Report on the potential risks of nanotechnology in electronics needs a second draft-IEEE Spectrum

I met both hopeless and blinded ideologists cheerleaders on both sides of the debate on nanotechnology and toxicity, and in my experience is that environmentalists are just inaccessible.Like the Pavlovian dogs, who see the term "nanotechnology" and bark back "What about the environment?". They don't really distinguish between nanoparticles and microscopy tools, no matter delineate between the large quantities of nanoparticles. Just know that nanotechnology is untested and being imposed on them as evil by some unsuspecting consumers.At least with the nanotech cheerleaders can temper their enthusiasm if they explain the situation a bit. After all that greed has as his fear close relative, but relatives of ideology is ignorance. There is little you can do to overcome that, certainly not helping the strength of argument.In observing this debate covering the issue, I have not come across any organization that has brought the worst thought on the subject than the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition (SVTC).So glaring is their thought into these things that I'm torn between believing that must be a deliberate misrepresentation of issues or simply do not know or understand them. The ultimate insult to our collective intelligence is their white paper entitled "Nanotechnology: the risk to human health".Let's take a look at this. It starts with a definition of nanotechnology in the first sentence which is not bad as go these definitions. But in the next sentence manages to confuse the concept of molecular nanotechnology with the variety of nanomaterials that are no doubt railing against. This is just an introduction to the thought that there are further confused.For example, on the second page we have provided a glossary. At the top of the list, I guess because the list is in alphabetical order, are "brominated flame retardants (BFRs). Okay, but why? What does this have to with nanotechnology and nanoparticles? In fact, if anything, demonstrates why we should hardly be worried for nanoparticles in electronic when 2.5 million tons of BFRS are used each year in polymers.After presenting BFRS and explaining that have proven to be harmful to humans and the environment, health, we are given "engineered nanoparrticles" in the glossary. A definition a bit easy comes "ENPs are so small that it can be seen with a regular optical microscope", but no harmful effects are attributed to them, except, of course, which is listed under BFR. guilt by Association? I'm starting to lean towards deliberate misrepresentation.On the same page, we get the question: "how small is small?" (These Pieces poorly informed as they spend a lot of time which provides definitions, no doubt due to the author's need for them). And for the first time, we get the term which is supposed to connote the evil empire: Nanotechnology industry. I challenge anyone, including environmentalists wrong, tell me what industry of nanotechnology is, or ought to be.Of course, having a monolithic nanotechnology industry planning to do give us for profit is much more satisfying and can produce funny banners that say things like this: "Nano, not green, is the totalitarian". Next report Sigh. SVTC we get requests because nanoparticles are important and why he used in the field of electronics. The answers are more or less accurate, but it is not clear why the use of nano ferric oxide in Lithium Rechargeable batteries is presented so ominously when explains that they can replace conventional batteries in laptops and cell phones.Are traditional drums, as they are filled with all sorts of toxic materials, each less than a threat? Or maybe the SVTC wants to eliminate the laptops and cell phones all together? I ask because when he recently suggested that nanotech research may eliminate the need for batteries in mobile phones, I was met with a Pavlovian response: what about the environment?Just as a note for the SVTC next time that you put one of these together you should know that a majority of Li-ion batteries today already uses nanofibers.Finally, the fifth page, you get an answer to the question: how is nanotechnology used in electronics? And who is their source for an answer to this question: The Project on Emerging Technology (PET). Now I feel almost sorry for the SVTC, bad bad data data out.Since the list of PET offers little explanation of them, so to speak, unless nanotech strict list of products, SVTC has no specific examples of how nanotechnology is used in both. Just tell us that it is found in almost every form of consumer electronics. We can say that, but it can show it?Just to add insult to injury presenting electronic "molecular". Really? Once again, this is just poorly informed. Why add molecular electronics to your list of boogey men, unless you had no idea how to really fit in the universe of nanotechnology and electronics. I am leaning back towards not knowing or understanding.Look, I'm in favor of more rigorous research to determine the risks of nanoparticles in electronics and a host of other applications and products. But if I can take the call at the end of this report and turn around it a bit: be an environmentalist.

Posted in nanotechnology

Related Articles