There are possible dangers with almost every advanced technology, let's get
concrete here and come up with some ideas towards security measures.
Gina "Nanogirl" Miller
Nanotechnology Industries
Web:
http://www.nanoindustries.com
E-mail:
nanogirl@halcyon.com
Alternate E-mail
echoz@hotmail.com
"Nanotechnology: solutions for the future."
>Just look at the fear that has been caused by more or less well
>founded worries about the pill (cancer), nuclear power (radioactive
>disasters), aspartame (just about any illness), electromagnetic fields
>etc. In many cases these worries have limited their introduction
>significantly. And ufog could really have some gory failure modes -
>imagine being trapped inside when all the foglets freeze up into a
>lattice, or if the foglets start to rub against fragile surfaces - a
>few scare stories, and customers might be less willing to trust it.
>> Is ufog more dangerous than a car? Than having guns around the
>> house? Than having cleaning products in your laundry?
>Depends on how it is programmed. My guess is that versatility is often
>proportional to the danger (just look at programming), so a weak ufog
>would be less dangerous than a car (having active microscale
>structures in the air is likely already more potentially dangerous
>than cleaning products), while a powerful ufog could very well be a
>loaded gun.
>Anders Sandberg