Nanohazard symbol design competition
Have a peruse at the 54 pages (and counting) worth of entries in this "Design a Nanohazard Logo" competition. Then, add your own! Link (via Beyond the Beyond)
Have a peruse at the 54 pages (and counting) worth of entries in this "Design a Nanohazard Logo" competition. Then, add your own! Link (via Beyond the Beyond)
the latest
latest episodes
This is sponsored by a group that has an alarmist agenda regarding nanotechnology. They're asking for a moratorium on any research involving "molecular self-assembly and self-replication."
That describes large chunks science. They're buzzword conscious luddites.
a sketch of Bush with a magnifying glass over his skull
Contest over! Boo! I wanted to put an Apple Nano in a circle with a slash.
@2
you are not afraid of gray goo?
Remember these these ones?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/87547772@N00/sets/72157594323393196/
A good deal more thoughtful, and covering a range of potential futuristic hazards.
@5
No.
Are you?
They might as well ask for a moratorium on chemistry until the risks are better understood.
It took a while. My choices didn't make it, but were similar. Lots of very interesting little graphics which give insite into the theory that some people actually do look at signs (hardly). I think the Xaos symbol of the eight pointed star, the center of which would contain an N, would be a good idea. But then, the N + Skull would be universally recognized before some fancy graphic. THanks for sharing that.
5 points to anyone who can tell me what a nanohazard is. And why is it different than any other chemical hazard?
Tsck! You can already buy Nanotech enhanced C60 Beauty Cream!
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/science/84/8413sci3.html
more endohedral snake oil : http://www.vc60.com/english/index.html
My suggestion: International Safety Man melting into a puddle of grey goo.
From a design perspective, these are horrible signs. Dimitris Deligannis's uses the wrong skull, and nanotechnology only marginally has anything to do with atoms, especially since the Bohr atom symbol has been used for years to mean "atomic power/radiation" Confusion!
Sharmin Farjana's also looks like an atom, or perhaps Saturn.
Chris Paul and Guilermo Espinosa Hernadez both use the -9 exponent which requires you to know what exactly that means. Good warning signs are obvious, like "man engulfed in flames."
Mike Abbott's looks so much like the standard warning/attention symbol, it's doubtful anyone would notice that it's not actually just a normal warning symbol.
Hernandez, Ansari, and Farjana's all use the latin N, which I believe is considered bad form, because you try to avoid any language/culturally specific symbols in international signs.
Shirely Gibson's is two clever by half.
Mary Schrider's is way to impractical to print, and what's up with all the embedded question marks. Kypros Kyprianou's is also impractical, but refreshingly better than Schrider's craptastic entry. Shiabel's is also too busy, but less so in comparison.
Nick Sterjov's shouldn't have made the cut, since it's crappy version of Nigel Keam's buckyball. (Why two buckyballs? Did they only have 15 entries?)
Austin's looks too much like a road.
Kudos to Maani for creating an image that says "small."
Creely's on the hand says, "implosion."
Kudos(?) to Foreman for creating a distinct symbol for nanotech that is absolutely meaningless ala the radiation and biohazard symbols.
I'd say Foreman's edges out Maani's because the symbol is bolder and easier to see at a distance than Maani's.
@5,
As a Nanotech Engineering Student, nope not afraid of it one bit. I'm much more worried about Laptop nukes which will be made possible with Nano-energetics. Or how about Conventional explosives with the power of a Nuclear weapon? The Father of all Bombs was what fraction the power of Hiroshima?
Jake @2: They want to ban DNA?
@16, No they want to ban research into DNA.
fascinating
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/novel-energetic-materials.htm
Re: research bans; how about intelligent caution? I've always had trouble with genies and bottles.
@5 and other paranoids
As a Ph.D student working with nano-structured material I say: there is nothing here to be scared of. If we called it "itty-bitty"technology instead of "nano"technology would you still be nervous? "Ittybittyhazard symbol design competition" doesn't have much of a ring to it, does it?
what are the long term medical effects of absorbing nano-particles of the most common substances and compounds you have worked with? Are these particles transported throughout the body after exposure? If they accumulate (where?) what are the consequences?
What studies have been done? How long are the baselines? What vested interests exist that might not want scrutiny?
There is always something to be scared of. How scared and when is the question.
Facile dismissal of legitimate questions smacks of tobacco company "ethics".
harumph!
http://www.greensupplyline.com/showArticle.jhtml?printableArticle=true&articleId=199001159
The problem with trying to argue about the safety of "nano" is that it is a buzzword.
@21 The question of the bio-compatibility of nanoparticulates is a good one. In general any ingredients that go into products for human consumption should be tested.
But "nano" refers to a specific sort of science which is in many ways an extension of chemistry. You might as well think of it as "macro-molecular-engineering." Trying to argue about its safety is like arguing about the safety of chemistry. I wouldn't go ingesting new compounds just like I wouldn't huff nanowires (deliberately at least). It's a good idea to treat new things with caution.
But what this group is calling for is absurd.
Since "nano" became the big buzzword for science, people have been finding ways to work nano into all sorts of names. If you were using some sort of chemical process before, you might as well start calling it "nano" to sell. Now they want to ban it?
Gray-goo and the crap by Crichton are irrational fears.
Arguing that we should take care to limit the amount of particulate people are intaking is fine. Arguing that things with unknown properties shouldn't be used in skin products is reasonable. But arguing for a moratorium on all nanoscale research is idiotic. Beyond idiotic. It's ignorant anti-technology FUD and should be called what it is.
this is the "ETC Group"'s statement on nanotechnology:
"Nanotechnology refers to the manipulation of matter on the scale of the nanometer (one billionth of a meter). Nanoscale science operates in the realm of single atoms and molecules. At present, commercial nanotechnology involves materials science (i.e. researchers have been able to make materials that are stronger and more durable by taking advantage of property changes that occur when substances are reduced to nanoscale dimensions). In the future, as nanoscale molecular self-assembly becomes a commercial reality, nanotech will move into conventional manufacturing. While nanotechnology offers opportunities for society, it also involves profound social and environmental risks, not only because it is an enabling technology to the biotech industry, but also because it involves atomic manipulation and will make possible the fusing of the biological world and the mechanical. There is a critical need to evaluate the social implications of all nanotechnologies; in the meantime, the ETC group believes that a moratorium should be placed on research involving molecular self-assembly and self-replication."
I concur it is too broad-reaching. Instead of calling them idiots,perhaps they should be educated further to distinguish baby and bathwater.
Keep in mind a blurb on their website is just that. I have not talked to them, have you?
Does anyone here know for a fact that they are indeed gits?
I'm with Coaxial on this: Most of the design on display is amateur in that it's either too vague, assumes too much background, or dilutes itself with other unrelated symbols, all without much regard for reproducibility or iconic simplicity.
At least Cory did what the competition holders should have done before any voting took place, paring down the competition. The first one Cory shows is the best of all of them (ok, of the first five pages I looked at) as it's the least visually noisy, though it's still somewhat vague.
All things considered, though, the best option here would have been to court student or professional designers, or even just hire a firm with a portfolio consisting of this sort of thing.
My favourites were #72, #32, and #113.
Of the finalists I think I like Nigel Keam's best, but it kind of says, "Caution: Soccer balls!"
Still, that's better than...
Caution: angular biohazards!
Caution: beetles with wrenches!
Caution: agglutinating Walkman logos!
Caution: bubbles!
Caution: planets!
Caution: exponents!
Caution: the letter N!
Caution: flying Starfleet badges!
But not better than...
Caution: Old man angry at grey goop eating his cane!
@23 I haven't talked to them, nor do I see why I would. And I firmly believe the moratorium they call for is idiotic. Perhaps I am making a stretch by calling the people who make idiotic statements idiotic, misguided is maybe more accurate. They certainly were smart enough to propogandize cleverly. But you won't know about the dangers unless people do the research on it, and they are. Part of the reason why you don't know about how super toxic they are is that there have been no definitive results. What we have found is that inhaling small particles is bad for you, but you could have just asked a miner about that.
alas, the law of unintended consequences....
Is it conceivable that there could be long term health effects that will (as in the case of asbestos) take decades to manifest? Is it possible?
There is always a middle ground. At least in these matters.
Eh. Most of the non-finalists fall into one of three categories:
1. Rip-offs of the nuclear hazard symbol
2. Rip-offs of the biohazard symbol
3. Too damn intricate to replicate cheaply, easily, and in a variety of sizes.
And even some of the finalists fall into the above three categories. I've got to agree with Sardion2000 that Foreman's is probably the best of the lot. Hell, if we're going to develop a new technology, we should probably create the warning sign sooner rather than later.
I think I'm staking out something of a middle ground. I'm all for caution, but I get pissed off by luddite alarmism.
Then find one Luddite and change him.
had to...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10501631@N00/2195117732/
The very idea might be absurd, but the word nanohazard is very fetching.
@23 I think yours is the best.
@32 That's the problem, it sounds dangerous and pretty cool, so it makes for good propaganda.
Doh, my dyslexia took over, I was trying to compliment #31.
oh oh, first sign the fullerenes have migrated to neural tissue
If nanotech --didn't-- have the potential to cause a lot of problems, you'd have a lot of sf writers without stories. I'm willing to bet that there is enough possible risk with this technology that we should not only explore it with Drexlerian dreams, but with Walter Jon Willisams cautions too. The best hard sf writers see how humans make mistakes with all their technology. We need AI to help make Nano work. I wouldn't trust a human with the oversite and regulation of stuff that could be used, in such obvious ways, as weapons technology.
Iam not worried about the extreme extensions of nanotechnology. What concerns me is the incredibly mundane and dull applications that first become ubiquitous. There is going to be a whole host of new materials with wonderful properties, fortunes will be made. Then years, or many years, later,the full story will emerge.
Can anyone out there help me with this: Fullerenes (carbon 60) are touted as new. In fact, there was a relatively long pre-existing source of them; carbon arc lamps. What in the British and American motion film industry were referred to as "brutes". These lamps were typically between 10,000 and 20,000 watts in range and were a rich source of carbon fullerenes (buckyballs) from the arc generated between two carbon electrodes. The arc had to be struck by hand and trimmed continually. Later motor feeds were used.
The question: Is there any research on the effects of this long term exposure on the carbon arc lamp operators? These units are scarcely used any more, but many individuals are still living who used them. Apart from a chimney to vent the lamp,there was never any protective measures taken.
Just wondering.
Looking through google scholar for "fullerene exposure" it looks like several studies have been done on fish to gauge the effects of acute exposure. Adding "chronic" to the search, gives a few different results. From glancing at it briefly, it appears clear the fullerenes are in fact toxic (not surprising).
Fullerenes may be touted as new, but more correctly, the ability to manipulate them is quite new. That said, why the obsession with fullerenes? They are just one aspect of nanotech. Take a look at Nano Letters (http://pubs.acs.org/journals/nalefd/index.html) to get an idea of some of the diversity of what's going on in nanotechnology research.
ob·ses·sion (əb-sěsh'ən, ŏb-) Pronunciation Key
n.
1. Compulsive preoccupation with a fixed idea or an unwanted feeling or emotion, often accompanied by symptoms of anxiety.
2. A compulsive, often unreasonable idea or emotion.
Jeez, I give an example and now I'm obsessed?
I'm well aware of the range of current research. That is not the point. If you intend to make your career in this field you'd best develop early the skill at explaining it to others. Otherwise it's going to really, really wear you out.
I am all for nano research. I fully believe that it is not going to be a good thing, but an absolutely ESSENTIAL thing.
If you can't sell me,how are you going to handle the mob with pitchforks and torches?
I wasn't particularly approaching it from a selling point, more just grinding axes ...
But the sales pitch for nano goes something like this:
Nanoscience refers to science on systems at or near the scale of one nanometer. The newness of it comes from our recent ability to manipulate systems on that scale. It often involves the study of "bottom-up" (giggle) processes, which are contrasted with "top-down" which is the traditional way of building small things. A key example of this would be the idea of growing circuits instead of making circuits by photo-lithography processes. In order to make actual devices, a combination of the methods is usually called for (eg, grown nanowires put into a circuit with lithography). As far as "bottom-up" processes go, life is probably the ultimate one. While people are dreaming of being able to design the smallest parts of something and then grow what they want, this is far far off. Trying to ban that sort of research at this point is far too alarmist.
The dangers of nano-technology are pretty much the dangers of any science or engineering. But it's a lot less scary sounding if you realize that fundamentally it is glorified chemistry that we're talking about. Of course a chemistry lab has terrible things in it. But without chemistry, we'd be in a pretty dark place.
As far as me calling you on an obsession with fullerenes, it wasn't so much to say "you're obsessed," but that fullerenes seem to be the first risk everyone worries about. They represent only a small part of the research.
whaddya expect? they got first press.
I had to run off and left my sales pitch for nano somewhat incomplete:
Nanoscience is promising a whole slew of exciting things. Better sensors that can do the work of a lab on a chip - imagine diagnosing diseases with only a drop of blood instead of the vials they need now. Smaller computer chips, nanoscience is the one way that promises to save Moore's law as traditional lithography methods break down. A better understanding of what is going on in the human body to allow us to fix it better. Drug delivery that is better directed and painless, stronger lighter materials, better solar cell ... basically better everything.
Sure this also means better weapons, but when hasn't that been the case for new technology? Is caution warranted? Absolutely. But complete dismissal of it, or trying to ban it, is just plain stupid.
Takuan (27), of course there could be long-term health problems we don't yet understand; but that's true with everything. Surely you can't expect them to prove that nanotech has none? We were using asbestos for centuries and lead pottery glazes for millennia before we appreciated their health hazards.
Jeff (37), nanotechnology winds up in a lot of stories because we don't yet know enough about it to limit its imaginable powers. Electricity, magnetism, nuclear technology, lasers, and computers all went through comparable phases in imaginative literature.
If I were filling in the blank on "As cautious as ____________," "Walter Jon Williams" wouldn't be the first answer that came to mind.
"If I were filling in the blank on "As cautious as ____________," "Walter Jon Williams" wouldn't be the first answer that came to mind."
Well, he was the first one to come to --my-- mind. So, do you want to suggest another author of a Gray Goo book, or just criticize other people's ideas? And I'm quite familiar with WHY nano ends up in stories. Your point is? Perhaps you would be happy if we just let the mad scientists of the world play with the stuff until we have our first bad problem. You know like the one Walter Jon Willliams wrote about in Aristoi, where the Earth was destroyed.
Jeff, could you expand on: "We need AI to help make Nano work. I wouldn't trust a human with the oversite and regulation of stuff that could be used, in such obvious ways, as weapons technology."
What are the obvious ways? And are you serious about using an artificial intelligence to regulate them? Could you maybe explain a bit more? I don't understand your position at all.
Most of these doomsday scenarios make sense as science fiction, but not as science. Do you want to regulate Ice-9 as well?
The preocupation lies in how discrete it's influence would be. Yes, there are inherent but somehow more visible dangers on fully established and industrialized tech, risks that we have learn to live with, be it oil spills, overpopulation, lead paints on toys, etc.
Like nuclear (Chernobyl) or biotech(Gulf War), nano carries an stigma that we may be playing with fire.
That's why I think we shouldn't be too hasty to condemn these backward thinking luddites, security should always be a valid concern.
MarlboroTestMonkey7, I think you're right for the most part. I do think we should be in a hurry to at least point out the idiocy of the stance of these backwards thinking luddites. It's not terribly diplomatic of me call them that, and I promise it's only on the internet that I call them names, I perhaps should stop that, but there is a certain frustration encountering it in what I thought was a tech-savvy environment.
I'm all for security, I'm all for safety. I tend to think everything is a carcinogen until shown otherwise. But a lot of the fears about the technology (gray-goo for example) are founded on little science and pretty much everything that people are doing that they're calling "nano" has nothing to do with it even remotely. People are using nano to do things like build better, cleaner solar cells.
A sales pitch for nano, probably should be more like: do you love mother earth? Are you sick of poisoning her with nasty chemicals? Well, people are using nano-technology to make cleaner power so we can stop poisoning her.
It's true.
Please ignore the jug marked "poison."