I would like to add a perspective about the field of nanotechnology, coming from the point of view of someone employed in that industry, and hear other people's thoughts on the subject.
I was recently reading
jillian's recent recommended diary on the environment, and in particular, the article concerning
nanotechnology and the potential health consequences.
For those of you who are unfamiliar with nanotechnology, wiki does a pretty good job with the primer. In essence nanotechnology is a subset of materials science loosely defined as those materials with particle sizes under 100 nanometers (100 nanomaters is one ten-millionth of a meter). As the size of the particle decreases, quantum effects overtake the traditional chemical properties of their larger particle-sized brothers, producing materials with unusual chemical and electrical properties. The classic example involves pure carbon. In it's valence-electron-less fully bonded form, carbon is women's best friend and the hardest substance on earth. In hexagonal sheets, it's graphite; in 60-atom balls, buckminsterfulerene (Bucky balls), and can also be rolled into small tubes called carbon nanotubes (CNT's).
Being as it is, CNT's and Bucky balls receive the lion's share of press from what I have seen in the nanotechnology space, and for good reason. CNT's have unique electronic properties, extremely high tensile strength and high melting point (over 3000 degrees C). And both of these materials are highly carcinogenic.
The interesting thing to me is nanotechnology has been around since the dawn material science, it just didn't have a separate name. This may be due to the fact that microscopy techniques simply weren't poweful enough to determine the a particle's size until the 1960's. Nanoparticles themselves have been around since the dawn of the planet. For example the smoke from forest fires, like diesel engine exhaust and cigarette smoke (known as "tar"), contains alarming amounts of Bucky balls.
And like materials science, I think the best approach is to assume every material is dangerous, until it's proven safe. Also, the materials should be encased in proper packaging and then properly disposed of. This requires smart legislation, EPA oversight, and corporate accountability, all ideas liberals already champion. For example, as computer components get faster and smaller, CNT's will play a major role in the development of the accompanying motherboard and maybe even flat-screen monitors. In this case, computers should be sent back to the manufacturer or accepted by the city for disposal (actually, this should ALREADY be the case, but that's for a different diary). Also, the hazardous nature of the material should be clearly labeled. I don't know of any people who lift the hood of their car and start gnawing on their lead-acid battery, but everyone that owns a car has one, and knows that it is dangerous. And thanks to sensible environmental laws, lead-acid batteries do not end up in landfills (for the most part).
For all of the horror the asbestos fiasco caused, one good thing came out of it: the chance of it happening again is much smaller. I can tell you from experince NO COMPANY in materials science wants "another asbestos." Here, again, effective legislation and corporate accountability is an absolute must. As liberals we cannot let the GOP get away with some blanket lawsuit protection like the gun industry has, or rolling back environmental and safety laws already in effect.