Re: [nanotech] Re: Perhaps someone could help me with this...
- --- Roderick Mc Carthy <lifestation2004@...> wrote:
> if the nanobacteria were to be homed on a membrane which was used as theI don't know whether they're thought to regenerate it. I suspect that their
> surface for an oject or garmont/ panel, would they still be able to
> generate and regenarate a 'coral like' shell coating/?
life-cycle is much simpler than we envision even for bacteria. The Mayo
results, if I recall correctly, essentially said that the only opening in the
"coral" structure was against the petri dish glass itself. Perhaps by the
time it's completed, they are simply sealed in and die.
> what environment requirementxs do they have at this time?It sounds to me like a very simple subset of the requirements of other single
> can they be removed from living systems where they present a nuisance orIt sounds like they almost certainly can. First of all, they contain
> pollutive presence? if so how?
proteins, which means they are probably vulnerable to various immune system
functions which target specific proteins. I believe I saw some results where
part of the verification of their lifeworthiness was that they seemed to grow
less when exposed to some agent which is also known to retard the growth of
Being organic life forms of /some/ kind, of course there must be conditions
which encourage or retard their activity.
> could they be 'trained' to find weak points in calciate structures, likeWell, I think the real question is whether they could be "trained" with the
> bones and coral, and repaire them.. bone repaire is preferal to
> un-quanitified oceanic releases (precautionary principles)?
anything like technology we have today. Of course they CAN be trained, in the
sense that with enough technology you can accomplish pretty much anything
which could ever occur "naturally".
Setting aside the fact that anything humans do is, of course, really a part
of nature, too.
It seems likely that, if nanobacteria are pivotal to the calcification of
teeth, then there must be cues which tell them where and when to act/live.
These can probably be replicated or exploited to cause them to calcify (or
otherwise help) where we wish.
Liberty will not descend to a people; a people must raise themselves to
liberty; it is a blessing that must be earned before it can be
enjoyed. --Charles Colton
AIM/Yahoo/AOL Instant Messenger: KazVorpal
ICQ#: 1912557 MSN Messenger: KazVorpal@...
- and soldiers should die because tony blair is a crap
i am sorry KAZ but i do not agree.. we learn because
we can. we design for th task, we evolve not destroy..
survival is the end game for production, betterment
such for study..
u always jump to say i am anti-tech etc.. i am one of
nanos best / better allies.. we dont want gm trees, we
dont need them,,, there are plenty of reasons, mostly
concerning pure science/ best practice and integrity
within th natural world..
i am suprised to find pro-gm tree support on a nano
list, cos i thought it meant you were clever and
future designery types, not a bunch of rank closing
sales b***h**.. gm crops lose money and damage th
env.. is that good for science? commercial or pure?
wake up KAZ.. there is a beautiful future of
potential.. we can also lose everything much easier
than you seem to think..
> Support our troops: Get them out of Iraqsupport our troops! bring them home now!
arrest bush and blair! try them for war crimes!
--- KAZ <kazvorpal@...> wrote:
> --- Roderick Mc Carthy <lifestation2004@...>
> > the point to this debate was infact that we dont
> > gmtrees. not that argument over carbon weighting
> > across the scale.. i agree that the carbon in the
> > system is not a threat to the envronment in as
> much as
> > historical carbon is a threat.. and that blue
> > algea are a bennificial life form with a crux
> > in the eco system.. things are delicate..
> > say no to gm trees!
> That sounds like a damned technophobic argument to
> me. Which is a bit
> strange, on a nanotech list. That we do not need a
> new technology is not
> evidence that we shouldn't /use/ the new technology.
> We should use genetically modified trees because we
> find them useful.
> Support our troops: Get them out of Iraq
> AIM/Yahoo/AOL Instant Messenger: KazVorpal
> ICQ#: 1912557 MSN Messenger: KazVorpal@...
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> $4.98 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
> The Nanotechnology Industries mailing list.
> "Nanotechnology: solutions for the
> Yahoo! Groups Links
ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com