Irresponsiblility and scientists

[IntelUser2000]

The tech world has been drooling over a revolutionary new material called a Carbon Nanotube(CNT for short) for use in all types of applications. Think of using it on new computer chips. Frames on aircraft lighter and stronger than before. Batteries with many times the energy storage of current ones.

But some lesser known research has been done on CNTs, and that's regarding health risks. Some have indicated the properties of CNTs make it similar to Asbetos when it comes to health. Since Asbetos has been banned for many years due to its impact on the respiratory health on human beings, its a serious claim. Perhaps CNTs are really not a wonder material as claimed.

Whether or not Carbon Nanotubes or other similar nanotechnologies have real adverse effects on health to living beings are still not clear. What's clear is that over past centuries of technological advancement, things have been done without much regard for the long-term consequences.

Faster computers and being able to use your smartphone for longer before recharging is good. If it comes at a sacrifice of something much more important(like health), then its not. In the early 20th century, we were putting Radium(a radioactive material) into our cosmetics, kids toys, and even into chocolate! While many regulations are put into place and prior research is done to ensure such things do not happen nowadays, still more work is to be done.

Sometimes, after being around computers so much, we start to treat the world itself as software. Programming comes with bugs that can't be identified, so after release it has to be patched over and over again to fix those bugs. We shouldn't leave the world to the people that pursue short term profitability and technological advancement at the cost of everything else.

 

[whm1974]

Yes more research needs to be done. But however sometimes issues don't come to light until the technology is in widespread use. After there is only so much testing a group can do on their own, and the World is a much bigger laboratory.

 

[nakedfrog]

Are there many applications for carbon nanotubes where they're likely to end up as airborne particles? I'd tend to think not, they're a bit on the pricey side to use as insulation, siding, floor tiles, or brake pads...

 

[mindless1]

I'm pretty sure that if you snort your current phone battery that it won't turn out well.

 

[IntelUser2000]

Are there many applications for carbon nanotubes where they're likely to end up as airborne particles? I'd tend to think not, they're a bit on the pricey side to use as insulation, siding, floor tiles, or brake pads...

I'd think the problem may persist when the product is eventually discarded and ends up in landfills. The size of the material is small enough to penetrate cell lining, and the material is easily carried by the wind, I guess?

Of course its a whole another story when it ends up as being the frame for an airplane. Then any number of scratches will cause millions of these things to fly away.

 

[nakedfrog]

I'd think the problem may persist when the product is eventually discarded and ends up in landfills. The size of the material is small enough to penetrate cell lining, and the material is easily carried by the wind, I guess?

Of course its a whole another story when it ends up as being the frame for an airplane. Then any number of scratches will cause millions of these things to fly away.

I know we have a long way to go in this country, but batteries shouldn't be getting thrown away in regular trash either. We're more likely to have problems with our other e-waste before we start having CNT waste problems.

 

[IntelUser2000]

I know we have a long way to go in this country, but batteries shouldn't be getting thrown away in regular trash either. We're more likely to have problems with our other e-waste before we start having CNT waste problems.

That's true. Never said otherwise.

 

[renz20003]

Once we have nano medical bots it won't matter. We will have to worry about the grey death.

 

[mindless1]

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120412105109.htm

A group of researchers from Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) have successfully created a new method for producing carbon nanotubes. The new method is capable of reducing the price of carbon nanotubes from $100 - $700 US to just $15 to $35 US for each gram.

I don't think many CNTs are going to end up in landfills because for most apps they're cost prohibitive to use. The puzzling thing is that you're suggesting that scientists are irresponsible for discovering something? They are not forcing the world to USE their discoveries. Should science be withheld from the population just in case someone tries to do something environmentally bad with it? That seems contrary to a productive society, for example cars. I for one don't want to ride a horse to cut down on pollution that is already claimed to cause deaths. The quality of one's life can matter as much as the length of it.

 

[PowerEngineer]

We shouldn't leave the world to the people that pursue short term profitability and technological advancement at the cost of everything else.

It seems to me that it is the unwise/careless application of technological advancements (for short-term profitability or other forms of social/political gain) that is irresponsible (and if you want, all of us who tolerate a society with mores that allow it). IMHO the scientists that pursue knowledge and the engineers that find ways that knowledge can be applied are not uniquely culpable for what society ultimately decides to do with that knowledge.

 

[BD231]

Who tf left you to world choice's, damn m8

 

[IntelUser2000]

The puzzling thing is that you're suggesting that scientists are irresponsible for discovering something? They are not forcing the world to USE their discoveries. Should science be withheld from the population just in case someone tries to do something environmentally bad with it?

They cannot be separated. As I like to say, world is not a benchmark, where you can isolate variables to compare.

Also, commercially available technologies are always made within the confines of a corporation, or developed to profit from it. So broad usage will likely happen anyways, and consequences must be thought of before it is sold. I'm not saying it isn't considered and being completely reckless with it, but faced with the pressure of creating something new, and subsequently more money, it is done quicker than should be. Industry-wide research along with cooperation from various sectors(like government and doctors) has to be done.

That seems contrary to a productive society, for example cars.

No, I'm not advocating total abstinence from technology. Because it does sound like how you understood it. But there has to be limits. And if it might turn out to be hazardous, the limits has to be set on the use of the product.

If for example CNTs are found to cause serious respiratory problems as its exposed to the air, the companies developing them have to be monitored on the type of products they create and how much they want to proliferate it. When efficient blue LEDs were created, manufacturers plastered them into every electronics product to lower cost. We used have speakers, cases, mice, keyboard that used blue LEDs. At one point, it was a very commonly used color. This is what unregulated markets do. Blue LEDs are fine and quite harmless.

Same with why stratospheric rise in cryptocurrency prices have led to regulation. Why the US SEC had the comment about regulating ICOs for investor protection against scams. Often though, the regulation is not enough, and too slow. If it has direct and adverse impact, greater focus has to be given.

 

[Newbian]

Science can do no wrong...

 

[Red Squirrel]

Are they biodegradable? Like if they end up in the ocean will they degrade? Or does the molecular structure make it so nothing wants to react with it? Even if it's inside embedded systems we have to consider that those may break down over time, so it is a valid concern. We need to stop making shit that causes serious issues. Like microbeads, who the hell came up with that? Why not use something organic.

 

[Darwin333]

They cannot be separated. As I like to say, world is not a benchmark, where you can isolate variables to compare.

Also, commercially available technologies are always made within the confines of a corporation, or developed to profit from it. So broad usage will likely happen anyways, and consequences must be thought of before it is sold. I'm not saying it isn't considered and being completely reckless with it, but faced with the pressure of creating something new, and subsequently more money, it is done quicker than should be. Industry-wide research along with cooperation from various sectors(like government and doctors) has to be done.

You are talking about the cutting edge of science so who exactly is the government going to have on staff, or even be able to hire, to give them an unbiased opinion?

No, I'm not advocating total abstinence from technology. Because it does sound like how you understood it. But there has to be limits. And if it might turn out to be hazardous, the limits has to be set on the use of the product.

The VAST majority of scientific advancement isn't harmful to anyone but if your plan was in place would the Large Hadron Collider ever have been built? All of the talk with a minuscule scientific basis that it might somehow end the world if left to idiot politicians would have probably been enough to squash it. What if the politicians get the religious bug and start banning things like the James Webb Telescope because it might go against the biblical God or some shit? Do you really want those assholes involved in the scientific process?

If for example CNTs are found to cause serious respiratory problems as its exposed to the air, the companies developing them have to be monitored on the type of products they create and how much they want to proliferate it. When efficient blue LEDs were created, manufacturers plastered them into every electronics product to lower cost. We used have speakers, cases, mice, keyboard that used blue LEDs. At one point, it was a very commonly used color. This is what unregulated markets do. Blue LEDs are fine and quite harmless.

We actually already have agencies to deal with that. Perhaps they aren't doing the best job but you should be arguing to beef them up and expand their power not putting new limits on science itself.

Same with why stratospheric rise in cryptocurrency prices have led to regulation. Why the US SEC had the comment about regulating ICOs for investor protection against scams. Often though, the regulation is not enough, and too slow. If it has direct and adverse impact, greater focus has to be given.

Shrug, I could give two shits about Crypto, a fool and their money... If they fall within the purview of regulators great, if they pass new regulations to make them regulated great, if they don't I still don't care. No one with an ounce of sense thinks it's anything more than a pure speculatory bet.

 

[Skunk-Works]

I can just see the lawyer commercials now...

 

[mindless1]

The thing is, that it's short sighted to think that at the high cost of CNT, that we'd have enough of it lying around, and then enough of that free blowing in the wind, to constitute a breathing hazard.

 

[pmv]

Shrug, I could give two shits about Crypto, a fool and their money... If they fall within the purview of regulators great, if they pass new regulations to make them regulated great, if they don't I still don't care. No one with an ounce of sense thinks it's anything more than a pure speculatory bet.

The trouble with crytpo currency, as it currently exists, as I see it, is that it ends up using a lot of fossil fuel while not creating anything of value. It's purely speculation and at most it moves money around from one gambler to another, while along the way wasting a good amount of electric power. Don't know what can be done about it, mind, but it seems like an example of how irrational humans are, as a group. Not only are individuals often irrational, but even when they aren't, the combined effect of rational individual decisions ends up being sub-optimal.

In general I think we are too quick to assume human instrumental reason is a survival trait. We haven't been around very long at all, compared to many past species, I think there are signs that our unique capabilities are not necessarily beneficial in the long run. We don't seem very good at managing the world we have created or at co-ordinating ourselves in large groups.

I think the OP has some valid points (not just about the particular technology of nano-tubes, but about technology in general and how humans end up employing it), but I have no idea what the solution is. I don't think blaming 'scientists' alone is sufficient. Science is just one part of the problem of human behaviour.

(Good point about the Radium fad, as well - Lord, that was insane!)

 

[pmv]

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120412105109.htm


I don't think many CNTs are going to end up in landfills because for most apps they're cost prohibitive to use. The puzzling thing is that you're suggesting that scientists are irresponsible for discovering something? They are not forcing the world to USE their discoveries. Should science be withheld from the population just in case someone tries to do something environmentally bad with it? That seems contrary to a productive society, for example cars. I for one don't want to ride a horse to cut down on pollution that is already claimed to cause deaths. The quality of one's life can matter as much as the length of it.

The overuse of cars is a public-health disaster. There are so many negative externalities from car use that are not factored into the cost of motoring, that hence distort people's choices, leading people to drive far too much for the general good. The 'quality of one's life' isn't going to be properly measured if the accounting ignores much of the cost of something.

I mean it's nice of you to put the quality of _your_ life above other people's health, but that's not a priority others should be obliged to agree with.

 

[SKORPI0]

How about those radio waves, cellphone/ wi-fi signals, surrounding us now a days.. how harmful are they in the long run?

https://defendershield.com/wp-content/uploads/electromagnetic-spectrum-chart.jpg

 

[William Gaatjes]

The whole problem is that we put all efort in producing and almost no effort in recycling.
Some designer companies design products that are made of biodegradable materials.
That is good but not good when building a house or any other structure that needs to last.
Now it is common to use paint that is environmentally friendly but the other side of the coin is that we have to paint more often.
Especially for window or door frames.
And in the process we use more paint, so i am wondering if it is really that more environmentally friendly.

Leadfree solder and other rohs materials are only needed because we refuse to put more effort in proper recycling.
I have seen how old motherboards are shipped to some developing country where they are literally boiling the motherboards in huge cookpots to get all precious materials out of the components.
And the people doing so do this without any proper shielding , just a rag over their face.

C8 (PFOA) is now around the world everywhere, why because of no proper recycling and just dumping the material.

Landfills are cheap. But it is the wrong way.

We burn a lot of waste in incinerators, that would be a lot of hazardous materials ending up in the air if we did not have flue gas purification installations also called scrubbers.
We already recycle a lot and reduce a lot but i am sure if there was more effort put in getting the hazardous materials out of the filters from the flue gas purifiaction installation, that it would help a lot.

Asbestos is only dangerous when it starts releasing air born particles. Meaning breaking, cutting, sawing or drilling in the material.
With chips with locked in carbon nanotubes it is no issue.
However, when we start throwing them away and crushing those chips...

It is the same with glassfibers. Most printed circuit boards are made of glassfiber based material called FR4.

When you drill in to it, mill it or use a saw, you should use proper ventilation to prevent yourself from inhaling glass fiber particles.
It may not give you cancer when only inhaling glass fibers but it can cause other serious respitory illnesses.

 

[Paladin3]

We can't turn a blind eye to scientific advancement out of fear. Nor can we close our eyes to potential cost and hazard of new materials we might discover. I'm a simple man, so I have to rely on peer-reviewed scientific evidence from multiple, reasonable sources to decide these kinds of issues. I just don't want to sacrifice scientific advancement out of an unreasonable quest for absolute safety. I don't want our scientific community to be crippled by thinking similar to what lead to California's Prop 65. I don't want future battery technology to be limited to what is edible. I hear it takes forever for an ear of corn to recharge, and it's cell reception sucks.

 

[mindless1]

The overuse of cars is a public-health disaster. There are so many negative externalities from car use that are not factored into the cost of motoring, that hence distort people's choices, leading people to drive far too much for the general good. The 'quality of one's life' isn't going to be properly measured if the accounting ignores much of the cost of something.

I mean it's nice of you to put the quality of _your_ life above other people's health, but that's not a priority others should be obliged to agree with.

False, if someone values their health it is an aspect of their quality of life. If we want to extend your argument far enough, we all have to live in huts in the woods and farm or hunt-gather, in between making our own clothing, etc. If you wish to do this go ahead, the air is cleaner there.

You also won't be wasting power posting on the internet, won't need a computer or cell phone, none of the things that result in pollution.

 

[pmv]

False, if someone values their health it is an aspect of their quality of life. If we want to extend your argument far enough, we all have to live in huts in the woods and farm or hunt-gather, in between making our own clothing, etc. If you wish to do this go ahead, the air is cleaner there.

You also won't be wasting power posting on the internet, won't need a computer or cell phone, none of the things that result in pollution.

I can't make sense of your comment (and that 'false' makes you sound like the dweeby bloke in the US version of The Office, unless that's the joke?).

Tens of thousands die prematurely every year due to traffic pollution. Barely a month goes by without some new finding of the bad effects of particulate pollution from deisel in particular. Many of the roads in this city are polluted by traffic to the degree that it is unpleasant to walk on them. For some major streets the adverse effects of breathing in other people's traffic pollution outweight the benefits of exercise from walking on them.

My health is indeed an aspect of my quality of life. That's my point. Do you even know what 'externalities' are? Drivers aren't paying the cost of their driving, other people are. That's a form of subsidy, and as any good conservative will tell you, subsidies can lead to sub-optimal choices (e.g. driving a journey that could easily be walked or cycled - people drive trips of less than a mile!). I am tired of subsidising other people's driving.

(Also you don't pay for the space your oversized vehicles take up, especially when parked - why should you be allowed to store your private posessions on public land?)

 

[Darwin333]

The trouble with crytpo currency, as it currently exists, as I see it, is that it ends up using a lot of fossil fuel while not creating anything of value. It's purely speculation and at most it moves money around from one gambler to another, while along the way wasting a good amount of electric power. Don't know what can be done about it, mind, but it seems like an example of how irrational humans are, as a group. Not only are individuals often irrational, but even when they aren't, the combined effect of rational individual decisions ends up being sub-optimal.

In general I think we are too quick to assume human instrumental reason is a survival trait. We haven't been around very long at all, compared to many past species, I think there are signs that our unique capabilities are not necessarily beneficial in the long run. We don't seem very good at managing the world we have created or at co-ordinating ourselves in large groups.

I think the OP has some valid points (not just about the particular technology of nano-tubes, but about technology in general and how humans end up employing it), but I have no idea what the solution is. I don't think blaming 'scientists' alone is sufficient. Science is just one part of the problem of human behaviour.

(Good point about the Radium fad, as well - Lord, that was insane!)

I still think we should be encouraging science and isn't part of any problem, all of the problems listed so far have been caused by how corporations implemented it.