[cheryl j (OP)]

I was reading about violent protests in the Journal Nature but they never explained what people were afraid of or mad about, I guess because it must be common knowledge to the smart people who read Nature but I have no idea.

[Mazurka]

It is a very complex subject, but much of the fears relating to nano technology stem from Eric Drexler's comments about "grey goo".

As with other technologies, there are always fears about a worst case scenario - and for nano technology it is that practically invisible self replicating machines will eventually come to dominate everything, leaving a grey goo.

I think a more realistic fear is that of unintended consequences.

[techmind]

I assume far more likely hazards come from skin-creams (e.g. sun-block) containing nano-particles where it's unclear whether some of the particles could work their way deep into the skin, or other applications where nano-particles could become airborne and cause either short- (breathing) or long-term (cancer?) lung problems. We already know that carbon nanoparticles from diesel exhaust are troubling.

I don't know the likely magnitude of these possibilities - but I think this is a more rational concern than self-replicating nanogoo.

[damocles]

There is in fact a very serious problem with nanotechnology that has not yet been properly addressed. For most materials surface properties are a very minor part of the total picture; for nano- materials they tend to dominate.

With materials safety, it is usual, and not inappropriate, for a mixture to be considered in terms of the individual hazards of the different materials in the mixture. For nano-materials there is the possibility of new hazards arising that would not have been apparent from the properties of the chemical substances comprising the mixture. Perhaps the most familiar example would be asbestos fibres: chemically, asbestos is harmless, but the fact that it forms minute fibres with sharp needle shaped crystals makes it extremely hazardous. And that hazard is not necessarily particular to asbestos -- quartz dust can in some cases form nano-sized needle shaped crystals, and there were cases of mesothelioma from workers drilling in sandstone for some of the Sydney railway tunnels.

As yet, there is no sensible legislation for when a nano-scale dispersion needs a special separate evaluation in terms of an MSDS.

[smart]

The dual-purpose of engineered nanoparticles in medicine and military applications is problematic. Nanoparticles can be used to deliver drugs to the brain at the molecular level using nanoemulsions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanoparticles_for_drug_delivery_to_the_brain#Nanoemulsions

Optogenetics is the control of neurons by light-sensitive ion channels in the brain. Engineered nanoparticles for solar geoengineering could be in theory a novel method to control brain activity by modification of the albedo which reflects sunlight. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optogenetics

Another quite exciting field of research is neuroengineering, were nanoparticles could be exploited to remotely modulate neuronal activity using ultrasounds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_engineering

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=65283.0

[RD]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optogenetics

Once the "they" have modified the DNA in your brain via chemtrails or vaccination , how do "they" deliver the light to activate your optogenetic brain-implant which is in a lightproof skull ?

[ If "they" could change the structure of your brain, making that modification dependent on light-activation would be an unnecessary complication ].

[smart]

Dear RD,

Your fear-conditioned non sense is nothing rational about the dual-purposes of nanoparticles; I suspect cognitive dissonance is once again impairing your judgment to disprove the scientific evidences that nanotechnology is controversial and exploited for military purposes.

[chiralSPO]

If I were to worry about military uses of nanotechnology, it would probably be:

-as a delivery mechanism for toxic agents

-as toxic agents themselves

-as a way to propel missiles or generate explosive nanoparticle-air mixtures that could put the moab to shame.
https: //www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9H50tHiHjs
The increased surface area can allow much faster reaction with the air, and very small particles of metals like aluminum or magnesium are also more reactive than bulk metals which are stabilized by the crystal lattice which cannot form well in such small particles.

-as catalysts for all sorts of chemical reactions

-as super-hydrophobic coatings allowing ships and torpedoes to glide through the water with significantly reduced drag

-as super-hydrophilic coatings allowing soldiers to grab water from the desert air

-as components of  powerful computers

etc.
etc.

[Ophiolite]

RD's only fear appears to be the quite reasonable one that his brain may implode from the strain of reading nonsense from fellow forum members.

[chiralSPO]

As to why nanotechnology is controversial:

I think a large part of it is that people are typically more scared of those things they cannot see than those that they can see. Nanoparticles were also only very recently discovered, so there is also a lot unknown about their toxicity or other properties, but what we do know about them is that they can have amazing properties compared to what is observed in bulk materials. So, triple whammy: invisible, mysterious, and powerful!

[smart]

I guess ignorance of how the militarization of science is being promoted is a form of cognitive infiltration to disinform readers about the dual-purpose of nanotechnology. I wish a pragmatic discussion on the state of nanotechnology to share and expand knowledge about the risks of such technology, rather than a dogmatic
thread to dissuade further discussion about the controversy of using nanoparticles for military applications.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901113002748

[chiralSPO]

I guess ignorance of how the militarization of science is being promoted is a form of cognitive infiltration to disinform readers about the dual-purpose of nanotechnology. I wish a pragmatic discussion on the state of nanotechnology to share and expand knowledge about the risks of such technology, rather than a dogmatic
thread to dissuade further discussion about the controversy of using nanoparticles for military applications.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901113002748

This is a cool paper, but I don't see how it supports any of your claims. It addresses poor policy decisions as a consequence of systematic misinterpretation data by experts who are ignorant of important information that would implicate a different context than the one the experts are using to evaluate the risks associated with their policy decisions.

The paper is written with a lot of jargon that would not be understood by most people (even experts in somewhat related fields). What is it that you think they meant?

[smart]

This is a cool paper, but I don't see how it supports any of your claims. It addresses poor policy decisions as a consequence of systematic misinterpretation data by experts who are ignorant of important information that would implicate a different context than the one the experts are using to evaluate the risks associated with their policy decisions.

The paper is written with a lot of jargon that would not be understood by most people (even experts in somewhat related fields). What is it that you think they meant?

Scientific ignorance about new technologies like nanotechnology can open the door to dogmatism. The controversy of nanotechnology may be explained by the lack of information on the dual-purpose of such technology. Thus, in the context of scientific communication, the deliberate ignorance of nanoparticles might serve as a tool to promote its usage in military applications.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology_of_scientific_ignorance#Ignorance_in_scientific_research

[dlorde]

...Engineered nanoparticles for solar geoengineering could be in theory a novel method to control brain activity by modification of the albedo which reflects sunlight.

I'm familiar with optogenetics, but can you explain how changing the sunlight albedo (of what?) could control brain activity?

[smart]

I'm familiar with optogenetics, but can you explain how changing the sunlight albedo (of what?) could control brain activity?

By artificially modifying the planetary albedo, I presume solar geoengineering exert a negative regulation of endorphins levels. Serotonergic and monoaminergic neurotransmission may also be modulated by lowering sun exposure. Thus, mood and behavior may be controlled by light-dependent brain activity.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12480364

   

[RD]

By artificially modifying the planetary albedo ... lowering sun exposure. Thus, mood and behavior may be controlled by light-dependent brain activity. 

If the level of light reaching surface of the earth was reduced sufficiently to cause widespread SAD , the population would have more serious problems than SAD to contend with, e.g. starvation, in what would be perpetual winter.  How will "they" survive the snowball-earth "they" have created ? .

If the Machiavellian-plan to control / destroy the populus would predictably destroy the people who initiated & executed it , should be a clue to you that that persecutory hypothesis is a non-starter.

[evan_au]

Thus, mood and behavior may be controlled by light-dependent brain activity.

You should get out more.

[smart]

Dear evan_au,

While I respect your views, I believe you misinterpreted me with this out of context quote. Thus i wonder if you are being deliberately ignorant or just poorly informed about how solar geoengineering may affect brain activity through the use of nanoparticles to control the climate. In either case, you are validating my hypothesis that nanotechnology is controversial and that deliberate ignorance is a method to promote dogmatism through scientific communication.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_quoting_out_of_context 

[dlorde]

Thus, mood and behavior may be controlled by light-dependent brain activity.

You should get out more.

Lol!

[dlorde]

I'm familiar with optogenetics, but can you explain how changing the sunlight albedo (of what?) could control brain activity?

By artificially modifying the planetary albedo, I presume solar geoengineering exert a negative regulation of endorphins levels. Serotonergic and monoaminergic neurotransmission may also be modulated by lowering sun exposure. Thus, mood and behavior may be controlled by light-dependent brain activity.   

Some people might find it problematic, but what has any of that to do with optogenetics?