![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I restored the old title of this article, "Environmental implications of nanotechnology". The title it had been moved to, "Environmental impact of nanotechnology", was noted to be more consistent with other articles on the environmental impact of various products and technologies; however, the old title is more consistent with the series of articles on the implications of nanotechnology.
The difference is that the word "impact" has a slight connotation of negative implications, and the other environmental impact articles seem to only focus on negative implications of these technologies. This article is intended to contain both positive and negative implications, including potential improvements to the environment through new applications of nanotechnology, so I believe the more neutral "implications" title is more appropriate. Of course, I'm open to more discussion on the matter. Antony–22 ( talk⁄ contribs) 16:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: pages moved. Rough but clear consensus, consistent with policy if a line call. I think both Antony-22 and Neelix deserve barnstars for the excellent conduct of this discussion. Andrewa ( talk) 12:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
– The lengthy discussion between Antony and I above has resulted in the realization that we are not going to convince each other about what the title of this article should be, so we have together decided to request input from the wider community. I believe that Environmental implications of nanotechnology should be moved to Environmental impact of nanotechnology in order to be consistent with the many other articles about human impact on the environment, such as Environmental impact of agriculture, Environmental impact of biodiesel, Environmental impact of paint, Environmental impact of aviation, etc. All the other articles of this type follow the "Environmental impact of x" title format. The three other "implications of nanotechnology" articles should similarly employ the word "impact" instead of "implications" so that they will be consistent with Environmental impact of nanotechnology. Antony and I have agreed that there is no semantic or connotative difference between the words "implications" and "impact", therefore our disagreement rests solely in our interpretation of Wikipedia's article title policy. The phrase "implications of nanotechnology" is moderately more frequent in literature on the subject than "impact of nanotechnology", although Antony and I agree that WP:COMMONNAME does not apply to this case because neither "implications of nanotechnology" nor "impact of nanotechnology" are proper nouns, and WP:COMMONNAME explicitly applies only to proper nouns. Antony has invoked the sentence in the lede of WP:TITLE that states that "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources." Because the phrase "impact of nanotechnology" appears quite frequently in the literature, I do not believe that this sentence supports the "implications of nanotechnology" format much more than the "impact of nanotechnology" format. What I believe to be the relevant policy is WP:PRINCIPALNAMINGCRITERIA, which argues for consistency, stating that "titles are expected to follow the same pattern as those of similar articles." If the four articles implicated in this move request are moved as I have suggested, all of the articles about the environmental impact of things will follow a consistent title format and all of the impact of nanotechnology articles will follow a consistent title format, and all of the titles will still be phrases that are common in the literature. Relisting. - GTBacchus( talk) 22:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC) Neelix ( talk) 16:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Just a co-op student here, though I have worked in a regulatory position for some time, in the context of the environment. I just wanted to inquire why there is an environmental benefits section when none of that information can really be substantiated. Everyone preaches the environmental benefits of nanotechnology and are completely one-sided in not addressing the flaws with each proposal. For example, the production costs in energy and water may outweigh the supposed efficiencies gained, as nanotechnologies generally require more stringent production conditions (and adversely higher energy/water usage), have less suitable regulations (we treat them as chemicals/polymers in Canada) to address the occupational exposure, and are incredibly wasteful through production. On top of that, most of these technologies are just nanoparticle dispersions of heavily grinded down particles (metals, metal oxides, etc) in polymer, plastic or composite materials, not space elevators or even solar cells at this stage. The largest group of patents are in cosmetics, and the most used application is probably the silver nanoparticles in clothing, which wash out completely after several uses. The silver then moves through our waterworks and kills the bacteria we grew in the wastewater treatment plant to digest the sludge for agricultural use. All so billy bob can wear his underwear three days in a row.
There seems to be an optimism-only bandwagon with the nanotechnology researchers. No negativity towards them, I understand they are excited for their field, though preach very controversial and unsubstantiated ideas. Another example is that of zero-valent iron nanoparticles being dumped deliberately into the environment to "soak" up organic pollutants as they have higher surface adsorption capacity, everyone seems to love this idea, and yet no one has asked how we will be able to identify them in the environment. Everyone in the room knows you can only do characterizations in the lab, and that nanoparticles were not around (in these concentrations, elements) during recent evolution, so most biological processes will have some interesting task of trying to dispose or depurate the particles once ingested. Then why is it that no one has asked themselves the obvious question of how abouts we will retrieve the nanoparticles effectively? Seems pretty ignorant for the entire field to be blind to it.
I won't even get started on the production of fuel cells and battery components, which drastically outweigh any environmental benefit in the production implications. Also, the solar cells that are being developed may be more efficient, but will still take a decade or a few to pay off the initial energy cost of production, so if we wanted to apply that correctly, we would have already created mass-production facilities to offset energy and material inefficiencies. Of course we are running out of time now, as we are entering our last doubling time of oil usage and will not have enough energy to produce them (solar cells) in time, when they are supposed to be our safe haven for energy.
Perhaps that whole section should be edited, to turn it from a beneficial section, to a "problems with the environmental benefits" of nanotechnology. It is incredibly sad how little content this article has, it is much more important than the societal/human health effects, as organisms and evolution will likely have to adapt to our nanoparticles for thousands of years to come. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nebnobla ( talk • contribs) 21:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Nebnobla from 2013 above.
I find the page outdated, uninformative about environmental issues with nanotechnology and biased towards its benefits. This page needs a major rewrite and tertiary sources and at least some EPA refs (present on instead of the 6 primary sources from the last decade all touting benefits of nanotechnology.
The fragmented representation of environmental issues with nanotechnology on Wikipedia ( Nanotechnology, Impact of nanotechnology and Environmental impact of nanotechnology leave alone more pages on health issues, nanotoxicology... ) speaks for itself: diffuse and confuse.-- Wuerzele ( talk) 18:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Environmental impact of nanotechnology. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I have tightened the focus of this article and renamed it from Environmental impact of nanotechnology to Nanomaterials pollution. The old title now redirects to Impact of nanotechnology#Environmental impact. Antony–22 ( talk⁄ contribs) 02:36, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Nanoplastics are alos part of it. They may arise from microplastic + water (or any) erosion. They are problematic as well, and pollution as well.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.193.35.108 ( talk • contribs) 6 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I restored the old title of this article, "Environmental implications of nanotechnology". The title it had been moved to, "Environmental impact of nanotechnology", was noted to be more consistent with other articles on the environmental impact of various products and technologies; however, the old title is more consistent with the series of articles on the implications of nanotechnology.
The difference is that the word "impact" has a slight connotation of negative implications, and the other environmental impact articles seem to only focus on negative implications of these technologies. This article is intended to contain both positive and negative implications, including potential improvements to the environment through new applications of nanotechnology, so I believe the more neutral "implications" title is more appropriate. Of course, I'm open to more discussion on the matter. Antony–22 ( talk⁄ contribs) 16:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: pages moved. Rough but clear consensus, consistent with policy if a line call. I think both Antony-22 and Neelix deserve barnstars for the excellent conduct of this discussion. Andrewa ( talk) 12:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
– The lengthy discussion between Antony and I above has resulted in the realization that we are not going to convince each other about what the title of this article should be, so we have together decided to request input from the wider community. I believe that Environmental implications of nanotechnology should be moved to Environmental impact of nanotechnology in order to be consistent with the many other articles about human impact on the environment, such as Environmental impact of agriculture, Environmental impact of biodiesel, Environmental impact of paint, Environmental impact of aviation, etc. All the other articles of this type follow the "Environmental impact of x" title format. The three other "implications of nanotechnology" articles should similarly employ the word "impact" instead of "implications" so that they will be consistent with Environmental impact of nanotechnology. Antony and I have agreed that there is no semantic or connotative difference between the words "implications" and "impact", therefore our disagreement rests solely in our interpretation of Wikipedia's article title policy. The phrase "implications of nanotechnology" is moderately more frequent in literature on the subject than "impact of nanotechnology", although Antony and I agree that WP:COMMONNAME does not apply to this case because neither "implications of nanotechnology" nor "impact of nanotechnology" are proper nouns, and WP:COMMONNAME explicitly applies only to proper nouns. Antony has invoked the sentence in the lede of WP:TITLE that states that "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources." Because the phrase "impact of nanotechnology" appears quite frequently in the literature, I do not believe that this sentence supports the "implications of nanotechnology" format much more than the "impact of nanotechnology" format. What I believe to be the relevant policy is WP:PRINCIPALNAMINGCRITERIA, which argues for consistency, stating that "titles are expected to follow the same pattern as those of similar articles." If the four articles implicated in this move request are moved as I have suggested, all of the articles about the environmental impact of things will follow a consistent title format and all of the impact of nanotechnology articles will follow a consistent title format, and all of the titles will still be phrases that are common in the literature. Relisting. - GTBacchus( talk) 22:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC) Neelix ( talk) 16:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Just a co-op student here, though I have worked in a regulatory position for some time, in the context of the environment. I just wanted to inquire why there is an environmental benefits section when none of that information can really be substantiated. Everyone preaches the environmental benefits of nanotechnology and are completely one-sided in not addressing the flaws with each proposal. For example, the production costs in energy and water may outweigh the supposed efficiencies gained, as nanotechnologies generally require more stringent production conditions (and adversely higher energy/water usage), have less suitable regulations (we treat them as chemicals/polymers in Canada) to address the occupational exposure, and are incredibly wasteful through production. On top of that, most of these technologies are just nanoparticle dispersions of heavily grinded down particles (metals, metal oxides, etc) in polymer, plastic or composite materials, not space elevators or even solar cells at this stage. The largest group of patents are in cosmetics, and the most used application is probably the silver nanoparticles in clothing, which wash out completely after several uses. The silver then moves through our waterworks and kills the bacteria we grew in the wastewater treatment plant to digest the sludge for agricultural use. All so billy bob can wear his underwear three days in a row.
There seems to be an optimism-only bandwagon with the nanotechnology researchers. No negativity towards them, I understand they are excited for their field, though preach very controversial and unsubstantiated ideas. Another example is that of zero-valent iron nanoparticles being dumped deliberately into the environment to "soak" up organic pollutants as they have higher surface adsorption capacity, everyone seems to love this idea, and yet no one has asked how we will be able to identify them in the environment. Everyone in the room knows you can only do characterizations in the lab, and that nanoparticles were not around (in these concentrations, elements) during recent evolution, so most biological processes will have some interesting task of trying to dispose or depurate the particles once ingested. Then why is it that no one has asked themselves the obvious question of how abouts we will retrieve the nanoparticles effectively? Seems pretty ignorant for the entire field to be blind to it.
I won't even get started on the production of fuel cells and battery components, which drastically outweigh any environmental benefit in the production implications. Also, the solar cells that are being developed may be more efficient, but will still take a decade or a few to pay off the initial energy cost of production, so if we wanted to apply that correctly, we would have already created mass-production facilities to offset energy and material inefficiencies. Of course we are running out of time now, as we are entering our last doubling time of oil usage and will not have enough energy to produce them (solar cells) in time, when they are supposed to be our safe haven for energy.
Perhaps that whole section should be edited, to turn it from a beneficial section, to a "problems with the environmental benefits" of nanotechnology. It is incredibly sad how little content this article has, it is much more important than the societal/human health effects, as organisms and evolution will likely have to adapt to our nanoparticles for thousands of years to come. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nebnobla ( talk • contribs) 21:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Nebnobla from 2013 above.
I find the page outdated, uninformative about environmental issues with nanotechnology and biased towards its benefits. This page needs a major rewrite and tertiary sources and at least some EPA refs (present on instead of the 6 primary sources from the last decade all touting benefits of nanotechnology.
The fragmented representation of environmental issues with nanotechnology on Wikipedia ( Nanotechnology, Impact of nanotechnology and Environmental impact of nanotechnology leave alone more pages on health issues, nanotoxicology... ) speaks for itself: diffuse and confuse.-- Wuerzele ( talk) 18:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Environmental impact of nanotechnology. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I have tightened the focus of this article and renamed it from Environmental impact of nanotechnology to Nanomaterials pollution. The old title now redirects to Impact of nanotechnology#Environmental impact. Antony–22 ( talk⁄ contribs) 02:36, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Nanoplastics are alos part of it. They may arise from microplastic + water (or any) erosion. They are problematic as well, and pollution as well.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.193.35.108 ( talk • contribs) 6 July 2021 (UTC)