1. Kimbrell's perspective really scares me. It sounds a lot like "give me and my friends a larger share of the money spent on nanotech, or else we will stall its development. Pay up, or we will let other countries take the lead. Keep my grandchildren safe by classifying nanotech as a potential threat monitored by a well funded group (like the Dept. of Homeland Security) that tracks all nanotech companies because some cannot be trusted. This type of idiocy might keep my grandkids safe until the USA becomes a “has-been” country.

---

2. Public safety is a legitimate issue of nanotech-based products. A regime of strict liability is sufficient to address this issue. No new government regulation is necessary or desirable. I think labeling is good because, as a consumer, I demand the freedom to choose nano-products or not. All of the other issues that George Kimbrell brings up are hog-wash. Other than public safety, which is addressable by strict liability, there is no legitimate argument for government regulation of this technology.

---

3. And now we have this: Nanoparticle Chicken Feed Keeps Birds Healthy http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/02/29/nanoparticle-chicken-feed.html?dcitc=w01-101-ae-0003 Feb. 29, 2008 -- Researchers at Clemson University have fed nanoparticles to chickens, eliminating deadly bacteria and making the chickens safer for human consumption. "Our ultimate goal is to use these nanoparticles as a treatment for children in underdeveloped countries," said Fred Stutzenberger Why is the goal always to feed the new technology to children in underdeveloped countries? There are other remedies for diarrhea.

---

4. I am concerned that the driving force to initiate regulation of nanotechnology is coming from attorneys and bureaucrats who understand less about it than the scientist working in the field. It looks like a case of one group trying to find a way of making a living off of the other groups work. They are creating and playing on the fear of the public to validate their attempt to create regulatory work. Why don't they go find something productive to do?

---

5. The fact that so few people know about new technologies and can make an informed choice whether or not to accept them is the fascist state of science, industry, and government deregulation. It is very condescending by nature. You may think you know what is best for me, and the future of the universe; but I still reserve the right to choose for myself. I want labelling. In gmo foods. In country of origin. And nanotechnology. I want the right to choose for myself.

---

6. I particularly detest the premise that one is unethical if one is not willing to be part of the open-ended ,uncontrolled, and unpredictable experiments that are here to save the world from the mess we have already made of it with progress. I do believe the individual has the right to know and choose. I should have the right to choose for myself

---

7. There is very little accountability imposed on industry; and it is increasingly difficult to enforce laws that protect the public, effect justice for those harmed, and curtail the risks in the future. People are cynical because it has happened over and over again. Maybe we are realistic in our concerns and distrust.

---

8. Mr. Salvi says, "Being able to engineer materials means we can blunt any potential hazard as we design them. " It's a fine idea, but we rarely, if ever, see it happen comprehensively. There are always the things we are not looking for and consequently do not recognize for the damage they have done until a tipping point is reached. Too often, irreparable damage is done to individuals, society and the environment before an attempt at mitigation begins.

---