Monthly Archives: December 2013

2013: review and plans for 2014 vis à vis FrogHeart

2 Replies

There’ve been some ups and downs in terms of the FrogHeart”s statistics but nothing like 2012 when I thought, for several months, this blog might be dying. Before getting to the numbers, I’ll focus on some of the topics that caught my readers’ interest as per the information I get from the AW stats package.

Top keyterm searches

The Clipperton Island art/science story continued to dominate interest through the year. It popped up in my top ten keyterm searches for January- August to disappear September  – November and reappear in December. (original Clipperton posting, March 2, 2012)

Nanocrystalline cellulose (NCC; it is also known as CNC or cellulose nanocrystals and I believe this will sooon be considered the correct name for this material)), which was for many years a top draw here, faltered and appeared only in January, June – August, and November in my top 10 keyterm searches. (I have many posting on this topic with the most recent being this Dec. 17, 2013 posting on the CNC’s fundamental mechanical behaviour.)

The Urbee was attractive enough to have made the list for January – August, and, again, in November. (I have this August 28, 2012 posting as the most recent about the Urbee car being developed in Winnipeg, Manitoba.)

The Lycurgus Cup appeared on the list for February, June – August, and November. (I do write about this extraordinary piece of glass and gold work from Ancient Rome from time to time. The most recent piece was this Nov. 22, 2013 posting about how Australian researchers were inspired by the cup.)

The memristor (one of my favourite topics) was one of the two 25 keyterm search terms for April, June, and July. (Here’s the most recent memristor story which I featured in a June 14, 2013 posting, which highlights some research being done in India.)

Pousse Café (I’m starting to suspect this might be due to porn searches) was on the list from June – November. (In context of an April 26, 2013 posting about nanowires and some unusual layering properties I mentioned a cocktail, a pousse-café, which has attracted more attention that I would have expected had I considered the possibility.)

Two people made their way into the list of top 35 keyterm searches for more than one month:

Bertolt Meyer for February – April (This Jan. 30, 2013 posting about robots, androids, etc. also mentioned Bertolt Meyer, a Swiss scientist and an individual who has integrated some sophisticated prosthetics into his body.)

Nils Petersen for June, August,, and September (At one point, Petersen led Canada’s National Institute of Nanotechnology and, unfortunately, I never did receive a reply to any of my requests for an interview. I’m not sure what has occasioned the interest now that he has left his position in 2012, I believe. The most recent posting here, which features Petersen’s name is this March 11, 2013 posting about a nanotechnology public engagement project in Edmonton, Alberta.)

Countries new to my list of top 25 sources of traffic

Quatar (March)

Seychelles ((October)

Guatemala (April)

Venezuela (June)

Moldova (November)

Macedonia (November)

There is one omission that puzzles and that’s South Africa. I know they have a nanotechnology community and they are the S in the BRICS with Brazil, Russia, India, and China all being represented on my list of top 25 countries for traffic.

Interviews

Sue Thomas (The UK’s Futurefest and an interview with Sue Thomas (The UK’s Futurefest and an interview with Sue Thomas in a September 20, 2013 posting,.)

Kate Pullinger ([The Picture of] Dorian Gray opera premiered as part of World New Music Days festival held in Slovakia & Austria: *Kate Pullinger interview in a December 18, 2013 posting.)

Baba Brinkman (Interview with Baba Brinkman on the occasion of his Rap Guide to Evolution performance in Vancouver, November 2013 edition in a November 1, 2013 posting.)

Carla Alvial Palavicino (Graphene hype; the emerging story in an interview with Carla Alvial Palavicino (University of Twente, Netherlands) in a December 24, 2012 posting)

Top five sources for traffic (countries)

US

China

Great Britain

Canada

France/Ukraine

Statistics (AW stats)

Month with the top number for for visits: December 2013 with 131,422

Month with the lowest number for visits: July 2013 with 79,168

Month with the highest number of unique visitors: December 2013 with 32,739

Month with the lowest number of unique visitors: July 2013 with 21, 977

Annual totals:

Unique visitors: 310,390 Visits: 1,149,456 Pages: 5,653,192 Hits: 7,553,481

*Completed and updated on Jan. 2, 2014.

Statistics (Webalizer)

Month with the top number for visits: December 2013 with 235,137

Month with the lowest number for visits: February 2013 with 119.973

Annual totals:

Visits: 1,784,637 Pages: 10,140,239 Files: 1,193,817 Hits: 18,805,248

*Completed and updated on Jan. 2, 2014.

Big thank yous

First and foremost thank you to the folks who read this blog. It’s what keep my going.

Thank you to everyone who took the time to contact me about the blog either by leaving a comment here or sending me an email.

I also want to acknowledge both David Bruggeman (Pasco Phronesis blog) and Dexter Johnson (Nanoclast blog on the IEEE [Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers’ website). You have both inspired my efforts.

2014 plans for FrogHeart

I want to keep blogging and writing about the things that matter to me. I also want to look at ways to monetize the blog as I need some support to keep this going. The consequence of all this is that you will be seeing some changes here. e.g. I’ve either already posted a Donate button or will be shortly and I anticipate there will be more changes ahead.

2013: women, science, gender, and sex

Leave a reply

2013 seems to have been quite the year for discussions about women, gender, and sex (scandals) in the world of science. In Canada, we had the Council of Canadian Academies assessment: Strengthening Canada’s Research Capacity: The Gender Dimension; The Expert Panel on Women in University Research, (my commentary was in these February 22, 2013 postings titled: Science, women and gender in Canada (part 1 of 2) and Science, women and gender in Canada (part 2 of 2, respectively). Elsewhere, there was a special issue (March 7, 2013) of Nature magazine which had this to say on the issue’s home page,

Women in Science

Science remains institutionally sexist. Despite some progress, women scientists are still paid less, promoted less frequently, win fewer grants and are more likely to leave research than similarly qualified men. This special issue of Nature takes a hard look at the gender gap — from bench to boardroom — and at what is being done to close it.

Shaunacy Ferro in a March 10, 2013 posting on the Popular Science website added to the discussion (Note: A link has been removed)

… Why, even as the demand for STEM education rises, do only a fifth of the physics Ph.Ds awarded in the U.S. go to women, as a new New York Times magazine story asks?

Written by Eileen Pollack, who was one of the first women to graduate from Yale with a bachelor’s degree in physics in 1978, this story is a deeply personal one. Though she graduated with honors after having written a thesis that, years later, her advisor would call “exceptional,” no one–not even that same advisor–encouraged her to go on to a post-graduate career in science.

At that point, it seemed like more than the usual number of articles relative to most years but not enough to excite comment, that is, until the sexual harassment scandals of October 2013.  The best timeline I’ve seen for these scandals was written by the folks at ‘talk science to me’ in an Oct. 21, 2013 posting by Amanda. I offered an abbreviated version along with a more extensive commentary in my Oct. 18, 2013 posting and there was this Oct. 22, 2013 posting by Connie St. Louis for the Guardian science blogs which includes an earlier Twitter altercation in the UK science communication community along with the .scandals in North America. Jobs were lost and many people were deeply distressed by the discovery that one of the main proponents of science and social media, Bora Zivkovic  (Scientific American editor responsible for that magazine’s blog network, founder of Science Online, and tireless of promoter of many, many science writers and communicators) had stumbled badly by committing acts  construed as sexual harassment by several women.

In the end, the scandals provoked a lot of discussion about sexism, sexual harassment, and gender bias in the sciences but whether anything will change remains to be seen. While these discussions have taken on a familiar pattern of decrying male sexism; it should be noted that women, too, can be just as sexist as any man. In my Sept. 24, 2012 posting about some research into women, science, and remuneration, I noted this,

Nancy Owano’s Sept. 21, 2012 phy.org article on a study about gender bias (early publication Sept. 17, 2012 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) describes a situation that can be summed up with this saying ‘we women eat our own’.

The Yale University researchers developed applications for a supposed position in a science faculty and had faculty members assess the applicants’ paper submissions.  From Owano’s article,

Applications were all identical except for the male names and female names. Even though the male and female name applications were identical in competencies, the female student was less likely to be hired, being viewed as less competent and desirable as a new-hire.

Results further showed the faculty members chose higher starting salaries and more career mentoring for applicants with male names.

Interestingly, it made no difference on hiring decisions as to whether the faculty member was male or female. Bias was just as likely to occur at the hands of a female as well as male faculty member.

I tracked down the paper (which is open access), Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students by Corinne A. Moss-Racusin, John F. Dovidio, Victoria L. Bescroll, Mark J. Graham, and Jo Handelsman and found some figures in a table which I can’t reproduce here but suggest the saying ‘we women eat their own’ isn’t far off the mark. In it, you’ll see that while women faculty members will offer less to both genders, they offer significantly less to female applicants.

For a male applicant, here’s the salary offer,

Male Faculty               Female Faculty

30,520.82                    29, 333.33

 

For a female applicant, here’s the salary offer,

Male Faculty               Female Faculty

27,111.11                    25,000.00

To sum this up, the men offered approximately $3000 (9.25%) less to female applicants while the women offered approximately $4000 (14.6%) less. It’s uncomfortable to admit that women may be just as much or even more at fault as men where gender bias is concerned. However, it is necessary if the situation is ever going to change.

As for the two women involved in the sex scandals, both as whistle blowers, The Urban Scientist, DN Lee continues to write on her blog on the Scientific American (SA) website (her incident involved a posting she wrote about a sexist and racist incident with an editor from Biology Online [who subsequently lost their job] that was removed by the SA editors and, eventually, reinstated) while Monica Byrne continues to write on her personal blog although I don’t know if she has done any science writing since she blew the whistle on Bora. You may want to read Byrne’s account of events here

I think we (men and women) are obliged to take good look at sexism around us and within us and if you still have any doubts about the prevalence of sexism and gender bias against women, take a look at Sydney Brownstone’s Oct. 22, 2013 article for Fast Company,

These ads for U.N. Women show what happens if you type things like “women need to” into Google. The autocomplete function will suggest ways to fill in the blank based on common search terms such as “know their place” and “shut up.”

…

A quick, unscientific study of men-based searches comes up with very different Autocomplete suggestions. Type in “men need to,” and you’ll get “feel needed,” “grow up,” or “ejaculate.” Type in “men shouldn’t,” and you might get, “wear flip flops.”

Those searches were made in March 2013.

2013: Science Borealis an emergent science media network in Canada

Leave a reply

It’s a wish fulfilled to see Canada now has a science blog aggregator and an incubator (in my opinion) for an emergent science media network giving prominence to science as delivered by blogs, Twitter, and other social media: Science Borealis. While the mainstream media has been struggling for some years with diminishing resources, the social media has been burgeoning and the landscape for science journalism and science communication has changed irrevocably. I find it fascinating that while conferences in Canada include science media panels they do not tend to include science bloggers or, if they do, the science bloggers are given a separate panel. It seems as if bloggers are not part of the media as far as the Canadian science and social science communities are concerned. This is particularly odd in a country such as Canada where we have so little mainstream media offering science content other than regurgitated press releases. (For those not familiar with the practice, many of the science articles you see in newspapers are press releases that have been rewritten by a journalist with no new content or commentary added; it’s a practice known as ‘churnalism‘.)

I think it’s time that Canadian university press officers/communications specialists/etc. and the marketing communications people in various agencies and businesses woke up to the fact that science bloggers, etc. are part of an emergent science media community.  For that matter, I hope some of the members of the Science Borealis community (full disclosure: I was on the founding team) wake up to that fact too. Yes, even I sometime fall prey to the old habits of thought about communication and outreach but what I find surprising is that many people in their 30s and younger have those same habits.  So, my wish for 2014 is that science blogging be recognized as integral to the science media landscape by everyone and we outgrow our ingrained habits of thought..

At the last count Dec. 31, 2013,  Science Borealis has some 50 blogs in its feed six weeks after its launch at the 5th Canadian Science Policy Conference (Nov. 20 – 22, 2013). Prior to the launch, we knew of the existence of approximately150 Canadian science blogs, so, I have a second wish: I hope more Canadian science bloggers join in 2014.

Science Borealis has a livefeed of blog postings on its homepage so you can see a variety of what’s available on any one day or if there’s some new science policy or science scandal, you can get a look at what bloggers are saying about it in more or less realtime. If you have a particular area of interest, there’s a subject listing too,

Biology and Life Sciences
Chemistry
Communication, Education and Outreach
Environmental and Earth Sciences
General Science
Health, Medicine and Veterinary Science
Mathematics and Statistics
Multimedia
Physics and Astronomy
Policy and Politics
Science in Society
Technology and Engineering

I don’t know if Science Borealis will thrive or fulfill any of my (or someone else’s ) wishes for an easy way to find other Canadian science blogs (Yay, I no longer feel obliged to do an annual roundup)  or as the beginning of a Canadian science media community but I applaud its existence and the other members of the founding team. The lead organizations were:

A special shoutout for:

Here are the rest of us:

What a fabulous way to top off 2013 with our very own science blog aggregator! Happy New Year’s Eve!

Catching up with Vive Crop Protection—advanced insecticide formulations, marketing in the US, and more

Leave a reply

Starting with the “and more” part of the headline, it’s great to have found an article describing Vive Crop’s technology in language I can understand, Sadly, I failed to see it until Dec. 26, 2013,. Titled “Vive La Crop! nanotech venture vive crop protection of toronto has developed a more eco-friendly way to keep pests, fungi and weeds out of farmers’ fields. and that’s just the beginning,” is written by Tyler Hamilton for the April 2012 issue of ACCN the Canadian Chemical News (L’Actualite chemique canadienne) and it answers many of the questions I’ve had about Vive Crop’s Allosperse technology,

Pesticides don’t have the best reputation when it comes to their potential impacts on human health, but even more concerning — for regulators especially — are the volatile organic solvents frequently relied on to deliver crop-protection chemicals to farmers’ fields.

The solvents themselves are often known carcinogens, not the kind of thing we want on farmland that grows soy, corn and wheat. And they’re not as effective as they could be. Farmers tend to overspray to make sure enough of the active ingredients in insecticides, fungicides and herbicides are dispersed across a field to be effective.

It’s why Vive Crop Protection, a Toronto-based nanotechnology company specializing in crop protection, has been attracting so much attention from some of the world’s biggest chemical companies. Vive Crop (formerly Vive Nano, and before that Northern Nanotechnologies) has done away with the need for volatile organic solvents.

…

At the heart of Vive Crop’s technology are polymer particles the company has trademarked under the name Allosperse, which measure less than 10 nanometres in size. It describes these particles as ultra- small cages — or “really tiny little FEDEX boxes” in the words of CEO [Chief Executive Officer] Keith Thomas — which hold active pesticide ingredients and are engineered to disperse evenly in water.

Even and thorough dispersal is critical. Avinash Bhaskar, an analyst at research firm Frost & Sullivan who has followed Vive Crop closely, says one of the biggest problems with pesticides is they tend to agglomerate, resulting in uneven, clustery distribution on fields. “You want uniform distribution on the soil,” Bhaskar says. “Vive Crop’s technology prevents agglomeration and this is a key differentiator in the market.”

How Vive Crop chemically engineers these Allosperse particles is the company’s core innovation. It starts by dissolving negatively charged polymers in water. The like charges repel so the polymers spread out in the solution. Then positively charged ions are added to the mix. These ions neutralize the charge around the polymers, causing the polymers to collapse around the ions and create a kind of nanocage — the Allosperse.

The company then filters out the positive and negative ions and loads up the empty cages with molecules of active pesticide ingredients. The cage itself is amphiphilic, meaning it has both water-attracting and water-repelling areas. In this case, the outer shell attracts water and the inner core doesn’t. “While in water the active ingredient, which also hates water, stays inside (the cages),” explains Vive Crop chief technology officer Darren Anderson. Because the outside of the cages like water, the particles freely and evenly disperse. “Once sprayed on the crop, the water droplets evaporate and the active ingredient gradually disperses from the particles that are left behind.” How does Vive Crop assure that the Allosperse cages are amphiphilic? “I can’t tell you the answer,” says Anderson. “It’s part of our secret sauce.”

What the company can say is that the polymer cages themselves are benign. Vive Crop makes them out of chitosans, found naturally in the shells of shrimp and other crustaceans, and polyacrylic acid, the super-absorbent material found in baby diapers.

Interestingly, the core technology appears to be based on a former student project,

The core technology was developed in the early 2000s by Jordan Dinglasan, a chemistry student from the Philippines who took up graduate studies at the University of Toronto. Dinglasan and fellow researchers at U of T’s Department of Chemistry, including Anderson and chemistry professor Cynthia Goh, decided in 2006 that they wanted to reach beyond the walls of academia and create a company to commercialize the technology.

At the time of the Hamilton article, the company had 30 employees. Since the April 2012 article, the company has been busy as I’ve written an Aug. 7, 2013 posting about the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) approval of Vive Crop’s VCP-01, Bifenthrin 10 DF insecticide for foliar use on crops, turf, and ornamentals. and a September 25, 2013 posting about funding for two Vive Crop projects from Sustainable Development Technology Canada.

Now in the last weeks of December 2013 Vive Crop has issued two more news releases. First, there’s the Dec. 17, 2013 Vive Crop news release announcing a marketing initiative with a US company, AMVAC Chemical Corporation, which is wholly owned by American Vanguard Corporation and is based in California,,

Vive Crop Protection, Inc. and AMVAC Chemical Corporation are pleased to announce a collaboration to develop and market an advanced insecticide formulation for multiple uses in the United States.  The products leverage Vive’s patented AllosperseT technology delivering enhanced agronomic performance and new application opportunities to AMVAC’s customers.

“We are quite excited about working with AMVAC to add to their portfolio of innovative products,” said Vive CEO Keith Thomas. “Vive is rapidly developing a strong pipeline of effective crop protection products for our partners and growers.”

“As part of AMVAC’s continued commitment to innovate and deliver products with the best technology available, we are very pleased to be working with and investigating this new technology from Vive” said AMVAC Eric Wintemute, CEO of AMVAC .

Vive Crop followed up with a Dec. 19, 2013 news release announcing another marketing initiative, this time with United Suppliers (based in Iowa, US),

United Suppliers, Inc. and Vive Crop Protection, Inc. are pleased to announce a collaboration to demonstrate and market advanced formulation technologies in the United States. Targeted to launch in the 2015 growing season, these technologies will leverage Vive’s patented AllosperseT delivery system to provide enhanced agronomic performance and new application opportunities to United Suppliers’ leading-edge owners and customers.

“We are pursuing the capabilities of getting more activity out of the products we are using in current and expanded applications,” said United Suppliers VP of Crop Protection and Seed Brett Bruggeman. “United Suppliers’ retail owners are in the best position to deliver new technology to growers.”

“We are quite excited about working with United Suppliers to provide innovative products to their customers,” said Vive CEO Keith Thomas. “Vive is rapidly developing a strong pipeline of effective crop protection products for our partners and growers.”

About United Suppliers
United Suppliers is a unique, customer-owned wholesale supplier of crop protection inputs, seed and crop nutrients, with headquarters in Eldora and Ames, Iowa. Founded in 1963, United Suppliers is today comprised of more than 650 agricultural retailers (Owners) who operate nearly 2,800 retail locations throughout the United States and parts of Canada. The mission of United Suppliers is to be the supplier of choice while increasing its Owners’ capabilities and competitiveness. To meet this goal, United Suppliers strives to provide Owners with transparent market intelligence, innovative products, reliable market access and customized business solutions. For more information, please visit www.unitedsuppliers.com.

About Vive Crop Protection
Vive Crop Protection makes products that better protect crops from pests. The company has won a number of awards and was highly commended for Best Formulation Innovation at the 2012 Agrow Awards. Vive’s patented Allosperse delivery system has the ability to coat plants more evenly, which provides better crop protection and can lead to increased yields. Vive is working with partners across the globe that share our vision of bringing safer, more effective crop protection products to growers everywhere. For more information, see www.vivecrop.com.

I wish Vive Crop all the best in 2014 as it capitalizes on the momentum it seems to be building.

Naimor: innovative nanostructured material for water remediation and oil recovery (crowdfunding project)

Leave a reply

The NAIMOR crowdfunding project on indiegogo might be of particular interest to those of us on the West Coast of Canada where there is much talk about a project to create twin pipelines (Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines) between the provinces of  Alberta and British Columbia to export oil and import natural gas. The oil will be shipped to Asia by tanker and presumably so will the natural gas. In all the discussion about possible environmental disasters, I haven’t seen any substantive mention of remediation efforts or research to improve the technologies associated with environmental cleanups (remediation of water, soil, and/or air). At any rate, all this talk about the pipelines and oil tankers along Canada’s West Coast brought to mind the BP oil spill, aka the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, from the Wikipedia essay (Note: Links have been removed),

The Deepwater Horizon oil spill (also referred to as the BP oil spill, the BP oil disaster, the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, and the Macondo blowout) began on 20 April 2010 in the Gulf of Mexico on the BP-operated Macondo Prospect. It claimed eleven lives[5][6][7][8] and is considered the largest accidental marine oil spill in the history of the petroleum industry, an estimated 8% to 31% larger in volume than the previously largest, the Ixtoc I oil spill. Following the explosion and sinking of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig, a sea-floor oil gusher flowed for 87 days, until it was capped on 15 July 2010.[7][9] The total discharge has been estimated at 4.9 million barrels (210 million US gal; 780,000 m3).[3]

A massive response ensued to protect beaches, wetlands and estuaries from the spreading oil utilizing skimmer ships, floating booms, controlled burns and 1.84 million US gallons (7,000 m3) of Corexit oil dispersant.[10] After several failed efforts to contain the flow, the well was declared sealed on 19 September 2010.[11] Some reports indicate the well site continues to leak.[12][13] Due to the months-long spill, along with adverse effects from the response and cleanup activities, extensive damage to marine and wildlife habitats, fishing and tourism industries, and human health problems have continued through 2013.[14][15] Three years after the spill, tar balls could still be found on the Mississippi coast.[16] In July 2013, the discovery of a 40,000 pound tar mat near East Grand Terre, Louisiana prompted the closure of waters to commercial fishing.[17][18]

While Canada’s Northern Gateway project does not include any plans for ocean oil rigs, there is still the potential for massive spills either from the tankers or the pipelines. For those old enough to remember or those interested in history, this latest project raises the spectre of the Exxon Valdes oil spill, from the Wikipedia essay (Note: Links have been removed),

The Exxon Valdez oil spill occurred in Prince William Sound, Alaska, on March 24, 1989, when Exxon Valdez, an oil tanker bound for Long Beach, California, struck Prince William Sound’s Bligh Reef at 12:04 a.m.[1] local time and spilled 260,000 to 750,000 barrels (41,000 to 119,000 m3) of crude oil[2][3] over the next few days. It is considered to be one of the most devastating human-caused environmental disasters.[4] The Valdez spill was the largest ever in US waters until the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, in terms of volume released.[5]  [emphasis mine] However, Prince William Sound’s remote location, accessible only by helicopter, plane, or boat, made government and industry response efforts difficult and severely taxed existing plans for response. The region is a habitat for salmon, sea otters, seals and seabirds. The oil, originally extracted at the Prudhoe Bay oil field, eventually covered 1,300 miles (2,100 km) of coastline,[6] and 11,000 square miles (28,000 km2) of ocean.[7] Exxon’s CEO, Lawrence Rawl, shaped the company’s response.[8]

Some of that ‘difficult to reach’ coastline and habitat was Canadian (province of British Columbia). Astonishingly, given the 20 year gap between the Exxon Valdes spill and the Deepwater Horizon spill, the technology for remediation and cleanup had not changed much, although it seems that the measures* used to stop the oil spill were even older, from my June 4, 2010 posting,

I found a couple more comments relating to the BP oil spill  in the Gulf. Pasco Phronesis offers this May 30, 2010 blog post, Cleaning With Old Technology, where the blogger, Dave Bruggeman, asks why there haven’t been any substantive improvements to the technology used for clean up,

The relatively ineffective measures have changed little since the last major Gulf of Mexico spill, the Ixtoc spill in 1979. While BP has solicited for other solutions to the problem (Ixtoc was eventually sealed with cement and relief wells after nine months), they appear to have been slow to use them.

It is a bit puzzling to me why extraction technology has improved but cleanup technology has not.

An excellent question.

I commented a while back (here) about another piece of nano reporting from* Andrew Schneider. Since then, Dexter Johnson at Nanoclast has offered some additional thoughts (independent of reading Andrew Maynard’s 2020 Science post) about the Schneider report regarding ‘nanodispersants’ in the Gulf. From Dexter’s post,

Now as to the efficacy or dangers of the dispersant, I have to concur that it [nanodispersant] has not been tested. But it seems that the studies on the 118 oil-controlling products that have been approved for use by the EPA are lacking in some details as well. These chemicals were approved so long ago in some cases that the EPA has not been able to verify the accuracy of their toxicity data, and so far BP has dropped over a million gallons of this stuff into the Gulf.

Point well taken.

In looking at this website: gatewayfacts.ca, it seems the proponents for the Enbridge Northern Gateway project have supplied some additional information. Here’s what they’ve supplied regarding the project’s spill response (from the Gateway Facts environmental-responsibility/marine-protection page),

A spill response capacity 3x better than required

Emergency response equipment, crews and training staff will be stationed at key points and communities along the marine routes.

I did find a bit more on the website’s What if? page,

Marine response in action

Our spill response capacity will be more than 3x the current Canadian regulation. In addition, tanker escort tugs will carry emergency response and firefighting equipment to be able to respond immediately.

I don’t feel that any real concerns have been addressed by this minimalist approach to communication. Here are some of my questions,

  • What does 3x the current Canadian regulation mean in practical terms and how does this compare with the best safety regulations from an international perspective? Will there be efforts at continuous improvement?
  • Are there going to be any audits by outside parties of the company’s emergency response during the life of the project?
  • How will those audits be conducted? i.e., Will there be notice or are inspectors likely to spring the occasional surprise inspection?
  • What technologies are the proponents planning to use for the cleanup?
  • Is there any research being conducted on new remediation and cleanup technologies?
  • How much money is being devoted to this research and where is it being conducted (university labs, company labs, which countries)?

In light of concerns about environmental remediation technologies, it’s heartening to see this project on indiegogo which according to a Dec. 27, 2013 news item on Nanowerk focuses on an improved approach to remediation for water contaminated by oil,,

Environmental oil spill disasters such as BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico have enormous environmental consequences, leading to the killing of marine creatures and contamination of natural water streams, storm water systems or even drinking water supplies. Emergency management organizations must be ready to confront such turbulences with effective and eco-friendly solutions to minimize the short term or long term issues.

There are many ineffective and costly conventional technologies for the remedy of oil spills like using of dispersants, oil skimmers, sand barrier berms, oil containment booms, by controlled burning of surface oil, bioremediation and natural degradation.

NAIMOR® – NAnostructure Innovative Material for Oil Recovery – is a three dimensional, nanostructure carbon material that can be produced in different shapes, dimensions. It is highly hydrophobic and can absorb a quantity of oil around 150 times its weight. Light, strong, and flexible, the material can be reused many times without losing its absorption capacity.

I’m not familiar with the researcher who’s making this proposal so I can’t comment on the legitimacy of the project but this does look promising (I have heard of other similar research using carbon-based materials), from the Naimor campaign on indiegogo,

Ivano Aglietto, an Italian engineer with a PhD in Environmental Engineering has devoted his profession for the production of most advanced and innovative nanostructure carbon materials and the industrial development of their proper use in applications for the environmental remediation.

His first invention was RECAM® (REactive Carbon Material), a revolutionary solution for oil spill recovery which had shown extraordinary results but with limitations of usage.

RECAM® is inert, non toxic, regenerable, reusable, eco friendly material and can absorb oil 90 times its weight. It is ferromagnetic in nature and can be recovered from water using magnetic field. The hydrocarbons absorbed can be burnt inorder to reuse the material and no toxic gases are released because of its inert and non-flammable nature. Their is also possibility of extracting the absorbed oil by squeezing the material or by vacuum filtration. Oil recovered does not contain any water because of the hydrophobic behaviour of RECAM®. Recovered oil can be reused as resource and the RECAM® for recovering oil. RECAM® is used for oil spill remediation and successfully passed the Artemia test.

RECAM® is being replaced with his new innovative nanostructure material, NAIMOR®.

…

NAIMOR® (NAnostructure Innovative Material for Oil Recovery) is a nanostructure material that can be produced in different shapes and dimensions with an incredible efficiency for oil recovery.

Main Characteristics and Properties

Can absorb quantity of oil 150 times its weight.
Inert, made of pure carbon, environmental friendly and no chemicals involved.
Highly hydrophobic and the absorbed oil does not contain any water.
Regenerable and can be used several times without producing any wastes.
It is a three dimensional nanostructure and can be produced in different shapes, dimensions [carpets, booms, sheets’.
Capable of recovering gallons of oil depending on the shape and dimensions of the carpet.

This indiegogo campaign is almost the antithesis of the gatewayfacts.ca website offering a wealth of information and detail including a discussion about the weaknesses associated with the various cleanup technologies that represent the ‘state of the art’. Here’s an image from the Naimor campaign page,

[downloaded from http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/naimor-nanostructure-innovative-material-for-oil-recovery]

[downloaded from http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/naimor-nanostructure-innovative-material-for-oil-recovery]

I believe this is a pelican somewhere on the Gulf of Mexico coastline where it was affected by the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill. As for Aglietto’s project, you can find the NAIMOR website here.

* Changed ‘measure’ to ‘measures’ and ‘form’ to ‘from’ May 6, 2014.

1st code poetry slam at Stanford University

Leave a reply

It’s code as in computer code and slam as in performance competition which when added to the word poetry takes most of us into uncharted territory. Here’s a video clip featuring the winning entry, Say 23 by Leslie Wu, competing in Stanford University’s (located in California) 1st code poetry slam,


If you listen closely (this clip does not have the best sound quality), you can hear the words to Psalm 23 (from the bible).

Thanks to this Dec. 29, 2013 news item on phys.org for bringing this code poetry slam to my attention (Note: Links have been removed),

Leslie Wu, a doctoral student in computer science at Stanford, took an appropriately high-tech approach to presenting her poem “Say 23” at the first Stanford Code Poetry Slam.

Wu wore Google Glass as she typed 16 lines of computer code that were projected onto a screen while she simultaneously recited the code aloud. She then stopped speaking and ran the script, which prompted the computer program to read a stream of words from Psalm 23 out loud three times, each one in a different pre-recorded-computer voice.

Wu, whose multimedia presentation earned her first place, was one of eight finalists to present at the Code Poetry Slam. Organized by Melissa Kagen, a graduate student in German studies, and Kurt James Werner, a graduate student in computer-based music theory and acoustics, the event was designed to explore the creative aspects of computer programming.

The Dec. 27, 2013 Stanford University news release by Mariana Lage, which originated the news item, goes on to describe the concept. the competition, and the organizers’ aims,

With presentations that ranged from poems written in a computer language format to those that incorporated digital media, the slam demonstrated the entrants’ broad interpretation of the definition of “code poetry.”

Kagen and Werner developed the code poetry slam as a means of investigating the poetic potentials of computer-programming languages.

“Code poetry has been around a while, at least in programming circles, but the conjunction of oral presentation and performance sounded really interesting to us,” said Werner. Added Kagen, “What we are interested is in the poetic aspect of code used as language to program a computer.”

Sponsored by the Division of Literatures, Cultures, and Languages, the slam drew online submissions from Stanford and beyond.

High school students and professors, graduate students and undergraduates from engineering, computer science, music, language and literature incorporated programming concepts into poem-like forms. Some of the works were written entirely in executable code, such as Ruby and C++ languages, while others were presented in multimedia formats. The works of all eight finalists can be viewed on the Code Poetry Slam website.

…

Kagen, Werner and Wu agree that code poetry requires some knowledge of programming from the spectators.

“I feel it’s like trying to read a poem in a language with which you are not comfortable. You get the basics, but to really get into the intricacies you really need to know that language,” said Kagen, who studies the traversal of musical space in Wagner and Schoenberg.

Wu noted that when she was typing the code most people didn’t know what she was doing. “They were probably confused and curious. But when I executed the poem, the program interpreted the code and they could hear words,” she said, adding that her presentation “gave voice to the code.”

“The code itself had its own synthesized voice, and its own poetics of computer code and singsong spoken word,” Wu said.

One of the contenders showed a poem that was “misread” by the computer.

“There was a bug in his poem, but more interestingly, there was the notion of a correct interpretation which is somewhat unique to computer code. Compared to human language, code generally has few interpretations or, in most cases, just one,” Wu said.

…

So what exactly is code poetry? According to Kagen, “Code poetry can mean a lot of different things depending on whom you ask.

“It can be a piece of text that can be read as code and run as program, but also read as poetry. It can mean a human language poetry that has mathematical elements and codes in it, or even code that aims for elegant expression within severe constraints, like a haiku or a sonnet, or code that generates automatic poetry. Poems that are readable to humans and readable to computers perform a kind of cyborg double coding.”

Werner noted that “Wu’s poem incorporated a lot of different concepts, languages and tools. It had Ruby language, Japanese and English, was short, compact and elegant. It did a lot for a little code.” Werner served as one of the four judges along with Kagen; Caroline Egan, a doctoral student in comparative literature; and Mayank Sanganeria, a master’s student at the Center for Computer Research in Music and Acoustics (CCRMA).

Kagen and Werner got some expert advice on judging from Michael Widner, the academic technology specialist for the Division of Literatures, Cultures and Languages.

Widner, who reviewed all of the submissions, noted that the slam allowed scholars and the public to “probe the connections between the act of writing poetry and the act of writing code, which as anyone who has done both can tell you are oddly similar enterprises.”

A scholar who specializes in the study of both medieval and machine languages, Widner said that “when we realize that coding is a creative act, we not only value that part of the coder’s labor, but we also realize that the technologies in which we swim have assumptions and ideologies behind them that, perhaps, we should challenge.”

I first encountered code poetry in 2006 and I don’t think it was new at that time but this is the first time I’ve encountered a code poetry slam. For the curious, here’s more about code poetry from the Digital poetry essay in Wikipedia (Note: Links have been removed),

… There are many types of ‘digital poetry’ such as hypertext, kinetic poetry, computer generated animation, digital visual poetry, interactive poetry, code poetry, holographic poetry (holopoetry), experimental video poetry, and poetries that take advantage of the programmable nature of the computer to create works that are interactive, or use generative or combinatorial approach to create text (or one of its states), or involve sound poetry, or take advantage of things like listservs, blogs, and other forms of network communication to create communities of collaborative writing and publication (as in poetical wikis).

The Stanford organizers have been sufficiently delighted with the response to their 1st code poetry slam that they are organizing a 2nd slam (from the Code Poetry Slam 1.1. homepage),

Call for Works 1.1

Submissions for the second Slam are now open! Submit your code/poetry to the Stanford Code Poetry Slam, sponsored by the Department of Literatures, Cultures, and Languages! Submissions due February 12th, finalists invited to present their work at a poetry slam (place and time TBA). Cash prizes and free pizza!

Stanford University’s Division of Literatures, Cultures, and Languages (DLCL) sponsors a series of Code Poetry Slams. Code Poetry Slam 1.0 was held on November 20th, 2013, and Code Poetry Slam 1.1 will be held Winter quarter 2014.

According to Lage’s news release you don’t have to be associated with Stanford University to be a competitor but, given that you will be performing your poetry there, you will likely have to live in some proximity to the university.

Foam glass manufacturing facility commissioned in Russia’s Kaluga region

Leave a reply

A Dec. 27, 2013 news item on Azlonano features RUSNANO and a foam glass facility in Russia,

On December 20 [2013], Russia’s first and Europe’s major technological complex for the production of foam glass ICM Glass Kaluga, of the project company Rusnano, was commissioned in the industrial park Borovskoye. The ceremony was attended by the Kaluga Region’s Governor Anatoly Artamonov and chairman of Rusnano’s board Anatoly Chubais.

The facility is aimed at hi-tech production of construction materials from foam glass. Broken glass is used as the raw material, which enables effective recycling of solid household rubbish. The complex’s planned capacity is 300,000 cubic metres a year to be achieved by the facility’s 50 employees. The agreed total budget exceeds 1.8 billion roubles ($54 million).

I found more information about the new facility in a Dec.20, 2013 press release (machine translation of Russian into English) here: http://www.newportal.admoblkaluga.ru/main/news/events/detail.php?ID=153747, (I think this is a portal for the Kaluga region)

December 20 [2013] in the industrial park “Vorsino” Borovsky District hosted a ceremony industrial launch of the first in Russia and the largest in Europe and technological complex for the production of crushed stone penostekolnogo LLC “AySiEm Glass Kaluga” – the project company “RUSNANO”. It was attended by Governor Anatoly Artamonov and delegation “RUSNANO” headed by the chairman of the state corporation Anatoly Chubais.

Taken at the enterprise high-tech production of construction material of foamed glass. Feedstock is usual broken glass that facilitates efficient processing of municipal solid waste. The design capacity of the complex is 300 thousand cubic meters per year, the staff – 50 people. The total budget of the project is determined in the amount of more than 1.8 billion rubles.

Talking about the significance of the event, Anatoly Artamonov emphasized perspective of further business cooperation with the State Corporation “Rusnano”. “Our cooperation – an important milestone in the economic development of the Kaluga region, because we have chosen an innovative way and are committed to increase the share of high-tech products”, – assured the governor.

Chairman of the Board of the Civil Code “RUSNANO” Anatoly Chubais also expressed readiness to support the business activities of the Kaluga region. “Today, in the region we run two joint projects. The plans of two more – in the production of innovative pharmaceuticals – with a complete cycle from design to sales. They invested 8 billion rubles, plan – and another 10 billion, “- he said.

On the same day in the office «Freight Village Kaluga» held a meeting at which the parties discussed the details of future cooperation. In order to continue business contacts “RUSNANO” Fund for Infrastructure and Educational Programs with Government organizations and the Kaluga region Anatoly Chubais Anatoly Artamonov and signed the final protocol. The main outcome of the meeting was a joint decision on the establishment of nanotechnology center in Obninsk, which will bring together teams of scientists and professionals working in the field of nanotechnology. Thus, according to Anatoly Chubais, “Kaluga region will be the region, opening a” second wave “nanocenters.”

Reference: In the current year, the regional government in conjunction with the Fund for Infrastructure and Educational Programs of the state corporation “RUSNANO” program was launched to stimulate demand for nanotech products. It provides for the inclusion of 10 per cent of innovation, including nanotechnology products in state and municipal orders. In 2014, with the support of the corporation “RUSNANO” in the region plans to build the center positron emission tomography, “PET-Center”, which will bring a new level not only a primary diagnosis of cancer, but also to monitor the dynamics of the disease, to evaluate the effectiveness of the treatment.

For the curious, here’s more information about foam glass on the ENCO Engineering website,

Foamed glass grain as described in the following is an excellent bulk material for civil construction and insulation purposes. It is a lightweight, extremely fine-pored expanded glass with millions of hermetically sealed pores. Since no diffusion can take place, the material is watertight and achieves an efficient barrier against soil humidity.

Besides the outstanding mechanical and thermal properties of the product, foamed glass manufacture is an exemplary process for waste recycling on an industrial basis. Foam glass can be manufactured fully out of waste glass, with only a minimum of virgin additives.

Foamed glass grain is the product of choice wherever a finely grained, free-flowing bulk material is required. It is especially suitable for thin-walled thermal insulations, such as for window frames, cement bricks and insulating plasters.

ENCO Engineering is a Swiss chemical engineering and consultancy according to the information on the company website’s homepage.

NanoThinking and its global NanoTechMap

Leave a reply

I first wrote about Nano Thinking n a Feb. 4,, 2 013 posting featuring their Nano Tech map of France. It seems the company has decided to celebrate the upcoming 2014 new year with an international NanoTechMap. From the Dec. 17, 2013 NanoThinking press release,

The French company NanoThinking announces the release of the NanoTechMap: it gives a comprehensive view of the industrial offer in the field of nanotechnology and provides more visibility to actors in this field for a very modest cost compare to standard exhibitions.

An online exhibition dedicated to nanotechnology

The industry of nanotechnology is growing fast but it is still much atomized which makes it difficult to access for other industrial sectors which are willing to integrate these technologies in order to develop new products and new uses.

The NanoTechMap proposes a comprehensive catalogue of the nanotechnology opportunities and brings more visibility to actors in this field.

An interactive map to locate nanotech companies

The NanoTechMap allows all industries to find technological solutions in their immediate neighborhood as well as at the other side of the globe. The advantages: to facilitate the identification of clients and suppliers and to stimulate meetings for future partnerships.

The use of the NanoTechMap is intuitive, playful and it also has a cultural dimension since it is possible to compare « nano » performance of cities, regions or countries.

Up-to-date technical and business information

The profile of each company gathers up-to-date technical and business information as well as products catalogues, technical datasheets and pictures of products.

In the near future, each company will have a dashboard to analyze its audience and to create targeted marketing campaigns towards qualified visitors.

An easy update of the visible information 

Each company manages its profile on its own: in a few clicks, it is able to add information on its technology, its products and its business partners. It is also possible to upload products catalogues as well as datasheets. All this information is indexed by the search engine to give comprehensive results to visitors.

A large return for a moderate cost

For each company on the NanoTechMap, the cost of subscription is 300 euros per year. This cost is at least 10 times lower than the average cost of participation to a standard exhibition (subscription, transport, accommodation, posters…). Furthermore, the online exhibition is permanent.

A higher visibility compare to a corporate website 

The visibility of each company on this shared web platform is far better to the one obtained with a standard corporate website.

The NanoTechMap is mostly intended for professionals: industrials, researchers, investors or institutions. But it is also worth of interest for lots of students who are attracted by the potential of growth of this innovative field.

About NanoThinking

NanoThinking, creator of the NanoTechMap, is a consulting company specialized in the field of nanotechnology based in Paris. It has been founded in 2013 by three PhDs in nanoscience.

For further information: www.nanothinking.com

42 rue de Varenne – 75007 – Paris – Phone: +33 (0)689 310 100

It appears there is one entry for Canada and, given the location of the green dot, I’m guessing it’s Canada’s National Institute for Nanotechnology located in Edmonton, Alberta.

Sense about Science and their 2013 Science and Celebrities list

Leave a reply

I’m delighted to receive information from groups that I don’t usually hear from about the topics I cover on this blog,, which is a long way of saying I got a notice from a UK-based group called,Sense about Science regarding their annual list of celebrities who have committed to erroneous ‘scientific’ thinking.  The good news is that there isn’t a list for 2013 but Sense about Science does have a few comments, from the Celebrities and Science 2013 annual publication,

We decided not to run the review this year because of some positive changes. At Sense About Science we like change. That’s what we exist for so in every part of our work we look for the moment when we are not needed and can move to other things.

We published the Celebrities and Science review for seven years. Lighthearted as they often were, the reviews have been more valuable than weever looked for them to be…

…

Celebrity claims circulate well beyond traditional newspaper readership; some go global. The review didn’t quite match them but it drew some of the same audience, and it went global too. By 2011 we saw well over 200 reports before we stopped counting.

Celebrities took notice. Well, agents, which is what matters. Every year we offered help and reminded people that it was just a phone call away. And increasingly they have used it, including people who were named in early reviews. And that is one of the things that has changed. Not only are scientists a bit more plentiful in the public eye but some actors, comedians, celebrity chefs, TV stars, musicians and magicians have sought evidence and made a point of its importance to their followers. We have called on our database of specialists and research bodies to respond to requests for advice and some of those relationships now continue without our input. Our efforts aren’t alone. Many charities with celebrity patrons make a point of briefing them well – see the lovely comment below from Gaby Roslin for Breakthrough Breast Cancer. We started commenting on these better examples a few years ago, and that section of the review has grown each year. In fact if we had run the review this year the good examples would have been about equal with the bad.

This publication includes a précis of the previously published lists and more. As for the UK-based issuing organization, Sense about Science, here’s more from their About us page,

We are a charitable trust that equips people to make sense of scientific and medical claims in public discussion.

With a database of over 6,000 scientists, from Nobel prize winners to postdocs and PhD students, we work in partnership with scientific bodies, research publishers, policy makers, the public and the media, to change public discussions about science and evidence. Through award-winning public campaigns, we share the tools of scientific thinking and scrutiny. Our growing international Voice of Young Science network engages hundreds of early career researchers in public debates about research and evidence. Our activities and publications are used and shaped by community groups, civic bodies, patient organisations, information services, writers, publishers, educators, health services and many others.

People look to us to:

  • Make sense of science and evidence
  • Provide quick help and advice
  • Make a fuss about things that are wrong
  • Represent the public interest in sound science
  • Activate networks of scientists and others in defence of evidence

Our ethos:

  • We help people make sense of current discussions rather than taking them back to school
  • We stand up for scientific inquiry, free from stigma, intimidation, hysteria or censorship
  • We want everyone, whatever their experience, to stand up for evidence in public life

I last mentioned Sense about Science in a Feb. 19, 2013 posting regarding their Voice of Young Science project and its expansion from the UK into the US.

NanoStruck, an Ontario (Canada) water remediation and ‘mining’ company

Leave a reply

Located in Mississauga, Ontario (Canada), Nanostruck’s Dec. 20, 2013 news release seems to be functioning as an announcement of its presence rather than any specific company developments,

NanoStruck has a suite of technologies that remove molecular sized particles using patented absorptive organic polymers. The company is sitting on some very incredible and environmently friendly technology.

Organic polymers are nature’s very own sponges. These versatile biomaterials are derived from crustacean shells or plant fibers, depending on requirements of their usage. Acting as molecular sponges, the nanometer-sized polymers are custom programmed toabsorb specific particles for remediation or retrieval purposes. These could be to clean out acids, hydrocarbons, pathogens, oils and toxins in water via its NanoPure solutions. Or to recover precious metal particles in mine tailings, such as gold, silver, platinum, palladium and rhodium using the Company’s NanoMet solutions.

By using patented modifications to conventional technologies and adding polymer-based nano-filtration, the Company’s offers environmentally safe NanoPure solutions for water purification. The Company uses Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines as a benchmark for water quality and safety to conform to acceptable agricultural or drinking water standards in jurisdictions where the technology is used. The worldwide shortage of cleanwater is highlighted on sites such as http://water.org/water-crisis/water-facts/water/.

The company’s NanoPure technology was first deployed to treat wastewater from a landfill site in January 2012 in Mexico. It has since been successfully treating and producing clean water there that’s certified by Conagua, the federal water commission of Mexico. The company has also created water treatment plants in Canada 

Additionally, the Company’s technology can be used to recover precious and base metals from mine tailings, which are the residual material from earlier mining activities. By retrieving valuable metals from old tailing dumps, the Company’s NanoMet solutions boosts the value of existing mining assets and reduces the need for new, costly and potentially environmentally harmful exploration and mining. 

There is an estimated $1 trillion worth of precious metals already extracted from the ground sitting in old mining sites that form our target market. We are in the process of deploying precious metal recovery plants in South Africa, Mexico and Canada.

The company is also developing new plant-based organic polymers to remove contaminants specific to the oil industry, such as naphthenic acids, which is a growing problem.

 Company information is available at www.nanostruck.ca and some description of the companies polymers are below

General Description of Nano Filtration Materials

Chitosan is a polysaccharide-based biomaterial derived from renewable feedstock such as the shells of crustaceans.  Chitosan displays limited adsorbent properties toward various types of contaminants (i.e. petrochemicals, pharmaceuticals, & agrochemicals).  By comparison, synthetically engineered biomaterials that utilize chitosan building blocks display remarkable sorption properties that are tunable toward various types of water borne contaminants.  Recent advances in materials science have enabled the development of Nano Filtration media with relative ease, low toxicity, and tunable molecular properties for a wide range of environmental remediation applications.  …

From what I can tell, the company has technology that can be used to remediate water (NanoPure) and, in the case of remediating mine tailings (NanoMet), allows for reclamation of the metals. It’s the kind of technology that can make you feel virtuous (reclaiming water) with the potential of paying you handsomely (reclaiming gold, etc.).

As I like to do from time to time, I followed the link to the water organization listed in the news release and found this on Water.org’s About Us page,

The water and sanitation problem in the developing world is far too big for charity alone. We are driving the water sector for new solutions, new financing models, greater transparency, and real partnerships to create lasting change. Our vision: Safe water and the dignity of a toilet for all, in our lifetime.

Co-founded by Matt Damon and Gary White, Water.org is a nonprofit organization that has transformed hundreds of communities in Africa, South Asia, and Central America by providing access to safe water and sanitation.

Water.org traces its roots back to the founding of WaterPartners International in 1990. In July 2009, WaterPartners merged with H2O Africa, resulting in the launch of Water.org. Water.org works with local partners to deliver innovative solutions for long-term success. Its microfinance-based WaterCredit Initiative is pioneering sustainable giving in the sector.

Getting back to NanoStruck, here’s more from their About page,

NanoStruck Technologies Inc. is a Canadian Company with a suite of technologies that remove molecular sized particles using patented absorptive organic polymers. These versatile biomaterials are derived from crustacean shells or plant fibers, depending on requirements of their usage. Acting as molecular sponges, the nanometer-sized polymers are custom programmed toabsorb specific particles for remediation or retrieval purposes. These could be to clean out acids, hydrocarbons, pathogens, oils and toxins in water via its NanoPure solutions. Or to recover precious metal particles in mine tailings, such as gold, silver, platinum, palladium and rhodium using the Company’s NanoMet solutions.

By using patented modifications to conventional technologies and adding polymer-based nano-filtration, the Company’s offers environmentally safe NanoPure solutions for water purification. The Company uses Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines as a benchmark for water quality and safety to conform to acceptable agricultural or drinking water standards in jurisdictions where the technology is used.

…

The Company’s current business model is based on either selling water remediation plants or leasing out units and charging customers on a price per liter basis with a negotiated minimum payment per annum. For processing mine tailings, the value of precious metal recovered is shared with tailing site owners on a pre-agreed basis.

I wonder if there are any research papers about the January 2012 work in Mexico. I find there is a dearth of technical information on the company’s website, which is somewhat unusual for a startup company (my experience is that they give you too much technical information in a fashion that is incomprehensible to anyone other than en expert). As well, I’m not familiar with any members of the company’s management team (Our Team webpage) but, surprisingly, there isn’t a Chief Science Officer or someone on the team from the science community. In fact, the entire team seems to have emerged from the business community. If I have time, I’ll see about getting an interview for publication here in 2014. In the meantime, it looks like a company with some interesting potential and I wish it well.

(Note: This is not endorsement or anti-endorsement of the company or its business. This is not my area of expertise.)