READING	NAME	AGENDA ITEM
Dance of molecules ch 5: Protect	Grant Boucher	The idea that researchers are producing new materials without testing toxicity is ridiculous. Regulations should be developed outlining questions that need to be answered before a new material goes to market.
	Sarah Petzold	I was glad to see that the author actually discussed possible toxicity and environmental problems with the zeolites. It's nice to know what they can do to make things environmentally better, and protect the environment, however there are many problems that can occur.
	Charlie Senness	Why have I never heard of Zeolites? With how effective the author says they are, I don't know why we have such a problem with green house gases, especially with car: "They destroy 97% of hydrocarbons, 96% of carbon monoxide, and 90% nitrous oxides produced by car engines" and "used to remove 99% of ozone-forming, smog-causing nitrogen oxides from the emissions coming form natural-gas and diesel-burning electrical plants."
	Daniel Schaffer	In response to Charlie's comment, I suppose this either means the remaining 3, 4, 10, and 1 percent of all the emissions listed are still so great as to pose a threat, or more likely that these particular zeolite cats are not in production yet. This webpage (http://www.maxis.communities.com.my/sites/cyec/index.cfm?h=page&a=zeoinfo) dated from 2004 seems to imply that the precious metals, platinum, palladium, and rhodium are currently used as catalysts and they are expensive, so a zeolite solution is optimal, but was not in effect as of 2004. I think the Sarge is probably trying to combine several best case scenarios into a perfect one.
	Grant Kovach	As Sargent talked about Zeolites and how they are able to filter out one desired molecule I kept thinking back to Drexlers nano-assembler and its "tip". Could this technology be used as the tip? Is it possible to manufacture zeolites to "grab" individual molecules out of the air and assemble nano-particles with them?
	Ishan Gaur	In the end of the chapter the author asks a question I would like to ask the classroom, "Should we deal with possible nanoparticle toxicity be different from the ways we deal with toxic substances in general?"
Monika Kurath and Sabine Maasen “Toxicology as a nanoscience? – Disciplinary identities reconsidered.” Part Fibre Toxicol. 2006; 3: 6. April 28. http://www.particleandfibretoxicology.com/content/3/1/6	Jim McKenna	"Most insights into the potential health effects of particles on the nano-scale level have resulted from toxicological approaches" "The transport of nano-scale particles through the lung into the blood was also observed. In addition, the particles were found deposited in the body and to have even overcome the blood-brain barrier. In fact, nano-scale particles were found in all organs of the body" It seems aparent from this article that it is essential that the field of toxicology parteners up with the growing field of nanotechnology to ensure our safety considering there isn't currently a lot of research in the nano field regarding health issues. Comments?
	Christine O'Rourke	"as German toxicologists argues: "If you work in toxicology, you only have negative results." [...](Toxicologist II, German research center) "My highest goal would be to get a safety study published in Nature. That is the problem, we can only publish negative effects. When we find positive, or rather no, effects, we cannot publish them. When we discuss that a particular substance is not toxic, this is fine for society but bad for us as scientists, since we measure research quality based on output......." Since there is so much unknown about nanotechnology and since some people are afraid of what nanotechnology can be would it maybe be more beneficial for the field if the positive studies about toxicology and nanotechnology are published along with the bad ones?
	Mike Pennisi	"...these groups are methodologically, textually and technically working closely together with toxicology and in close exchange with toxicological working groups. They distinguish themselves from toxicology... Nevertheless, they produce knowledge comparable to that produced by toxicological working groups." The title "nanotechnology" has many positive connotations regarding progress and potential. As has been discussed previously, these connotations lead many researchers to adopt the title in order to attract investors. Is the centuries-old field of toxicology threatened by this trend?
	Alex Lamparski	As demonstrated by the different viewpoints given by the countries mentioned in the article, it is apparent that different parts of the world have historically approached science differently. As the negative effects of new technologies become a global threat is it important to have global standards of application and approach of these new technologies? If so, will innovation be limited or will nations gain/lose power based on whose methods become the global standards? If not, will the negative consequences of new technologies have more impact on the world and will the consequences be more numerous?
	Andrew Krushelnyski	I have to completely agree with alex in the idea of whether these new technologies are being produced and researched for the good of the world or the good of the "northern" countries. Throughout the article countries such as Germany, Holland, Switzerland, Canada, as well as the US were mentioned but as for what these leading reaserchers were researching and for whom their focus of research is for is a slightly different story. Although this will prolly limit the discussion since alex's idea is on the same topic, I really do feel as though this may be a legitamite step in a greater seperation of people from different countries technology and social advancement.


Sean Swezey and Daniel Faber: "Disarticulated Accumulation, Agroexport, and the Ecological Crisis in Nicaragua: the case of cotton." Capitalism, Nature, Socialism, No.1, (October): 47-68, 1988.	Molly Danskin	Page 53-54 “Not unlike a dealer pushing heroin to strung-out addicts in need of “more” and “better” drugs to get the same high, chemical companies push dependency-creating capitalist technologies which threaten the health and well-being of both cotton growers and wage labor.” While the analogy of insecticide companies to drug dealers is clear, I am unsure of the phrase “capitalist technologies.” The remainder of the sentence seems to indicate that capitalist technologies work in disregard of human elements such as the health of employed labor forces. How are Statist technologies different? Presumably, a Statist technology could protect or undermine human elements depending on the preferences of the regime in question?
	James Johnston absent	The “success” of the IPM program showed that social fixes with a minimalist techno-solution approach could be function successfully with benefits in economics, ecology/safety, and efficiency. Some of the issues that nanotechnology can solve now, could be solved through social fixes so why does a major of society feel that techno-fixes are an ultimate step.



Schwarz, A.E.: 2004, ‘Shrinking the ‘Ecological Footprint’ with NanoTechnoScience?’, in: D. Baird, A. Nordmann & J. Schummer (eds.), Discovering the Nanoscale, Amsterdam: IOS Press, pp. 203-208 http://www.ifs.tu-darmstadt.de/fileadmin/phil/nano/schwarz.pdf	Rachel Ferebee	"Industry might see nanotechnology just as a means to “medicate” environmental problems, rather than confront the underlying problems that are over-consumption and waste..." Nanotechnology has been hyped as a tremendous means to solve all problems. However, this quote shows that when it intersects sustainability, nanotechnology is treating the disease and not the source of the issue. Therefore, a multi-pronged approach must be advocated to society with an emphasis that we cannot just wait for nanotechnology to solve all the world's problems.
	Galen Frechette	"I think it is most important to develop a richer set of positive visions regarding the proper human relationship to nature." Everyone may have their own, and equally valid, opinions regarding this relationship, but since Schwarz believes it to be most important, what is the "proper" human relationship to nature?
	Andrew Starr	"There seems to be little hope for the ability of the concept of sustainability to struc- ture nanodiscourse. At most it could serve as a sort of information campaign or boundary concept that allows the debate of issues like growth and environment. As such, it could provoke us to reassess our notions of quality of life and environment and eventually to help us place the debate in a more political and less ethical or economical context. " Should it be?
	Heather Lautman	"Environmentalists object to the general claim of nanoproduction requiring less material and polluting less." "The inconsistencies in the nanodebate concerning the meaning of sustainability are surfacing in the confrontation of different social and political groups." If we can not find truth, or one right answer can't people be satisfied with exploring until an actual answer is found instead of ruling out.
	Joyce Chow	Should we invest more time and money researching new technologies (i.e. nano) to "medicate" environmental problems, or changing our overall societal habits (i.e. over-consumption and waste) to reduce our ecological footprint?
	Tracy Breslin	"By 2005, Atomtech will attract more interest than biotech. By 2010, Atomtechnologies will be the determining factor to profitability in virtually every sector of industrial economies. By 2015, the controllers of Atomtech will be the ruling force in the world economy." 2010 is two years away, does the class agree that atomtechnolgies will effect the economy as Schwarz says in the next 2-7 years?
	Andrew Nelson	"we could unleash ‘sky bots’ that would consume dust particles as feedstock and self-replicate into the trillions.” To me this seems like it would result in the ultimate fear with nanotechnology. The "grey goo" would just be flying around in the air "eating" dust which to me seems to be all around the atmosphere. Also, how might it change local weather to have a cloud of nanobots? Could this cloud be big enough or dark enough to kill local crops?
	Matt Naples	Nano and Sustainability are both under-defined, buzz words in today's society. If nano is presented in a way to the public, that is convincing and widespread, as a way to solve out ecological problems would people start putting funding towards it without thinking about the long terms effects or proper testing. If this is the case, who would lead this movement? If it is lead by private establishments, would the above statement become true because its a way to make money much faster? If private establishments are funding this type of movement, how can it be stopped, altered, or somehow cause funding to go into the aspects of nano-tech to make it safe.
	Jason Bernardo	In talking about ecological footprint, could we see a carbon tax or an environmental tax of some sort in the near future if nanotech is used in this area? Should we have to pay for something like this and is it even really necessary or beneficial to use nanotech in all of the areas mentioned?
	Andrew Cunningham	(p206) "Greenpeace report published in July 2003, only a small part of the world population will benefit from the nano-world (predicted are 8.6% by 2025) – and they are the least likely to suffer the effects of the overpopulation problem." (p208) "Those who participate in the nano revolution stand to become very wealthy. Those who do not may find it increasingly difficult to afford the technological wonders that it engenders." What if this 8.6% decides that they don't want overcrowding of the planet and decide to use their wealth and power to eliminate lots of the population to keep living in their "perfect" world?