Nanotechnology

[Nevada Hoya]

As with global warming, nanotechnology is an area, which has to be balanced between the technological advances and the possible environmental/health risks. In years to come nanotechnology will be used more and more in manufacturing processes, the health industry, and many other sectors. And yet there are possible risks, but they are ill defined right now. There are areas of technology, where there risks were only recognized after the fact, like asbestos, PCBs, etc. At the EPA we are actively engaged in research to try to identify these issues. These nanotech materials are unlike other "pollutants" as most of the pollutants are identified by their chemical structure, but these materials are more defined by their size and shapes. An exception might be the unique form of carbon, which essentially started this revolution: C60 or fullerene. There is a good article that discusses these issues at www.nature.com/nnano/journal/v3/n8/full/nnano.2008.198.html

[hifigator]

With the budgetary constraints we have now, cutting back the EPA would make a lot of sense and Cents.

[SFHoya99]

EPA Annual Budget = $7 billion.

What's that? Three days in Iraq?

I'm sure there's bureaucratic inefficiencies in the EPA as well as in any large organization, whether it is the Military, the EPA, Coca-Cola or your local PTA.

Yes, I know to you, who basically takes your opinion from Rush Limbaugh verbatim, the EPA is all about barn owls or something, but healthy air and water is vitally important to most people's quality of life.

There's a lot better places to cut than the EPA.

[Coast2CoastHoya]

At last! We have written proof that hifi does, in fact, want the ENTIRE country to be a fetid swamp just like GatorLand.

[hifigator]

That comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek, but it is my opinion that far too many restrictions are placed on businesses, many stemming from the EPA. We rented out space to a car detailer. Within a couple of weeks the city shut him down. They said that he had to install some fancy drain system for disposal of his "dangerous chemicals." This was an motivated young entrepreneur that was trying to better himself by providing a service to others -- namely washing their cars! The last time I saw, soap and water are pretty safe. That was all he was using -- that and maybe some Armor All. They threatened to bring in the EPA if he didn't comply. The result: he closed the doors and left. Who exactly does that help?

As it works out, he later went and got a Mobile License, which allows him to detail pretty much anywhere he wants to. I don't think there is anything stopping him from coming back here -- thus illustrating another flaw in the system, but that is a topic for another day. My point is that as with many areas, there are some benefits to intrusive government of the sort, but as with most of those same areas, very quickly unnecessary costs to the business evolve. In general, we don't need more government stepping in with new ideas to save us from ourselves.


As a wise man once said: "we don't need good laws to restrain bad people, we need good people to restrain bad laws."

[Nevada Hoya]

Aug 11, 2008 13:21:13 GMT -5 hifigator said:

With the budgetary constraints we have now, cutting back the EPA would make a lot of sense and Cents.

Tell me why we have not banned hifigator before now?

In fact the Bush admin is doing a good job of that. Our budget has been flat for essentially all the years of the current administration, i.e., in terms of real dollars that has made our budget decline in the past eight years. Our group has not hired in about nine years and in the next three years half our group will retire. Doesn't say much about future environmental protection.

[Boz]

When it comes to nanotechnology, I derive all the fears I need from Michael Crichton:

books.google.com/books?id=F2AOu_IfvOcC

[SFHoya99]

True car detailing can actually use some really nasty chemicals. But that's neither here nor there; I'm not going to debate the details of exact cases. There's certainly going to be cases where the EPAs rules are probably too restrictive for some people.

Anytime you regulate something nationally, you lose the ability to regulate sensibly on a case by case basis. No argument there. In an ideal world, you'd be able to do that.

But we don't live there. And if it means that that guy has to go to a different lot, or has to install a drain system (which by the way, he buys from another guy trying to better himself) I'm okay with that being the price to pay for not living in a cancer hot spot, for not having trouble breathing when I step outside, etc.

Amazingly, that guy overcame that small obstacle and is still bettering himself, right? Along the way, may someone got paid for disposal of dangerous chemicals -- so they got a benefit as well. And lastly, on a macro view, I can drink the water.

Too many anti-regulation folks miss that for every regulation, there's a whole crew of people who view it as an opportunity (in this case, the drain maker/disposal) rather than an obstacle.

[SFHoya99]

Back on the topic -- I know little about nanotechnology. But it's the story of science -- mankind tends to be smarter than wiser. You can't hold back science even if you wanted to do so -- someone will always press forward -- but you can do your best to safeguard against negative repercussions.

[hifigator]

You make some decent points sf, but still ignore the underlying effect that I am talking about. Anytime you regulate something ... anytime you tax something ... anytime you restrict something you get less of that something. Similarly, anytime you fund something ... anytime you subidize something ... anytime you otherwise encourage something you get more of that something. What we have now is too many restrictions, regulations and taxes. Simply put, it is too expensive to do business in America. That is fundamentally why we are losing so many jobs to overseas. I understand the playing field isn't level. I understand that the value of labor is artificially suppressed in third world countries. But the value of labor is artificially inflated over here through the assorted costs I mentioned above. Many of these costs are nothing but red tape BS. Again, I understand the need for a certain amount of restrictions. A car mechanic can't simply take gallons of used oil and pour it in the woods. That type of regulation is fine. But it is the more "extreme" cases like that that are used to justify the more intrusive and unnecessary restrictions. Basically it has become more of an excuse for people to sit across the table and dream up what they think would be good ideas.


Incidentally, the detailer who got a mobile license just illustrated how silly that particular restriction was. With the mobile license he could perform his trade here, there or anywhere else. Obviously very few of these places have these newfangled drains.

[SFHoya99]

Aug 11, 2008 15:59:52 GMT -5 hifigator said:

You make some decent points sf, but still ignore the underlying effect that I am talking about. Anytime you regulate something ... anytime you tax something ... anytime you restrict something you get less of that something. Similarly, anytime you fund something ... anytime you subidize something ... anytime you otherwise encourage something you get more of that something.

That's true in the absolute sense. However, when you limit one thing, you often get more of something else.

However, I am a big fan of incentives. I'm fine with regulation. Most taxes attempting to dictate behavior backfire, though (like tariffs), although taxes are necessary in general.

What we have now is too many restrictions, regulations and taxes. Simply put, it is too expensive to do business in America. That is fundamentally why we are losing so many jobs to overseas. I understand the playing field isn't level. I understand that the value of labor is artificially suppressed in third world countries. But the value of labor is artificially inflated over here through the assorted costs I mentioned above.

Stop. Your latter point so overrides the former point it's ridiculous. I've done analysis on international labor rates on a practical basis. It has nothing to do with your assorted costs.

It has to do with basic economics. We're not talking a difference of 30% here. On a per hour basis, we're talking $15/hour versus $.05/hour. It's not close. Don't blame manufacturing jobs leaving the U.S. on regulations.

Furthermore, as much cost is lost in COMPANY bureaucracy as Gov't bureaucracy. Ask yourself what kind of fun collusion a CEO of a failing company is involved in with his $60MM bonus as jobs move overseas...

Many of these costs are nothing but red tape BS. Again, I understand the need for a certain amount of restrictions. A car mechanic can't simply take gallons of used oil and pour it in the woods. That type of regulation is fine. But it is the more "extreme" cases like that that are used to justify the more intrusive and unnecessary restrictions. Basically it has become more of an excuse for people to sit across the table and dream up what they think would be good ideas.

No doubt. There's a lot of silly restrictions out there. But to me the solution isn't damning the whole system or uniformly cutting budgets but finding a better middle ground.

On both side there's extremes -- many liberals won't admit to gov't waste (there's tons) but I've heard way too many conservatives and libertarians who fail to acknowledge the massive good the government does.

Both aren't trying to solve any issues -- they are trying to prove their ideological point. I don't have any real use for either.

[hifigator]

fair enough on that point.


I still think there is a fundamental flaw however. I think the starting point should be what do we really need to regulate. Unfortunately, I think that too often the question is "what do I think would be a good idea?" In other words, I think dreaming up a potential future danger is the goal and therefore restrictions or regulations that will "solve" it. That subtle difference is what results in legitimate regulations, such as proper disposal of used motor oil and silly nonsense like running off a detailer -- serving absolutely no purpose other than selling him another license.

[SFHoya99]

Aug 11, 2008 16:26:17 GMT -5 hifigator said:

fair enough on that point.


I still think there is a fundamental flaw however. I think the starting point should be what do we really need to regulate. Unfortunately, I think that too often the question is "what do I think would be a good idea?" In other words, I think dreaming up a potential future danger is the goal and therefore restrictions or regulations that will "solve" it. That subtle difference is what results in legitimate regulations, such as proper disposal of used motor oil and silly nonsense like running off a detailer -- serving absolutely no purpose other than selling him another license.

I understand. I have a close friend who is about as close to a real libertarian as exists. He's not a Republican at all -- votes often against them -- and he's not a "I don't want to pay taxes" libertarian. There's a lot of those.

He's a true philosophical one.

We agree on a lot of things, but I know the philosophy, I just don't subscribe. I'm not a pure individualist -- I personally think of the country not as a step up from anarchy but as a social contract between us all. And we need to keep in mind a balance between the freedoms we want to preserve for ourselves as a group but also use government to better our society.

The issue I have with Libertarians I have is that they usually fail to acknowledge that in a society, everyone's freedoms infringe upon other people's freedoms. There's very few, if any, actions that don't affect me in some way, so we balance them amongst ourselves.

Your freedom to shoot me, for example, is limited because it would ruin a whole lot of my freedoms. That's an extreme example and an easy one. But it does limit what you can do -- and taken to a fuzzier area it's the justification behind no smoking laws in bars and restaurants.

As another point of why I don't agree, I think people also have to acknowledge that mcuh of what has advanced this country is a great balance of freedom with cooperation. A person tends to think selfishly and short term and in limited terms -- a people can do amazing things and can think bigger. (This is essentially the problem of the commons as well).

Anyway, I don't expect you to agree. Just my POV.

[HoyaSinceBirth]

I've heard it described as the following: in general there's two virtues that define these political debates: Freedom and equality.

On one end you have complete freedom on the other end you have complete equality. Depending on which virtue you value more is where you land on the political spectrum. For the most part republicans value freedom more than equality and democrats value equality over freedom.

In general you should have the freedom to do what you want to do as long as it doesn't infringe upon other peoples freedom. However as SF points out most people don't realize how much their freedoms infringe on other peoples freedoms.

[TBird41]

Aug 11, 2008 14:27:43 GMT -5 SFHoya99 said:

Yes, I know to you, who basically takes your opinion from Rush Limbaugh verbatim, the EPA is all about barn owls or something, but healthy air and water is vitally important to most people's quality of life.

What did Rush Limbaugh ever do to you?

[hifigator]

SF, I meant to respond earlier: I haven't listened to Limbaugh since he was on Monday Night Football several years ago. You can rest assured that I have my own opinions. If he agrees with me, then congratulate him, don't ridicule me.

That being said, I recognize societal limits to freedoms. As you suggest, there are some "no brainers." I can't shoot you for example, as that would be the ultimate infringement of your rights. Staying with this theme however, I should be allowed to have a gun. Gun laws are almost always justified by suggesting that with fewer guns we will have fewer shootings. That remains to be proven, but certainly makes a degree of logical sense. However, that shouldn't prevent my freedom to own guns. I know it is only anecdotal, but off the top of my head, I could rattle off 25 people that own guns. There's not a felon among them. In fact to a man and woman they are all productive members of society with virtually no criminal record. In fact, something like being in a bar fight or getting an open container ticket is probably the most serious charge any of them have faced to my knowledge. I'm not sure what this says on the grand scale, but what I know from albeit limited experience is that gun owners are by and large honest, trustworthy, careful and diligent individuals. I have a saying that I have used of truly good people. I say he is one of the few that I would trust with my wife, my money and my kids. I'm not suggesting that those who don't own guns don't fit on my list, just following your example of freedoms versus infringements on freedoms.


since birth: the key that you totally neglect is what type of equality? As you point out, liberal thinking is often concerned with equality ... but it's equality of outcome. I am much more interested in equality of opportunity. Not everyone will be as successful. That's ok. Liberal thinking attempts to level off the equality of outcome. The problem is that that can really only be done by Robin Hood and is a bad formula. Such thinking generates an attitude of complacency. Such thinking encourages laziness, to put it bluntly. I agree with your point on cooperation. But the cooperation needs to come from the citizens, not the government. Fundamentally, government isn't a solution, government tends to be more the problem.

Lastly, you think we need to use government to better our society. All we know with certainty about government is that it is very inefficient. It must be. So counting on the betterment of society coming from government is nothing but a formula for disaster.

[SFHoya99]

Aug 12, 2008 15:58:48 GMT -5 hifigator said:

That being said, I recognize societal limits to freedoms. As you suggest, there are some "no brainers." I can't shoot you for example, as that would be the ultimate infringement of your rights.

Everything from here on out is a matter of balancing rights. And we're going to disagree at times on degrees.

[Bando]

Aug 11, 2008 15:41:42 GMT -5 SFHoya99 said:

Back on the topic -- I know little about nanotechnology. But it's the story of science -- mankind tends to be smarter than wiser. You can't hold back science even if you wanted to do so -- someone will always press forward -- but you can do your best to safeguard against negative repercussions.

I just want to note that real life isn't The Matrix.

[Boz]

Aug 18, 2008 14:04:13 GMT -5 Bando said:

Aug 11, 2008 15:41:42 GMT -5 SFHoya99 said:

Back on the topic -- I know little about nanotechnology. But it's the story of science -- mankind tends to be smarter than wiser. You can't hold back science even if you wanted to do so -- someone will always press forward -- but you can do your best to safeguard against negative repercussions.

I just want to note that real life isn't The Matrix.

Thankfully, in real life, there are far fewer semi-naked raves/psychedelic trance parties. ;D