Nanotechnology and pollution

Discussion of methods of remediation and control air quality.
User avatar
pinch
I discovered econologic
I discovered econologic
posts: 4
Registration: 22/06/06, 17:28

fully agree




by pinch » 23/06/06, 12:04

but it’s not a reason to say anything on the pretext that it scares us. It is important to learn about the subject before criticizing (a purely French particular in passing). This is where a debate on nanotechnologies would be welcome ...
0 x
A tree that falls makes more noise than a forest that falls ...
Targol
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1897
Registration: 04/05/06, 16:49
Location: Bordeaux region
x 2

Re: sympathetic the viewpoint of a detractor




by Targol » 23/06/06, 13:26

Pinch wrote:I see that we do not have the same vision of things on the subject.
I am glad, would still have these foundations are based on facts, not unfounded speculation.
I commend not question your analysis on CO2 but the report that is made with nano.
This is often the case when we do not differentiate between as possible / likely / desirable.
Concerning nanotechnologies, the amalgam is often too quickly made without taking into account the current aspects of the subject.
Lack of knowledge of the subject probably ...

I guess this answer followed my post. If not, thank you in advance for your apologies.

Lack of knowledge of the subject probably ...

Of course I lack knowledge on the subject. Considering the stammering state of these technologies, I think that this is the case of the whole world apart from the small thousand of people who work directly on the subject.

This is often the case when we do not differentiate between as possible / likely / desirable.
Concerning nanotechnologies, the amalgam is often too quickly made without taking into account the current aspects of the subject.

Nevertheless, a forum is made for that: send opinions, receive answers, possibly, change your mind if you are put in front of objective and constructed arguments ... And, I must admit, that's a bit what I missing in your answer: it is too vague and general to make me change my mind.
What would have helped me to understand your point of view, it would have been (past superposed: it tears :P ) that you take one by one the points that I evoke by providing an answer ...
0 x
"Anyone who believes that exponential growth can continue indefinitely in a finite world is a fool, or an economist." KEBoulding
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79117
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10973

Re: well agree




by Christophe » 23/06/06, 13:31

Pinch wrote:but it’s not a reason to say anything on the pretext that it scares us. It is important to learn about the subject before criticizing (a purely French particular in passing). This is where a debate on nanotechnologies would be welcome ...


I agree but, for example, with GMOs and renewable energies it's the same thing ... but what do you want to do about it? It is "natural" behavior in men to fear change .... in addition, "average French" is well known for being a born retarder !! (I am a very good example I think : Cheesy: ). For the debate it's when you want but I think that you will be the only one to bring water there (personally my knowledge is limited to reading some S&V or Sciences et Avenir ... that is to say my level! )
0 x
Targol
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1897
Registration: 04/05/06, 16:49
Location: Bordeaux region
x 2

Re: well agree




by Targol » 23/06/06, 13:50

Pinch wrote:but it’s no reason to say anything on the pretext that it scares us


I want to clarify (always if this post was intended for me) that I do not "tell" anything, I ask questions. (see my post: all the points mentioned end with "?").

Pinch wrote:It is important to learn about the subject before criticizing (a purely French particular in passing). This is where a debate on nanotechnologies would be welcome ...


Indeed, this is why I do not assert anything, I wait for someone (perhaps a foreigner if the French only know how to criticize : Wink:) answers my questions rather than criticize the process which consists in questioning a subject and its implications rather than having a process "it is scientific therefore it is good".

Asbestos, DDT, were also considered to be the top of the scientific top when they appeared. The future has shown that not all of the consequences have been measured. This is how we must take the questions I ask myself: as an application of the precautionary principle.
Principle of precaution which, nowadays is sometimes put aside by the ambiguous relations which science and business can maintain: When one has invested long years (and many pepettes) in research and development on a subject, one naturally wants to reap the benefits even if the dissemination of the product does more good to the investor's portfolio than to the planet or its inhabitants ...
0 x
"Anyone who believes that exponential growth can continue indefinitely in a finite world is a fool, or an economist." KEBoulding
Targol
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1897
Registration: 04/05/06, 16:49
Location: Bordeaux region
x 2

Re: sympathetic the viewpoint of a detractor




by Targol » 27/06/06, 17:49

Pinch wrote:I see that we do not have the same vision of things on the subject.
I am glad, would still have these foundations are based on facts, not unfounded speculation.
I commend not question your analysis on CO2 but the report that is made with nano.
This is often the case when we do not differentiate between as possible / likely / desirable.
Concerning nanotechnologies, the amalgam is often too quickly made without taking into account the current aspects of the subject.
Lack of knowledge of the subject probably ...


Here is an answer to all of these remarks. And it is not me who gives it, it is the express site (which we will not be able, I think, to call "slowness" : Wink:)
express wrote:It is the first nano-scandal. The world's first health alert involving the complex universe of nanotechnologies: launched in Germany with great publicity, the Magic Nano household bathroom cleaner was to revolutionize the lives of housewives by projecting an invisible film capable of repelling the dirt and bacteria. The ace! This miracle product was hastily withdrawn from stores, after triggering respiratory distress phenomena in 97 consumers. And this in just three days. Several of them were even hospitalized for pulmonary edema (accumulation of fluid in the lungs).

Until now, the risks associated with nanotechnologies have been purely theoretical. Many experiments are underway in laboratories to try to determine whether these particles, which are measured at the nanometer scale (one billionth of a meter), can endanger the health of citizens. Their small size makes them likely to penetrate deep into the lungs or to cross the skin barrier. But no one today knows how to measure the consequences.

Do the poisonings observed in Germany constitute the proof awaited by the "anti-nano" activists, particularly active in North America? Not so fast. Experts gathered on April 7 by the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BFR) in Berlin, refused to comment. For a simple reason: they could not obtain from the manufacturer Kleinmann either the detailed composition of the aerosol or the exact size of the suspected particles! The investigation therefore continues. Meanwhile, anti-wrinkle creams and sunscreens based on nanoparticles continue to be sold all over the world, including in France ... without causing any particular fear.


For the original article, follow the link: http://www.lexpress.fr/info/sciences/do ... ossier.asp
0 x
"Anyone who believes that exponential growth can continue indefinitely in a finite world is a fool, or an economist." KEBoulding
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963




by Ahmed » 03/09/14, 19:48

I think it makes sense to unearth this thread, given the increasing investment, research and use of these new materials.
Naturally, the title of the subject is far too restrictive compared to all the possible forms in which these nanomaterials appear.

It appears today that the only sector likely to absorb a substantial part of the huge financial mass seeking profitable areas where to invest is that of nanotechnologies.

Indeed, the perspectives of matter in this particular form completely changes the behavior and properties of the materials we know.

On the other hand, the fields of application are very numerous and include the military field (which is the engine of any industry, and it is not fortuitous) which makes that the appetites are as great as the dangers which ensue from it. : if it is profitable, we will not be choosy and risk spoiling everything by finicky controls.
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963




by Ahmed » 07/09/14, 08:35

Certainly, as I said above, the organic composition (or capital intensity *) of these companies is very high (especially if we consider the whole) and the capital absorption is therefore important, but is this going to constitute the lifeline of the economic system?

At first glance, it appears that these highly technical activities require very little staff: they only mobilize very little living work.
Furthermore, although being deployed in entirely new sectors, the products which result from it tend to replace all or part of existing products: here it is indeed a question of creative destruction in the strict sense.
This means that widespread use of nanotechnology would drastically reduce employment in many sectors.

The value produced under these conditions could only result from an annuity effect, which does not offend logic, due to the very specific nature of these applications (which lend themselves very well to patenting).
However, this model is confronted with a major contradiction: if it is not able to generate value, but only to appropriate it, how could it prosper (and at the same time postpone the collapse of the economy )?
Because, for an annuity system to work, it is necessary that the credit-annuitant can find, opposite him, a debit-annuitant ...

We therefore see that the general contradiction has not been resolved at all and that the development of these industries will not have the same effect as that, in their time, of the automobile or consumer goods which had succeeded in temporarily postponing the crisis.

* "Organic composition" is the Marxist expression to which corresponds that of "capitalistic intensity" according to neoclassical terminology.
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749




by sen-no-sen » 07/09/14, 11:51

Ahmed wrote:
At first glance, it appears that these highly technical activities require very little staff: they only mobilize very little living work.


Indeed and that is the goal (not to confess).

Furthermore, although being deployed in entirely new sectors, the products which result from it tend to replace all or part of existing products: here it is indeed a question of creative destruction in the strict sense.


"Creative destruction" is the correct term, it is nothing more or less than the application of natural selection on the scale of technologies.
The sectors less suited to the whole will be removed from the equation in favor of the most innovative, who will see their "technological niches" grow ...


However, this model is confronted with a major contradiction: if it is not able to generate value, but only to appropriate it, how could it prosper (and at the same time postpone the collapse of the economy )?


Only if you consider the economy in its current form.
The contemporary economy has flourished through a multitude of empires ruled by an oligarchy deriving its rent from the widespread sale of consumer product to the underlying classes.
Depending on national management policies, the fruit of this "wealth" was more or less well distributed, giving rise to the tender hope defended by some of an egalitarianism stemming from responsible capitalism!
The problem is (in my humble point of view!) That the so-called political should be named by the term which best covers their reality: growth algorithms
The best takes precedence over the others ...

the finality of the process leading to a slow and progressive replacement (confirmed since 1850) of the living system by a “new being” taking its place.
If we consider the gigantic possibilities that arise from its technologies, it appears that the system will simply no longer need "rentier debit", because this one, once in place will then be a technical copy of what already exists. in nature ... and nature does not need credit / debit, or at least not in its terms ...
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963




by Ahmed » 07/09/14, 18:49

Only if you consider the economy in its current form.

Yes, of course, it is within this framework that I place this reflection.

The best takes precedence over the others ...

At least, here, according to the criterion of growth! The "best" can also be the worst, seen from other aspects.

I always find it very difficult to conceptualize the transition from the current system to a very different one. Of course, there is a deep continuity between the two in terms of the progressive artificialisation of living things, but * quid of the motor? How to move from Value to another goal that is so inclusive?

Obviously, we are talking about hypothetical things, in the sense that they are discernible as trends, but nothing proves that their potentials can be expressed ...

*Quid?: what about?
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749




by sen-no-sen » 07/09/14, 19:42

Ahmed wrote:
Only if you consider the economy in its current form.

Yes, of course, it is within this framework that I place this reflection.


It is perhaps from there that the difficulty of imagining "the after" arose.
How would it have been possible to credibly explain to a 19th century farmer the EU's CAP (common agricultural policy)?
Automatic farms? hypermarkets?
It would have been imaginable, certainly, but worthy of a science fiction novel (of the time)!


At least, here, according to the criterion of growth! The "best" can also be the worst, seen from other aspects.


Obviously this expression is empty of any feelings, the term "dominant" is little to be less ambiguous ...

I always find it very difficult to conceptualize the transition from the current system to a very different one. Of course, there is a deep continuity between the two in terms of the progressive artificialisation of the living, but what about the engine? How to go from Value to another equally encompassing purpose?


Value holds its place due to the fact that it is manipulated by human beings endowed with innate tendencies which can through it, express their desires for gratifications or domination.
If the human is removed from the equation, or at least if it tends to become dehumanized, it is not impossible that the symbolism of value loses its splendor.
As Colin Campbell (founder of ASPO) said:"the end of the stone age did not come because of the lack of stones"
New paradigms often appear in completely unpredictable ways, effectively sweeping away old prerogatives ...


Obviously, we are talking about hypothetical things, in the sense that they are discernible as trends, but nothing proves that their potentials can be expressed ...


Yes they are hypothetical, but these are not vain speculations, because it is now the whole of the economic and political sphere which play a role ...

I sincerely hope that the end of the techno-scientist process will fail.
The problem is that I don't know how ...
How to stop "progress"?
Even if this finality is rejected, sooner or later (50/150 years to come) discoveries without common measure radically changing the human paradigm ... it would then be more realistic to speak of research orientation than blockages.
It is moreover the same for "nanotech" as for GMOs ... if it is not us who develop them, others will do it for us!

We can obviously imagine a world where we would benefit from the must of technology at the service of a virtuous world within a preserved environment ... unfortunately, after a certain stage, it becomes clear that the feedback of the technician system with human society can no longer be put under the carpet!

The only effective means is obviously the establishment of a policy focused on degrowth, thus aiming to minimize the role of the economic sector and allowing humans to regain control of their future ... there is path!
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Air Pollution and solutions against air pollution"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 51 guests