Damn, well caught. I normally check the dates but didn't notice this was already a year old. Sorry for the old dupe. Wonder if it's now actually available anywhere. The description of this stuff is almost unbelievable and I wonder if they have found any downsides to it in the past year.
Here's their year-end review: a burst of publicity in February, and then hardly anything apart from a November article in "Cleanroom Technology". They're using it to coat toys in a children's hospital allowing kids that would not normally be allowed to play with the toys at all to use them.
I'm going to start a pool. Buy in is $200 equivalent[1] per square. The board will be a 3 dimensional matrix, whose axis are:
1. The amount of time from now the collapse occurs. (most likely a logrithmic scale)
2. How far civilization falls, e.g. "back to the 19th century" or "back to the stone age"[2].
3. How "wierd" this makes the world, e.g. are there 40 degree temperature shifts in the afternoon in San Diego and warm beaches in Antarctica. Are there now hyper-intelligent wasps running the show. Do we discuss the "fragility of the fabric of space-time" much more frequently.. and so on.[3]
Finally, every "square" is actually in a state of superposition, based on the answer to the question "are there zombies[4] now" at the time of selection. Therefore if you are sure 10 days from now, early 16th century avg tech, wierd factor of .09, put in $400 worth of goods to catch the both zombies outcomes.
Winners will be chosen at the END of the collapse, before the rebuilding period. The winners will be given the location and secret combination to enter the cache. Transport and armed escort will not be provied by me or any other participant of this pool, (except by other arrangement out of scope of the pool) nor will any other form of survivability enhancement until reaching the cache.
[1] Entry fee must be in the form of non-perishable food, ammo, guns and other items traditionally considered valuable post-apocalypse
[2] Avg tech level does not include the fact that various warlords, mad scientists, intelligent creatures and other bad guys will have access to various tech remnants and caches... This is strictly about the level of technology and civilization available to the average person.
[3] Weirdness factor algorithm tbd, but it will be normalized on a 0-1 scale, with the current state of the US being .27.
[4] Zombies here includes both new and old style zombies, some forms of mutant, possibly mind-control victims, and certain types of insectoid horde. All other types of undead, mutants and creatures, as well as those with supernatural powers are actually just manifestations of the wierd factor (see [3]).
> This is strictly about the level of technology and civilization available to the average person.
So, um. How would you define this now, given that right now I have three computers within easy reach, a big-screen television and a game console in a heated apartment with lights and a gas stove - while somewhere across the world, someone is hoping they find enough water to drink so they can finish building their mud-hut before the wolves come?
Bonus points for pointing out that while my girlfriend is playing a post-apocalyptic video game, someone is probably doing almost exactly what she's doing, except with a real gun against real people?
I will arbitrarily define it at the time of the collapses, based on my rough knowledge of history and completely arbitrary whim, by looking around me and deciding everything based on the people I see.
Oddly, I lost a bet to myself with you comment, I figgured the first bit of pedantry would be over my statement regarding prizes being awarded at the end of the collapse. Such a thing is:
1. Even harder to judge
2. A much less useful time to be giving out caches of valuable supplies than the bits on the way down.
Anyway, given it is an apocalypse, odds are neither of us would survive, strictly statistically speaking, so who cares how I judge. If I remain alive, I am honestly not going to wait around for you for the argument given you are most likely dead, and I hope for your sake you would do the same for me by prying the cache location out of my dead hands.
As for your girlfriend's game: I have heard, and seen myself, that even the places that are most "terrifying ugly and bad" (first hand: the slums of Detroit and Pre-Katrina new Orleans, second hand: mogadishu, slums of bombay, etc) are surprisingly civilized. The "crazy fight for survival" based entertainment scenarios are about as realistic as the "evil corporation", "massive government conspiracy" and "small team of highly trained operatives" ones are. Such things may exist, but they are both more boring and more interesting than any such entertainment ever will be. Just sayin...
Unfortunately, in cases of societal breakdown, there are very few ways in which agreement and contracts and so on can be enforced. This is why even the staunchest libertarian will admit we need governments to enforce contracts! In the absence of such a thing, personal integrity and honor play a much larger role in the scheme of things. A man's word could in fact be his life-blood.
The short of it is you have no guarantee that I will not steal cache, other than my personal beliefs and ethics prevent me from doing so.
As for me dying before your winnings can be distributed: I understand this concern. I assure you I will actively do anything in my power to prevent this. However, in apocalyptic situations this is frequently not enough :(. Of course in an apocalypse a chance at a surviving cache is still better than not having the chance, so consider it a 5th condition on the pool:
Will sophacles survive in the apocalypse to hand out the prize. If you choose yes, sign up. If you choose no, don't sign up :P.
tl; dr -- ignore that paper on my desk that says "how to fund an apocalypse stockpile without spending a dime"
It still is, so long as it's sequestered such that the fibers don't become airborne. Asbestos removal projects done in eg. municipal buildings are often misguided.
Try "usually misguided". Several reports have come out that airborne asbestos is usually worse after asbestos removal than before. Going over it with a sprayed on sealer would be safer and more effective.
I didn't actually intend it to be a stupid joke; I was actually trying to parse the word, and then it turned out I was in the middle of a redditesque joke thread. But, no, I doubt it, especially given the number of downmods.
In larger-scale chunks (ie, dust). There have been a lot of questions how nano-scale particles react in our bodies, some of them apparently very differently, and not very much science because the creation of them in relatively large quantities is such a new development.
So yes, lets add new things to food without the testing we require of drugs, and lets do it on a massive scale.
Talk about overpromising and underdelivering. I remember people speculating that he'd designed a compact, powerful hydrogen fuel cell, hoverboard or something similar.
> As for a hoverboard - sure it's technically more interesting
> than a Segway, but would it truly revolutionize anything
It would for the cast of Back to the Future on Ice. ;-)
Seriously though, I think that the technology behind a hoverboard would probably have far more implications than the technology behind the Segway. The product itself might not revolutionize much, but the technology behind it would.
I agree, the hoverboard itself would revolutionize much (well, maybe for skaters), but the technology behind would change how we travel; Heck, we could use it to decrease the weight of the cars we currently use at least.
What if it flakes off? How structurally stable is it? If a wide variety of things start using it, will it increase the risk of silicosis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicosis) when using these products?
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 the thickness of this coating. Additionally, the article states that the silicate coating chemically bond to the applied surface. Such silicate bonds only cleave at high temperatures (500 deg C) so the coating won’t evaporate off under ambient conditions.
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 nano spray-on glass?
Like scotty79 said, we'll just end up in another 'antibiotic-resistant bacteria'-type situation. Some bacteria will find a way to thrive on those surfaces, and we'll have little defense against it. By that time we'll be largely dependent on those types of surfaces and it won't be easy to change everything out.
> the coating won’t evaporate off under ambient conditions
They say a coating lasts about a year, which is what is prompting this type of questions. What happens to it after a year? Does it stick to various things that come in contact with the coating? Does it break off and fall to the floor?
Saying the coating lasts a year may imply that within a year the coating sustains enough damage to render it less effective. For instance 99% of the coating may be intact while a small portion has fragmented off due to imperfections in the formation of the initial layer. Additionally many surfaces, especially countertops, are themselves damaged at the micron scale in regular use. If a layer of the initial surface fragments off it will leave an uncoated surface behind.
There additionally may be other mechanisms by which the coating is rendered less effective within a year, but I highly doubt a significant portion of the coating detaches from the surface within a year.
None of what you said gives me any comfort. In fact the opposite. I thought the lungs have a chance to capture large particles and that too small particles getting into your lungs is the cause of disease.
The lack of understanding about possible cancerous effects of nano materials worries me, especially with stuff like this and "nanocosmetic" materials. I'd just hate to find out 20 years down the road that all of our miracle materials were slowly killing us.
The lack of understanding about possible cancerous effects of wifi worries me, especially with stuff like this and "cellular" phones.
The lack of understanding about possible cancerous effects of CRT screens worries me, especially with stuff like this and "digital" displays.
The lack of understanding about possible cancerous effects of GMO food worries me...
The lack of understanding about possible cancerous effects of inert silicone gel breast implants worries me...
Someone over 30 can fill in earlier examples: "The lack of understanding about possible cancerous effects of $NEW_TECHNOLOGY_I_DONT_UNDERSTAND worries me. I'd just hate to find out 20 years down the road that $NEW_TECHNOLOGY was slowly killing us. "
The lack of understanding about possible adverse effects of asbestos worries me...
Oh wait, it is actually pretty nasty stuff. Now, while the "20 years down the road" thing is a bit silly, a lack of understanding about potential adverse effects is a reason to investigate further, not to dismiss anyone who's cautious about it as paranoid.
Society's track record is pretty good, then. Deaths attributable to asbestos are extremely rare in the scheme of things. Sensational headlines and ambulance chasing lawyers fool our primitive brain's broken probabilistic reasoning circuitry into making bad risk assessments. Given the overwhelming improvement in health and lifespan due to new material development and widespread use, I'd say we've been consistently making the right trade-offs. So, yeah, I'm firmly in the "OP is being paranoid" camp.
Extremely rare compared to what? Compared to the entire population of the United States? Maybe. Compared to the population of those directly and continuously exposed? Not so much.
We don't use that much asbestos anymore for a reason, and it's not because we found something better to replace it.
I'm not advocating we abandon nanomaterial research by any means. I'm hoping that it's widespread use and adoption doesn't outpace research of it's effects on humans given it's similarities with asbestos.
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 was hardly an unknown threat, just a minor one.
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 means that it will show up in everything everywhere. Of specific concern should be anything designed to be airborne or directly applied directly on somebody. The product in question directly matches that description. Furthermore, this product is aimed directly at consumers, and the article even mentions how it is about to "revolutionize everything", alluding to widespread adoption and use.
I'd hate for something like this to be plastered over keyboards, door knobs, floors and countertops, sunglasses, shoes, phones, surgical equipment, dishes and silverware, headphones, cosmetics, etc... Those are the targets for something like this. You know, things you touch and use every day.
Then take PCB's, or mercury and other hvy metal poisoning. Or radium (maybe a different radioactive) they use to paint on clock/watches to make them glow in the dark.
I guess you'd be happy to break up asbestos sheeting with no breathing apparatus then? Or participate in loose-fibre insulation removal, again with no protection? We'll check in with you in 20 years and see how you're going.
Cigarettes, DDT, Agent Orange, radium, hormone-leaching plastics, certain pharmaceuticals, antibiotic-laced meat. All were known to be harmful and were subject to a cover up to promote consumption.
DDT, Agent Orange, "hormone-leaching" plastics are not harmful to people. Antibiotics in meats are only a problem to a small number of allergic people. Of course, if you are really a vegetable or insect, then I could see why you consider the first two to be threats.
That is, in fact, what he's saying, although it wasn't definitively shown. But clearly it was known to be a carcinogen when they built my high school in the early 70's, and yet they were still using it as a standard insulation and fireproofing material. I have lots of asbestos tape in my house, too.
Lead paint, though - there's a good one. Everybody knew you shouldn't drink it, but nobody suspected the dust was a problem. (Although Japan had already banned it by the 20's, if I recall correctly, while America was still merrily painting everything in sight with toxins).
And of course, the Romans didn't even know you shouldn't drink it. Although the benefits lead plumbing in Rome due to widespread availability of clean water almost certainly outweighed the costs of some stupider Romans.
There are like 100 forms of asbestos with 6 types being extremely harmful. The manufactures started using the cheapest of the materials (which are extremely difficult to tell apart).
First off, radio waves have been pervasively bombarding us across a wide spectrum for nearly a century.
Radiation and it's effects are well understood and quantified with fields devoted explicitly to the research of it's effects on humans.
Animals have been continuously eating food food that's mutated since animals have been mutating.
People have not been smearing engineered nanoparticles over their face and putting them into their body in these quantities for any appreciable amount of time, except around places like coal mines, heavy industrial areas (especially where exhaust from combustion), asbestos lined buildings, and all sorts of other fun places directly linked with mesothelioma.
No, humans have been exposed to nanoparticles ever since the invention of fire - combustion of most solid materials generates nanoparticles. Humans have been engineering nanoparticles since the invention of Lustre
(a type of pottery). The only novelty with contemporary use of nanoparticles is that we can now create a uniform mix of them - until recently we could only find nanoparticles mixed with larger particles.
You are correct in your observation that dust can be harmful, and I would be surprised if concentrated nano dust behaves differently. In particular, a very real danger from spray on glass might be silicosis - a non-cancerous disease caused by occupational exposure to glass dust.
I'm only responding here to the social phenomenon of "omfg, scary new technology, CANCER", I'm not trying to engage in amateur epidemiology.
And it turned out that the nanoparticles produced by combustion are pretty cancerous. That's the main reason why there are limits on their concentration in the air. The smaller the particles are, the more dangerous. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particulate#Health_effects
What are you trying to say? That there are things that we know are not carcinogenic, such as wifi signals, and therefore, nothing is??
I think it was a perfectly valid comment: we really don't understand biological interactions at nanostructured interfaces all that well. See eg. all these hand-waving explanations for the supposed toxicity of carbon nanotubes http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080520/full/news.2008.845.ht...
(btw, CRT screens emit beta radiation, so if you'd sit close enough...)
Yup, it's probably no more dangerous than printer toner or asbestos or coal dust...
Wifi is known to be safe; we understand what makes UV and higher frequency light dangerous, and know that radio frequencies are fine (ionizing vs non-ionizing). CRT screens I believe use leaded glass to block the xrays they'd otherwise bombard you with.
I'd guess GMO foods are about as safe as anything else intentionally made poisonous to insects and other field pests.
>Yup, it's probably no more dangerous than printer toner or asbestos or coal dust...
I assume this was a tongue in cheek remark. The problem is that we contain these things whilst the article is anticipating covering virtually all contact surfaces with this spray. Which will probably be fine for 20 years or so and then we'll run out of serviceable lungs.
Indeed, the possibilities of a spray with these properties are infinite. In spirit of hn, I imagine coating my mobo/cpu/gpu for safe and easy, fan-less, liquid cooling! Fill it up and maybe throw a jellyfish in there for good measure...
>I imagine coating my mobo/cpu/gpu for safe and easy, fan-less, liquid cooling!
Isn't glass a thermal insulator? I guess a thin layer wouldn't create too great a temperature gradient. Sounds a nice idea. Of course you could do this now with a non-ionic liquid (oil?) but I don't fancy your jellyfishes chances.
Seems like you can buy it in Germany since 2007 (www.dienanoexperten.eu / www.der-nano-shop.de). Never heard about it before, so I guess it can't be that revolutionary, but maybe I give it a try...
Other outlets, such as many supermarkets, may be unwilling to stock the products because they make enormous profits from cleaning products that need to be replaced regularly, and liquid glass would make virtually all of them obsolete
The coating is environmentally harmless and non-toxic, and easy to clean using only water or a simple wipe with a damp cloth. It repels bacteria, water and dirt, and resists heat, UV light and even acids.
How can you use water to clean it if it repels water?
Teflon is Du Pont's brand name for polytetrafluoroethylene. Gore-Tex is Gore & Associates's brand name for thermo-mechanically expanded polytetrafluoroethylene. Gore-Tex is commonly used to make pants. Given that you wrote "Teflon" in lower-case, they probably qualify as "teflon pants" to you.
"To create transparent aluminium, more power than is used by an entire city had to be focused into a dot with a diameter of less than one-twentieth the thickness of a human hair, and then could only maintain the transparent state for 40 femtoseconds."
And its only transparent to the X-rays that are needed to knock out the electron in the L-shell.
>Other outlets, such as many supermarkets, may be unwilling to stock the products because they make enormous profits from cleaning products that need to be replaced regularly, and liquid glass would make virtually all of them obsolete.
I dont get it, I ahve a glass sink and counter in my bathroom at home. I still have to clean them.
Every mirror I have ever had has been glass - I still windex them.
All my drinks at home are served to me in nothing but the finest crystal - I still have my help clean them.
1) There's a long list of materials that are no problem outside your body but that are really bad for you when small pieces get inside your lungs.
2) There's a higher potential harm from new processes and materials that are used everywhere by consumers, versus being used by specialists in exposure-controlled environments.
Because of (1) and (2), if there's anything wrong with this material, the harm will be multiplied.
For example a possibly toxic material used in low-rate specialty manufacturing by protected workers is different from a possibly toxic material that's distributed in fun inhalers inside of cereal boxes.
These concerns are not at all irrational, and are in fact more empirical than reflexive anti-questioning snarkery.
They'd be right to, there are significant health risks to regular glass. People cut arteries while accidentally sticking their hands through panes of it all the time.
Yep. The year of spray-on liquid glass on the desktop!
( Previously: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1092741 )