Monday, May 09, 2005

A new wrinkle for Eddie Bauer


eddie1

eddie2notdown3Blogger's note: Here's the raw, infiltered press release from the anti-nano protesters we just can't keep our eyes off of. The pictures are a NanoBot exclusive.

CHICAGO, Ill. — On Saturday, at 1 pm, dozens of concerned citizens joined the public health group THONG outside of the Eddie Bauer flagship store on Michigan Avenue to protest the company’s use of untested “nano-fibers” in their “nanotex” clothing line which also boasts the “Teflon” label and are “wrinkle free”. THONG is a local Chicago public-interest group that uses nudity to educate people on detrimental threats to human health and the environment.

“We’re out here naked so people can SEE THE PROBLEM, nanotech is such a radical and unpredictable new technology, like biotech, that it takes something highly visible, like a naked body, to get people to focus on the need to stop corporations from using humans as guinea pigs for new, untested, and unstable new technologies!” said Kiki Walters of THONG.

“The Royal Society in the UK has issued their own report, recommending regulation to control exposure to nanotechnologies. We believe they have a point to make. We just wanted to make it even more obvious to people.”

Eddie Bauer’s line of water and stain resistant clothing utilizes nanotechnology, a radically new and untested technology that involves the manipulation of matter at the scale of the nanometer (nm), which is one-billionth of a meter. At this scale, materials behave differently than their larger counterparts, and can possibly be more reactive and toxic, posing unknown risks to human health and the environment. Though nanoparticles are not regulated by any government in the world, many products containing them are already on the market, including food, clothing, cosmetics and sunscreens, without proper safety testing for toxicity, posing risks to the health of consumers and retail workers.  Nano-Tex™ clothing contains nano-fibers coated with Teflon particles. Nanoparticles have been found to penetrate the blood brain barrier. Inhalation of many types of nanoparticles have been proven to be toxic to animals in lab tests. 

“Even the largest re-insurance company in the world, Swiss RE, has stated that they will not insure nanotech at this time.  At least this major financial player has openly admitted the potential toxicity of nanoproducts, and that these products present what they call long latent unforeseen claims.” said Natalie Eggs, another THONG member.

Update: For those who prefer video over stills, a previous THONG protest is included in this Quicktime movie.

This just in: Nano-Tex Adds Knits, Outerwear to Its Performance Apparel Roster (MarketWire)

Backgrounder
Resistance is nubile
Nano industry hits bottom
NanoVlog
UK misses chance to defuse nanotox issue
Pogue does the pants
Playing hardball with nano pants
UK sets up a fragmented nanopolicy
Nanopants miss the Bullseye

52 comments:

xanthuos said...

Where are the full-frontal pictures? =D

Anonymous said...

this is a scam for attention. how else can you get people talking about your otherwise dull and boring clothing line? i'm sure this was set up by the company to get people talking about their product.

Anonymous said...

TEFLON is solidified nerve gas - inherently unsafe, when warmed it releases a gas which causes backache and flu-like symptoms. The EPA has sued DuPont over this but its been nicely covered up.
"Since the mid-1980s, the Reston, Va.-based company has included a warning with its Revere Ware cookware that says: "Do not heat or leave an empty nonstick pan on a hot burner for more than three minutes. Fumes from a nonstick pan heated empty can be fatal to pet birds or cause temporary flu-like symptoms in humans.".link
It kills Budgies, this is well documented, canaries were used by miners to detect gas as birds are more sensitive to poison gas.
Old or Chipped pans are really risky as there may ne parts of them that heat right up even at low cooking temperatures.
So nano-scale teflon, nice! Standing around a campfire breasthing poison gas!! or just having nano-teflon absorbed through the skin.

Anonymous said...

More environmental alarmism in action. But the mass media can't resist giving major coverage to this type of activity and the messes believe everything they see on TV. And the whackos win again.

Anonymous said...

Wow, you figured it out. It's obviously a conspiracy between Eddie Bauer, Kraft, and a bunch of other corporations that like negative publicity.

Set up by EB? I don't think so.

Anonymous said...

I just bought some nanopants at EB last weekend!

Anonymous said...

Maybe if THONG had some real facts and not just hysterical jargon ("unstable new technologies!"), I might not so quickly dismiss them as reactionary boobs.

Anonymous said...

Sounds like techno-babble to me.

What are these "nano-fibers", and by the time you coat them with teflon, aren't they microfibers? Been using those for decades. Talk about stringing together a bunch of totally unrelated "quotes" talking about completely different things to create a scary sounding story...

Here's a clue, everything we use is made of "nanoproducts".

Seriously, this is not the kind of "nanotech" that the Royal Society or Swiss RE were talking about. We're talking basic chemistry here.

If you really want something to worry about, watch out for that dihydrogen-monoxide.

Anonymous said...

Tee hee. He said "boobs".

chris said...

how did the whackos win? EB hasn't stopped making the pants, and potentially and allegedly harmful chemicals are used all the time, (i.e. certain fire retardants). Unless, of course, you mean the shortsighted whackos who continue to kill the planet for quick money. Or the whackos who like to pretend that everything is hunky-dory and that no one would ever knowingly do anything wrong. Then yes, the whackos are winning, again and again and again.

Anonymous said...

Sounds like a publicity stunt scam to me. Either by Eddie Bauer, or by some "guerrilla marketing" company, or by someone else wanting to play a joke on the press.

clazy said...

Thong's focus is well and good, but I'm more interested in the "non-detrimental" threats that they've chosen to ignore. Must be fascinating, a real ontological breakthrough.

Newberry said...

I have met and talked to the THONG people before at events they've held, and while I'm not sure that I support their goals or their methods, I can assure you that they're not a guerilla marketing group.

Anonymous said...

"More environmental alarmism in action. But the mass media can't resist giving major coverage to this type of activity and the messes [sic] believe everything they see on TV. And the whackos win again."

Sounds like sour grapes to us, anonymous. The industry spends a lot of money on nano-hype, which most of the the press laps up as if it were gospel. Our hype is no less accurate, much more interesting, and a whole lot cheaper. Perhaps you should reconsider your PR spending? If a bunch of people in thongs can beat your hype without spending a red cent, perhaps there's a better way?

And that's "masses" not "messes" -- hardly an encouraging Freudian slip on your part, at least from the perspective of consumers.

You'll have to forgive us for not trusting the commitment to safety of an industry which brought us such wonders as asbestos, PCBs, and dioxin -- the salesmen and scientists told us those products were safe too.

T.H.O.N.G.

Topless Humans Organized For Natural Genetics -- Putting Our Bodies Between Your Lips And Biotech

Anonymous said...

"The industry spends a lot of money on nano-hype, which most of the the press laps up as if it were gospel"

The previous comment wasn't lapping up any "nano-hype" he was pointing out that just because EB uses 'nano' in it's brand name as a marketing ploy doesn't mean it has anything to do with the actual type of nano-technology that the Royal Society in the UK was talking about, you could more specifically call that nano-machines, the term nano-technology has been hijacked by marketers and means pretty much nothing these days.

You seem to have a problem with the chemistry involved in the production of EB's latest fabric, perhaps it's perfectly justifiable, there's plenty of harmful chemistry out there being sold to us.

The problem is that you are either very very ignorant of basic science (and therefore i'm not going to listen to you) or you are intentionally confusing the issue with the "nano" word because it's a new buzzword out there (and therefore i'm not going to listen to you).

Either way, i'm all for more topless women, but if i wanted to see topless uninformed women i'd go to a stripclub.

Anonymous said...

Our comment wasn't directed at the "previous comment", but rather at the comment we quoted verbatim, which was somewhat further up the thread, and addressed a different subject. You're just determined to find an excuse to ignore us, aren't you? Then please feel free to ignore us. We'll spread our message to others, who are more receptive, like your funders, investors, distribution outlets, and consumers.

If you have a problem with application of the adjective "nanotechnology" to products sold by Nano-Tex or Eddie Bauer, please take that up with them, not us. We didn't put that adjective on those products -- they did.

We just took them at their hype -- and turnabout is fair play. We match hype with hype. We don't necessarily object to you calling Nano-Tex and Eddie Bauer liars for their descriptions of their products, if that's how you see it. That's your choice.

And you'd have to pay at a strip club, while we perform for free. Again, the choice is yours. Pay if you wish.


T.H.O.N.G.

Topless Humans Organized For Natural Genetics -- Putting Our Bodies Between Your Lips And Biotech

Anonymous said...

1. Teflon is not "solidified nerve gas". Tetrafluoroethylene (from which Teflon is made). Sarin nerve gas. No similarity whatsoever. Oh, Sarin does have fluorine in it. So? Salt has chlorine in it.

2. Teflon doesn't decompose until it reaches a temperature of 360 C (they use it on frying pans, duh). If you're sitting close enough to the campfire that your clothing gets that hot, I think you have more important things to worry about than some putative Teflon toxicity.

3. You're extremely gullible.

Anonymous said...

Dear luddites, why don't you go live in a cave and let the rest of us "suffer" the horrors of technological progress?

Thanks

uriel -- someone very concerned about the future of humanity

Anonymous said...

T.H.O.N.G.: Responding to your response (our conversation was the one that mentions strippers.)

I have no problem with EB using the term nanotechnology, the language is evolving, and while I guess i would prefer it kept it's original meaning, it didn't, it's a cool sounding word, those advertising guys love it, that always happens.

What I have a problem with is your "turnabout" argument, it makes no sense. You can't cop out and say that since eddie bauer used the word nanotechnology in it's marketing and you saw a report warning of the dangers of one type of nanotechnology that it's their fault you didn't bother to understand the very thing you took so much time to protest.

It is as if you are protesting radio shack's new AA batteries because you heard lightning is dangerous, it's all electricity right? In a less prepostorous analogy the same thing was done to microwaves, electromagnetic radiation (visible light, radio, microwaves) is confused with radioactive radiation and leads to "i've got no taste for nuclear waste, don't nuke my food" bumper stickers

I'm assuming that due to the fact that you are articulate you are intelligent. That means you are either being deceitful or grossly negligent in your research.

The misunderstanding of science, and not Science with a capital S but a general understanding of how our world works is a major problem in our society. It's the reason that carcinogens and poisons can be sold to the public without much outcry. It's the reason people are worried about using a cell phone at a gas station instead of something realistic.

This kind of campaign throws more disinformation at the public, and until it is unlearnt it is impossible to move forward on such issues as dangerous chemicals, nanotech and biotech that might actually harm us.

The Weird One said...

does this remind anyone of that story about some small towns/counties almost outlawing "dihydrogenmonoxide" anyone who breaks that down should be able to see that it is H20 or WATER. It's people who have no clue what their complaining about, or worse yet those who are trying to trick those they're complaining to, who will royally mess things up for the rest of us.

Anonymous said...

Using humans as guinea pigs is one thing, but if they start testing it on animals then I'm going to shave my real guinea pig and you'll see a real protest!

Mikrostuff said...

Thank you Anonymous : 6:59 PM.

THONG = owned

Anonymous said...

I have CT - NanoPants and Nano shirt from EB.

So do the NanoWhiskers actually get coated with Teflon?

I thought nanotex do not use teflon errrr...

Howard Lovy said...

You're correct. Nano-Tex does not use Teflon. Their competitor, Dockers Stain Defenders, are made from DuPont's Teflon. The Eddie Bauer line contains "nanowhiskers," which is slightly different than a Teflon coating in that the stain repellant is engineered into the fibers at the molecular level, literally "hooked" on, and are less likely to wash out. The coffee that you spill on your pants beads up and doesn't stain because they never really touch the fabric at all. The nanoparticles form a chemical covalent bond with your nanopants. For those who are interested, here's a link to the Nano-Tex patents.

Robert said...

I just love this stuff... it's so full of irony! Here you have one of many groups that protest technology and who make heavy use of... the Internet! It's like terrorists who protest the West and yet wear Levis. You can't have it both ways.
There are groups out there who really live what they preach, such as the Amish.Perhaps you should take their approach.
Otherwise, get a clue and evolve.

Anonymous said...

i need to see the real pics

Mr. Smith said...

Obviously they are not concerned about exposing their bodies and lungs to all the nanoparticles floating around Chicago. Can't wear fur, can't wear nanopants, can't wear wool (hurts the sheep don't ya know), can't wear cotton (to many bad memories of the Civil war), can't wear leather, can't wear synthetics.... Naked it is I guess. Everyone head for the jungle, climb back up in the trees and start throwing poop at the jaguars. At least THONG has the "throw poop" part down already.

Anonymous said...

Thank you all for characterizing us as Luddites -- that is exactly the public image we have worked so hard to create.

anonymous 12:33 AM,

Every criticism you make of our application of the term "nanotechnology" to the action we executed on Saturday applies equally to Eddie Bauer and Nano-Tex. In fact, your criticism applies a fortiori to those business enterprises, since those enterprises are directly responsible for applying that term to their products.

That you are criticizing a public health group for taking business enterprises at their (allegedly, false) word demonstrates only your bias for business enterprises over public health groups. You are apparently quite willing to overlook alleged false advertising by industry, but can't tolerate any perceived inaccuracy by a public health group which has only a secondary role in the alleged falsehood.

At the moment, the nanotechnology industry is defined largely by its hype. We will not allow that hype to to be shaped without challenge. The public perception of nanotechnology will ultimately be determined by this hype, and we want to be certain that the hype is accompanied by appropriate cautions for safety and ethics.

If you would like to go on record accusing Eddie Bauer and Nano-Tex of deceptive advertising, we would be pleased to provide you with a mechanism for doing so. Just let us know.


T.H.O.N.G.

Topless Humans Organized For Natural Genetics -- Putting Our Bodies Between Your Lips And Biotech

Mr. Smith said...

If you think that Eddie Bauer is hiding something, standing topless in front of the store is hardly the appropriate response. Why not instead do some research into the development and manufacturing process. Maybe because this would give you an informed opinion? Maybe because it's not flashy enough? Maybe because you just get off being naked in public? Now go put your shirt back on as your current state of dress is very distracting.

Before you do, here's a dollar. Thanks for saving me the cover charge and drink minimum.

teliosis said...

Maximizing profits by harming the public health? How american of them.

Anonymous said...

So alleged deception by a business enterprise is acceptable to you, but perceived disingenuity by a public health group is unacceptable to you.

We have now established your priorities.

We don't share them.

You may keep your dollar. We work without compensation, and would not accept a donation from someone who values profit over health in any event.

We do, however, thank you for your very personal illustration of precisely why this industry needs an organization like T.H.O.N.G

T.H.O.N.G.

Topless Humans Organized For Natural Genetics -- Putting Our Bodies Between Your Lips And Biotech

Mr. Smith said...

What deception? Show me the data! You yourself used the word alleged. Do you even know the process by which the pants are made? Do you know the theory behind how the pants work? Do you know anything at all about "nanotechnology"?

A little research never hurt anything except a disinformed opinion. As for perceived disingenuity, I do not at all think you are being disingenous. Misguided, yes, but disingenous, no.

If you really feel the need to put your body between my lips and biotech your too late. I deal with biotech everyday. FYI, nanopants are not biotech.

Anonymous said...

Look at the posts above for debate on whether these products actually involve nanotechnology. That is not our debate. That is an issue for Eddie Bauer, Nano-Tex, and anyone in the industry concerned with it.

As we said before, we are addressing hype, because this industry's main product at this time is hype. It is indisputable that Eddie Bauer and Nano-Tex are producing nano-hype. We are producing counter-nano-hype.

You apparently lack subtlety, Mr. Smith. Perhaps you're confused by the skin? If so, we must be doing something right.

T.H.O.N.G.

Topless Humans Organized For Natural Genetics -- Putting Our Bodies Between Your Lips And Biotech

Howard Lovy said...

Excellent debate, ladies and gentlemen, and I had to delete only one comment during this entire cycle. (I do not delete ideas, only profanity and name-calling without a purpose). Let me make a couple points here, and then I'll close this thread and we'll move on.

First, this was a record day for NanoBot, with the most visitors in my almost-two-year history. Because many people were introduced to this blog through this post only, some commented on my lack of comment regarding the accuracy of claims made by the protesters. To them, I invited them to stay a while and take a look around. I'm usually accused of commenting too much. I've spent the past two years commenting on various angles of this story. I'm also proud to have been the only nanotech news outlet to give this event significant play and to host debate on it. My opinions in a nanoshell: The protesters are misguided, have their facts wrong and have been mislead by environmental "research" that is particularly one-sided and out to promote a single agenda. Nanotech, I believe, has the potential to be just the opposite of what they claim: It could be more "green" and more "organic" and "natural" than the paint they put on their bodies. I also believe they are absolutely correct when they say that their choice to ignore the potential good of nanotech and focus only on the potential bad is not any more deceptive than the propaganda put out by nanoscientists and nanobusinesspeople, themselves.

To those who believe that I'm simply giving silliness and ignorance a public forum, I'd ask only that they point to where I have shined a light on opinions or beliefs that are not held by significant numbers of people -- informed or uninformed, and to ask where exactly it does the science and business of nanotech any good to pretend like these beliefs are not held by many people outside their own elite club.

And, one more thing. When it comes to street theater, I prefer mine to be, well, theatrical. These folks did not gather in downtown Chicago to present their white papers. They were acting as clowns, as distractions to get people to pay attention -- if only to focus on their own lunacy. You know, it worked. More people are thinking about nanotechnology today, and seeking accurate information about it, than they were yesterday. And we have the THONG-sters, and this blog to thank for it.

Thank you, everybody. And, remember, question everything. If your mother says she loves you, check it out.

Howard

M. Simon said...

Forest fires are uncontrolled releases of nanoparticles, dioxins, and bucky balls even.

I think we could get more fire fighters cheap if folks like these showed up for every forest fire.

Tim said...

Yeah.

What's up with the Rear View Only shots on their site?

They call themselves "Topless Humans Organized for Natural Genetics" but all we see are bottoms.

I think that sucks more than genetically altered tee shirts.

Owen said...

As part of the nano protest meme, I am forming a new group to protest the nanometer! I mean, who could possibly need to measure things that small!!

Erg said...

Is this hyper-literal-minded Church Lady character from THONG real, or an overextended parody? We're all familiar with the "pathologically humorless activist-against-everything" stereotype, but I didn't think they really existed in real life. I mean, it's a stereotype, right? Nobody's really as robotic as that. It can't be real.

You're right, owen! We must nip nanometers in the bud! Also atoms. I hear they're even smaller yet. BAN ATOMS NOW. Plutonium is made of atoms and it's very poisonous. If it's true that allegedly-safe so-called "wood" is made of atoms as well, dare we allow it into our homes? Shouldn't somebody be sued? Don't blame me, blame the physicists for calling them "atoms"!

Anonymous said...

I tried on some nanopants the other day, but they were just too damn small.

Anonymous said...

Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society.

-Mark Twain

DrTony said...

Okay, THONG I get, but POBBYLAB? What the heck is that supposed to represent? How do you even say that?

Oh, wait, LAB...they work in a lab! Where they make POBBY's! Is this a competitor for nanopants!

Anonymous said...

And you people criticize us for being silly? Get back to the frat house, boys, you're House Mother is worried about you.

T.H.O.N.G.

Topless Humans Organized For Natural Genetics -- Putting Our Bodies Between Your Lips And Biotech

Wakey said...

"Look at the posts above for debate on whether these products actually involve nanotechnology. That is not our debate. That is an issue for Eddie Bauer, Nano-Tex, and anyone in the industry concerned with it."

LOL so in other words, you don't know anything about nanotech and are just embarrasing yourself. Gotcha.

isildur said...

Heh. Luddites are funny. People racing to meet their own obsolescence are funny.

Anyway, the temperature at which Teflon releases gases is extremely high. Pretty much the only way you can get a teflon pan to that temperature is to leave it sitting for a long, long time on a stove set to 'high'.

But hey, don't let facts stand between you and good theater. I know how important it is for those without talent or skill to feel like they're 'making a difference'.

There's certainly an interesting debate to be had about the safety of a new technology. Alarmist hysteria is not that debate, and serves no purpose except to make itself irrelevant.

If you really wanted to 'make a difference' in anything other than an empty and self-congratulatory way, you'd present current research and engage others in debate. But, of course, that might lead you to the inevitable conclusion that 1) not ALL nanotech is bad and 2) not ALL genetically modified organisms are bad.

And that would dilute the ideology. Can't have that.

Anonymous said...

Oh, for pete's sake, let's get right down to the heart of the matter-- Howard, did you get the name and phone number of the girl in the pink underwear? More importantly, can you email them to me?

-the Nano-Bostonian

Anonymous said...

Gentlemen,

For your own sake, we would advise against imagining our correspondent to this site as the archetypal rigidly dogmatic feminist in a pink thong.

That characterization is misguided, and might ultimately lead to some discomfort on your part.

Among other things, our correspondent to this site is male.


T.H.O.N.G.

Topless Humans Organized For Natural Genetics -- Putting Our Bodies Between Your Lips And Biotech

Anonymous said...

Frank Zappa should have started his 1985 Senate testimony before the Committee On Commerce by building a scanning tunneling electron microscope. Remember that the same minds that brought you DDT also shaped your penicillin pills. It’s all idealistic fun and games until someone comes down with Strep throat. For the record:

(1) No heterosexual male in your organization will ever be taken seriously.

(2) The fact that you haven’t recruited every mildly exhibitionistic male in your voting district means someone has to start telling someone else where Fight Club meets every Friday.

(3) When you find you’re allowed full duration to state your views in front of an audience you hope to enlighten/aggravate, remember that a disproportionate number of the members in such audiences are probably men. Old men. Dirty old men.

(4) Speaking of dirty old men, please practice a strict 20-something Menudo policy before some of us in your audience act out our favorite scenes from Logan’s Run.

(5) If you find yourself breaking into a mixed audience conference, please DON’T pop in during one of the scientific talks. Wait for an investor talk or some vulture capital round table. Companies have people paid to make slick Powerpoint presentations and will have to stop cold since they likely won’t be properly practiced to pick up where they left off. Academics have to sit there and make pictures themselves and work hard to make their work understandable.

I never imagined using “Laugh-In era Goldie Hawn” to describe a guerilla tactic.

And, despite all that, some of us respect you for taking a position. Too few in this world do.

B.I.K.I.N.I - Buttoned Intellects Keen on Instigating Nanotech Initiatives - hoping to put our hands over the lips between our bodies and biotech

T.H.O.N.G. said...

"And, despite all that, some of us respect you for taking a position. Too few in this world do."

Thanks for the respect. And please appreciate that we have respect for much of what is done by science, and many of the people who do science. I, for instance, would have died in childhood if it weren't for antibiotics and central heating (that presumably would have made some happy, but . . .)

Scientists, generally, at least, have a commitment to truth, and dedicate themselves to the betterment of humanity (though scientists, like everybody else, can make mistakes.) We are more concerned with what the salesmen and governments do with your inventions after they leave your hands. Think of Oppenheimer, a wonderful man, and a brilliant scientist, who came to regret letting his particular genie out of the bottle. The government exploited his brilliance in ways he never imagined. We know most scientists are more like Oppenheimer than Teller. We consider scientists the least threatening, indeed, the most promising, of the communities we seek to influence, and we share their quest for truth. We hope to convince you to consider the consequences of your inventions before they leave your hands, and pass to the salesmen and governments. Your specialized knowledge puts you in the best position to prevent the potential harm which concerns us. Please don't let us (and the rest of humanity) down. Please be careful about what you give to the salesmen and governments.

We don't judge you solely by nano-hype. And we appreciate people who don't judge us solely by our counter-nano-hype. We also understand that the work we do, to a certain extent, serves the purposes of the salesmen ("Bad PR is better than no PR.") Our culture is in the process of shaping the myth of nanotechnology, and that myth will have a powerful influence on the future reality of nanotechnology (as Alchemy had a powerful influence in shaping Chemistry and Physics.) We want the myth to include a careful assessment of the risks which are attendant to any new technology.

And we think that Frank Zappa (may he rest in peace) would like both nanotechnology, and T.H.O.N.G. The two are not mutually exclusive -- Zappa was a master at combining apparently opposing values. He was an example to us all.


T.H.O.N.G.

Topless Humans Organized For Natural Genetics -- Putting Our Bodies Between Your Lips And Biotech

Anonymous said...

I really like the vague babble such brainless tripe sports:

"At this scale, materials behave differently than their larger counterparts, and can possibly be more reactive and toxic, posing unknown risks to human health and the environment."

Thus they can possibly be less reactive and non-toxic. Basically we don't know of any bad effects, but we can justify our existence by playing on your fears of the new and unknown. Since there is new stuff everywhere that lots of people don't know about, we are set for life.

Or this junk: "Nanoparticles have been found to penetrate the blood brain barrier. Inhalation of many types of nanoparticles have been proven to be toxic to animals in lab tests."

Just replace 'nanoparticles' with 'water' and you may see how stupid this sentence is.

Oh! And Swiss RE won't reinsure them! Holy cow! Because insurance companies love to insure new things they know all the 'progressive' trial lawyers are going to go after to make themselves rich.

But hey, nekkid girls! I'm totally onboard with THONG now!

Angst said...

Back in my day, us kids could hold protests that didn't make us look like idiots. T.H.O.N.G. is no better than the creationists trying to destroy our future, but with classless nudity added in.

Howard Lovy said...

Hmm. Well, I was only 4 years old in 1969, but I saw the "Woodstock" movie. Now THAT was classy nudity?

Anonymous said...

While i'm well aware of the irony, every post here draws more attention to the general subject of nanotechnology,and ultimately the fruitless debate of (somewhat) "informed" opinions. The one saving grace is the cheap thrill of partially nude people.