Molecular manufacturing means “no pollution”
From the Australian Broadcasting Corp's The Future is Small: "A pair of nanopants, long-lasting lipstick or self-cleaning windows won't change the world. But physicist and nanotechnology expert Professor Mick Wilson, Dean of Science at the University of Western Sydney, argues that new products and new ways of making them will bring profound social and economic change…Wilson said that with Drexler's vision of nanotech, as a sort of Meccano or Lego set of about 90 atoms, you could build anything you wanted want from the bottom up. 'As Drexler says, there's no pollution, because you don't make anything that you don't want, you just [take] every atom that you want out of the box and use it,' said Wilson." Prof. Wilson is coauthor of the book Nanotechnology: Basic Science and Emerging Technologies, reviewed as an "excellent comprehensive introduction."
March 3rd, 2005 at 1:19 AM
Hazardous environmental-impact predictions
Since the material and procedural developments in Nanoscience is by, ëfrom-top-to-downí approach (reference: Feynmanís concepts), early-predictions on hazardous environmental-impacts may be unnecessary and misleading. That is, the regulations for the Environmental-friendliness of Nanoscience-developments; has to be a time to time proceeding only.
March 3rd, 2005 at 6:53 AM
Secondary materials
While the Drexlerian nanoassembler/nanofactory concept appears to be pollution-free (except perhaps for heat), I have to wonder what all those materials and all their itty-bitty parts break down into when exposed to the chaotic environment.
Do the breakdown byproducts cause problems along the lines that're starting to be reported for buckytubes and buckyballs? Are there good, reliable methods available to prevent such breakdown and/or scavenge the byproducts out of the environment before damage is done?
Or is nanotech going to be limited to clean-room conditions?