| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
| World Community Grid Forums
|
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 10
|
|
| Author |
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
I have big hopes for nanotubes but they could potentially be unhealthy for humans if released freely into air, water, or ground.
----------------------------------------Has someone calculated the quantity of nanotubes that will be lost by the filters during their lifetime, the nanutube concentration in the filtered water and their enviromental release after the spent filter is thrown in a landfill and degrades? What is the release into air if the filter is burned instead? [Edit 1 times, last edit by Former Member at Sep 8, 2010 7:09:29 PM] |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
I HIGHLY HIGHLY HIGHLY Doubt they would spend all this money and set up such a complicated project if the Nanotubes themselves poised any significant risk to humans or the environment.
|
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
It depends on how the nanotubes are constructed. I hope the researchers don't make the same mistakes as with asbest.
Here is the wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_nanotube#Toxicity As long as no nanotubes are released into the water or the environment, no one will be harmed. |
||
|
|
Sekerob
Ace Cruncher Joined: Jul 24, 2005 Post Count: 20043 Status: Offline |
Let's not make such categorical "long as no"... that is an unrealistic expectation... and we're years and years away from mass deployment, so until then I'm sure all concerns will be taken into consideration whence the production stage is reached.
----------------------------------------Carbon based nanofilters is nothing new in water cleaning for both chemical and biological cleansing. Just Google... Stanford has one out that is 40000 times more efficient, but it still needs electricity. We want one that works by simply poring water in from the top and it coming out clean at the bottom,... no pumping pressure, less mechanical stress. To think that the catalytic converted under our car is now 13 years old, each year emissions are tested and still way better than the Mot prescribed levels... with which I'm saying that durability will be high on the agenda and the Industry has the ability to produce those. Not that we need to go out every week to Wall-mart to get a new one. From Germany... yes, FKK followers need lots of sunblock cream and many that are loaded with nano-particles that penetrate the skin... been on the market for several decades. No one has sprung up yet. Just wonder where that permanent assumption of 'scientists are idiots' comes from. Who feeds that?
WCG
Please help to make the Forums an enjoyable experience for All! |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
I admit my statement about nanotubes was a little bit to quick, but it wasn't wrong. Nothing is released -> Nothing bad happens
I'm not against nanotechnology in general. All I want is that these new materials are carefully testet before they will be used. I think everybody will agree to that. I've never done FKK at the beach, but I use suncreme, too. :-) |
||
|
|
Thomas Klauset Aurdal
Advanced Cruncher Joined: Apr 27, 2007 Post Count: 69 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
TheJogi: I support your post. I asked myself that question. All this should be evaluated and I hope the scientists take all sides into consideration. As mention in the Wikipedia article that what are of concern is that the industry is running towards the market without good enough regulations and tests. However, I think other products with nanotechnology might pose more risks. On another note this project is promising and have enormous potential for over a billion people. I'm more optimist on NBIC (nano-bio-info-cogno) than pessimist.
----------------------------------------[Edit 1 times, last edit by Thomas Klauset Aurdal at Sep 9, 2010 7:26:20 PM] |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Dirty contaminated water will kill a child many many times faster than a small nanotube leak will anyway.
The kinds of water people are forced to endure is beyond belief. Even if there is a small risk of a leak it needs to go out as soon as possible. Every day people, children die from contaminated water. How many Einsteins have died because they were forced to drink unfit water? How many ideas lost forever? |
||
|
|
Sekerob
Ace Cruncher Joined: Jul 24, 2005 Post Count: 20043 Status: Offline |
Now that makes big sense! (but lets not throw the child out with the bathwater). Found some articles that though there needs to be more research, low quantities seem to be well processed by the body... carbon is not exactly a foreign substance... and its not something we inhale like white asbestos.
----------------------------------------
WCG
Please help to make the Forums an enjoyable experience for All! |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
I would think that carbon nanotubules would be no more toxic if not less toxic than the hundreds of chemicals we are exposed to every day. I think this is a very promising technology. If it works for water could the tubules be sized and lined with catalyst to filter other liquids or gasses?>Paper processing, petro chemicals ect
----------------------------------------[Edit 2 times, last edit by Former Member at Sep 22, 2010 6:13:13 AM] |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Carbon nanotubes seem to be a very strong material. I'm pretty sure the researchers will test under what pressure parts of carbon nanotubes break off into the water.
|
||
|
|
|