Nettime mailing list archives

<nettime> it's a small world after all digest [navas, neopygmee, domingu
nettime's_incredible_shrinking_man on Tue, 9 Sep 2003 18:21:55 +0200 (CEST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

<nettime> it's a small world after all digest [navas, neopygmee, dominguez, porculus]

"Eduardo Navas" <eduardo {AT} navasse.net>
     Re: <nettime> DNA and computers
neopygmee <neopygmee {AT} pi.be>
     health effects of nano particles
"ricardo dominguez" <rdom {AT} thing.net>
     Re: <nettime> DNA and computers
"porculus" <porculus {AT} wanadoo.fr>
     Re: <nettime> DNA and computers

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: "Eduardo Navas" <eduardo {AT} navasse.net>
Subject: Re: <nettime> DNA and computers
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 03:00:53 -0600

----- Original Message -----
from: "steven schkolne" <steven {AT} schkolne.com

> hi nettimers, some of these comments about researcher's motivation have
> hit a little close to home, and fundamentally contradict some of my
> experience - i am just wrapping up my PhD on 3d interaction at Caltech
> and based on my stint here i'd have to say that this corporate drive is
> not so strong on campus, especially in Erik Winfree's dna computation
> group (http://dna.caltech.edu).  i have worked closely with erik over
> the past couple years and i have known few as motivated by curiosity and
> pure investigation for it's own sake as erik and others in his lab are.
> the professors and students at caltech could all earn a lot more money
> if they went into industry.  tie-ins with industry are often trumpeted
> in grant applications and some press releases, but this is almost always
> justification of a subject that is interesting for its own sake.

My response:

By no means was there an attempt to implicate Cal Tech in a negative manner.
I was merely reporting what my experience had been during my visit.  The
fact that during the lecture the director kept mentioning the friction
between getting funding and spending time doing research was no illusion.
And the constant reference to commercial  implementation was also very
pronounced from one project to another.  Even though I will admit there was
no specific corporation was brought up, the researchers kept mentioning
commercial ways of application.  But maybe, perhaps, this was done to help
the "layman" (that would be me) better understand how the research could be
useful for the world at large.

Steven Schkolne also stated:
> all this talk about nano seems deeply rooted in pop science, and much
> like the rage about fractals, chaos, virtual reality, etc., i see that
> science/tech moves virtually independently of this cultural force.

my response:

Well, this might be true only if Science did not need funding.  Let's take a
look at a premise which explains the role of myth  (or pop science as you
call it) relating to the compromise of Science and the rise of Capital.
This particular quote deals with how scientific research is justified as a
"folk tale" or myth to the mass public (via articles like the one I
originally posted) in order to attain proper validation and eventually more

"First, the popular stories themselves recount what could be called positive
or negative apprenticeships (bildungen): in other words, the successes or
failures greeting the hero's undertakings.  These successes or failures
either bestow legitimacy upon social institutions (the functions of myths),
or represent positive or negative models (the successful or unsuccessful
hero) of integration into established institutions (legends and tales).
Thus the narratives allow the society in which they are told, on the one
hand, to define its criteria of competence and on the other, to evaluate
according to those criteria what is performed or can be performed within

This quote is preceded by a set of statements by Jean Francois Lyotard, in
which he explains the tension between science and oral narratives.  His
basic premise is that science has always tried to get away from folk tales
in order to attain objectivity, yet this one is always ready to rely on
folklore whenever there is need for validation, more specifically for
funding.  Here is another quote dealing with TV appearances, this time
examining the same tension only now he is reinterpreting it in terms of a
non-narrative (scientific analysis) within a narrative (pop science):

"... A crude proof of this: what do scientists do when they appear on
television or are interviewed in the newspapers after making a 'discovery'?
they recount an epic of knowledge that is in fact wholly unepic.  They play
by the rules of the narrative game; its influence remains considerable not
only on the users of the media, but also on the scientist's  sentiments.
This fact is neither trivial not accessory: it concerns the relationship of
scientific knowledge to 'popular' knowledge, or what is left of it.  The
state spends large amounts of money to enable science to pass itself off as
an epic: the state's own credibility is based on that epic, which it uses to
obtain the public consent its decision makers need." [2]

So perhaps, we should not be too quick to dismiss popular tales, because
these days popular stories amount to money.  Such is the compromise that the
necessity for machines brought about for science, which today is known as
funding.[3]  I believe that what I witnessed during my visit to Cal Tech was
nothing but proof of such a compromise.

I truly respect science, but such compromise as described above may,
unfortunately, be real.   I do hope you take my statements with my most
honest sincerity.

Eduardo Navas

[1]  Jean-Francois Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge
(Minneapolis: Minnesota, 1984), 18
[2] Ibid., pp.27-28
[3] Ibid., p. 44

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2003 13:10:00 +0200
From: neopygmee <neopygmee {AT} pi.be>
Subject: health effects of nano particles

Hi nettimers,

some more about nanotech: the last three "Rachel"-newsletters (which, despite
the name, are very scientific and dependable - while remaining understandable
to the so-called layman) were all about nanotech and give a good insight
especially on environmental and health risks of this technology. I copied the
last one here.

It concludes as follows: 
"In sum the nanotech industry and the U.S. government are
rapidly ramping up a new industrial capacity to manufacture ton
quantities of ultrafine particles, very similar to particles
already known to be killing tens of thousands of people in the
U.S. each year. (...)

We also know that the current regulatory system has proven to
be incapable of bringing particulate pollution under control
because of relentless opposition from corporations. (...)

Clearly, in the case of nano particles, we have reasonable
suspicion of harm, and we have some remaining scientific
uncertainty. Therefore we have an ethical duty to take
preventive (precautionary) action. If there ever was a proper
time to invoke the precautionary principle, this is it."

=======================Electronic Edition========================
.                                                               .
.            RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH NEWS #774            .
.                      ---July 24, 2003---                      .
.                 (Published September 4, 2003)                 .
.                          HEADLINES:                           .
.               THE REVOLUTION, PT. 3: ULTRAFINES               .
.                          ==========                           .
.               Environmental Research Foundation               .
.           P.O. Box 160, New Brunswick, N.J.  08903            .
.          Fax (732) 791-4603; E-mail: erf {AT} rachel.org           .
.                          ==========                           .
.   All back issues are on the web at: http://www.rachel.org    .
.  in text and PDF formats.  To subscribe (free), send E-mail   .
.          to listserv {AT} lists.rachel.org with the words          .
.     SUBSCRIBE RACHEL-NEWS YOUR FULL NAME in the message.      .
.      The Rachel newsletter is also available in Spanish;      .
.      to learn how to subscribe in Spanish, send the word      .
.        AYUDA in an E-mail message to info {AT} rachel.org.         .


A revolution is sweeping through science and technology,
blending cognitive science (how the brain works), biotechnology
(manipulation of genes), information technology, and
nanotechnology, or nanotech for short. The engineers who are
masterminding this revolution explain that it is "essential to
the future of humanity"[1, pg. 22] because it holds the promise
of "world peace, universal prosperity, and evolution to a
higher level of compassion and accomplishment."[1, pg. 6] They
say it may be "a watershed in history to rank with the
invention of agriculture and the Industrial Revolution."[1, pg.
20] The ultimate aim of the revolution is not so new: the
"conquest of nature." [1, pg. 80]

The revolution is driven by the convergence of four
technologies (nano, bio, info, cogno), but here we focus again
on only one of the four -- nanotech -- because it is becoming
the foundation stone of bio and info sciences,[1, pg. 71]
because it has been largely ignored by the media, and because
it is galloping forward at breakneck speed. It is no
exaggeration to say that the field of nanotech is gripped by a
"gold rush" mentality. Any day of the week, take a look at
http://nanotech-now.com/ to catch a glimpse of the gold rush in

Nanotech is named for the nanometer, a unit of measure, a
billionth of a meter, one one-thousandth of a micrometer. The
Oxford English Dictionary defines nanotechnology as "the branch
of technology that deals with dimensions and tolerances of less
than 100 nanometres, esp. the manipulation of individual atoms
and molecules."

In 2000, President Clinton created the National Nanotech
Initiative, which is now funded at the level of $700 million
per year -- the third largest public research program in the
U.S., after the war on cancer and the star wars missile defense
program. (See Rachel's #772 and #773.) In every state in the
U.S., nanotech proponents are commandeering tax dollars to
subsidize "the next big thing." Many states are hoping to
establish their own "Nano Valley" as an entrepreneurial wild
west modeled on Silicon Valley before the bubble burst.

In March of this year, Small Times magazine said the states
with the greatest nanotech potential are California,
Massachusetts, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, Maryland, New York,
Illinois, Michigan and Pennsylvania, with Colorado, New Jersey,
North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia, and Washington state close
behind.[2] The National Science Foundation predicts that
nanotech will be a trillion-dollar industry by 2015, just 12
years from now.[2] Nanotech is advancing upon us at warp speed.

This week we will focus on only one aspect of nanotech: the
environmental and human health effects of nano particles, which
are particles 100 nanometers (0.1 micrometers) or less in
diameter. As we saw in Rachel's #772, the intentional
manufacture of nano particles is already under way, and this
new industry is gearing up worldwide. Nano particles go by
different names, such as nanodots, nanotubes, buckyballs, and
buckminsterfullerenes, among others.

According to the Etc Group, which follows nanotech developments
carefully, an estimated 140 companies are now producing nano
particles in powders, sprays, and coatings that are being used
in a variety of products, including sunscreens, automobile
parts, tennis rackets, scratch-proof eye glasses,
stain-repellent fabrics, self-cleaning windows, and more.[3,
pg. 2] Mitsubishi Chemical in Japan has reportedly begun
construction of a plant to manufacture nanotubes at the rate of
120 tons per year, with plans to increase output to 1500 tons
per year by 2007.[4] The U.S. government's space agency, NASA,
plans to spend the next five years scaling up the production of
nanotubes. [1, pg. 50]

One of the most important characteristics of nano particles is
their huge surface-to-volume ratio. The smaller something is,
the larger its surface area is, in comparison to its volume.
Because nano particles are so small, they have an enormous
surface area, relative to their volume. Drug companies are
planning to take advantage of those large surfaces -- for
example, covering nano particles with drugs for targeted
delivery into the interiors of our cells. The smaller the size
of the particle, the larger the load of drugs it can carry
(larger, relative to the particle's volume).

Unfortunately, the large surface area of tiny particles also
makes them dangerous for at least two reasons: first, the large
surfaces alone promote the reaction of oxygen with human (or
animal) tissue, creating free radicals.

"Free radicals are atoms or groups of atoms with an odd
(unpaired) number of electrons and can be formed when oxygen
interacts with certain molecules. Once formed these highly
reactive radicals can start a chain reaction, like dominoes.
Their chief danger comes from the damage they can do when they
react with important cellular components such as DNA, or the
cell membrane [the cell's outer casing]. Cells may function
poorly or die if this occurs," explains Dr. Mark Jenkins at
Rice University.[5]

In sum, the large surface of nano particles offers an ideal
place which oxygen reactions can occur in the airways and
lungs, resulting in the formation of free radicals with
subsequent cell damage or cell death, followed by inflammation.

The second danger from nano particles arises when they float
freely in the air, where their large surface area provides a
sticky place where metals and hydrocarbons attach themselves.
The smaller the size of the particle, the larger the load of
metals and hydrocarbons it can carry (larger, relative to the
particle's volume).

What do we know about health effects of nano particles?

It turns out that we already have a fair amount of data on the
dangers of airborne nano particles -- but researchers don't
call them nano particles. They call them ultrafines. Nano
particles and ultrafines are the same thing -- particles with
an average diameter of 100 nanometers (0.1 micrometers) or

Scientists have known for more than a decade that fine and
ultrafine particles in the air create haze and kill large
numbers of humans. Fines and ultrafines are produced by
fossil-fuel power plants, incinerators, cement kilns, and
diesel engines, among other sources. As early as 1991, Dr. Joel
Schwartz of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (now at
Harvard) estimated that fine particles were killing 60,000
people each year in the U.S. That shocking estimate has since
been confirmed and reconfirmed and is now widely accepted.[6]
Fine particles are defined as those with a diameter of 10,000
nanometers (10 micrometers) or less. Ultrafines are 100 times
smaller than fines.[6]

Today, researchers are examining the properties of ultrafines
and there seems to be little doubt that they are the major
killers in haze. Studies in Los Angeles, California reveal that
ultrafines are 10 to 50 times as damaging to lung tissue,
compared to larger fine particles.[7]

Since 1991, scientists have been wondering whether fine and
ultrafine particles cause harm because of their size alone, or
because they carry metals and hydrocarbons deep into the lung.
Researchers today believe that, in the case of ultrafines, the
answer is both.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency refers to fines as PM 10
(short for "particulate matter 10 micrometers or less in
diameter"). By 1996, EPA became convinced that PM 2.5
(particles with diameters of 2.5 micrometers [2500 nanometers]
or less) were far more dangerous than PM 10, and the agency
proposed rules to control PM 2.5 air pollution. Corporations
immediately sued in court to "get government off our backs" and
to fulfill their fiduciary duty to shareholders by every legal
means, even though that duty in this instance entails killing
tens of thousands of anonymous citizens each year. In 2001,
after a 5-year court battle, EPA won in the U.S. Supreme Court,
but the agency, chastened by corporate encounters, has shelved
its plan for controlling PM 2.5 air pollution.[8]

Meanwhile, new studies are piling up showing that nano
particles (ultrafines, which in EPA terminology would be PM
0.1) are by far the most dangerous of all.

EPA does not collect data on nano particles in any systematic
way, and has announced no plans to control them. Meanwhile the
nano particle corporations and NASA are ramping up industrial
operations to manufacture ultrafines in ton quantities. It
appears that the stage is being set for major new trouble and
an escalation of the killing.

The picture continues to develop, but current research shows
that nano particles in the lung cause the formation of free
radicals, which in turn, cause lung disease, and cardiovascular
disease. Furthermore, nano particles carry metals and
carcinogenic hydrocarbons deep into the lung, where they
exacerbate asthma and other serious breathing problems. In
addition, nano particles combined with metals can pass directly
into the brain where they promote the formation of waxy amyloid
plaques, which are the signature feature of Alzheimer's

In Fresno, Calif., Kent E. Pinkerton at Univ. of Calif. Davis
found from autopsies that "outwardly robust people routinely
harbor damage in their lungs' small airways, setting the stage
for respiratory and cardiovascular disease." The bronchioles
were scarred with fibrosis and an abnormal thickening,
apparently caused by "the ravages of free radicals." [6,9]

Subsequent exposure of rats to ultrafine particles at levels
found in Fresno on a bad day revealed many dead cells in the
rats' lungs, large numbers of inflammatory cells (neutrophils),
and destruction of macrophages -- which are cells that promote
health by actively removing foreign material from the
lungs.[10] In other words, ultrafines kill off the lung's
natural defenses, then create their own unique form of damage,
promoting free radicals, cell death, inflammation and
eventually cardiovascular disease.

Pinkerton's findings were confirmed by a study of the lungs of
non-smoking women in Mexico City and in Vancouver, British
Columbia, which revealed extensive lung damage from exposure to
dirty Mexico City air, but not clean Vancouver air. [4] The
small airways of the Mexican women "were very abnormal," with
fibrosis and thickening.

Researcher Ken Donaldson at the University of Edinborough in
Scotland has studied particles of pure titanium dioxide and
pure carbon. At 10 micrometers diameter, they cause no damage
to rat lungs. But when they are crushed into ultrafines "they
become highly inflammogenic to the lungs," he told Science
News.[6, 12, 13] In other words, carbon nano particles, without
any pollutants attached (no metals, no hydrocarbons), cause
lung damage by themselves. Their size alone is harmful.

Donaldson conducted similar experiments on ultrafine particles
of pure styrene, with similar results, showing that nano size
alone is a danger. This clearly indicates that the manufacture
of nano particles will be a threat to workers, and any
particles released into outside air will be a public health
menace. It is worth pointing out the obvious: The smaller
particles become, the harder they are to control and contain.

Nano particles floating in the air will not remain pure for
long. Metals and hydrocarbons (from combustion sources like
incinerators, cement kilns, fossil-fuel power plants, and
diesel engines) will quickly coat their large surfaces.

It is now known that the deadly effects of fine and ultrafine
particles aren't restricted to the lung, but occur in the
cardiovascular system and brain. Renaud Vincent and colleagues
at Health Canada (the Canadian equivalent of the U.S. National
Institutes of Health) clarified the mechanism of cardiovascular
damage by exposing healthy volunteers to high levels of fine
particles -- the levels you might find in a city with dirty
air.[14, 15, 6]

Vincent found that exposure to ultrafine particles doubles the
concentration of a small protein (called endothelin) in the
blood stream. Endothelin increases blood pressure. The spike in
endothelin levels can be tolerated by a healthy subject, but
may kill a person who is already suffering from atherosclerosis
(hardening of the arteries).[6]

Importantly, the spike in endothelin concentration only occurs
when subjects are exposed to fine and ultrafine particles that
have metals or hydrocarbons attached to them. If the particles
are purified before the humans are exposed to them, they have
no effect on endothelin levels. Thus it seems to be the
combination of ultrafine particles and metals and/or
hydrocarbons that increases endothelin.

Other researchers have also been examining the effects of fine
and ultrafine particles on cardiovascular health. Scientists at
the Harvard School of Public Health exposed dogs to fine and
ultrafine particles, then simulated heart attacks in the dogs
by using a surgically-implanted balloon to temporarily shut off
a coronary artery. Dogs that had been breathing ultrafines
could not compensate for the blocked artery -- which may help
explain why humans who have heart attacks on a bad-air day are
more likely to die than people having heart attacks where the
air is cleaner.[16]

Cardiovascular disease and heart attacks are not the only
concern arising from exposure to fine and ultrafine particles
in the air. A University of North Carolina research team
working with dogs living in Mexico City has shown that exposure
to ultrafine air pollution causes brain damage. Lilian
Calderon-Garcideunas found that ultrafine particles carry
metals such as vanadium and nickel into the dogs' brains
through their noses. The fine particles break down the barriers
that normally prevent contaminants passing into the brain.[6,

Dogs are often used as models for the study of cognitive
impairments that accompany old age in humans. Some dogs aged 10
and over develop the waxy plaques that are characteristic of
Alzheimer's disease. Calderon-Garcideunas's study of 200 dogs
in Mexico City reveals that the animals breathing ultrafine
particles develop waxy beta-amyloid plaques in the brain before
they are a year old.[6, 17]

Calderon-Garcideunas told science writer Janet Raloff that her
findings are "definitely worrisome" because she has examined
the noses of humans in Mexico City and found evidence of a
breakdown of nasal tissue, similar to that found in dogs.[6]

U.S. EPA researchers and colleagues in Germany have found that
metals attached to fine and ultrafine particles greatly
exacerbate asthma. First they examined children in a German
city where the air is contaminated with fine and ultrafine
particles mixed with metals. Compared to children living in a
rural German town where the air is relatively clean, the urban
children showed strongly allergic reactions. The researchers
then exposed mice to the two kinds of air that the children
were breathing. They reported that mice exposed to
metal-contaminated ultrafine particles developed strong
allergic and asthmatic reactions in their airways.[18]

Using isolated lung cells, researchers found that ultrafine
particles from Los Angeles air (a) carry far more toxic
combustion byproducts per unit weight than do larger particles
(no surprise because of surface-to-volume ratio); and (b) enter
cells and settle in the mitochondria, which are the cells'
source of power. Ultrafine particles turn the mitochondria into
"functionless bags," researcher Andre Nel told Science News,
killing the cells they were powering.[7, 6]

In sum the nanotech industry and the U.S. government are
rapidly ramping up a new industrial capacity to manufacture ton
quantities of ultrafine particles, very similar to particles
already known to be killing tens of thousands of people in the
U.S. each year. The complete catalog of harm from these
particles remains to be written, but we already know that they
cause or aggravate asthma and cardiovascular disease, damage
the small airways of animals, adults, and children, carry
metals and cancer-causing combustion byproducts deep into the
lungs and even into the brain where they promote the growth of
amyloid plaques associated with Alzheimer's disease.

We also know that the current regulatory system has proven to
be incapable of bringing particulate pollution under control
because of relentless opposition from corporations. As a matter
of law, corporations are required to put profits before public
health, so we can never expect them to do any better than they
are doing today, until we change the law.[19]

Clearly, in the case of nano particles, we have reasonable
suspicion of harm, and we have some remaining scientific
uncertainty. Therefore we have an ethical duty to take
preventive (precautionary) action. If there ever was a proper
time to invoke the precautionary principle, this is it.[20]


[1] Mihail C. Roco and William Sims Bainbridge, editors,
Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance
(Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation, June, 2002.
Available at http://rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=208 but
the file is 3.7 megabytes.

[2] Anonymous, "Small Times Magazine Names Top 10 Small Tech
Hot Spots," Small Times March 12, 2003. Available at

[3] "The Little BANG Theory," ETC Group Communique #78
(March/April 2003). Available on the web at
http://www.etcgroup.org/documents/comBANG2003.pdf .

[4] Jayne Fried, "Japan Sees Nanotech as Key to Rebuilding Its
Economy," Small Times Jan. 7, 2002, pgs. unknown. Available at
http://rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=223 .

[5] Mark Jenkins, "Antioxidants and Free Radicals," 1996,
available at http://www.rice.edu/--jenky/sports/antiox.html and
at http://rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=299 .

[6] Janet Raloff, "Air Sickness," Science News Vol. 164, No. 5
(August 2, 2003). Available at:
http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=280 .

[7] Ning Li and other, "Ultrafine Particulate Pollutants Induce
Oxidative Stress and Mitochondrial Damage," Environmental
Health Perspectives Vol. 111, No. 4 (April 2003), pgs. 455-460.
Available at http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=288 .

[8] Janet Raloff, "High court gives EPA a victory," Science
News Vol. 159, No. 10 (March 10, 2001), pg. 159.

[9] Kent E. Pinkerton and others, "Distribution of Particulate
Matter and Tissue Remodeling in the Human Lung," Environmental
Health Perspectives Vol. 108, No. 11 (November, 2000), pgs.
1063-1069. Available at
http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=281 .

[10] Kevin R. Smith, "Airborne Particles of the California
Central Valley Alter the Lungs of Healthy Adult Rats,"
Environmental Health Perspectives Vol. 111, No. 7 (June 2003),
pgs. 902-908. Available at
http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=282 .

[11] Andrew Churg and others, "Chronic Exposure to High Levels
of Particulate Air Pollution and Small Airway Remodeling,"
Environmental Health Perspectives Vol. 111, No. 5 (May 2003),
pgs. 714-718. Available at
http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=283 .

[12] L.C. Renwick and others, "Impairment of Alveolar
Macrophage Phagocytosis by Ultrafine Particles," Toxicology and
Applied Pharmacology Vol. 172 (2001), pgs. 119-127. Available
at http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=293 .

[13] D.M. Brown and others, "Size-Dependent Proinflammatory
Effects of Ultrafine Polystyrene Particles: A Role for Surface
Area and Oxidative Stress in the Enhanced Activity of the
Ultrafines," Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology Vol. 175
(2001), pgs. 191-199. Available at
http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=291 .

[14] Robert D. Brook and others, "Inhalation of Fine
Particulate Air Pollution and Ozone Causes Acute Arterial
Vasoconstriction in Healthy Adults," Circulation Vol. 105
(2002), pgs. 1534-1536. Available at
http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=290 .

[15] Leo Bouthillier and others, "Acute Effects of Inhaled
Urban Particles and Ozone; Lung Morphology, Macrophage
Activity, and Plasma Endothelin-1," American Journal of
Pathology Vol. 153, No. 6 (Dec. 1998), pgs. 1873-1884.
Available at http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=289 .

[16] Gregory A. Wellenius and others, "Inhalation of
Concentrated Ambient Air Particles Exacerbates Myocardial
Ischemia in Conscious Dogs," Environmental Health Perspectives
Vol. 111, No. 4 (April 2003), pgs. 402-408. Available at
http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=284 .

[17] Lilian Calderon-Garciduenas and others, "Air Pollution and
Brain Damage," Toxicologic Pathology Vol. 30, No. 3 (2002),
pgs. 373-389. Available at
http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=292 .

[18] Stephen H. Gavett and others, "Metal Composition of
Ambient PM 2.5 Influences Severity of Allergic Airways Disease
in Mice," Environmental Health Perspectives Vol. 111, No. 12
(September 2003), pgs. 1471-1477. Available at
http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=285 .

[19] Robert Hinkley, "Twenty Eight Words to Redefine Corporate
Duties," Multinational Monitor Vol. 23, Nos. 7 and 8
(July/August 2002); available at
http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=237 . And be sure
to see The Model Uniform Code for Corporate Citizenship,
available at http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=236 .

[20] On the precautionary principle, see
http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=187 and
http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=188 and
http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=189 and
http://www.rachel.org/library/getfile.cfm?ID=227 .

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 this material is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes.
Some of this material may be copyrighted by others. We believe
we are making "fair use" of the material under Title 17, but if
you choose to use it for your own purposes, you will need to
consider "fair use" in your own case and perhaps seek reprint
permission from the copyright owner. Environmental Research
Foundation provides this electronic version of RACHEL'S
ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH NEWS free of charge even though it costs
the organization considerable time and money to produce it. We
would like to continue to provide this service free. You could
help by making a tax-deductible contribution (anything you can
afford, whether $5.00 or $500.00). Please send your
tax-deductible contribution to: Environmental Research
Foundation, P.O. Box 160, New Brunswick, NJ 08903-0160. Please
do not send credit card information via E-mail. For further
information about making tax-deductible contributions to E.R.F.
by credit card please phone us toll free at 1-888-2RACHEL, or
at (732) 828-9995, or fax us at (732) 791-4603.
                                        --Peter Montague, Editor

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: "ricardo dominguez" <rdom {AT} thing.net>
Subject: Re: <nettime> DNA and computers
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 07:38:25 -0400

----- Original Message -----
from: "Ognjen Strpic" <ognjen {AT} mi2.hr>
to: <nettime-l {AT} bbs.thing.net>
sent: Monday, September 08, 2003 5:11 AM
subject: Re: <nettime> DNA and computers

> > From: "ricardo dominguez" <rdom {AT} thing.net>
> >
> > Hola,
> Zdravo!

Zdravo! to you.

Don't confuse the storyteller with the story ;-)

The tale attempts to foreground some of the narratives that the nanotech
folks are telling themselves and others.

> > Nano-fest Destiny 3.0: Fragments from the Post-Biotech Era
> whoa, fantastic story. I wish I knew about it then. this paragraph
> > The market containment of MNT is now under a double re-configuration:
> > first, the economic enclosure of scientific speculation as a new
> > market engine and, second, as a technological displacement of economy
> > as a historical drive. At the same moment that MNT is being embraced
> > as part of the general economy, its internal objective trajectory
> > signs it speculations with a vision of material scarcity as the
> > governing doctrine of Capital finally ending.  Capital under the sign
> > of MNT enters slow eraser. The exploratory engineers working on
> > Nanotech see the end of Capital. Indeed History as Capital will now be
> > re-shifted into History as Assembler. The historical shift of an
> > economic embrace of an anti-market science will expand into assembler
> > networks - exchange will become based on design values as distribution
> > and not as Capital.
> seems crucial to me. however, do you still believe that the premise,
> nanotech as a means of abolishment of material scarcity, holds?

No, I don't think nanotech will abolish material scarcity...but, it is
part of story that is being pushed out into the nano_world. A strange
extropian belief that science can out run the market.

> nano science is obviously an anti-market science, and extremely hungry
> for capital, too -- comparable to high-end microprocessor production
> today, which is availably only to the richest (can you see any African
> CPUs around?).  if you're right, my conclusion would probable be that
> design values-based _capital_ would triumph over material goods-based
> capital. but, I don't see that revolutionary social consequences
> necessarily follow. the richest man in the world today is in the
> business of exploiting design values, not of exploiting raw materials,
> isn't he?

The nano_divide will not be overcome with design values and neither
will will its ant-market dreams overcome its hunger for capital...but,
again it is part of the dialectics they tell and sell.

> earlier in your post you wrote
> > Tactical media, bio-interventionist and critical theory sectors should
> > have already been involved in disturbing nanotechnology by the late
> > 1980's when it was first being defined for the engineering sectors as
> > a sign moving from a speculative model to a sanctioned exploratory
> > zone. At this point in time not even Bill Joy's (cofounder and Chief
> > Scientist of Sun Microsystems) rant "Why the Future Doesn't Need Us",
> > which appeared in Wired in 2001, about the ramifications of molecular
> > nanotechnology will do little more than alter a few micro points of a
> > revised MNT Guidelines by the Foresight Institute.
> and I agree with you, but am afraid I don't have that tactical ace up my
> sleeve. if your card was design values capital, then I think it isn't
> strong enough. nanotech by itself (may I predict :-) won't bring about
> any significant new patterns of redistribution, although some substitute
> products in low-end nanotech may alleviate some burden off of poor, but
> then again not poorest people (about substutute products see De Landa,
> Thousand years of non-linear history).

The tale I told was not an attempt to define what the proper tactical gesture
would be at this moment. No ace up my sleeve at this point. But, like most
tactical gesture it starts by spreading *Information* about the issue,
establishing *Dialogue* between the story tellers, activist, artists, academics
and the nano folks themselves, *Mapping* connections between capital, research
and regulations, letting *The Public Ear*  know about the issues at hand and
from all of these elements.  I am sure that more specific tactical gestures
will emerge as a wider strategy is sutured together.

> there's (at least) one ingredient missing in your vision of nano
> revolution, and my prime suspect is the regulation of intellectual
> property, esp. patent law. this has been largely discussed in the
> context of biotech and software, so I'll just say that many of the same
> points are applicable in nanotech, too.

I agree that this element is missing in this tale...but, other tales
will arise over this *prime suspect*...folks like ETC and artists like
Diane Ludin "counter patent" gestures have already begun to focus
these connections. More to follow I am sure.

> just one more minor thing,
> as far as I know, the story of gray goo has been abandoned by
> nanoscientists as a remotely realistic danger... don't have the
> references nearby, but you can browse sci.nanotech archives, some good
> pointers appeared there.

Yes, we are now under the clouds of *green goo*, *yellow goo* *red goo* and
the worst of the worst *dark goo*....we can only imagine that more
*goo* will between now and tommorrow's tommorrow.

> long live the storytellers!
> Ognjen

ciao Ognjen

> > [Video Fades to Black]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: "porculus" <porculus {AT} wanadoo.fr>
Subject: Re: <nettime> DNA and computers
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 15:07:45 +0200

> and over time we can make smaller and smaller things.... 
>  surprise surprise....

are you sure ov doing a so big one

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo {AT} bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} bbs.thing.net