Good evening everyone!
I continue my research and report will be completed soon.
My tutor told me about a conference he attended, about Mr. Dupuis.
The United States are currently developing nanotechnology which, as for the destruction of cancer cells in the human body, would be capable of destroying cells in polluting the air.
This explains a little better the fact that they refused to sign the Kyoto protocol! imagine a state that is capable of destroying the pollution it produces! set apart the problem of the depletion of natural resources, this country becomes economically very powerful !!!
Have you ever heard of this development of nanotech? if so what do you think? and even if not what do you think ??
Thank you and see you soon!
Olivier
Nanotechnology and pollution
-
- Moderator
- posts: 79121
- Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
- Location: Greenhouse planet
- x 10973
Destroy the molecules of CH4 and CO2 present in minute proportions in the air? But at what cost and in what proportions?
You should have sources? For me now it's a nice joke ...
You should have sources? For me now it's a nice joke ...
0 x
Do a image search or an text search - Netiquette of forum
For powerful is a powerful country! Because he does whatever he wants, in his exclusive interest.
She will nanotech track pollution, a "surgically" again? (An arrow-uranium bomb and next, loading 10 B52: in total, that of misfortune, and uranium is not to be admired)
Will Does it suitable and effective, to eradicate any nuclear pollution, in 3 countries sovereign they have already contaminated?
It's in my face, the announcement effect that obey other issues. Reduce the image of the polluter, praise his technology, need a budget.
Anyway, it will be as advanced medicine (rich, for the elite), used in limited cases. And then it's so much better right now, economically to swing everything anywhere! Especially when we do not want the Kyoto protocol ...
She will nanotech track pollution, a "surgically" again? (An arrow-uranium bomb and next, loading 10 B52: in total, that of misfortune, and uranium is not to be admired)
Will Does it suitable and effective, to eradicate any nuclear pollution, in 3 countries sovereign they have already contaminated?
It's in my face, the announcement effect that obey other issues. Reduce the image of the polluter, praise his technology, need a budget.
Anyway, it will be as advanced medicine (rich, for the elite), used in limited cases. And then it's so much better right now, economically to swing everything anywhere! Especially when we do not want the Kyoto protocol ...
0 x
-
- Moderator
- posts: 79121
- Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
- Location: Greenhouse planet
- x 10973
Do prevents this remains pure science fiction to me ... then when you see the casualness of the USA in relation to the environment you believe it will spend millions (billions) to clean up the planet?
Not very credible all this ....
Not very credible all this ....
0 x
Do a image search or an text search - Netiquette of forum
- nonoLeRobot
- Master Kyot'Home
- posts: 790
- Registration: 19/01/05, 23:55
- Location: Beaune 21 / Paris
- x 13
it is said by Jean-Pierre Dupuy
Jean-Pierre Dupuy is a philosopher and disciple of René Girard, he taught at the École Polytechnique and Stanford University.
he held a conference not long ago where he said that. I do not think the problem of etauts united either clean up or not but rather to show that they are the ones who have the power on the planet. By proving he can track down polluting cells (even if it is only for the elite, has an exorbitant coupt ...). it is not a question of tracking nuclear pollution but the molecules of CO2 present in the air.
in any case with ca they show they want to once again dominate other deplorable attitude ... but nothing new from them ...
in short, I wanted to know if you had heard of that ...
Olivier
Jean-Pierre Dupuy is a philosopher and disciple of René Girard, he taught at the École Polytechnique and Stanford University.
he held a conference not long ago where he said that. I do not think the problem of etauts united either clean up or not but rather to show that they are the ones who have the power on the planet. By proving he can track down polluting cells (even if it is only for the elite, has an exorbitant coupt ...). it is not a question of tracking nuclear pollution but the molecules of CO2 present in the air.
in any case with ca they show they want to once again dominate other deplorable attitude ... but nothing new from them ...
in short, I wanted to know if you had heard of that ...
Olivier
0 x
Here, another example of "rather than ask questions about the causes, trying to fight against the consequences"
... and this one is particularly au gratin being proposed fight counters the effects of technological one-upmanship (CO2 in the atmosphere is only the consequence of the anarchic development of thermo-technology) .... by new technology !!!
It's really as its idiotic solution. I see a lot of potential problems:
Where will the energy needed to manufacture and operate these "depollutants" come from? thermal coal ???
How it will make the difference between CO2 "too much" and the necessary (greenhouse effect when it is not excessive is still the only "heating" of our planet). Imagining it to work their stuff, what do we do if there's more CO2 thus more greenhouse at all?
And plants, they need CO2 to grow. What's going on if a herd of these "critters" comes to pass over a forest or in the field that will feed a village for a whole year?
Lavoisier said, "nothing is lost, nothing is created, everything is transformed". Nanos, they make what CO2? We will burn coal in power stations ???
And finally, finally, the best for last:
And then when all these nanorobots skimmers will become uncontrollable if we ingest or breathe, we probably had our CO2 body (notably diluted in the blood). What's going to happen ?
A .... but if I know, we will manufacture has nano-robots to destroy other robots
... and this one is particularly au gratin being proposed fight counters the effects of technological one-upmanship (CO2 in the atmosphere is only the consequence of the anarchic development of thermo-technology) .... by new technology !!!
It's really as its idiotic solution. I see a lot of potential problems:
Where will the energy needed to manufacture and operate these "depollutants" come from? thermal coal ???
How it will make the difference between CO2 "too much" and the necessary (greenhouse effect when it is not excessive is still the only "heating" of our planet). Imagining it to work their stuff, what do we do if there's more CO2 thus more greenhouse at all?
And plants, they need CO2 to grow. What's going on if a herd of these "critters" comes to pass over a forest or in the field that will feed a village for a whole year?
Lavoisier said, "nothing is lost, nothing is created, everything is transformed". Nanos, they make what CO2? We will burn coal in power stations ???
And finally, finally, the best for last:
And then when all these nanorobots skimmers will become uncontrollable if we ingest or breathe, we probably had our CO2 body (notably diluted in the blood). What's going to happen ?
A .... but if I know, we will manufacture has nano-robots to destroy other robots
0 x
"Anyone who believes that exponential growth can continue indefinitely in a finite world is a fool, or an economist." KEBoulding
friendly point of view of a detractor
I see that we do not have the same vision of things on the subject.
I am glad, would still have these foundations are based on facts, not unfounded speculation.
I commend not question your analysis on CO2 but the report that is made with nano.
This is often the case when we do not differentiate between as possible / likely / desirable.
Concerning nanotechnologies, the amalgam is often too quickly made without taking into account the current aspects of the subject.
Lack of knowledge of the subject probably ...
I am glad, would still have these foundations are based on facts, not unfounded speculation.
I commend not question your analysis on CO2 but the report that is made with nano.
This is often the case when we do not differentiate between as possible / likely / desirable.
Concerning nanotechnologies, the amalgam is often too quickly made without taking into account the current aspects of the subject.
Lack of knowledge of the subject probably ...
0 x
A tree that falls makes more noise than a forest that falls ...
-
- Moderator
- posts: 79121
- Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
- Location: Greenhouse planet
- x 10973
Re: sympathetic the viewpoint of a detractor
Pinch wrote:Concerning nanotechnologies, the amalgam is often too quickly made without taking into account the current aspects of the subject.
Lack of knowledge of the subject probably ...
Like all new technologies ... the newness scares then speculates. Sometimes with reason and other times not ... but it only the future will tell ....
0 x
Do a image search or an text search - Netiquette of forum
-
- Similar topics
- Replies
- views
- Last message
-
- 31 Replies
- 11769 views
-
Last message by Janic
View the latest post
17/12/20, 08:35A subject posted in the forum : Air pollution and solutions against air pollution
-
- 9 Replies
- 6783 views
-
Last message by Ahmed
View the latest post
20/11/17, 17:48A subject posted in the forum : Air pollution and solutions against air pollution
-
- 49 Replies
- 21144 views
-
Last message by Christophe
View the latest post
15/02/21, 12:51A subject posted in the forum : Air pollution and solutions against air pollution
-
- 21 Replies
- 33868 views
-
Last message by gillesberdugo
View the latest post
19/08/21, 12:48A subject posted in the forum : Air pollution and solutions against air pollution
-
- 19 Replies
- 47546 views
-
Last message by neteo
View the latest post
16/10/13, 09:33A subject posted in the forum : Air pollution and solutions against air pollution
Back to "Air Pollution and solutions against air pollution"
Who is online ?
Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 41 guests