Nanomolecular Murder

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by monadnock, Apr 13, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. monadnock Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    122
    NANOMOLECULAR MURDER

    Companies under contract to the US government have incorporated mechanochemical agents(nanotechnology) on the surface many consumer goods. Toxins are being released into our environment inflicting disease and death upon millions in an obscene and savage pogrom to manage and control population(i.e. culling the heard) and are also used for assassination.

    Focused RF bursts are release nanovapors which may be found in many products from automobiles, bedding, building materials, durable goods, electronics and furniture to textiles. Homes, businesses, private and public places are being exposed to these microwave bursts.

    Nanoparticles enter the body intra nasally and are carried to receptor cells through the bloodstream. Prolonged exposure results in cardiovascular disease, heart attack, organ failure and death.

    Nanovapors bind site specifically in the body resulting in healthy organs being destroyed. Apparently natural disease processes, are in point of fact, artificially induced. Since Nanotoxicology is a nascent science they are undetectable to current testing including autopsy. Carbon nanotubes less than 15 nanometers can hardly be detected even with sophisticated measurements as Atomic Force Measurement.


    Popping sounds which are the result of cavitation or implosion of the nanodots can sometimes be heard in a quiet environment as nanodots vibrate releasing the vapors before you inhale them. A metallic taste is often associated with exposure.



    There has been no regulation of Nanotechnology by government although hundreds of billions of dollars have been invested and nanoparticles incorporated into a variety of products. EPA has approved nanodots and nanovapors in metals, plastics, glass and other products without giving details of the products or even corporate identities of developers(Confidential Business Information).

    Nanotechnology and nanoparticles are the Zyklon B of the 21st century!
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. draqon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    35,006
    yea sure.

    consumers are $ givers, killing consumers=no/less money

    Enough of this fear.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    There are lots of toxins in consumer products, but most of those are unfortunately legal. Controlling the population, which would mean economic death, would be easy. Simply advocate for sex education and birth control, perhaps invent a pill for men. Our government at present ideologically opposed to such measures.

    Carbon nanotubes are not manufactured on an industrial scale yet, although I'm familiar with some scientists that are working on it. To coat consumer products with nanotubes would cost billions of dollars, and it wouldn't make any sense. Furthermore, you are probably insane.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Roman Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,560
    There is some truth to this. The FDA regulates on substance, not necessarily the size of the substance. There are certain nanoparticles of otherwise harmless materials that cause problems simply beause they're so small.
     
  8. daktaklakpak God is irrelevant! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    710
    A late April Fool joke, maybe?
     
  9. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    True, but none of the rest of it (RF bursts, population control, etc.) This guy is a crackpot of the lowest order! A total idiot.

    Please note that this is the same fool who cannot figure out why only wealthy people can take a ride in the Space Shuttle. Obviousy doesn't understand the word m-o-n-e-y at all (among many other simple things).
     
  10. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
  11. monadnock Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    122
    Nanoparticles

    Unlike larger microparticles, nanoparticles are highly mobile and readily enter the blood stream following inhalation or ingestion. It also appears likely that nanoparticles can penetrate human skin and gain access to the blood stream (5).

    Inhaled nanoparticles penetrate the protective mucus lining of human lungs and have high rates of deposition in the deeper lungs. Scavenger cells usually intercept foreign bodies and larger sized particles that make it past the mucus lung lining and into the deeper lung (6). However scientific studies have shown that these cells have difficulty recognising nano-scale particles, are readily overloaded, and their action is impaired (7).

    Irrespective of their chemical composition, nanoparticles are potent inducers of inflammatory lung injury (8). The UK Health and Safety Executive note that persistent lung inflammation as a result of exposure to nanoparticles (as with other toxic dust) is likely to lead to diseases such as fibrosis and cancer (9). Organisations as diverse as The Workers' Health International News' (Hazards Magazine) (10) and Swiss Re global reinsurers (11) are making the comparison between exposure to nanoparticles and asbestos (see below).

    Additional to causing direct lung damage, laboratory studies have repeatedly shown that nanoparticles cross from the deeper lungs to the blood stream. Once in the blood stream, nanoparticles are transported around the body and are absorbed by organs and (12,13) tissues including the brain, heart, liver, bone marrow, ovaries and muscles. Inhaled nanoparticles can travel directly to the brain along olfactory nerve cells (14). This is of particular concern given recent findings that nanoparticles cause brain damage to fish (15) and dogs (16).

    Ingested nanoparticles can be absorbed into the lymphatic system, and from there the blood stream, by intestinal tissue nodules known as "Peyer's plaques" (17). As a general rule, the smaller the particle the greater is its absorption.

    It has been shown that microparticles can penetrate human skin (18). The UK Health and Safety Executive (19) note that skin penetration by nanoparticles is comparatively even more likely. Scientists have suggested that nanoparticles may penetrate into hair follicles and then enter the deeper skin, from where they could access the blood stream. Several pharmaceutical companies are believed to be developing nanoparticles for dermal penetration as a drug delivery route, based on their ability to gain access to the blood stream.

    The duration of deposits of nanoparticles in vital organs is unknown, although there is some evidence to suggest they may accumulate in organs such as the liver (20). The extent of damage they may do and what dose may cause a harmful effect remains unknown. However scientists have shown that even low levels of nanoparticles are toxic to human liver cells (21). Other diseases of the liver suggest that the accumulation of even harmless foreign matter may also impair its function and result in harm.

    Neuro-degenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's or Parkinson's are thought to be caused by a disruption of the iron concentration in the brain. However, iron oxide nanoparticles are already being used in a number of applications, for example magnetic resonance scans
     
  12. monadnock Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    122
    Unfortunately currrent studies fail to consider the effect of
    of the excitation of surfactant nanoparticles.
     
  13. monadnock Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    122
    21st CENTURY DANGER

    TECHNOLOGY REVIEW:

    Nanotechnology has found its way into many products. Indeed, companies have claimed that more than 300 products are nanobased, according to a database maintained by the Woodrow Wilson International Center , in Washington, D.C. In some of these products, such as skin creams and toothpastes, nanoparticles are in contact with a person's body, so many experts are concerned that the novel properties of nanoparticles could cause health problems.
     
  14. monadnock Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    122
    Nanotechnology, it turns out, has a dark side that no one in the industry wants to talk about. New research suggests that nanoparticles could be harmful: fish exposed to nanoparticles duffered brain damage. Within 48 hours after being exposed to a very low concentration of nanoparticles, the fish produced brain damage that resembles Alzheimer's disease. But you won't hear that from the people involved in nanotech -- which seems to be anybody who wants a grant these days -- because they only want you to hear about the good news, not the bad.
     
  15. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Nanoparticles are just very small particles. That danger has always existed to some extent. That's different than nanotechnology involving very small molecular scale machines or structures.
     
  16. zajhein Registered Member

    Messages:
    7
    It's funny how people seem to be quoting directly some "definitive" source, but they don't say where it came from.

    This all seems like a baseless scare tactic, but I can't imagine why anyone would care to do that in a forum like this. Maybe just for kicks or trolling to get someone outraged.

    It's basically just classifying things in new vague ways and saying they do bad things because people are generally wary of new things. It reminds me of a skit that Penn and Teller did on their show Bullsht.

    They made signs and a petition to get Dihydrogen monoxide banned. Yes, they tried to get H2O banned by talking about it in scientific terms and saying that it's used in pesticides, causes vomiting; people die by it suffocating them and just regular scare tactics like every other media source. They got hundreds of signatures at an environmental event and spawned many websites imitating them.

    Just the same as this guy tries to do, saying nanochemicals are poisoning people. Hydrogen is a nanochemical, and gold on the nano scale can be very reactive too. Of course there is debate and risks to every new thing, but that doesn't make nanotechnology any more dangerous than any other chemicals and technologies. Like Penn and Teller say, it's Bullsht.

    And don't give the argument that because the particals are so small they can possibly pass through cell walls and lungs, or into the brain and thus more dangerous. Of course nanoparticals have the possibility of doing this but that doesn't mean that it will obviously cause harm. It's the specific chemicals that react in specific ways, not general nanoparticals or nanotechnology that will harm.

    Generalizing a part of science and making scare tactics is what got people scared of Genetically Modified Organisms which haven't had any decisive evidence showing they're dangerous. Yet they're banned in most of Europe just because of the scare and hype.

    If you want an unbiased source of information about nanotechnology, go here.
    livescience.com
     
  17. monadnock Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    122
    One of my favorites
     
  18. monadnock Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    122
    I only use reputable sources and this is another:

    This article originally appeared in The Multinational Monitor
    Vol. 25, No. 9 (September, 2004), pgs. 16-19, under the title,
    "Welcome to NanoWorld: Nanotechnology and the Precautionary
    Principle Imperative."
     
  19. zajhein Registered Member

    Messages:
    7
    I'm glad you have your sources but that was only a very slight side point. My point was that you're posting vague generalities about nanotechnology and nanoparticles that seem just intended to scare, on multiple threads even. Also posting 4 times in a row about the same thing with different reinterations does not instill an atitude of debate.

    What is your point of posting all this? Hopefully it's not just to be "informative" because you could give some better and more specific sources that you have so far just by searching on the web.
     
  20. monadnock Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    122
    Dangers Of Nanotech

    On the contrary, it is not merely informative and these are not generalities.

    My purpose is to underscore the very real dangers of this UNREGULATED technology, the dangers and how it is being abused!
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2007
  21. monadnock Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    122
    Although humans have been exposed to airborne nanosized particles (NSPs; < 100 nm) throughout their evolutionary stages, such exposure has increased dramatically over the last century due to anthropogenic sources. The rapidly developing field of nanotechnology is likely to become yet another source through inhalation, ingestion, skin uptake, and injection of engineered nanomaterials. Information about safety and potential hazards is urgently needed. Results of older bio-kinetic studies with NSPs and newer epidemiologic and toxicologic studies with airborne ultrafine particles can be viewed as the basis for the expanding field of nanotoxicology, which can be defined as safety evaluation of engineered nanostructures and nanodevices. Collectively, some emerging concepts of nanotoxicology can be identified from the results of these studies. When inhaled, specific sizes of NSPs are efficiently deposited by diffusional mechanisms in all regions of the respiratory tract. The small size facilitates uptake into cells and transcytosis across epithelial and endothelial cells into the blood and lymph circulation to reach potentially sensitive target sites such as bone marrow, lymph nodes, spleen, and heart. Access to the central nervous system and ganglia via translocation along axons and dendrites of neurons has also been observed. NSPs penetrating the skin distribute via uptake into lymphatic channels.

    Extract from Environmental Perspectives
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page