http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2436 examining transformative technology Wed, 03 Apr 2013 18:23:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2436#comment-847256 Mon, 18 May 2009 06:11:53 +0000 http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2436#comment-847256 google <a href="http://google.com" rel="nofollow">google</a> google google

]]> http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2436#comment-210739 Nanodot: Nanotechnology News and Discussion » Blog Archive » Environmental groups dispute about nanotechnology Sat, 14 Apr 2007 00:51:08 +0000 http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2436#comment-210739 [...] We mentioned earlier a request for comment on a proposed Nano Risk Framework for approaching nanotechnology materials safety organized by Environmental Defense and DuPont. Now a different group of organizations has come out against that framework. Their statement is titled “Civil Society-Labor Coalition Rejects Fundamentally Flawed DuPont-ED Proposed Framework“. An excerpt: We reject outright the proposed voluntary framework as fundamentally flawed. We strongly object to any process in which broad public participation in government oversight of nanotech policy is usurped by industry and its allies. We made the decision not to engage in this process out of well-grounded concerns that our participation – even our skeptical participation – would be used to legitimize the proposed framework as a starting point or ending point for discussing nanotechnology policy, oversight and risk analysis. The history of other voluntary regulation proposals is bleak; voluntary regulations have often been used to delay or weaken rigorous regulation and should be seen as a tactic to delay needed regulation and forestall public involvement. [...] [...] We mentioned earlier a request for comment on a proposed Nano Risk Framework for approaching nanotechnology materials safety organized by Environmental Defense and DuPont. Now a different group of organizations has come out against that framework. Their statement is titled “Civil Society-Labor Coalition Rejects Fundamentally Flawed DuPont-ED Proposed Framework“. An excerpt: We reject outright the proposed voluntary framework as fundamentally flawed. We strongly object to any process in which broad public participation in government oversight of nanotech policy is usurped by industry and its allies. We made the decision not to engage in this process out of well-grounded concerns that our participation – even our skeptical participation – would be used to legitimize the proposed framework as a starting point or ending point for discussing nanotechnology policy, oversight and risk analysis. The history of other voluntary regulation proposals is bleak; voluntary regulations have often been used to delay or weaken rigorous regulation and should be seen as a tactic to delay needed regulation and forestall public involvement. [...]

]]> http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2436#comment-160766 anon Sat, 10 Mar 2007 09:35:09 +0000 http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2436#comment-160766 Benefits also have to be WEIGHED against risks. Of course we want risks minimized. But say that new forms of nanopollution could definitively and reliably be predicted to unavoidably KILL 10,000 people a year. If cheap (free) water filters produced by the same technology base could definitively and reliably be predicted to save 5,000,000 children/yr from dying from diarrhea, it's still a good deal. Especially considering risks are also counterweighted by reducing other forms of pollution and their risks (living in Long Beach, CA is reckoned to be like smoking 2 packs a day; industrial centers in China are worse--the sky is a rare sight.) We ought not forgo best technology possible because everyone can't agree that it's a PERFECT technology in every last respect. Benefits also have to be WEIGHED against risks. Of course we want risks minimized. But say that new forms of nanopollution could definitively and reliably be predicted to unavoidably KILL 10,000 people a year. If cheap (free) water filters produced by the same technology base could definitively and reliably be predicted to save 5,000,000 children/yr from dying from diarrhea, it’s still a good deal. Especially considering risks are also counterweighted by reducing other forms of pollution and their risks (living in Long Beach, CA is reckoned to be like smoking 2 packs a day; industrial centers in China are worse–the sky is a rare sight.) We ought not forgo best technology possible because everyone can’t agree that it’s a PERFECT technology in every last respect.

]]>