Point b): See earlier response. Nanoweapons.
Point a): We have a proven history of serious screwups
with the most dangerous and presumably
most-cautiously-handled technology in existence. One
similar screup with nanotechnology--and the show is
"That's all, folks!"
Michael S. Lorrey wrote: > > As to reactors: Browns Ferry, I believe it was, nearly > burned to the ground because some idiot with a LIGHTER > or a candle was poking it into FLAMMABLE > insulation--AND the redundant wiring ran right > alongside the primary wiring. Windscale, Chernobyl, > Three Mile Island all released radiation into the > atmosphere. We release self-replicating nannites, > ONCE, and it's over. > > We are not competent to control nanotechnology.
a) the fact we have a proven history will demand that care be taken. b) which particular nanotechnology are you talking about? We already use nanotechnology today of one kind or another.
What you fail to show with your many examples of one case where catastrophe resulted from nuclear accidents. Chernobyl is the best candidate, and that was more an accident that proved the incompetency of communism, not nuclear technology.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online! http://photos.yahoo.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:16 MDT