Tag Archives: 2020 Science

Geoengineering and nanotechnology at the University of Calgary

Leave a reply

University of Calgary climate scientist David Keith suggests two ways to engineer the climate to avoid dangerous warming. According to the news item on Nanowerk,

“Releasing engineered nano-sized disks, or sulphuric acid in a condensable vapour above the Earth, are two novel approaches. These approaches offer advantages over simply putting sulphur dioxide gas into the atmosphere,” says David Keith, a director in the Institute for Sustainable Energy, Environment and Economy and a Schulich School of Engineering professor.

Keith, a global leader in investigating this topic, says that geoengineering, or engineering the climate on a global scale, is an imperfect science.

“It cannot offset the risks that come from increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. If we don’t halt man-made CO2 emissions, no amount of climate engineering can eliminate the problems – massive emissions reductions are still necessary.”

Nevertheless, Keith believes that research on geoengineering technologies,their effectiveness and environmental impacts needs to be expanded.

“I think the stakes are simply too high at this point to think that ignorance is a good policy.”

… One study was authored by Keith alone, and the other with scientists in Canada, the U.S. and Switzerland.

Keith is talking about engineering the nanoparticles as thin disks whose electric or magnet materials would allow them to be levitated into the atmosphere and oriented to reflect the most solar radiation away from us. For example, if the particles could be engineered to drift towards the Poles (North and South), solar radiation could be reduced.  There’s more detail about this and his other suggestion in the news item.

Keith does note that these suggestions do not mean we should stop our efforts at curtailing greenhouse gas emissions,

Keith stresses that whether geoengineering technology is ever used, it shouldn’t be seen as a reason not to reduce man-made greenhouse gas emissions now accumulating in the atmosphere.

“Seat belts reduce the risk of being injured in accidents. But having a seat belt doesn’t mean you should drive drunk at 100 miles an hour,” he says.

ETA Sept. 13, 2010: Andrew Maynard at 2020 Science has posted about one of David Keith’s geoengineering ideas:

The first [aspect of the paper to catch Andrew’s eye] was that he [Keith] proposes engineering particles as disks a few micrometers wide and around 50 nanometers thick, that are designed to automatically congregate where they are most useful in the atmosphere – in other words, this is a beautiful case of nanotechnology meets geoengineering.

The second aspect of the paper that caught my attention was that I was working with precisely engineered particles not too dissimilar from those that David described back in the 1990′s, which got me wondering whether techniques being used then for fabrication of silicon particles could be used for the more complex particles being proposed here.

If you’re interested in how science develops and the history of ideas (special emphasis on nanotechnology and geoengineering) then, Andrew offers a very engaging view.

Two subcultures: science knitters and graffiti knitters, could they come together?

2 Replies

I had no idea that there’s a whole subculture of scientists devoted to knitting. Not just any knitting, science knitting. Thanks to Andrew Maynard at 2020 Science blog (July 25, 2010 posting), I have discovered Woolly Thoughts a website devoted to knitting, crocheting, and mathematics.

In fact, there’s a plethora of websites, blogs, and a subset on Ravelry (social networking for knitters) devoted to science/math knitters, much of which you can find in Andrew’s posting.

One item that particularly my fancy was a piece of ‘illusion knitting’ designed by Alice Bell, a science communication lecturer at the Imperial College of London. Illusion knitting is where the same piece of knitting reveals of one of two different images depending on the angle of sight. Bell’s creation, the Rosalind scarf, can look like stripes from one angle and like a piece of DNA from another angle.

For anyone not familiar with Franklin (from the San Diego Super Computer Center at the University of Southern California web page),

There is probably no other woman scientist with as much controversy surrounding her life and work as Rosalind Franklin. Franklin was responsible for much of the research and discovery work that led to the understanding of the structure of deoxyribonucleic acid, DNA. The story of DNA is a tale of competition and intrigue, told one way in James Watson’s book The Double Helix, and quite another in Anne Sayre’s study, Rosalind Franklin and DNA. James Watson, Francis Crick, and Maurice Wilkins received a Nobel Prize for the double-helix model of DNA in 1962, four years after Franklin’s death at age 37 from ovarian cancer.

Here’s Bell in her Rosalind scarf,

Alice Bell in her Rosalind scarf

This is the angle for the stripes, to see the DNA go to the Feb. 7, 2010 posting on her Slipped Stitch blog or to Andrew’s posting where you can find more goodies like this,

Knitting and crocheting as a means of creating complex geometrical forms has a long and illustrious history. Alan Turing was often seen knitting Möbius strips and other shapes in his lunchtime apparently, according to this 2008 MSNBC [article]. The work of Taimina and others on exploring hyperbolic planes – and their relevance to biology – has been groundbreaking (I know it’s crochet, but Margaret Wertheim’s TED talk on crochet coral and complex math is excellent, [go here]).

Vancouver (Canada) is home to at least two members of another knitting subculture as I found out earlier this year with the publication of a book by two locals, Mandy Moore and Leanne Prain, Yarn Bombing; The Art of Crochet and Knit Graffiti. Their Yarn Bombing blog features projects from around the world. I took a particular liking to Bee Bombs,

Annie's bee bombs in Amsterdam

I wonder if we could get some science yarn bombs going for the 2012 annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting to take place here in Vancouver?

Nanotechnology and sunscreens: recalibrating positions and the excruciating business of getting it as right as possible

1 Reply

I’ve been waiting for Andrew Maynard’s comments (on his 2020 Science blog) about the Friends of the Earth (FoE) guest bloggers’ (Georgia Miller and Ian Illuminato) response (ETA June 6, 2016: Just how risky can nanoparticles in sunscreens be? Friends of the Earth respond; a 2020 Science blog June 15, 2010 posting) to his posting (Just how risky could nanoparticles in sunscreens be?) where he challenged them to quantify the nanosunscreen risk to consumers.  His reflections on the FoE response and the subsequent discussion are well worth reading. From Andrew’s posting, The safety of nanotechnology-based sunscreens – some reflections,

Getting nanomaterials’ use in context. First, Georgia and Ian, very appropriately in my opinion, brought up the societal context within which new technologies and products are developed and used:

“why not support a discussion about the role of the precautionary principle in the management of uncertain new risks associated with emerging technologies? Why not explore the importance of public choice in the exposure to these risks? Why not contribute to a critical discussion about whose interests are served by the premature commercialisation of products about whose safety we know so little, when there is preliminary evidence of risk and very limited public benefit.”

Andrew again,

… we need to think carefully about how we use scientific knowledge and data – “evidence” – in making decisions.

As he goes on to point out, cherrypicking data isn’t a substantive means of supporting your position over the long run.

Unfortunately it’s a common practice on all sides ranging from policymakers, politicians, civil society groups, consumers, medical institutions, etc. and these days we don’t have the luxury, ignorance about downsides such as pollution and chemical poisoning on a global scale for example, that previous generations enjoyed.

Three of the scientists whose work was cited by FoE as proof that nanosunscreens are dangerous either posted directly or asked Andrew to post comments which clarified the situation with exquisite care,

Despite FoE’s implications that nanoparticles in sunscreens might cause cancer because they are photoactive, Peter Dobson points out that there are nanomaterials used in sunscreens that are designed not to be photoactive. Brian Gulson, who’s work on zinc skin penetration was cited by FoE, points out that his studies only show conclusively that zinc atoms or ions can pass through the skin, not that nanoparticles can pass through. He also notes that the amount of zinc penetration from zinc-based sunscreens is very much lower than the level of zinc people have in their body in the first place. Tilman Butz, who led one of the largest projects on nanoparticle penetration through skin to date, points out that – based on current understanding – the nanoparticles used in sunscreens are too large to penetrate through the skin.

These three comments alone begin to cast the potential risks associated with nanomaterials in sunscreens in a very different light to that presented by FoE. Certainly there are still uncertainties about the possible consequences of using these materials – no-one is denying that. But the weight of evidence suggests that nanomaterials within sunscreens – if engineered and used appropriately – do not present a clear and present threat to human health.

Go to the comments section of the 2020 Science blog for the full text of Peter Dobson’s response, Brian Gulson’s response posted by Andrew on Gulson’s behalf, and Tilman Butz’s response posted by Andrew on Butz’s behalf. (I found these comments very helpful as I had made the mistake of assuming that there was proof that nanoparticles do penetrate the skin barrier [as per my posting of June 23, 2010].)

I want to point out that the stakes are quite high despite the fact that sunscreens are classified as a cosmetic. I’ve heard at least one commentator (Pat Roy Mooney of The ETC Group, Interview at 2009 Elevate Festival at 4:32) scoff because nanotechnology is being used in cosmetics as if it’s frivolous. Given the important role sunscreens play in our health these days, a safe sunscreen has to be high on the list of most people’s priorities but this leads to a question.

Should we stop developing more effective nanotechnology-enabled sunscreens (and by extension, other nanotechnology-enabled products) due to concern that we may cause more harm than good?

Andrew goes on to provide some interesting insight into the issue citing the Precautionary Principle and supplementing his comments with some of Richard Jones’ (author of Soft Machines book and blog and consultant to UK government on various nanotechnology topics) suggestions to refine the Precautionary Principle guidelines,

1. what are the benefits that the new technology provides – what are the risks and uncertainties associated with not realising these benefits?

2. what are the risks and uncertainties attached to any current ways we have of realising these benefits using existing technologies?

3. what are the risks and uncertainties of the new technology?

I strongly suggest that anyone interested in the issues around risk, the precautionary principle, emerging technologies, and the role of research read this posting (as well as its predecessors) and as much of the discussion as you can manage.

One additional thought which was posited in the comments section by Hilary Sutcliffe (you’ll need to scroll the comments as I haven’t figured out how to create a direct link to her comment) has to do with the role that companies have with regard to their research and making it available in the discussion about health, safety, and the environment (HSE),

… we need to be able to access ‘the best available information’ in order to make informed decisions in the face of uncertainty and enable the rounded assessment that Prof Richard Jones suggests. This is indeed essential, but ‘we’ are usually constrained by the lack of one very large chunk of ‘available information’ which is the HSE testing the companies themselves have done which leads them to judge the material or product they have developed is safe.

Further in the comment she goes on to discuss a project (What’s fair to share?) that her organization (MATTER) is planning where they want to discuss how companies can share their HSE data without giving away intellectual property and/or competitive advantages.

Finally, I want to paraphrase something I said elsewhere. While I am critical of the tactics used by the Friends of the Earth in this instance, there is no doubt in my mind that the organization and other civil society groups serve a very important role in raising much needed discussion about nanotechnology risks.

About the BP oil spill, greening the desert, and using bicycle power to recharge your mobile

Leave a reply

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 form 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 the midst of this oil spill, it was good to come across a successful effort at regreening a desert. From the Fast Company article by Cliff Kuang,

Today, the Buckminster Fuller Institute announced the winner of its 2010 Challenge: Allan Savory, who has spent the last 50 years refining and evangelizing for a method of reversing desertification that he calls “holistic management.” The African Center for Holistic Management International, an NGO he helped found, will take home a $100,000 grant.

The Buckminster Fuller Challenge is meant to award big, sweeping solutions to seemingly intractable problems. …

… Savory’s prescription seems shockingly simple–and it’s taken him 50 years of work to convince others that he’s not crazy. The core of Holistic Management is simply grazing local livestock in super dense herds that mimic the grazing patterns of big-game (which have since disappeared). Those livestock in turn till the soil with their hooves and fertilize it with their dung–thus preparing the land for new vegetation in a cycle that was evolved over millions of years.

Savory works in Zimbabwe which is where the greatest success for this method is enjoyed but it has also been employed in the Rockies (between Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho Note: As a Canadian, I would not describe this area as the ‘northern Rockies’ as Kuang’s article does) and in the Australian outback.

… Savory’s African Center for Holistic Management has transformed 6,500 acres of land [in Zimbabwe]. There, even though livestock herds have increased by 400%, open water and fish have been found a half mile above where water had ever been known during dry season.

Bravo!

On a similar good news front, Nokia has announced a mobile phone charger that you can power up while riding your bicycle. From the Fast Company article by Addy Dugdale,

The Finnish firm’s [Nokia] Bicycle Charger Kit consists of a little bottle dynamo that you attach to the wheel of your bicycle to power up your phone as you pedal away. It comes with a phone holder that attaches to the handlebars using a hi-tech system composed of an elastic band and a plastic bag, in case of rain. Its price (in Kenya) is a little over $18 bucks, and it’s a wonder that no other phone manufacturer has thought of this before.

…

The Nokia Bicycle Charger Kit starts to work when you’re pedaling at just under 4mph and clicks off at 31mph. Hit 7.5mph and your bike will be charging your cell as quickly as a traditional charger would.

This reminds me a little of the projects where they try to create textiles that will harvest energy from your body that can be used to power mobile phones and other battery-powered devices that you carry around.

Nanotech BC scoop: part 2 interview with Victor Jones

4 Replies

The next part of the interview focuses on just how many companies in Canada could be defined as selling nanotechnology-based products and Jones’ role with Nanotech BC. He also provides more information about the organization’s projects.

(3) How big is the nanotechnology industry in BC? and in Canada? i.e. how many companies?

BC HAS ABOUT 15 CO; ALBERTA CLAIMS ABOUT 40 CO AND THEN ONTARIO AND QUEBEC HAVE A SIMILAR NUMBER EACH.   BUT BC ALSO HAS A LARGE  ~~ 120 OR SO – RESEARCHERS – RESEARCH EFFORT  COVERING A DIVERSE AREAS OF ADVANCED MATERIALS, COATINGS; LAB ON A CHIP, QUANTUM PHYSICS, DRUG DELIVERY AND NANO BIO WORK  ON-GOING.   MOST OF THIS IS STILL IN LABS AT UBC  – AMPEL;   ALSO SFU – 4D LABS AND  UVIC HAS SOME EXCELLENT WORK TOO.  E.G. ONE BC  COMPANY IS   A LEADER IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF A QUANTUM COMPUTER. ONE SPECIALIZES IN COATINGS….ETC.

NANO IS NOT AN INDUSTRY  – IT IS A BROAD ENABLING TECHNOLOGY – A GENERAL PURPOSE TECHNOLOGY ( GPT) AND THEREFORE GETS  EMBEDDED INTO A RANGE OF PRODUCTS AND PROCESSES WHERE MANIPULATION OF MATTER AT THE ATOMIC SCALE ENABLES MATERIAL CHARACTERISTICS AND PROCESSES NOT  OTHERWISE ACHIEVABLE.    SO FAR  MOST OF THE MATERIALS  ARE FINDING APPLICATION  IN COATINGS, TEXTILES;  COMPOSITE MATERIALS AND PERSONAL CARE PRODUCTS  E.G. SUNCREEN/ HAIR CARE.; ADVANCED ELECTRONICS….   SEE  THE WOODROW WILSON PROJECT ON EMERGING NANOTECHNOLOGIES. (here)  ADOPTION TIMES FOR NEW MATERIALS ARE OFTEN YEARS IN THE MAKING,  BUT SOME 800 PRODUCTS USING NMATERIALS ARE IN THE MARKET NOW.

(3) Can you tell me about your role with Nanotech BC given its current situation? I’ve seen your website and am wondering if you might be able to tell me a little more about what you do professionally.

I AM NO LONGER A BOARD MEMBER  SO I HAVE NO OFFICIAL CAPACITY WITH NANOTECH BC NOR DO I SPEAK FOR THE ORGANIZATION.  OF COURSE I AM SUPPORTIVE OF THE ORGANIZATION BUT NOW REFER ENQUIRIES TO MICHAEL ALLDRITT – DIRECTOR – AT NRC-IRAP WHO HAS BEEN A GREAT SUPPORTER OF THE PROJECT GOING BACK TO 2001.

I CONTINUE TO DO CONSULTING IN THE ARENA OF CANADIAN STANDARDS  WORK ON NANOMATERIALS AND ALSO THE DEVELOPMENT OF WWW.GOODNANOGUIDE.ORG.   THIS  WEBSITE WAS A CONCEPT OF ICON ( RICE U) WHICH WAS ASSISTED THROUGH NANOTECH BC AND OTHER CANADIAN ORGANIZATIONS AS I ARRANGED THE FUNDING FOR THE BETA  STAGE.  IT IS NOW OPEN TO WORLD INVOLVEMENT IN SHARING PROTOCOLS FOR THE SAFE HANDLING OF NANOMATERIALS.   MY ROLE WITH THE ICON COMMITTEE WAS TO ROUND UP THE CANADIAN FUNDING TO REACH THIS STAGE AND AS A MEMBER OF THE IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE WORK THROUGH THE DETAILS OF THE FUNCTIONALITIES. THIS PROJECT CONTINUES AND IS INTERNATIONAL IN SCOPE WITH AN EXCELLENT COMMITTEE. – REPS FROM NIOSH  EPA  ETC…   AS OHS PROCESSES WILL BE KEY TO BOTH RESEARCHER/ INDUSTRIAL SAFETY AND PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE OF NANOMATERIAL ENABLED PRODUCTS   I EXPECT INTEREST IN THE SITE AS A SOURCE FOR OHS INFORMATION FOR PUBLIC AND SPECIALISTS TO GROW. (OHS = Occupational Health and Safety)

If I read Jones’ response correctly, we have almost 100 companies in Canada that are producing nano-enabled products. I’m not sure I worded that sentence  so well but point well taken about the nonexistence of a nanotechnology industry (as I referred to it in my question) per se. One of the difficulties writing about nanotechnology is its rather amorphous quality. I made some comments along with other people on Andrew Maynard’s blog (2020 Science) about these difficulties.

I did not realize that BC hosts a company which is a leader in quantum computers.  That’s pretty exciting stuff as is the work on occupational health and safety. Part 3 of the interview will be posted on Monday, May 18, 2009.

Copyright and The Economist, Two Cultures, and some spoken word iconoclasm

1 Reply

Thanks to the folks at Techdirt I found out that The Economist is having an interactive debate about copyright. They propose this, This house believes that existing copyright laws do more harm than good. They’ve invited two law professors to present competing pro and con views and readers can offer their own comments. It’s a lively debate and you can go check it out here.

I have mixed feelings on the topic although I lean towards agreement with this particular proposition. As someone who produces content, I don’t want to see anyone cheated of credit and/or monetary reward for their (my) work. Unfortunately copyright laws are being used to stifle the lively exchange of ideas and materials. For example, I just read a very bizarre interpretation of copyright in my local daily paper (The Vancouver Sun, Saturday, May 2, 2009) by Harvey Enchin. Apparently adding links to The Vancouver Sun website is infringing on their copyright. I’d rather not quote from him, even with attribution, as I’m sure he’d consider that an infringement. Can anyone out there explain how providing a link to a website e.g. The Economist infringes on their copyright? I haven’t appropriated their content (I have noted the text of the motion that propels the debate [in the interest of full disclosure, sometimes I quote from an article but never reproduce the article  in its entirety]). Plus, I am driving traffic to their website which, theoretically, should enable them to raise their advertising rates. Where’s the problem?

As far as I’m concerned, the whole area of intellectual property law (copyright, trademarks, and patents) is being appropriated by bullies who use existing legislation to intimidate the very people they claim to be protecting.

There’s a good discussion taking place on Andrew Maynard’s 2020 Science blog about C. P. Snow’s Two Cultures (humanities/arts and sciences). It’s a 1959 lecture that was eventually published and has proved to be quite influential. (Hmmm…Richard Feynman’s lecture, There’s plenty of the room at the bottom, was given in 1959…interesting year.) There’s also an editorial in Nature about Two Cultures. Both Maynard and the Nature editor claim that the ‘wall’ between the sciences and the humanities/arts is less formidable than it was 50 years *ago. I find it interesting that Maynard, a scientist, and the Nature editor (presumably someone versed in the sciences) are making the claim. Are there any writers or artists would agree? Here’s Maynard’s blog and Nature’s editorial. (The editorial is the one article which is not behind a paywall.)

Spoken word artist, musician, and poet, Heather Haley will be performing on Monday, May 11, 2009 at The Beaumont Studios, 315 West 5th Avenue, Vancouver, BC. Admission is $7 and the doors open at 7:15. From the news release,

AURAL Heather @ Vancouver City Limits.

Musical Showcase at Beaumont Studios
w/Christina Maria and Petunia with the Viper Band

AURAL Heather is the new weather! A unique, sublime fusion of song and spoken word by poet-iconoclast-vocalist Heather Haley and dazzling guitarist-producer, Roderick Shoolbraid.

You can check out some of Heather’s work here and you can check out the Beaumont Studios here.

*’ago’ added Sept. 12, 2017.