Ac version 3 Observation 1: sq 4

Nano Bad

1NC Laundry List

Nanotech solves multiple extinction scenarios- massive wars, economic collapse, self-replication, arms race, and environmental destruction

CRN 4 (Center for Responsible Nanotechnology, 4/19/04, “Disaster Scenarios”, http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2004/07/disaster_scenar.html //nz)

Determine which of the following scenarios are plausible, and if so, whether they are survivable or preventable. Subquestion A: Massive war? Preliminary answer: Highly plausible. A nano arms race appears almost inevitable, and would probably be unstable as discussed in the military capabilities study (#20). A nano-enabled war would probably be lethal to many civilians. As pointed out by Tom McCarthy, "Military planners will seek a target that is large enough to find and hit, and that cannot be easily replaced. The natural choice, given the circumstances, will be civilian populations." Both full-scale war and unconventional/terroristic war will target civilians, who will be nearly impossible to defend without major lifestyle changes. It would be easy to deploy enough antipersonnel weapons to make the earth unsurvivable by unprotected humans. Subquestion B: Economic meltdown? Preliminary answer: It's easy to imagine a nanofactory package that allows completely self-sufficient living, off grid and without money, while retaining modern first-world comfort levels. However, a modest amount of advertising would make this unattractive to most people. As discussed elsewhere, we can expect a large fraction of jobs in a wide range of areas related to manufacturing, extraction, and supply to disappear. This problem is already appearing with increased automation and efficiency, but could rapidly get worse. The factors that lead to economic meltdown also provide increased self-sufficiency, so it ought to be survivable in the absence of oppressive policy (maintaining artificial scarcity while removing sources of income). Secondary effects from social disruption may be problematic but ought to be survivable. Attempts to subsidize dead-end jobs will probably be harmful in the long run. Some amount of economic disruption should be expected. Social engineering to reduce the stigma of unemployment (why should unearned income be good for the rich and bad for the poor?) and policy to allow displaced workers to share in the benefits of the new technology will be helpful. Subquestion C: Runaway self-replication? Preliminary answer: Also known as the 'gray goo' scenario, this is perhaps the earliest and most famous concern related to molecular manufacturing. Contrary to early statements by Drexler, this could not happen accidentally; manufacturing systems, even early lab versions, will not remotely have the capability to become self-contained free-range self-replicators. However, the deliberate combination of a very small nanofactory, a very small chemical plant to convert organic chemicals into feedstock, and some robotics, could be a substantial nuisance or even threat. Eventually, the technology will develop to the point where it will be easy to make a device that requires active cleanup to avoid widespread environmental damage. The prevalence of computer viruses implies that creating such devices will be attractive to certain personality types, and eventually within their capability. So, although runaway self-replication is not a first-rank concern, eventually it will need to be studied, and some combination of prevention and cleanup capability probably will have to be implemented. In theory, this could pose an existential threat. Subquestion D: Dangerous software? Preliminary answer: An arms race (either military or corporate—in fact, conducted by any organization) could involve the development of increasingly capable AIs for the purpose of manipulating or coercing people. Note that this does not require full general intelligence. A variety of manipulative techniques (on either human psychology or other complex systems) can be imagined using only specialized data-processing. Some theorists believe that a self-improving AI could pose an existential threat: almost any command would cause unexpected and massively disruptive side effects. We do not know whether this is plausible. But nanotech development will certainly be an enabling technology for powerful AI, though we may face this problem even before nanotech is developed. Robert Freitas cites some of these concerns going back decades in Kinematic Self-Replicating Machines. Already, enough infrastructure is computer-controlled to make a cyberspace attack potentially very destructive. As more products become computer-integrated, a software attack could shut down, damage, or subvert increasingly crucial functions. The variety of possible impacts on human psychology, computer-integrated infrastructure, and other systems (e.g. the effect of computer trading on the stock market) implies that this whole area should be extensively and creatively studied. Subquestion E: Moral or social meltdown? Preliminary answer: The availability of new products and lifestyles may cause disruption in social fabric, especially in conservative societies that may actively resist change. This may inspire a backlash, possibly including force. It is likely to destroy some cultures. Broader effects are unknown. Subquestion F: Environmental devastation by overproduction? Preliminary answer: It would be easy to build enough nano-litter to cause serious pollution problems. Small nano-built devices in particular will be difficult to collect after use. It will also be easy to consume enough energy to change microclimate and even global climate. Overpopulation is probably not a concern, even in the event of extreme life/health extension. The more people use high technology, the fewer children they seem to have. Provisional conclusion: Several plausible disaster scenarios appear to pose existential threats to the human race.

Molecular Nanotech will lead to extinction – regulation is ineffective and defense mechanisms are hard to develop

Bostrum 2k2

Nick Professor – Department of Philosophy – Yale, “Existential Risks: Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios and Related Hazards” http://research.lifeboat.com/risks.htm

In a mature form, molecular nanotechnology will enable the construction of bacterium-scale self-replicating mechanical robots that can feed on dirt or other organic matter [22-25]. Such replicators could eat up the biosphere or destroy it by other means such as by poisoning it, burning it, or blocking out sunlight. A person of malicious intent in possession of this technology might cause the extinction of intelligent life on Earth by releasing such nanobots into the environment.[9] The technology to produce a destructive nanobot seems considerably easier to develop than the technology to create an effective defense against such an attack (a global nanotech immune system, an “active shield” [23]). It is therefore likely that there will be a period of vulnerability during which this technology must be prevented from coming into the wrong hands. Yet the technology could prove hard to regulate, since it doesn’t require rare radioactive isotopes or large, easily identifiable manufacturing plants, as does production of nuclear weapons [23].

Health/Enviro

Nanotech hurts the environment- long term damage to natural cycles, unanswered negative impacts

Kulinowski and Colvin 4 (Kristen M., Senior Faculty Fellow in Chemistry at Rice University, Vicki L., Kenneth S. Pitzer-Schlumberger Professor of Chemistry at Rice University, 4/8/04, “Environmental Implications of Engineered Nanomaterials”, http://www.nanolabweb.com/index.cfm/action/main.default.viewArticle/articleID/11/CFID/627091/CFTOKEN/33862493/index.html // nz)

The high level of enthusiasm for this burgeoning industry is tempered somewhat by a note of caution about its broader implications, particularly in the area of environmental impact. As nanotechnology development continues apace, it is prudent to consider the long-term environmental impacts of products containing nanomaterials during their entire lifecycle, from the point of manufacture to their eventual disposal. Yet little is known at present about how engineered nanomaterials will affect either natural systems such as soil or a river, or living systems such as people and wildlife. This lack of information leaves nanotechnology vulnerable to its critics, whose questions about potential negative impacts are left unanswered by the technical community. Many of these critics adhere strictly to the “precautionary principle,” which states that, for any activity that poses a possible threat to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if the threat is not fully established scientifically. This principle’s application to nanotechnology has resulted in calls by several groups for a moratorium on nanoparticle re-search until questions about its impacts are addressed and protocols for safe handling are developed.1 This uncertainty has also attracted the attention of policymakers and the media in the US and abroad.2 The UK Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering responded by launching a thorough study into whether nanotechnology will raise new health, safety, societal or environmental concerns.3 The US nanotech legislation calls for integration of research on societal, ethical, legal and environmental implications of nanotechnology into technical R&D and mandates a study on the “responsible development of nanotechnology,” including “self-replicating nanoscale machines or devices” and “the release of such machines in natural environments.”4 Whether the concerns are about near-term issues such as environmental contamination or far-term ones such as the creation of self-replicating nanomachines, public reaction to these fears could pressure government officials to implement new nanotechnology-specific regulations or even result in a focused campaign against products containing nanomaterials. Either outcome would alter the trajectory of nanotechnology development, which proceeds largely unimpeded at present.

Nanotech is bad for health, environmental, privacy, security reasons

The Nanoethics Group 8 (The Nanoethics Group, 2008, “The Bad,” http://ethics.calpoly.edu/nanoethics/bad.html,)
Health: Nanoparticles have been shown to be absorbed in the livers of research animals and even cause brain damage in fish exposed to them after just 48 hours. If they can be taken up by cells, then they can enter our food chain through bacteria and pose a health threat like mercury in fish, pesticides in vegetables or hormones in meat. The increasingly-popular carbon nanotube (20x stronger and lighter than steel) looks very much like an asbestos fiber – what happens if they get released into the air? Being carbon-based, they wouldn’t set off the usual alarms in our bodies, making them difficult to detect.¶ Environmental: If nanomaterials really are as strong as diamonds, how decomposable or persistent are they? Will they litter our environment further or present another disposal problem like nuclear waste or space litter? In the distant future, will self-replicating nanobots – necessary to create the trillions of nanoassemblers needed to build any kind of product – run amok, spreading as quickly as a virus, in the infamous “gray goo” scenario?¶ Privacy: As products shrink in size, eavesdropping devices too can become invisible to the naked eye and more mobile, making it easier to invade our privacy. Small enough to plant into our bodies, mind-controlling nanodevices may be able to affect our thoughts by manipulating brain-processes.¶ Terrorism: Capabilities of terrorists go hand in hand with military advances, so as weapons become more powerful and portable, these devices can also be turned against us. Nanotech may create new, unimaginable forms of torture – disassembling a person at the molecular level or worse. Radical groups could let loose nanodevices targeting to kill anyone with a certain skin color or even a specific person.

Weapons

Nanotech is bad – multiple reasons

Chen 2 (Andrew, Board Member at InterPlay, Founder of Kavalry Inc., IT and web development professional, March 2002, “The Ethics of Nanotechnology,” http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/submitted/chen/nanotechnology.html)
The flip side to these benefits is the possibility of assemblers and disassemblers being used to create weapons, be used as weapons themselves, or for them to run wild and wreak havoc. Other, less invasive, but equally perilous uses of nanotechnology would be in electronic surveillance.¶ Weapons¶ Miniature Weapons and Explosives¶ Disassemblers for Military Use¶ Rampant Nanomachines¶ The Gray Goo Scenario¶ Self Replicating Nanomachines¶ Surveillance¶ Monitoring¶ Tracking¶ Weapons are an obvious negative use of nanotechnology. Simply extending today's weapon capabilities by miniaturizing guns, explosives, and electronic components of missiles would be deadly enough. However, with nanotechnology, armies could also develop disassemblers to attack physical structures or even biological organism at the molecular level. A similar hazard would be if general purpose disassemblers got loose in the environment and started disassembling every molecule they encountered. This is known as "The Gray Goo Scenario." Furthermore, if nanomachines were created to be self replicating and there were a problem with their limiting mechanism, they would multiply endlessly like viruses. Even without considering the extreme disaster scenarios of nanotechnology, we can find plenty of potentially harmful uses for it. It could be used to erode our freedom and privacy; people could use molecular sized microphones, cameras, and homing beacons to monitor and track others.

Wars

Nanotech creates a massive war that makes the earth unsurvivable- lethal to civilians, terroristic conflict, and arms race

CRN 4 (Center for Responsible Nanotechnology, 4/19/04, “Disaster Scenarios”, http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2004/07/disaster_scenar.html //nz)

Subquestion A: Massive war?¶ Preliminary answer: Highly plausible. A nano arms race appears almost inevitable, and would probably be unstable as discussed in the military capabilities study (#20).¶ A nano-enabled war would probably be lethal to many civilians. As pointed out by Tom McCarthy, "Military planners will seek a target that is large enough to find and hit, and that cannot be easily replaced. The natural choice, given the circumstances, will be civilian populations." Both full-scale war and unconventional/terroristic war will target civilians, who will be nearly impossible to defend without major lifestyle changes. It would be easy to deploy enough antipersonnel weapons to make the earth unsurvivable by unprotected humans.

Economy

Nanotech starts an economic collapse- increased self-sufficiency, wide range of jobs will disappear

CRN 4 (Center for Responsible Nanotechnology, 4/19/04, “Disaster Scenarios”, http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2004/07/disaster_scenar.html //nz)

Subquestion B: Economic meltdown?¶ Preliminary answer: It's easy to imagine a nanofactory package that allows completely self-sufficient living, off grid and without money, while retaining modern first-world comfort levels. However, a modest amount of advertising would make this unattractive to most people.¶ As discussed elsewhere, we can expect a large fraction of jobs in a wide range of areas related to manufacturing, extraction, and supply to disappear. This problem is already appearing with increased automation and efficiency, but could rapidly get worse.¶ The factors that lead to economic meltdown also provide increased self-sufficiency, so it ought to be survivable in the absence of oppressive policy (maintaining artificial scarcity while removing sources of income). Secondary effects from social disruption may be problematic but ought to be survivable.¶ Attempts to subsidize dead-end jobs will probably be harmful in the long run. Some amount of economic disruption should be expected. Social engineering to reduce the stigma of unemployment (why should unearned income be good for the rich and bad for the poor?) and policy to allow displaced workers to share in the benefits of the new technology will be helpful.

Nanotechnology drastically decreases the amount of jobs – hurts the world economy

Treder 5 (Mike Treder, Executive Director of The Center for Responsible Nanotechnology professional writer, speaker, and activist with a background in technology and communications company management, 2005, “War, Interdependence, Nanotechnology,” http://www.futurebrief.com/miketrederwar002.asp)

We also must consider the potential negative impacts of advanced nanotechnology on our current socio-economic structure.¶ Low-cost local manufacturing and duplication of designs could lead to monetary upheaval, as major economic sectors contract or even collapse. For example, the global steel industry is worth over $700 billion. What will happen to the millions of jobs associated with that industry—and to the capital supporting it—when materials many times stronger than steel can be produced quickly and cheaply wherever (and whenever) they are needed?¶ Productive nanosystems could make storable solar power a realistic and preferable alternative to traditional energy sources. Around the world, individual energy consumers pay over $600 billion a year for utility bills and fuel supplies. Commercial and industrial uses drive the figures higher still. When much of this spending can be permanently replaced with off-grid solar energy, many more jobs will be displaced.¶ The worldwide semiconductor industry produces annual billings of over $150 billion. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the industry employs a domestic workforce of nearly 300,000 people. Additionally, U.S. retail distribution of electronics products amounts to almost $300 billion annually. All of these areas will be impacted significantly if customized electronics products can be produced at home for about a dollar a pound, the likely cost of raw materials. If any individual can make products containing computing power a million times greater than today’s PCs, where will those jobs go? Other nations will be affected as well. For example, the Chinese government may welcome the advent of general-purpose molecular manufacturing for several reasons, including its potential to radically reduce poverty and reduce catastrophic environmental problems. But at the same time, China relies on foreign direct investment (FDI) of over $40 billion annually for much of its current economic strength. When money to purchase Chinese manufactured goods stops flowing in, economic turmoil could spark violent struggles.¶ Overall, it’s not a pretty picture. Without wise planning, molecular manufacturing is likely to produce severe economic disruption and social disorder, as well as a perilously unstable new arms race that could lead to devastating acts of war.

Self-Replication

Nanotech allows rapid self-replication- major threat to the environment and poses as an existential threat

CRN 4 (Center for Responsible Nanotechnology, 4/19/04, “Disaster Scenarios”, http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2004/07/disaster_scenar.html //nz)

Subquestion C: Runaway self-replication?¶ Preliminary answer: Also known as the 'gray goo' scenario, this is perhaps the earliest and most famous concern related to molecular manufacturing. Contrary to early statements by Drexler, this could not happen accidentally; manufacturing systems, even early lab versions, will not remotely have the capability to become self-contained free-range self-replicators. However, the deliberate combination of a very small nanofactory, a very small chemical plant to convert organic chemicals into feedstock, and some robotics, could be a substantial nuisance or even threat. Eventually, the technology will develop to the point where it will be easy to make a device that requires active cleanup to avoid widespread environmental damage. The prevalence of computer viruses implies that creating such devices will be attractive to certain personality types, and eventually within their capability.¶ So, although runaway self-replication is not a first-rank concern, eventually it will need to be studied, and some combination of prevention and cleanup capability probably will have to be implemented. In theory, this could pose an existential threat.

AI

Nanotech creates dangerous AI’s- capable of widespread threats and risks extinction

CRN 4 (Center for Responsible Nanotechnology, 4/19/04, “Disaster Scenarios”, http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/2004/07/disaster_scenar.html //nz)

Subquestion D: Dangerous software?¶ Preliminary answer: An arms race (either military or corporate—in fact, conducted by any organization) could involve the development of increasingly capable AIs for the purpose of manipulating or coercing people. Note that this does not require full general intelligence. A variety of manipulative techniques (on either human psychology or other complex systems) can be imagined using only specialized data-processing.¶ Some theorists believe that a self-improving AI could pose an existential threat: almost any command would cause unexpected and massively disruptive side effects. We do not know whether this is plausible. But nanotech development will certainly be an enabling technology for powerful AI, though we may face this problem even before nanotech is developed. Robert Freitas cites some of these concerns going back decades in Kinematic Self-Replicating Machines. Already, enough infrastructure is computer-controlled to make a cyberspace attack potentially very destructive. As more products become computer-integrated, a software attack could shut down, damage, or subvert increasingly crucial functions.¶ The variety of possible impacts on human psychology, computer-integrated infrastructure, and other systems (e.g. the effect of computer trading on the stock market) implies that this whole area should be extensively and creatively studied.

AT- Environment

Nanotech can’t solve the hydrogen economy- long timeframe, false models, and not cost competitive

Walsh 7 (Ben, MSci PhD MRSC, “Environmentally Beneficial Nanotechnologies”, May 2007, http://www.nanowerk.com/nanotechnology/reports/reportpdf/report86.pdf //nz)
It is clear that the largest barrier to the wide scale adoption of the hydrogen economy is the discovery of a cheap and efficient method of storage. Virtually all criticisms are aimed either directly or indirectly at this area of the technology. Both generation of hydrogen via electrolysis and use of hydrogen in a fuel cell are relatively efficient, but large energy losses are experienced in all current practical methods of storage. It is likely that if the breakthrough is made it will be from material sciences and will involve nanotechnology. The ultimate goal will be a device that can store large quantities of hydrogen reversibly at near ambient conditions, however this appears to be some distance away. There will need to be a significant shift in the UK’s infrastructure to accommodate a new method of energy storage and delivery. There are several different scenarios for this. In the short term hydrogen generation will occur via steam reformation and be delivered to specialist suppliers through high pressure tankers on road vehicles. In the mid to long term there are likely to be three different methods for the transportation of hydrogen for use in vehicles (Table 6). All potential methods of delivery are likely to involve significant costs and the most effective method will depend on the scale of adoption. Therefore the final decision on the delivery of hydrogen to forecourts is likely to be deferred until the success (or potential failure) of hydrogen powered transport is proved. Other than the technological barriers of hydrogen fuelled transport the overall costs of the ‘engine’ compared to a conventional internal combustion engine are expected to be significantly higher. The majority of hydrogen powered vehicles are leased from car manufacturers and are not a true indicator of the cost of production models. It is likely that, certainly in the short to medium term, hydrogen powered vehicles will not be cost competitive with the equivalent fossil fuel powered alternatives, either in terms of initial capital outlay or cost of fuel. Therefore wide scale adoption of this technology will probably require fiscal incentives such as congestion charge reductions.

Fuel additives create health risks- dangerous nanoparticles

Walsh 7 (Ben, MSci PhD MRSC, “Environmentally Beneficial Nanotechnologies”, May 2007, http://www.nanowerk.com/nanotechnology/reports/reportpdf/report86.pdf //nz)
Fuel additives have an obvious potential risk from the exposure to air‐ dispersed nanoparticles of ceria. These risks need to be offset against the reduction in carbon particulate (which has a better known public health risk) that results from the use of the fuel additives. Using data from trials of Oxonica materials, the potential for carbon particulate reduction is around 1300 tonnes per year, compared to an introduction into the atmosphere of around 100 tonnes of cerium oxide nanoparticles. A BASF eco‐efficiency analysis carried out on these materials concluded that even in a worst case scenario additised diesel outperforms unadditised fuel in Toxicity Potential. The latter, due to the significantly higher fuel consumption, results in greater particulate emissions (soot) as well as NMVOC (non‐methane volatile organic solvents) and carbon monoxide. Risks from lubricant additives are generally contained within the engine and are likely to remain entrained in the lubricating oil. The ease and speed of introduction of new types of turbine components will be governed by industry specifications and approvals.

Solar cells cost too much- major risks in tech

Walsh 7 (Ben, MSci PhD MRSC, “Environmentally Beneficial Nanotechnologies”, May 2007, http://www.nanowerk.com/nanotechnology/reports/reportpdf/report86.pdf //nz)
The major issue in adoption of all photovoltaics is in the cost. This is obviously due in part due to the cost of production and the expense of raw materials, but in addition, the UK taxation regime mitigates against the general public purchasing and installing of microgeneration systems such as rooftop solar cells, which are ultimately likely to make up the vast majority of installed photovoltaic capacity in the UK. For example, although the end user wishing to purchase photovoltaics cannot reclaim VAT on the purchase price, large scale energy generators are able to do so. The leveling of the tax playing field by offering similar incentives to the general public will encourage the installation of distributed renewable energy technologies. Tax incentives can have a measurable positive effect on the installed photovoltaic capacity; for example, tax incentives in Germany have led to 250,000 installations, whilst there are only 2,500 installations in the UK.a Since the integration of nanotechnology with photovoltaic technologies is new and largely unproven there is a requirement for further work on fundamental understanding and commercialisation in the medium and long term. The development of nanotechnology in renewable energy generation is uncertain and at the forefront of current research. There is therefore significant risk involved in any investments. Although the private sector could be left to develop the technology, the support of large scale projects such as clean rooms will help accelerate development. A Class 10 Clean room could, for example, cost as much as $1bn to build and such investment is unlikely for a speculative technology such as nanoparticle photovoltaics. Most current commercial, or close to commercialisation, nanoparticulate photovoltaics are less efficient than conventional silicon cells. This is possibly due to degradation of the nanomaterial and may be resolved by improving the encapsulation processes.

AT: Batteries

Nanotech can’t solve batteries- expensive, can’t solve large scale which is necessary to solve

Walsh 7 (Ben, MSci PhD MRSC, “Environmentally Beneficial Nanotechnologies”, May 2007, http://www.nanowerk.com/nanotechnology/reports/reportpdf/report86.pdf //nz)
It is clear that without the development of rapid charge, high capacity batteries the use of electric vehicles will be limited to niche applications or for short defined journeys. Nanotechnology appears to be a front runner in allowing the battery with the highest charge density, Li‐ion, to charge and discharge rapidly. Supercapacitors may provide a solution to improve power output during acceleration and to utilise fully regenerative breaking. The incorporation of nanotechnology into batteries is occurring on the research scale. However, there are problems in developing the process for an industrial scale. Ultimately, the cost of hybrid or electric cars should be comparable to a conventional internal combustion engine car. This will partly be achieved through mass production. A key challenge will be the ability to generate nanomaterials on the scale required for mass production. Most methods for manufacturing nanoparticles are expensive, energy intensive and relatively low volume. The largest volume nanoparticulate production facilities at present use plasma technology to produce multi‐tonne volumes. Electric vehicles cost approximately one penny per mile. They are of simpler technical specification and therefore are claimed to be more reliable. The current road tax and congestion charge schemes provide favourable benefits for zero emission cars. The cost of running an electric car, therefore, is considerably less than a conventional car. However the initial purchase price of these vehicles is likely to be higher due to the low volume production runs, the experimental nature of the vehicles and the expensive and rare elements used in the battery construction. The recent fall in oil prices has pushed down the price of petrol. In the USA, the high prices of fuel drove demand for hybrid vehicles. With the recent fall in fuel prices the sale of hybrid vehicles has also fallen. Higher overall petrol prices would force Americans to considered hybrid vehicles. In Europe (and in particular the UK) the very high petrol prices are seen as a market pull. During our interviews, there was a feeling that support from both industry and government was missing or inadequate for medium to long term high technology projects, such as developing new battery technology. Perceptions were that attitudes towards long term high technology investments (in both the public and private sector) in the Far East and the USA were more forthcoming than in Europe. This problem is endemic throughout UK science and innovation and recommendations are stated elsewhere. Also, funding where there are requirements for consortia is difficult to initiate in the UK due to the lack of a UK based automotive manufacturing base. The relatively low interest from EU car and battery manufacturers is forcing innovative nanotechnology companies to look in the USA and Asia for contracts. The physical distance inhibits growth in development in the UK.

Environment

Nanotech causes unpredictable health and environmental risks and displaces industries and jobs – more risk assessment is needed before action is taken

Kimbrell 8 – staff attorney for the International Center for Technology Assessment (George, “understanding the risks before marketing nanotech,” Los Angeles Times, 2/25/2008, http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/scimedemail/la-op-salvi -kimbrell25feb25,0,3578394.story)//RH

Because of these new properties, nanotechnology has been touted by its proponents as nothing less than the "next industrial revolution" — transforming and constructing a wide range of new materials, devices, technological systems in a wide number of fields. However, just as the size and chemical characteristics of engineered nanoparticles can give them exciting properties, those same new properties — tiny size, vastly increased surface area-to-volume ratio, high reactivity — can also create unique and unpredictable human health and environmental risks. Swiss insurance giant Swiss Re noted in 2004, "Never before have the risks and opportunities of a new technology been as closely linked as they are in nanotechnology. It is precisely those characteristics which make nanoparticles so valuable that give rise to concern regarding hazards to human beings and the environment alike." For example, studies have compared the carbon nanotubes Aatish mentions with asbestos based on their shape and effect on the lungs when inhaled. We will discuss these potential risks in the coming days. There is no shortage of money being spent promoting the technology's applications. Investments in federally-funded nanotechnology activities coordinated through the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) totaled approximately $1.4 billion in 2007. Unfortunately, NNI's fiscal year 2007 budget earmarked less than 4% for environmental health and safety research. Even less is being spent studying broader socioeconomic and ethical concerns, such as the displacement of whole industries and their workers that Aatish notes nano-scale manufacturing may portend. Nanotechnology is a commercial reality. Lux Research's 2006 Nanotechnology Report noted that more than $32 billion in products incorporating nanotechnology were sold that year. Lux predicts that by 2014, $2.6 trillion in manufactured products will be nano products, which amounts to 15% of total global manufacturing. The Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies' inventory of nano-material consumer products lists more than 580 products currently on market shelves, including paints, coatings, sunscreens, medical bandages, sporting goods, personal-care products, cosmetics, clothing, dietary supplements, food packaging and light-emitting diodes used in computers, cellphones and digital cameras. Putting these nano products into the market without assessing the potential risks is like trying to get an Apollo capsule to the moon without knowing whether the rocket carrying it will explode on the way. It is past time for government to do more research on the basic health and safety aspects of nanotechnologies as well as deficiencies in existing health and environmental protection laws. It should spend less on promotional activities best carried out by business. We are so caught up in the "race" Aatish describes that we have failed to ask what the potential risks are or consider what type of world are we racing toward.

Pollution

Nanomaterials are toxic and have a laundry list of risks

Kimbrell 8 – staff attorney for the International Center for Technology Assessment (George, “An Unprecedented Ability to Harm,” Los Angeles Times, 2/26/2008, http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/scimedemail/la-op-salvi-kimbrell26feb26,0,4037148.story)//RH

First, there is much more that we do not know about nanomaterials and their risks than what we do know. Despite rapid nanomaterial commercialization, many potential risks remain dangerously untested due to the failure to prioritize and fund risk research. That said, there are also numerous foreseeable risks that arise from the fundamentally different nature and properties of nanomaterials. While not all nanomaterials will be found to be toxic or dangerous, they are also not uniformly safe, and crucially, their safety cannot be assumed from the testing of their bulk material counterparts. Just as the size and physics of nanomaterials give them unusual strength and reactivity properties, those properties also give them unpredicted risks such as increased toxicity and extreme mobility. And the limited existing risk studies continue to raise red flags, a few of which I will mention below. Due to their tiny size, nanomaterials have unprecedented mobility for a manufactured material and can cross biological membranes, cells, tissues and organs more easily than larger particles. When inhaled, they can go from the lungs into the blood system. Once in the bloodstream, nanomaterials can circulate throughout the body and can lodge in organs and tissues such as the brain, liver, heart, kidneys, spleen, bone marrow and nervous system. The jury is still out on the ease of their skin penetration. The increased surface area of nanoparticles creates increased reactivity and enhanced intrinsic toxicity. Once inside cells, they may interfere with normal cellular function, cause oxidative damage and even cell death. The public is exposed to manufactured nanomaterials in consumer products, like the many personal care, cosmetics and sunscreen products containing nanomaterials. These are "free" nanoparticles in a cream or gel that are used daily and placed directly on the skin. Studies have shown nanoparticles of titanium dioxide and zinc oxide used in many nano-sunscreens have to be photoactive, producing free radicals and causing DNA damage to human skin cells. Carbon fullerenes are being used in some face and anti-aging creams even though they are toxic to human liver cells at low levels. There is no method currently for limiting, controlling or even measuring exposure to nanomaterials in the workplace. Dangers to workers could come from inhalation (the new asbestos?), access through the skin and digestive system (and the creation of free radicals that cause cell damage), or through the exposure to a new nanotech-created substance to which the body has no natural immunity or that triggers autoimmune disorders. Carbon nanotubes in particular have been likened to asbestos fibers and found to cause lung inflammation. Manufactured nanomaterials are entering the natural environment throughout their lifecycle: manufacturing, transportation, use and disposal. Once loose in nature, these nanomaterials represent a new class of manufactured non-biodegradable pollutants. Nanomaterials' unique chemical and physical characteristics create various foreseeable environmental risks, including potentially toxic interactions or compounds, the absorption and/or transportation of pollutants, durability or bioaccumulation, and unprecedented mobility in ecosystems for a manufactured material. Studies have found carbon fullerenes to cause brain damage to fish and be toxic to other aquatic life. Nano-silver is currently being infused into a wide range of goods, including cleaning products and food packaging for its highly efficient antimicrobial properties. Yet the same properties that make these nanoparticles attractive to manufacturers are highly destructive to microorganisms once released into ecosystems.