Uh, no. Although the article briefly mentions nanotubes at one point, it's actually about Buckeyballs, which are another thing entirely. The blurb at the end gives a good quick intro to them.
The eco-nut who wrote this article has an agenda, that agenda is to destory and stop research into technology. In other words, this article is complete BS.
Did you actually read it? You misunderstood what the subject of the article was, and you apparently failed to read the passages where it stated that the known problems have pretty much already been solved...
You complain about the author's supposed "agenda", but you seem to be acting on one more than the article itself does.
So knee-jerking aside, exactly what part of the article is actually "complete BS" -- that is, what parts are you alleging are actually inaccurate in some way?
Buckyballs are relatively large so they aren't going to change the chemistry of the water, they would be similar to suspended silt. Also if you've ever lit a wax candle you've breathed in buckyballs.