"Nanoparticles in items you use everydayare they safe, and why arent they better regulated?" Thom challenges Yaron Brook
Top Comments
All Comments (75)
-
@justinwlaurab You won't see the particles, they are too small, sorry to rudely awaken you, next time I will leave you sleeping with the fire comes.
-
@MrMontgomeryM I'll believe it is a problem when I see it. You won't convince me your position is correct with rudeness.
-
Google nano paint china deaths.
-
@justinwlaurab Your ignorance is dumbfounding. Nanoparticles are a big danger to humanity. Nano particles do not behaving in the same way as your bulk material, they exhibit different chemical and physical properties, some of which we are just finding out. The chemical processes taking place on the surfaces of nanoparticles are also very complicated and remain largely unknown. Nanoparticles are effectively a bridge between bulk materials and atomic or molecular structures.
-
Chemtrails are loaded with Aluminum nano-particles.
What's your reaction to that, Tom?
-
@bonfirejovi - So says you. Got proof?
-
Wow Thom has no grounding in reality, does he? A certain amount of risk is needed if there is going to be any room for entrepreneurship and innovation. The precautionary principle is a bad joke, it requires no scientific consensus.
So there is no scientific consensus that these nano particles kill, huh?
Thom Swede, Denmark, Netherlands are no socialists. They are welfare capitalists. Sweden has recently undergone mass privatization and deregulation.
Hahaha wtf is happiness economics?
-
@ankharris Lol Galbraith was wrong about everything, I would find someone better to quote from. All his arguments were based on an appeal to pity.
In order to value, you must be alive. To be alive, you must act according to your own self-interest. Self interest is the root of all ethics.
justinwlaurab 2 years ago 12
Wow! There are particles in our environment that are almost the size of atoms? Sort of like...atoms?
justinwlaurab 2 years ago 9