Spray-on liquid glass is about to revolutionize almost everything

Post by L-L-Lame_J » Fri, Jan 14, 2011, 3:18 AM UTC

juiceandjuice wrote: post #55

yummyfajitas wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Extremely rare compared to what? Compared to the entire population of the United States? Compared to other health threats in the US. Before the 60's and 70's, Asbestosis was a minor concern except for people with occupational exposure (e.g. asbestos miners). Much bigger and more pressing issues were polio, malaria, measles, and the like. Once we became rich and healthy enough to care about it, we dealt with it. It wa…

Yes, the dangers of Asbestos were limited to people exposed to asbestos. It was an occupational hazard, and the uses of asbestos were largely commercial and industrial in nature. As such, Asbestos was never directly marketed to consumers. Asbestos exposure was also limited because it's relatively narrow scope of usefulness. Asbestos was never a cultural phenomenon. The extremely wide range of usefulness of nanotech m…

Post by mmaunder » Fri, Jan 14, 2011, 3:23 AM UTC

Post by scotty79 » Fri, Jan 14, 2011, 3:45 AM UTC

rapind wrote: post #77

hagy wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Concerns of breathing in this silicate have been popping up a lot in this discussion (especially concerns about silicosis). I’d just like to point out that we’re discussing very small quantities; nano-coatings of ~100nm, only 15-30 molecules high as mentioned in the articles. Wikipedia states that the silicate clusters ascribed to silicosis each have a diameter of ~10 microns; each clusters is 100 times larger than t…

I'm actually far less alarmed about the material. It sounds pretty great. What worries me is this fixation we seem to have with eliminating bacteria... Isn't there a downside to this? If we spread it around as much as this article describes it seems to me like we'd greatly sanitize our environment... What happens if we greatly reduce the amount of bacteria we're exposed to daily due to some sort of invention like nan…

Post by markdionne » Fri, Jan 14, 2011, 3:49 AM UTC

Post by bkmartin » Fri, Jan 14, 2011, 4:04 AM UTC

juiceandjuice wrote: post #55

yummyfajitas wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Extremely rare compared to what? Compared to the entire population of the United States? Compared to other health threats in the US. Before the 60's and 70's, Asbestosis was a minor concern except for people with occupational exposure (e.g. asbestos miners). Much bigger and more pressing issues were polio, malaria, measles, and the like. Once we became rich and healthy enough to care about it, we dealt with it. It wa…

Yes, the dangers of Asbestos were limited to people exposed to asbestos. It was an occupational hazard, and the uses of asbestos were largely commercial and industrial in nature. As such, Asbestos was never directly marketed to consumers. Asbestos exposure was also limited because it's relatively narrow scope of usefulness. Asbestos was never a cultural phenomenon. The extremely wide range of usefulness of nanotech m…