Dr. John Manobianco, ENSCO Inc., meteorologist: "We envision that the Mems-Probe itself would have a bio-inspired design. Something like a maple seed or a dandoline seed that actually incorporates the constructs of nature to achieve aerodynamics and buoyancy ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buoyancy , Denglisch)." (Minute: 10 Seconds: 44 till Minute: 10 Seconds: 58 above)
Look again to the video at the very top at Minute: 11 Second: 28
Speaker of "Discovery Science": "But if Mems are heavier than air what will happen when these millions of probes finally fall to earth." (Minute: 11 Seconds: 36) Dr. John Manobianco: "When the 'Mems' Probe lands on the surface either in the water or on the land. They would continue potentially to provide surface observations." (Minute: 11 Seconds: 46) Speaker of "Discovery Science": "But would they be harmful if accidentally inhaled?" (Minute: 11 Seconds: 50) Dr. John Manobianco: "At the sizes we are talking about you actually inhale one or got one in your mouth or one in your eye will probably no different than - say - like a dust or a particular particle in the atmosphere you would get in you would sneeze it in or cough it up." (Minute: 12 Seconds: 3)
If David Keith learned after the AAAS meeting he would have learned better from the study of the Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio: "In Vitro Toxicity of Aluminum Nanoparticles in Rat Alveolar Macrophages Andrew Wagner Charles Bleckmann E England Air Force Institute of Technology Wright-Patterson AFB OH 45433 Krista Hess Geo-Centers, Inc. Dayton OH Saber Hussain John J. Schlager Air Force Research Laboratory Human Effectiveness Directorate Applied Biotechnology Branch Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-5707 March 2001
What is astounding to the outsider: this genuis like approach - oops I found something out, let's make it. Without even tackling with Maybe-problems around the idea itself. The problem is not the idea itself but the irresponsible handling with that idea. Because of the pressure of the financial markets there is not even an hesitation to not use the idea found out.
This seems - to me at least - that also John Manobianco does not see any problem with his technological "maple seed" or a "dandoline seed" at all if he compares it with a dust particulate in the atmosphere. As a meteorologist he does not know anything about medical implications connected to his technology. Like David Keith he looks at his ideas very naively like the following interview with a histologist shows:
"Probability" is not the reality which scientists have to looks at as they know that their models are made with presumptions. What if the presumptions are wrong because of disknowledge?
If a scientist gets influence outside his peer-reviewed studies this is very dangerous as he or she is being sold to the public as a allknowing scientist which nowadays in a world of specialism is totally wrong.
Did John Manobianco think about the common rise of hay fever as a result of his idea?
