Replies

For those who don't know what the article is talking about, it is about carbon nanotubes in a Helix shape.

I was wondering when the eco-nuts would start demonizing this technology and research.

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.

Something else for the greenies to chew on:

Senate Rejects Greenhouse Gas Limits***The Senate yesterday rejected a measure calling for mandatory limits on emissions linked to global warming, siding with the Bush administration's position that the restrictions would cost jobs, drive industry overseas and run up consumers' energy bills.

Voting 60 to 38, lawmakers rejected an amendment to a major energy bill that would have forced reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases to 2000 levels by 2010 and created an emissions trading program. Eleven Democrats joined Republicans in opposing the measure, and six Republicans voted with the Democrats to support it. Opponents said the legislation would be too costly for businesses and would force manufacturers to move operations and jobs overseas. Some also disputed the conclusions of most scientists who have linked greenhouse gas emissions with global warming.

"My first priority is protecting our families and workers," said Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.). The amendment, he added, "will hurt our families, hurt our nation's energy security, drive jobs overseas. I don't want to be imposing this pain when there is no assurance that it will make any significant difference."………..***

For those who don't know what the article is talking about, it is about carbon nanotubes in a Helix shape.

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?

I was wondering when the eco-nuts would start demonizing this technology and research. 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.

I'm guessing the engineers at Ga. Tech know more about the water solubility of bucky balls than you do. I'm not sure why you consider them 'eco-nuts' for pointing this out and calling for caution in the consideration of disposal. Batteries are useful, but you don't want to dump them in the river when you're done with them.