

8
2
malachyAug. 5, 0811:49 AM

God forbid we follow the "precautionary principle" and demand that products are proven safe before they're allowed to be sold, used, distributed, etc. As it is, the burden of proof falls on those who think something might be unsafe; but, it often takes years of studies to definitively prove that something is unsafe and specifically HOW it is unsafe. Nano-particles are small enough to penetrate the blood-brain barrier and thus should not be used outside of medicine. I'll take stained khakis and visible sunscreen over brain cancer any day. But where's the profit in that?

13
1
to49487Aug. 5, 08 1:23 PM

Didn't we learn this at a early age.

1
2
rhauptmanAug. 5, 08 1:40 PM

Some people say that Morgellons disease is bioengineered and is a man-made nanotechnology that they released to the public. I don't know about that, but I don't want to take a risk. Google Morgellons if you don't know what I am talking about. It is SCARY! It is highly contagious and I know at least one person who has it that works in a GROCERY STORE in uptown.

1
3
DilbertAug. 6, 08 6:46 AM

Molecules are small, everything is made of them. Of course we should be thoughtful about what we allow to come into contact with our bodies - or how newborn babies immune systems might react to vaccines - or using mercury in vaccines - lead in paints for kid's toys. Nanotechnology is more about hype to be able to patent a process than some technological terror - of course we need to think about what is in things we use (or eat ?!). I don't see any major threat in the nanotechnology - whatever threat there is stems from the ingredients themselves (as always), if they are mixed 'smoother' or use finer particles - great ! It's molecules that might be getting into the blood, and that was always a point to consider.

0
3

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

question of the day

Poll: What's your favorite citrus fruit?

Weekly Question

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT