The following studies on nanotechnology (Review of the toxicity of particles intentionally produced for nanotechnology applications, from an occupational health perspective) are not the latest. However, they show that nanotechnology is toxic, and government agencies are well aware of this, but have decided to give it the green light.
Hi, what you write is very good, if you could make summaries of important points at the top and the full versions below I think more people will grasp the gravity of these posts thanks.
Although nanotechnology is still in the early stages of development, progress in basic techniques has already been fairly rapid. The nanotech industry is growing and organizing, with a trade association and a lobbying arm (the NanoBusiness Alliance). Three years ago, the U.S. government began the National Nanotechnology Initiative, with the promise of half a billion
dollars in research funds, and at least eleven government agencies in this country are currently funding nanotech research, as are more than two dozen other countries.
While the potential benefits are clear, so are the potential dangers. Accidents in the application or design of nanotechnology could spell disaster. The risk of an out-of-control, powerful, yet invisible technology, which replicates itself and learns from its environment, makes for some frightening scenarios—like the swarm in Prey.
Even more likely, however, is intentional misuse. If molecule-sized machines can be programmed to repair individual cells of the body, they can also be programmed to harm and destroy them. If they can manipulate matter at its most basic level, they can wreak barely imaginable destruction at every level of our lives. Nano-weapons would make germ warfare look positively crude by comparison.
All the potential uses and risks, and all the unknowns surrounding nanotechnology, seem to call for reflection and potentially for regulation, even at this early stage—both to avert disaster and to avoid uninformed panic.
Crichton is of course not the first to warn about the potential risks of nanotechnology. At least since the 1980s, experts have worried about a horrific scenario called the “gray goo problem,” in
which self-replicating nanotech runs amok and devours everything living on Earth.
More recently, Bill Joy, the chief scientist at Sun Microsystems, argued in Wired magazine in 2000 that nanotechnology—along with robotics and genetic engineering—may threaten the future of the human race.
A small public interest group called ETC (pronounced “et cetera”) has for years been publishing dire warnings about potential horrors—particularly environmental harms—stemming from new technologies. In an 80-page report released in January 2003, ETC warned of “horrendous social and environmental risks” from atom-sized machines.
The report called for an “immediate moratorium on commercial production of new nanomaterials,” and the creation of a new “transparent global process” for assessing
the risks of nanotechnology.
Another call for government action on nanotechnology came from the San Francisco-based Pacific Research Institute last November. In an instructive paper entitled “Forward to the Future:
Nanotechnology and Regulatory Policy,” law professor Glenn Reynolds—best known for his InstaPundit.com website— argues that the potential benefits and dangers of nanotechnology make some form of regulation unavoidable. He outlines three potential scenarios for the development of such regulation: total prohibition, restriction to military use, and carefully
regulated civilian use.
Reynolds argues quite plausibly that only the last of these truly makes sense, and he proposes a scheme that combines modest government regulation (including export controls and some restrictions on access to nanotechnology) with a strong regime of self-regulation among scientists and researchers.
The substance of the proposal probably does not go far enough, and Reynolds errs in suggesting that nanotech regulation be modeled on the “Asilomar” approach—the development of self-regulation of recombinant DNA (rDNA) technology in the early 1970s. In fact, the Asilomar scheme was by design insufficient, since it intentionally ignored many of the possible misuses of rDNA technology (for weapons, for reckless genetic manipulation, etc.) and
because Asilomar ignored the ethical questions beyond safety.
Nevertheless, Reynolds’s proposals are sober and serious, and the paper offers a valuable early step toward an effective public policy on nanotechnology—one that could avert the greatest dangers and calm public concerns, while not giving control, powerful, yet invisible technology,
which replicates itself and learns from its environment, makes for some frightening scenarios—like the swarm in Prey. Even more likely, however, is intentional misuse. If molecule-sized machines can be programmed to repair individual cells of the body, they can also be programmed to harm and destroy them. If they can manipulate matter at its most basic level, they can wreak barely imaginable destruction at every level of our lives. Nano-weapons
would make germ warfare look positively crude by comparison.
All the potential uses and risks, and all the unknowns surrounding nanotechnology, seem to call for reflection and potentially for regulation, even at this early stage—both to avert disaster and to avoid uninformed panic.
Sounds like AI written fake research.
Hopefully not a soul is receiving any grant ( tax payer ) money.
Hi, what you write is very good, if you could make summaries of important points at the top and the full versions below I think more people will grasp the gravity of these posts thanks.
Still no pandemic. Just the plandemic.
But masks made out of graphene? WOW! After all concerns about GO?
This is DUMB and EVIL af - it would seem!
http://web.archive.org/web/20051026114939/http://www.thenewatlantis.com:80/archive/1/soa/TNA01-StateOfTheArt-The%20Dust%20Bites%20Another%20One.pdf
Although nanotechnology is still in the early stages of development, progress in basic techniques has already been fairly rapid. The nanotech industry is growing and organizing, with a trade association and a lobbying arm (the NanoBusiness Alliance). Three years ago, the U.S. government began the National Nanotechnology Initiative, with the promise of half a billion
dollars in research funds, and at least eleven government agencies in this country are currently funding nanotech research, as are more than two dozen other countries.
While the potential benefits are clear, so are the potential dangers. Accidents in the application or design of nanotechnology could spell disaster. The risk of an out-of-control, powerful, yet invisible technology, which replicates itself and learns from its environment, makes for some frightening scenarios—like the swarm in Prey.
Even more likely, however, is intentional misuse. If molecule-sized machines can be programmed to repair individual cells of the body, they can also be programmed to harm and destroy them. If they can manipulate matter at its most basic level, they can wreak barely imaginable destruction at every level of our lives. Nano-weapons would make germ warfare look positively crude by comparison.
All the potential uses and risks, and all the unknowns surrounding nanotechnology, seem to call for reflection and potentially for regulation, even at this early stage—both to avert disaster and to avoid uninformed panic.
Crichton is of course not the first to warn about the potential risks of nanotechnology. At least since the 1980s, experts have worried about a horrific scenario called the “gray goo problem,” in
which self-replicating nanotech runs amok and devours everything living on Earth.
More recently, Bill Joy, the chief scientist at Sun Microsystems, argued in Wired magazine in 2000 that nanotechnology—along with robotics and genetic engineering—may threaten the future of the human race.
A small public interest group called ETC (pronounced “et cetera”) has for years been publishing dire warnings about potential horrors—particularly environmental harms—stemming from new technologies. In an 80-page report released in January 2003, ETC warned of “horrendous social and environmental risks” from atom-sized machines.
The report called for an “immediate moratorium on commercial production of new nanomaterials,” and the creation of a new “transparent global process” for assessing
the risks of nanotechnology.
Another call for government action on nanotechnology came from the San Francisco-based Pacific Research Institute last November. In an instructive paper entitled “Forward to the Future:
Nanotechnology and Regulatory Policy,” law professor Glenn Reynolds—best known for his InstaPundit.com website— argues that the potential benefits and dangers of nanotechnology make some form of regulation unavoidable. He outlines three potential scenarios for the development of such regulation: total prohibition, restriction to military use, and carefully
regulated civilian use.
Reynolds argues quite plausibly that only the last of these truly makes sense, and he proposes a scheme that combines modest government regulation (including export controls and some restrictions on access to nanotechnology) with a strong regime of self-regulation among scientists and researchers.
The substance of the proposal probably does not go far enough, and Reynolds errs in suggesting that nanotech regulation be modeled on the “Asilomar” approach—the development of self-regulation of recombinant DNA (rDNA) technology in the early 1970s. In fact, the Asilomar scheme was by design insufficient, since it intentionally ignored many of the possible misuses of rDNA technology (for weapons, for reckless genetic manipulation, etc.) and
because Asilomar ignored the ethical questions beyond safety.
Nevertheless, Reynolds’s proposals are sober and serious, and the paper offers a valuable early step toward an effective public policy on nanotechnology—one that could avert the greatest dangers and calm public concerns, while not giving control, powerful, yet invisible technology,
which replicates itself and learns from its environment, makes for some frightening scenarios—like the swarm in Prey. Even more likely, however, is intentional misuse. If molecule-sized machines can be programmed to repair individual cells of the body, they can also be programmed to harm and destroy them. If they can manipulate matter at its most basic level, they can wreak barely imaginable destruction at every level of our lives. Nano-weapons
would make germ warfare look positively crude by comparison.
All the potential uses and risks, and all the unknowns surrounding nanotechnology, seem to call for reflection and potentially for regulation, even at this early stage—both to avert disaster and to avoid uninformed panic.
Crazy how this is from 18 years ago eh?
Yes, they are trying to kill us by getting more in our systems by any and all means.
Do Not Comply
Outraged , I have learned as much from your posts/stacks as I have on any stack /website⚔️⚔️