I may be an irresponsible blogger, or whatever, but I'm 40 years old and learned the craft on a manual typewriter from some old-school journalism mentors. If you cut me open, I bleed ink and not pixels.
So, that said, Journalism 101: If the premise of the story is in doubt -- that the "Magic Nano" recall is not really an example of what could go wrong with nanotech products, since there is likely no nanotech in the product -- then you need to change the focus of your story.
Let me repeat this in a clearer way, class. Let facts interfere with a good story.
It's frustrating to read and hear some of the coverage of this "story," since basic rules of journalism are apparently thrown out the window. Science and technology writers, especially, should know that there have actually been no tests showing that nanotechnology is toxic to anything or anyone. The old nanotube rat and buckyball fish studies show that if you pump these beasts full of raw nanoparticles, they'll probably suffocate or become brain damaged.
Any company that dumps a bunch of raw, uncooked, unengineered nanoparticles into any product would not actually be practicing "nanotechnology." So, these oft-repeated studies show absolutely nothing about the potential toxicity of nanotech products. They show that scientists are practicing science, one small step at a time.
Nanotubes and the tale of the rats
A little story about drugs, bass and balls
Nano is a concept by which we measure our pain
How low can nano go?
Groups call for moratorium on nano-named products
Are nanoparticle studies 'one decade late'?