Can we get a "duh"? When carbon nanotubes first came out they did a study showing the little buggers would kill *every* kind of cell on contact. Great for disinfecting stuff, not so great if you ever intend to use that surface again later. #nanoparticles
I must be weird then. I can't see any problem here. Nana Particles are sweet, yet tiny, dear old things who wouldn't harm a fly!
Until they get behind the wheel of a car! #nanoparticles
if you handle deadl;y substances properly there is not going to be an accident ( most of the time).
proper usages of this nano tech will prove beneficial but improper usage/storage could lead to folks being nano-infected (maybe) #nanoparticles
@Roklimber: what I'm wondering is: how did the nanoparticles damage the DNA without touching it? Telekinesis? Magic?
How it happened is just as important as that it happened. #nanoparticles
@The_Sporean_Bob: The Guardian article mentions the researchers' hypothesis on how the damage occurs, and it isn't surprising given the concentration of metallic nanoparticles they used. #nanoparticles
@The_Sporean_Bob: My first reaction is to ask "How soluble are your cobalt-chromium nanoparticles?" Both of those metals are fairly toxic, and some nonzero concentration of them will be present in solution from breakdown of the nanoparticles. That concentration may be negligible (if the particles are essentially insoluble), but if it's not, it would provide a better explanation than "Nanoparticles, whooo scary" (i.e., that the study showed that cobalt and/or chromium is toxic, which isn't exactly news). #nanoparticles
@AtomicTao: Hopefully never since it wouldn't do a thing to make them any faster and would likely result in the destruction of their eye tissue (if not death if they took enough) since hypercompaction would probably prevent transcription.
I realize you may be joking, but really this protein has nothing to do with enhancing the abilities of anything beyond a sperm so your comment struck me as weird and out of place. Sorry if it came out as harsh.
@AtomicTao: Well I apologise again for coming off as harsh. I can never be sure about the joking. I enjoy the science articles on io9, but I find a lot of times there is a response of "Oh no! Genetic engineering! They're going to make superhumans! Just like in Gattaca!" which is hard for a genetics and biochem nerd to handle.
I guess my ability to spot sarcasm is a little clouded by my desire to leap to the defence of science. Allow me to give a belated "ha ha".
Apology accepted, and I apologize for the snark which I answered your response with, as well; people tossing around knowledge as a weapon to prove how smart they are on message boards is something that has become a pet peeve of mine. :) (I once wrote a short story in which a character, in dialogue, referred to a rabbit as a rodent for alliterative purposes, and I had several responses not to comment or critique the piece, but to 'helpfully' point out to me that rabbits aren't rodents, but lagomorphs. Gee, thanks, readers. :p)
I see that you simply didn't read that it was a joke, so I don't lump you into this grouping, and I apologize for doing so as a kneejerk.
While this is interesting, I think it works better for the more abstract and less of a portrait of self, personally, i'd rather just have a painting of a person without the blocks messing up the picture.
this is too cool. i want one. no, better yet, i think i'll make one. and if i have any friends over who just happen to be genetic scientists, they can exclaim, "my god! according to your DNA pattern artwork, you're a sex panther/primate hybrid!" and i'd say, "yes. yes I am."
See? This just means we need more cameras. Cameras everywhere, in every aspect of our lives, to make ABSOLUTELY SURE we're all behaving in a morally appropriate fashion at all times.
11/09/09
11/08/09
11/08/09
Until they get behind the wheel of a car! #nanoparticles
11/08/09
11/08/09
proper usages of this nano tech will prove beneficial but improper usage/storage could lead to folks being nano-infected (maybe) #nanoparticles
11/08/09
11/08/09
11/08/09
11/08/09
Such a general conclusion is not warranted by the specifics of the very particular kind of experiment they performed.
It's like saying that any kind of light is harmful to cells because gamma rays cause DNA mutations.
The Guardian article is an example of terrible reporting of bad science.
11/08/09
How it happened is just as important as that it happened. #nanoparticles
11/08/09
11/08/09
10/01/09
09/30/09
10/01/09
I realize you may be joking, but really this protein has nothing to do with enhancing the abilities of anything beyond a sperm so your comment struck me as weird and out of place. Sorry if it came out as harsh.
10/01/09
10/01/09
It was a joke, but you got to make yourself sound smart, so, kudos, sir. :)
10/01/09
I guess my ability to spot sarcasm is a little clouded by my desire to leap to the defence of science. Allow me to give a belated "ha ha".
Oh and for the record, it's ma'am :P
10/01/09
Apology accepted, and I apologize for the snark which I answered your response with, as well; people tossing around knowledge as a weapon to prove how smart they are on message boards is something that has become a pet peeve of mine. :) (I once wrote a short story in which a character, in dialogue, referred to a rabbit as a rodent for alliterative purposes, and I had several responses not to comment or critique the piece, but to 'helpfully' point out to me that rabbits aren't rodents, but lagomorphs. Gee, thanks, readers. :p)
I see that you simply didn't read that it was a joke, so I don't lump you into this grouping, and I apologize for doing so as a kneejerk.
09/30/09
10/01/09
10/02/09
09/08/09
Not a rug, but it really ties the room together.
09/08/09
09/08/09
09/08/09
09/08/09
If you're 'a sex panther/primate hybrid', and enjoy long walks in the misty highland mountains of Africa ...
... have your primatologist contact my primatologist. Maybe we can get together for some mutual grooming.
08/19/09