I guess it is semantics; it wasn't intended as sophistry or disingenuity. I think the distinction you state – fullerenes are "'just' nanoparticles and not machine phase systems" – is a crucial one, and I'm not sure that most people could articulate it, as simple as it may appear. They are a part of "nanoscale research" because much ordinary chemistry is trying to relabel itself as nanotech to cash in on the NNI. That doesn't make it nanotech, at least by my definition, or by Drexler's: "a technology based on the ability to build structures to complex, atomic specifications by means of mechanosynthesis; this can be termed molecular nanotechnology" (Nanosystems). The latter clause seems to have been added because others were misusing the term as early as 1991.

Sorry you didn't like the headlines. I'm constantly amused by the biased and overblown way headlines are written, and I thought they were funny, for more or less the reason you state in your last bullet point. Guess not.

You don't really believe "Lack of universal understanding leads to conflict", do you? Surely you agree that two people may understand a situation (and each other) perfectly well, and still have mutually incompatible goals? Or have I misinterpreted what you're saying?

Something has to be done to communicate to the public that this has nothing to do with nanotechnology

Nothing (added emphasis and all) to do with nanotech? Fullerenes may be "just" nanoparticles and not machine phase systems but to state that they have italicized nothing to do with nanotechnology is disingenuous. As Lovy states in his blog:

…I struggled to explain how nanotechnology right now is more of a concept than anything else. We've created the building blocks and dumped them on the floor. What we create with them now, and how safely we do it, is yet to be determined.

Fullerenes are part of nanoscale research. Just as not too much of a deal should be made of the toxicology study, neither should it be hand-waved away with semantics and sophistry.

Here are some of the headlines we should be seeing:

Oh, puh-leeze. Here's some more headlines that we should be seeing:

• Lack of universal understanding leads to conflict
• Need for sleep limits productivity
• Inadequate water, nutrition, healthcare responsible for billions of deaths over last 30,000 years, many more to come
• Overblown, melodramatic rhetoric phrased as press release "headlines" fails to do more than raise eyebrows in current climate of public opinion and awareness.

I wouldn't be surprised if soot is somewhat carcinogenic too, but we have been coping with it in our environment for some time now, more or less successfully. So I wouldn't panic about this yet anyway, even if the erroneous meme that this has something to do with nanotech gets some traction.

It's not at all surprising that buckyballs may be toxic. Something has to be done to communicate to the public that this has nothing to do with nanotechnology, despite the WP headline. Maybe Foresight could email the Science Editor (or whoever's at fault) at the WP, and set the record straight?

Here are some of the headlines we should be seeing:

• Lack of molecular nanotechnology linked to cancer deaths
• Nondevelopment of cell repair machines linked to aging
• Inadequate nanotech funding costs millions of lives a year
• Stupid reporting misleads millions every day

And so forth.