Waterproof Nanotech Sand Could Change Deserts into Farms

[Are_grits_groceries]

Nanotechnology may conjure up images of tiny robots, or machines in our blood stream, but what about really cool dirt? DIME, a company based in the United Arab Emirates, has licensed a nanotech process to create hydrophobic sand. The extremely thin coating on each grain causes it to repel water. While similar technologies have existed for several years (see the video for ‘Magic Sand‘ below), DIME sells a plastic wrapped hydrophobic sand that can be used to create an artificial water table. This high tech sand bag, called a HST-roll, could change the nature of farming in the Middle East. With a production of more than 3 thousand tonnes a day, DIME is on the path to help the desert bloom.

Water scarcity is an enormous problem around the world. While potable water gets all the press, irrigation is where much of the consumption happens (up to 85% in the Middle East). Regions with sandy soil leach water away as it is being used, and salt rises to the top. That’s a lethal combination for crops. DIME’s HST-rolls work by forming a giant water-proof layer under the topsoil. You lay them out like a pool liner. When crops are grown in the soil above, less water is needed because it isn’t sucked deep underground. It also prevents salt from flowing into the topsoil. Water use could be cut by as much as 35% (granted these numbers are from DIME itself).

Magic sand: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1id-gHQjbs

Part of the appeal of hydrophobic substances is that they are so versatile. Original designs called for them to be used as solutions to oil spills. Grains of the sand would float on the water until bonding to oil. At that point the sand would clump together and become dense enough to sink, eliminating most of the hazard of the floating crude. Hydrophobic sand can also be used under concrete foundations to stop water-caused settling or seepage. HST-rolls could help solve erosion concerns along beaches.



http://singularityhub.com/2009/09/17/waterproof-nanotech-sand-could-change-deserts-into-farms/

Muh... Who knew?

Some places are now spending a lot of money hauling in sand to keep beaches available. Stopping that erosion another way would possibly be very cost effective.

[SpiralHawk]

1. Oh boy. Pop some genetically mutant seeds into this, um, stuff

spread the ferto-chemicals, spray with petro-pesticides, harvest, preserve for eternity with chemocrap, garnish, and serve to the Proles.

"Shut up and eat your nutri-mutant facsimile corpo-food product rations." - The Overlords

[Are_grits_groceries]

2. I would like to know more about the substance they coat the sand with.

I want to know if it gets into the water and is it harmful. However, the idea is a sound one.

Mock all you want. The water crisis is here and getting worse. You can't count on Mother Nature to supply enough water in time. There is a tipping point that can be reached where it is no longer possible to bring an area back to life quickly no matter how much water falls.

[Chulanowa]

22. If it's hydrophobic, I would assume it's non-soluble

This doesn't mean that it couldn't erode away and float around as little microscopic flakes or whatever.

I'm usually wary of stuff like this, but... It shows promise, I think. The huge problem is that the people who need it most will be unable to afford it - Which means it'll be used to build more palm tree islands off the coast of Dubai and shit.

[Deja Q]

3. Even I have limits on mocking "the power". This isn't one of them.

Everybody can contribute in one way or another and not everybody has what it takes to be a scientist.

And without scientists, we wouldn't have - amongst other things - computers to go around heckling everybody with... :D

If only they could make a stimulating robot... and if you think that seems creepy, watch the third season Star trek episode "Requiem for Methuselah" and wince. The cool thing is, they play it straight-faced; a concept that would easily be camped up for today's "more sophisticated" audiences...

[appamado amata padam]

4. Up with innovation;

down with technophobic distortion.

And, the pic in post #1 looks absolutely charming and homey compared to the "dinner table" that millions in the world have.

[RC]

5. I got some questions.

The water that is "sucked deep underground", where does it go? An aquifer? How is this water used? By who or what?
Me thinks that by putting a barrier to this water and this being a desert, they will use this water for irrigation. How will this water get replenished? How long till they run out of water? Since this barrier stops drainage, what about buildup of undesirable chemicals and stuff?

I have another question. Ms. groceries, the article states this coated sand floats on water. How would that work on a an eroding beach? Wouldn't the tide coming in float the beach away?

[Are_grits_groceries]

6. Here is a link to the site of the company that makes it:

http://www.dimecreations.com/home.html

They answer a lot of questions here.

I know they would have to be careful not to do this at the expense of an acquifer that supplies water elsewhere. I'm not sure how big areas would have to be to drop an aquifer a lot.

[MadHound]

7. Ah yess, radically change ecosystems that have been around for thousands of years

Now that won't have adverse consequences in our world, will it?

More hubris on man's part. My bet is that the world weather patterns will go haywire if this becomes reality, not to mention dooming entire categories of plants and animals to death.

Will our species ever learn that playing god is not within our reach?

[votingupstart]

8. so set an example and go back to living in a cave

..your cries of evil technology, will sound great bouncing off the walls, oh and no fire, no electricity or medicine for you...show us how you are right.

or

take advantage of the ability of humans as a species to explore, invent and discover. the sand described could be the next agent orange or the next critical vaccine. if it turns out bad then we try refine it, improve on it or try something else. by following your pseudo-intellect our species would never had used fire, never developed language and you would not have the ability to sound like an idiot to the whole world.


as noted above - some here look at these new discoveries and wonder how they could be implemented to help both humans and the planet, some of these idea will work and some will fail. To disregard every new thought/invention/technology out of hand because you don't understand it, sounds a lot more like the ignorance you are labeling others with.


Grits - keep up the articles... please

[tabatha]

10. Well, going at the rate we are going now, idiocy is on the increase

here in the most technically advanced nation.

[votingupstart]

11. as well demonstrated by advocating the blanket rejection of any new technology.

dumping on someones thread just to say you don't like any new technology, and imply this single invention is going to be solely responsible for the end of the world as we know it, is idiotic in itself.

If you don't like technology - don't use it, as a matter of fact please feel free to quit using electricity period (start now). much like electricity, technology and the use of it can be for good or bad, but it is being used and will continue to be.

As a species we WILL be using technology, we WILL be advancing it, it IS an integral part of our existence and WILL CONTINUE to be that way. Some of the advances that we will make in the future will be disastrous for certain plants/animals/ecosystems and some will be those same plants/animals/ecosystems only means of survival.

[Canuckistanian]

82. Technologies that work against nature have a bad track record

At this moment, we don't know whether this new technology will be a boon or a bust when used on a large scale over a long time.

Never take any "exciting new technology" for granted before extensive field testing or time for flaws to be pointed out.

[tabatha]

9. Agreed.

I have seen too much "playing God" go wrong.

[Warren DeMontague]

16. I know. Just last week I was at this place... what was it called? An "Airport"

Can you imagine the self-centered hubris of humans actually believing they could FLY? Like birds?

Clearly, "God" wants us to stay on the ground and remember our place.

[tabatha]

17. What a non-sequitur.

[Warren DeMontague]

19. Well, language is another area where man the sinner should have simply left well enough alone.

Would that we would have simply stuck to grunts and gestures- instead of trying to play God and communicate- we might have remained in our idyllic, tree-dwelling garden of Eden existence.

[tabatha]

26. I am a scientist

Have spent my whole working career in science.
I read only non-fiction, science books.

Hence, I appreciate the screw-ups.

[tabatha]

63. Here is science gone bad.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-palast/economic-hit-men-and-the_b_271104.html

[Confusious]

72. I wouldn't call economics science

More like number voodoo.

[intheflow]

35. Those industrial-based solutions--

like using jet fuel to fly in hours trips that used to take months or even years to complete--is a major component in that little thing we like to call "global climate change." Just because people can do something, doesn't mean it's necessarily a good thing to do. I mean, I love planes and my car, but I also understand the consequences of my reliance on those technologies and try to limit them when at all possible. You, however, seem completely oblivious to the law of unintended consequences.

But let me put it this way: perhaps you've heard this saying: "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." It's really not that far of a leap to deduce "desert into farmland = farmland into desert" some place else on earth. But never mind. I'm sure you think Einstein was an idiot.

[Warren DeMontague]

37. Actually, that thing about the action causing an equal & opposite reaction was Newton.

But, really, don't let a little thing like information get in the way of a good fulmination, replete with half-assed assumptions about what I do or don't think. ("I'm sure you think Einstein was an idiot"-- why? Because I'm arguing against the reflextive Neo-Luddism that some people around here display? Sure, Einstein hated technology, didn't he?)

As for that action causing an equal and opposite reaction- so a lack of deserts causes deserts? Farmland causes deserts? No, I don't believe that having more farmland will automatically translate into having more desert. I'm sorry, but if there is some actual data to back that assertion up, I'll listen- but to me, it sounds like your argument is essentially akin to saying "All those Gay People in the state of California will necessarily cause a cluster of heterosexuality, most likely in the spot on the Indian Ocean which is exactly opposite from it."

You know, that Einsteinian opposite reaction thingy.

[intheflow]

38. So sue me, it's late and I'm tired and I confused my dead white scientists.

You're still missing the point. Take down the rain forest to breed cows for McDonald hamburgers and get global climate change. Pump CO2 into the air at a faster rate than if can be removed and you get global climate change. You are a flat-earther, as far as I'm concerned, ignoring 30 years of data from climatologists about the unintended consequences of industrial and industrial farming actions.

And your homosexuality analogy is completely baseless. Arguing natural human sexuality is as dangerous globally (or even regionally) as unnatural human industrial activity is just ridiculous. Welcome to my ignore list. You're the first one on it in the five years I've been on DU!

[Warren DeMontague]

46. So-- human industrial activity is "unnatural"? Please. Define exactly how.

Really, if all it takes for you to stick someone on "ignore" is for them to call you on a fuckup like your Einstein/Newton SNAFU.. are you sure I'm the first? Wow.

You know full well my point wasn't that human sexuality is "dangerous", it was that it's as ridiculous to say that turning desert (errrrrr.... not Rain Forest) into farmland will somehow magically turn other farmland into desert via some Newtonian action/reaction process--- it's like arguing that leveling a mountain for a strip mine (and NO, I'm not saying that's a good thing) will somehow magically cause mountains to spring up somewhere else. You know, to keep the equation balanced.

Right. Cut down tress for cows, increase atmospheric CO2, get global climate change. Pump CO2 into the atmosphere, get global climate change. believe me, buddy, you're preaching to the choir. But think about this- turn desert into land suitable for growing plants, crops, trees-- DECREASE atmospheric CO2.

Oh, but I forgot- that would be "unnatural".



C'mon, sing along if you know the words.

you cannot go against nature
...cuz when you do
going against nature
is part of nature, too

[Confusious]

40. "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."

desert into farmland = farmland into desert

That's kind of like saying "build a tall building on one side of the earth, and the whole earth will tilt more and kill us ALL!"

Which is of course, total bullshit.

The earth balances temperatures, not water vapor.

P.S. "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." only works in a vacuum in zero G. It doesn't work on earth. Guess why.

[Warren DeMontague]

47. Thank you.

Guy either accidentally or deliberately misunderstood my analogy of concentrations of gay people causing concentrations of hetero people somewhere else.

Obviously, my ill-crafted example means I'm a homophobe. :eyes: Thank you for putting it more clearly.

[Confusious]

50. NP

Some people around here are a little sensitive to certain analogies. They see the word "Gay" and think it's an attack. I try to stay away from them. Unfortunately, the only way to find the landmines is to get your leg blown off.:scared:

[Warren DeMontague]

54. Obviously it's not somone familiar with my actual positions re: GLBT rights & equality.

So, whatev.

[Chulanowa]

24. Middle eastern deserts are man-made

They're a result of overuse. It's why they're ecologically impoverished compared to "natural" deserts such as the Mojave, Namib, and older parts of the Sahara. You can't have people living in one place for seven thousand years, irrigating and raising goats without this happening.

At worst, conditions ould remain the same. At best, it would help the region recover naturally. The bigger barrier would be getting the salt and alkalis out of the overused soil, though.

[Confusious]

41. 98% of the deserts there are natural

The only place they are not is the fertile crescent. Around the Nile, Israel, Lebanon and the Tigris and Euphrates are the only places there would be green, and then in maybe a 5 mile strip along either side.

But the rivers there are getting overused, so that strip is shrinking.

[wordpix]

32. don't worry, mother nature never lets human stupidity get in her way

she always pays back. :evilgrin:

It may take a few thousand years, but our cities would return to their natural state pretty quickly if we disappeared.

[Confusious]

39. You ever looked at the sahara or the middle east?

There are no plants or animals.

I'm surprised you even answered the OP, knowing you might get techo-cooties and all.

[MadHound]

61. Do I know you?

I don't believe I've ever posted to you before, so why are you making assumptions about my posting habits?

Oh, yeah, that whole quick-snark thing, which is apparently the limit of your abilities, mature debate being beyond your capabilities. Gotcha;)

Anyhow, back to your point, or lack thereof.

"Plants and Animals of the Sahara Desert
Due to the high temperatures and arid conditions of the Sahara Desert, the plant life in the Sahara Desert is sparse and includes only around 500 species. These consist mainly of drought and heat resistant varieties and those adapted to salty conditions (halophytes) where there is sufficient moisture.

The harsh conditions found in the Sahara Desert have also played a role in the presence of animal life in the Sahara Desert. In the central and driest part of the desert there are around 70 different animal species, 20 of which are large mammals like the spotted hyena. Other mammals include the gerbil, sand fox and Cape hare. Reptiles like the sand viper and the monitor lizard are present in the Sahara as well."
<http://geography.about.com/od/locateplacesworldwide/a/saharadesert.htm>

"Land » Plant and animal life

Much of Saudi Arabia’s vegetation belongs to the North African–Indian desert region. Plants are xerophytic (requiring little water) and are mostly small herbs and shrubs that are useful as forage. There are a few small areas of grass and trees in southern Asir. Although the date palm (Phoenix dactylifera) is widespread, about one-third of the date palms grown are in Al-Sharqiyyah province.

Animal life includes wolves, hyenas, foxes, honey badgers, mongooses, porcupines, baboons, hedgehogs, hares, sand rats, and jerboas. Larger animals such as gazelles, oryx, leopards, and mountain goats were relatively numerous until about 1950, when hunting from motor vehicles reduced these animals almost to extinction. Birds include falcons (which are caught and trained for hunting), eagles, hawks, vultures, owls, ravens, flamingos, egrets, pelicans, doves, and quail, as well as sand grouse and bulbuls. There are several species of snakes, many of which are poisonous, and numerous types of lizards. There is a wide variety of marine life in the gulf. Domesticated animals include camels, fat-tailed sheep, long-eared goats, salukis, donkeys, and chickens."
<http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/525348/Saudi-Arabia/45201/Plant-and-animal-life>

Furthermore, changing an area that is one tenth the size of Africa from water absorbing to water producing will effect the environment to the east of the Sahara in a major way. This is basic environmental science.

Don't argue with a Social Studies teacher who teaches Geography. What's sad is my seventh grade students know more about this subject than you do apparently. What, you slept through middle school?

I suggest that you go out and educate yourself before you post anymore, otherwise you'll continue to look like a foolish ass.

[Confusious]

68. I thought this was an open board.

"Don't argue with a Social Studies teacher who teaches Geography. What's sad is my seventh grade students know more about this subject than you do apparently. What, you slept through middle school?"

Oh, yeah, that whole quick-snark thing, which is apparently the limit of your abilities, mature debate being beyond your capabilities. Gotcha

"I suggest that you go out and educate yourself before you post anymore, otherwise you'll continue to look like a foolish ass."

I guess arrogance is a "Social Studies teacher who teaches Geography" trait.

Listen, I'll make this simple. There are 20-30 million species of animal and plants in the Amazon. 500 for the Sahara. Statically, that's nothing. If we can grow food in the desert, and leave the amazon alone, I'll take that trade. Half the Sahara would equal the whole Amazon.

To say that that they would convert an area one tenth the size of Africa from "water absorbing to water producing" ( Just an aside, how is a place that gets 25mm ( Milimeters ) of rainfall a year going to become water producing? They are just stretching the supply they have. The plants they would grow would use the extra water. I know you're scared of science, but you just have to think A LITTLE.) is hyperbole.

My last line was a joke, but you took it as an attack. You might seek some help for that low self-esteem.

[MadHound]

83. Showing increasing ignorance with every post

So you're willing to trade off saving the Amazon for destroying the Sahara. Well, that might be an interesting trade except for one thing, you're not going to be effecting just the Amazon, but everything west of there, including, eventually, the US. All that water you pump into the Sahara is going to have a lot of it leave due to evaporation. A major shift in weather patterns will come from that. Hmm, let's seriously fuck over a billion people in India, yeah, that's the trick.

I'll make this simple for you. Even if they manage to grow food in the Sahara, do you honestly think that they're going to leave the Amazon alone? Furthermore do you honestly think that humanity can play God in this manner without fucking things up? It's not science I'm scared of, but rather human nature and our propensity to not think of the consequences of our actions. We've proven time and again to be incapable of thinking long range when it comes to altering the environment (Dust Bowl Kansas, Haiti to name a couple of minor examples). Changing the environmental systems of an area as large as the Sahara, well that could easily fuck up the world. Again, go educate yourself.

Oh, and one other thing, you can claim that you're joking or whatever, but frankly your "jokes" come across more like attacks and quick snarks than as humor. Perhaps you should consider that next time before you reply to somebody you haven't spoken with before on this board.

[Confusious]

84. We tamed the dust bowls

We have fixed a lot of things. Bringing animals back from the brink of extinction, saving the genetic legacy of those we can't.

"Changing the environmental systems of an area as large as the Sahara, well that could easily fuck up the world"

I don't know if you noticed, but the Sahara is surrounded by the Mediterranean on the north, the Atlantic on the west, and the Indian ocean on the east. How much evaporation happens from those oceans? Probably more then all the farms of the Sahara could pump out. Hyperbole.

"Hmm, let's seriously fuck over a billion people in India, yeah, that's the trick."

Do you know where the monsoons of India even come from? How will we fuck them over, when the prevailing winds over the Sahara head west, out over the atlantic? That water will get dumped there. more hyperbole.

"Oh, and one other thing, you can claim that you're joking or whatever, but frankly your "jokes" come across more like attacks and quick snarks than as humor. Perhaps you should consider that next time before you reply to somebody you haven't spoken with before on this board."

You come across as really angry also. Anger eats you up. I used to react like you to these things also. I got help, maybe you should too.

[KoKo]

81. There are definitely plants, insects and forms of life..including animals.

You need to study up.

[Confusious]

85. Yes, someone mentioned that

but 10 million - 20 million for the Amazon, 500 for the Sahara is nothing, statically speaking.

[JonQ]

65. You do realize all farming fits that bill

including the most green, organic farmer you can imagine.

Spinach doesn't naturally grow in tilled fields devoid of any other kind of plant and heap itself with manure.

[lunatica]

12. Science is fascinating

And I believe it's needed now more than ever to get us out of our mess. Without science we are doomed. Spewing car exhaust into the air may be science in action but so is organ transplantation which many millions have had and so are solar panels and modern windmills.

[Warren DeMontague]

13. ZOMG OH NOES!!!1111 SCIENCE!!!!!!!!1111!!!

:hide:

[AngryAmish]

14. Shouldn't you call hydrophobic sand rabid sand?

[anonymous171]

15. Great news for the rich parasites in Dubai! nt

[JCMach1]

30. UAE is in the forefront of sustainable development...

Masdar City (Arabic: مصدر‎, maṣdar, literally the source) is a planned city in Abu Dhabi, in the United Arab Emirates. It is being built by the Abu Dhabi Future Energy Company, a subsidiary of Mubadala Development Company, with the majority of seed capital provided by the government of Abu Dhabi.<1><2> Designed by the British architectural firm Foster + Partners, the city will rely entirely on solar energy and other renewable energy sources, with a sustainable, zero-carbon, zero-waste ecology. The city is being constructed 17 kilometres (11 mi) east-south-east of the city of Abu Dhabi, beside Abu Dhabi International Airport.

It will host the headquarters of the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA).<3><4>... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masdar_City

I don't see anything being pioneered by the government or private industry close to this in the United States.

There are plenty of capitalist parasites to squash closer to home.

[Occulus]

36. I saw UAE and Dubai and thought, "Great, a bunch of multibillionaires playing in the desert"

And then I read the Wiki.

That's an ambitious project. Good luck to them; it'll be interesting to see if it works they way they plan it to.

[JCMach1]

58. People tend to stereotype... even I do living here sometimes

However, the UAE is a mixture of all that is GOOD and BAD about capitalism.

[Deja Q]

64. Agreed; most corporations are moving out of this country.

Forgive me, but if they are the catalyst or impetus behind economics, they are the ones responsible for doing things here as much as anywhere else.

Why not in Africa, might I add? Plenty of deserts over there too...

[Brother Buzz]

18. We got something lake that south of town. We call it hardpan

noun

1. a layer of hard soil cemented by almost insoluble materials that restrict the downward movement of water and roots

[LeftyMom]

20. Yeah, because it's not like actual fucking deserts are important or anything.

Nope, let's just keep fucking up the planet. There must be some part of it somewhere we haven't shot completely to shit somewhere. Undersea volcanoes or something. I'm sure some asshole with a phd and no fucking sense is working on it, wherever that unfucked with spot is.

[JCMach1]

28. You have to understand they are already farming it... this stops the water waste

Dubai Domestic agriculture is a serious drain on water tables, putting these fragile aquifers (underground layer of water-bearing permeable rock) at risk of drying out completely. With arable land being limited in the UAE, future farming expansion has no potential, a senior environmental researcher said.

Agriculture in the UAE accounts for only 2.8 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP), but consumes about 80 per cent of underground water reserves, ...http://www.gulfnews.com/nation/environment/10329462.html

[Confusious]

45. How are those deserts important?

Have you seen the Sahara? It's just one big sand trap. Nothing lives there.

[Are_grits_groceries]

51. Nothing lives there??

I think you need to watch or read something about deserts. They are natural part of the world. Screw with them in large ways, and it will bite you in the ass.

[Confusious]

52. I have

The Sahara and the Arabian peninsula are sand. Everything is clustered around the edges. Nothing in the middle. No plants, no animals, nothing. Putting a couple thousand or even million acres of farming land in them would do nothing. Hell, it might even improve things. What about all the plants soaking up CO2? What about the light that gets reflected from the deserts? It would probably cool things down around there.

Please prove the "bite you in the ass" hypothesis.

[Are_grits_groceries]

57. The sand in those deserts move.

The winds cause an ever changing pattern of dunes. If you green a lot of the desert, will it affect wind patterns and/or change the nature of the winds. The winds would probably become more humid, and what would that do to the areas they reach after passing over the new greenspots?

I can't prove something like this. It isn't a mathematical equation with a known number of variables. The natural systems are made up of a lot of actions that interplay with each other. A look at how smaller areas affect the systems might be in order before millions of acres are greened. Even then, the effects might change with such a huge amount covered.

Edit: God I just got up. Nothing like a good technical discussion to get me moving. I think I'm responding from a dream state. :hi:

[JCMach1]

60. Climate constantly shifts here anyway...

A slight change in monsoonal patterns and this place would be completely green.

[Confusious]

69. Well I agree with that

Testing is in order. That is science.

To say "NO" because you don't understand science and it makes you afraid is not a good answer.

[JCMach1]

59. Many things live there... go camping and take a look

at the tracks in the morning...

However, the area this would affect are areas that are already farms that use MASSIVE amounts of fresh water.

[Confusious]

70. Do you live in the middle east?

I don't. I don't think I would see many tracks either. Not all deserts are the same. Death valley is not the same as the deserts in Arizona.

[JCMach1]

88. Even the Empty Quarter isn't empty...

[Confusious]

86. I guess you do live in the middle east.

OOpps.

[bertman]

21. Yeah, let's keep upping the technology ante for "helping" the planet. We've done so well at

that so far. No such thing as global climate change. No clean water or air anywhere on the planet. More cancer-causing agents being released into the air, soil, and water every day.

Humans are sooo smart!!! We can build skyscrapers and nuclear bombs.

But we don't know how to limit our own wants. We don't know how to live in harmony with the planet. We don't know how to curb our desire to dominate everything and if we can't dominate it, alter it or destroy it. We have so little foresight that we breed like rabbits despite the fact that our sheer numbers are killing every natural system we occupy.

How about trying this for a change: stop trying to create new technologies to beat nature and learn how to live in harmony with nature?

Yes, we definitely should be trying to grow more food in deserts so more people can inhabit heretofore practically non-habitable environments. Because somebody will make more money and we can have more humans on the planet.

There is no fucking hope for our species to ever become enlightened before we destroy ourselves and most of the other oxygen-breathing creatures on Terra.

[Warren DeMontague]

23. Right. Far more realistic to yell at people to all move into yurts.

Actually, with technological advancement, our air and water has become CLEANER in recent decades (remember leaded gas?) ... yes, CO2 in the atmosphere is a problem, from internal combustion (another technology that has been around for a while) yet the solution, there, is better, newer, cleaner ways to power our shit.

Unless you honestly believe that the power and the shit is all going to go away, so we can move back to the idyllic days of 30 year life spans and hunting with rocks tied to sticks.

[bertman]

25. CLEANER. Right. You go drink it, then, Warren. Cleaner than it was when?? We have

mercury advisories on every body of water in North Carolina. Can't eat the fish in some parts of the state. Can only eat one 12 oz. portion per week if you're not pregnant or under the age of 12. Now that's what I call CLEAN WATER. Half the wells in the state are contaminated because the aquifers have pesticides and industrial chemicals leaching into them. Oh, but that's okay because we can purify the water in our purification plants. What a crock of shit.

As far as air, the asthma rates are astronomical and it's not due to the fact that our kids are breathing cleaner air.

Technology and overpopulation are THE PROBLEMS. No, we're not going to go back to primitive ways unless something cataclysmic happens, but we sure as hell need to start thinking differently about how we are affecting the planet and how we can do well but still use fewer resources and create less pollution.

Example: we are attempting to solve the carbon-emissions problem with high-tech green products. So we EXTRACT resources from the earth, then we TRANSPORT those resources to FACTORIES, where we MANUFACTURE through intensive energy-consuming and pollution-emitting processes the GREEN PRODUCTS that we then TRANSPORT to MAKE our homes and offices and us MORE EARTH-FRIENDLY.

This is called "in thrall of technology". We could cut our energy consumption in half within six months if every household in America just started accepting "comfort" as being a 78° ambient temperature instead of a 72° temp during the summer months. And it's not hard to do if you use common sense practices that require only a slight lifestyle change and a few more minutes of easy-to-learn habits. The same applies to heating. The same applies to water usage. The same applies to waste disposal.

But, instead of conserving--which means SACRIFICE in American--we choose to follow the marketing and go with "high-tech, green upgrades". Most of which are simply exceptionally good marketing that makes a lot of money for the manufacturers, the distributors, the extractors, and the technologists.

Lifestyle modifications will do wonders to make our planet more habitable.

[Confusious]

49. I'm sorry you live in backwater U.S.A.

Some places are a lot better then others.

At least the rivers don't catch fire, like in the late 60's, early 70's. That type of pollution has stopped. Finding new technology to clean it up is also important, because if we don't, it's going to be hanging around for a long time, and make your "harmony" paradise hell.

[NJGeek]

87. exactly... liberals can be luddites too... without technology now we would be doomed

yes industrial technology has caused this, but what is done is done.

an ecological stimulus plan is needed to develop these planet saving and human saving tools

[Confusious]

48. I suggest a cave,

and let the rest of us deal with the situation we find ourselves in.

"stop trying to create new technologies"

Seems to me you're suggesting letting millions starve. I find that unacceptable. Even if we all had one child for every couple,
the population of the planet would not drop to "harmony" levels for 300 years or more.


Like I said, find a nice cave somewhere.

[rucky]

27. Can't they just use clay for that?

[tinrobot]

34. Yes, but you can't patent clay.

This crap can be patented and sold for profit.

[Confusious]

44. Of course

If they did use clay, you'd be bitching about how much carbon they were putting into the air to move it.

[Confusious]

43. How much would it cost

To transport millions of tons of clay, in money and carbon?

not to mention the fact that clay would wash away. So you would have to move it in there, over and over and over, etc.

[rucky]

62. Cheaper to coat sand in plastic?

This doesn't seem any more practical of a solution to me, but cool if it works.

[Confusious]

71. IT IS NOT PLASTIC

They are nanotubes, which are made out of carbon.

[tinrobot]

75. Nanotubes' toxic effects 'similar to asbestos'

Injecting carbon nanotubes into mice shows they can trigger similar toxic responses to asbestos fibres, causing a strong immune response and possibly cancer in the abdominal cavity, researchers say.


http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13946-nanotubes-toxic-effects-similar-to-asbestos.html

[Confusious]

76. So don't inject them

Problem solved.

P.S. I noticed you took away the "inhaled" line. Nice way of fitting the facts to suit your argument. It's also dishonest.

[tinrobot]

78. Do you also stick your fingers in your ears...

...and say "la la la la la" whenever someone says something you don't want to hear?

[Confusious]

80. No, I assume you do though

Since you removed that line about them being not dangerous.

For everyone elses pleasure:

(From your article)

But another recent study suggests the tiny tubes, which are increasingly appearing in commercial and industrial products, are not dangerous when inhaled, probably because they do not persist in the body as asbestos fibres do.

[BlooInBloo]

29. Better to use them for solar energy.

[wordpix]

31. i'm highly skeptical - you would need mega tons of this stuff for farming but

applications for controlling oil spills might work.

Again, a LOT would have to be used.

[tinrobot]

33. Plastic coated sand sounds so... unhealthy

We already have a lot of plastics clogging our landfills, creating artificial islands in the Pacific, leeching carcinogens into our food.

Now someone wants to coat sand in plastic and spread it across deserts so stuff will grow? No thank you.

[Confusious]

42. It's not plastic, it's nanotubes

Made from carbon. Do you have a problem with carbon?

[tinrobot]

73. Depends on the carbon - in the form of nanotubes, it may be toxic

Here's an article:

Carbon nanoparticles toxic to adult fruit flies but benign to young

Carbon nanoparticles are widely used in medicine, electronics, optics, materials science and architecture, but their health and environmental impact is not fully understood.

In a series of experiments, researchers at Brown University sought to determine how carbon nanoparticles would affect fruit flies -- from the very young to adults.

The scientists found that larval Drosophila melanogaster showed no physical or reproductive effects from consuming carbon nanoparticles in their food. Yet adult Drosophila experienced a different fate. Tests showed adults immersed in tiny pits containing two varieties of carbon nanoparticles died within hours. Analyses of the dead flies revealed the carbon nanoparticles stuck to their bodies, covered their breathing holes, and coated their compound eyes. Scientists are unsure whether any of these afflictions led directly to the flies' death.

The scientists immersed adult Drosophila in a control test tube and test tubes containing four different types of carbon nanoparticles corresponding with their commercial uses -- carbon black (a powder much like printer toner), C60 (spherical molecules known as carbon buckyballs, named for Buckminster Fuller's geodesic designs), single-walled carbon nanotubes, and multiwalled carbon nanotubes. Flies in the test tubes with no carbon nanoparticles, C60 and the multiwalled nanotubes climbed up the tubes with few or no difficulties. But the batches of flies immersed in the carbon black and single-walled nanotubes could not escape their surroundings and died within six to 10 hours, the Brown scientists report.

http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/carbon-nanoparticles-toxic-adult-fruit-flies-benign-young-23845.html

[Confusious]

74. I don't know

You think they might have thought about the fact that the stuff they were using might be toxic?

Bucky balls are toxic, but carbon takes many forms, like in your body, which are not toxic. They might have had the thought NOT to use the ones that ARE toxic.

[tinrobot]

77. Did Phillip Morris ever consider cigarettes might be toxic?

They actually did consider it and realized they were not only toxic but also highly addictive.

Then they went ahead and sold them anyways, reaping huge profits along the way.

[Confusious]

79. Yes. but

Did Ford ever think about steel being toxic?
Did Bayer ever think about aspirin being toxic?
Did anyone ever think about paper being toxic?
Did Farmers ever think about wheat being toxic?

Comparing apples and oranges is not an argument.

There are thousands of other companies that have sold millions of products that work as promised and never caused any problems.

Fear based on ignorance is not an argument.

[EndersDame]

53. Won't Somebody PLEASE THINK OF THE GIANT SAND WORMS

They need the sand! Muadib weeps

[Are_grits_groceries]

56. No spice for you. nt

[Are_grits_groceries]

55. I taught science, and I love reading about new technology.

Having said that, I don't advocate using all of it or rushing into using it. I used to talk to my students about unintended consequences. I don't think you can predict every possible outcome, but I believe we can do a better job than we have so far.

An idiotic biological idea is the introduction of non-native plants or animals into an are. Without natural predators or other factors, they will run wild. That didn't seem to stop people even after this had been witnessed in many places.

One thing that truly gives me the willies is hurricane modification. The goal is a good one. They want to stop huge hurricanes from forming or at least stop them from growing so large if they do form. I don't think they have a clue as to what will really happen. Theory is nice. the real world is a bitch.

The water crisis is an area where every solution under the sun is being considered. Somebody told me not to worry because desalinization plants will take care of it. They cost a lot, use a take alot of energy, and screw up the oceans. They take in large amounts of seawater and release very salty water back as a byproduct unless it is modified.
In addition, it would cost a lot of money to get the water to where it is really needed.

I don't shudder at the thought of new technology. That is a kneejerk reaction caused by previous problems, and a somewhat understandable feeling. However, new technology has been used, and it has been beneficial. We are shortsighted and then panic prone people. The shortsightedness doesn't let us prepare for future problems. Then a crisis point is reached, and we panic. Then we want to use every idea that might work.

Hydrophobic sand is a good idea. I would like to see it in action at a few places before it is given widespread use.

[JonQ]

66. On no! People using science to make our lives better

don't they know this makes mother earth cry?

Science has never helped anyone, that's why the earths carrying capacity for H. sapiens has remained at a constant 100 million or so, just as mother nature intended.

[anonymous171]

67. Whose lives are we talking about?

I doubt this technology will be put to any good use (for the people.) More likely it will be used to maintain Dubai's golf course or something.