Great NYT piece on nanotech, except why this idea again? "... rampaging nanorobots capture the most attention."
"Capture the most attention" where? I can't think of any legitimate news story that seriously considers "rampaging nanorobots," except when news stories assert that those little things capture the most attention. (Yes, like Major Major of "Catch-22," the only time you're allowed to see them is when they are out.)
Are we talking about a poorly written Michael Crichton novel and some video games and SciFi series? If so, then they should say so. But, then, that would never make it past an editor -- to mix fiction and fact like that. So, you need to present media coverage of "rampaging nanorobots" as if it were fact.
OK. Stuck in a quantum loop. But my rant is over. Here's the story.
Tiny Is Beautiful: Translating 'Nano' Into Practical (The New York Times)
- In the hip science of ultrasmall nanotechnology, fantastical future possibilities like rampaging nanorobots capture the most attention, but the first fruits of the field have been more mundane: tiny bits of mostly ordinary stuff that just sit there.
Yet these bits - nanoparticles - gain wondrous new capabilities simply because they are so small.
Nanoparticles of various sorts are already found in products like sunscreen, paint and inkjet paper. More exotic varieties offer promise in medicine for sensitive diagnostic tests and novel treatments: the detection of Alzheimer's disease by finding a protein in spinal fluid, for instance, or nanoparticles that heat up and kill cancer cells.
Some nanoparticles are not even on the cutting edge.
Medieval artisans unknowingly became nanotechnologists when they made red stained glass by mixing gold chloride into molten glass. That created tiny gold spheres, which absorbed and reflected sunlight in a way that produces a rich ruby color. More here (registration required)
Heading South, Looking for an Edge (The New York Times)