Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Nanocosmetics Used Since Ancient Egypt 252

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the lead-good-for-the-skin dept.
Roland Piquepaille writes "French researchers have found that Egyptians, Greek and Romans were using nanotechnology to dye their hair several thousands years ago. Nanowerk Spotlight reports they were using lead compounds which generated lead sulfide (PbS) nanocrystals with a diameter of only 5 nanometers. At a moment where many people wonder if the use of nanoparticles is safe, it's good to know that nanotechnology has been widely used for a very long time."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Nanocosmetics Used Since Ancient Egypt

Comments Filter:
  • by daveschroeder (516195) * on Wednesday September 06, 2006 @05:48PM (#16055552)
    ...is hardly the same as using nanotechnology to repair your brain or otherwise ingest.

    And aside from that, I'd hardly call this "nanotechnology" just because a hair dye process deemed effective by ancient Egyptians coincidentally happened to generate particle small enough to meet the definition of "nanoparticle".

    Additionally, this is yet another questionable Roland Piquepaille submission.
    • Beyond that, the question of health effects isn't even addressed. That's the whole point right? How do environmental nanoparticles effect those who are exposed to them? So they had nanoparticles, and ancient egypt existed, so it must not be too bad, right? Or maybe there was more than one reason that they died young...Just because something existed in the past doesn't mean it's not a danger in the here and now.

      Regardless, if they were using lead based cosmetics they're not exactly a model to emulate.
      • by msobkow (48369) on Wednesday September 06, 2006 @06:08PM (#16055713) Homepage Journal


        Lead poisoning occurs regardless of the size of the lead particles.


        It seems the article poster has a reputation, based on the grandparent comment. If they can try to spin lead poisoning as proof that nano-tech is safe and keep a straight face, they must have spent part of their career working for the tobacco industry.

        • FFS, is /. so desperate for articles that it's now a means for someone's BLOG to build traffic?

          Rob, this is really sinking to a new low for content... :(

        • by Darlantan (130471) on Wednesday September 06, 2006 @06:57PM (#16056029)
          Yeah, Roland has a bit of a rep, in case you've managed to miss it. Even I picked up on it in passing.

          He routinely submits stuff that is way out of date, common knowledge, or almost entirely irrelevant (like this), and it routinely gets accepted. There have been accusations of all sorts of stuff, primarily that Roland and the editors (a few in particular) have some sort of agreement, and what Roland gets out of it is the standard perks of having his site routinely linked off of the main page of /. (tried clicking his name?).
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by mrmeval (662166)
        Quotable "Lead hair dye, it'll make your brain match your stupid new look"

        There was a nanotech window treatment that made a bunch of people sick. Smoke from most any source is a bad nanoparticle, etc.
    • by LewsKinslayer (87724) on Wednesday September 06, 2006 @05:57PM (#16055621)
      Agreed. If this is what nanotechnology has come to mean, then we need to abandon the word entirely, and move on to a new one. When I think of nanotechnology I think of molecular manufacturing [crnano.org], and Fullerene nanogears [nasa.gov], you know, the sort of nanotechnology that actually moves around and does stuff.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by argStyopa (232550)
      Correct. By the same logic, humans have been "using" nano technology forever, since mitochondrial structures take advantage of nano-geometry. So do T-cells. For that matter, humans have been using "genetic engineering" for millenia too!

      Whew, I didn't realize were so intrinsically advanced!

      Or, it could be a complete misunderstanding of the word "use" by a slashdot editor to contrive to make an otherwise boring story interesting. Hm.
    • by comingstorm (807999) on Wednesday September 06, 2006 @06:07PM (#16055702) Homepage
      ... plus, it's very finely divided, which makes it much more active than the big chunks of lead that we avoid because they cause brain damage.

      In general, any "nanotechnology" that isn't encapsulated will have this problem; a very large specific surface area can make things hazardous even if the substance is otherwise chemically inert.

      And I'll second parent's assertion that it's not actually nanotechnology; it's friggin' chemistry. When you can program it, or it can reproduce, *then* you can call it genuine nanotech; not before.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by XenoRyet (824514)

        And I'll second parent's assertion that it's not actually nanotechnology; it's friggin' chemistry. When you can program it, or it can reproduce, *then* you can call it genuine nanotech; not before.

        Thank you for saying that. Seriously, eveyone considering writing the word "nanotechnology" should have to say that phrase, or one very like it, ten times before they proceed.

        No, you can't have our facny sci-fi word to make chemistry sexy. You'll have to do that on your own.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by drinkypoo (153816)

      And aside from that, I'd hardly call this "nanotechnology" just because a hair dye process deemed effective by ancient Egyptians coincidentally happened to generate particle small enough to meet the definition of "nanoparticle".

      Don't you know? History has been rewritten. Anything small is now nanotechnological!

      Those of us who remember that nanotechnology originally meant the technology to position individual atoms are pretty irrelevant now, I'm afraid.

    • by catwh0re (540371) on Wednesday September 06, 2006 @07:52PM (#16056303)
      I'd take point with this line: "At a moment where many people wonder if the use of nanoparticles is safe, it's good to know that nanotechnology has been widely used for a very long time."

      Taking safety cues from an era where we have evidence that the average life span was about 30 years isn't giving me any additional confidence in nanotechnology, and worries me somewhat that someone would even suggest this over modern scientific method. Not to forget that we don't have nearly enough information about the ancients to satisfy any scientific enquiry into nanotechnology. What we know so far about the ancients isn't indicative of life-longevity.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by sillybilly (668960)
      And your nanoancestors used nanoparticulate charcoal sticks to paint their nanocave paintings, while inhaling nanoparticulate nanosmoke from their nanocampfire. Same with crocodiles, who 200 million years ago inhaled the invisible nanodust that floats around in the atmosphere and makes the sky red when the sun sets. So what? Did the romans have sufficient resolution microscopy to actually tell they were dealing with nanocrap?
  • by TripMaster Monkey (862126) * on Wednesday September 06, 2006 @05:49PM (#16055559)

    At a moment where many people wonder if the use of nanoparticles is safe, it's good to know that nanotechnology has been widely used for a very long time.


    Well...humans have done other things for a long time that were none too healthy. A few examples:
    • Smoking was thought to be harmless....doctors used to smoke.
    • People used to eat and drink from pewter vessels.
    • People used to use asbestos as insulation.
    • (etc. etc. etc.)


    So just because people used to do something for a long time doesn't necessarily make it harmless.
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      So just because people used to do something for a long time doesn't necessarily make it harmless.

      It's a lot worse than that - every single ancient Egyptian who used this technology has died. With a survival rate of 0% it's no wonder the stuff never caught on.
    • Well...humans have done other things for a long time that were none too healthy. A few examples:

      Next thing you know Trip, we will find out that posting often to slashdot is none too healty... ;)
    • by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Wednesday September 06, 2006 @06:13PM (#16055746) Homepage Journal

      But smoking isn't actually ALL that bad for you if you don't do it like a chimney, and especially if you're not smoking things that have had carcinogens fucking added to them. Excuse me, no, I don't need any arsenic added to my tobacco. Besides, there's things to smoke other than tobacco :P

      Pewter, okay, bad idea :)

      But asbestos is still used as insulation! Just not in buildings. And it's still used to make brake pads. The idea was not a bad one, but the way it was implemented was terrible.

      • by Grishnakh (216268)
        But asbestos is still used as insulation! Just not in buildings. And it's still used to make brake pads. The idea was not a bad one, but the way it was implemented was terrible.

        Um, no, I don't believe that's the case. Unless I'm very mistaken, asbestos hasn't been used in brake pads for many years, It's been replaced by other compounds.

        I don't know of any other current uses of asbestos, either. Do you have any links?
        • by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Wednesday September 06, 2006 @06:49PM (#16055982) Homepage Journal
          Unless I'm very mistaken, asbestos hasn't been used in brake pads for many years, It's been replaced by other compounds.

          You are mistaken. It's just been outlawed in most first-world countries. It's still used in other places. It's also used in gaskets; I've seen gaskets with asbestos content personally. Anyway, you haven't looked very hard if you can't find current uses of Asbestos: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos [wikipedia.org] has a whole section.

          • by Grishnakh (216268)
            Sounds like I'm not mistaken then, as the ban in first-world countries was exactly what I was thinking of. Third-world countries still put tetraethyl lead in their gasoline, so I wouldn't look to them for any intelligent laws regulating the use of harmful and carcinogenic substances.

            The Wikipedia article is similarly unspecific; it lists brake shoes, sheetrock taping, stuccos and plasters, vinyl tiles, roofing felts, acoustical ceilings, and much more as uses of asbestos, but I'm sure that none of these ar
            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by Scoth (879800)
              Granted it's a single-source and I haven't tried to verify it, but http://www.aa1car.com/library/trtu796.htm [aa1car.com] would seem to indicate that the ban was overturned and it's still used in a few things.
              • by Grishnakh (216268)
                Wow, that's scary. Thanks for the link. I thought that crap was gone by now.

                Luckily, I always use the semi-metallic pads on my car, both in the front and rear. But I'll be sure to be careful when working on other cars' brakes. They really should ban that stuff for brake pads: semi-metallic pads (which the article says does not contain asbestos) have been cheaply and readily available for ages both in factory pads and in aftermarket replacements. There's no reason for anyone to use asbestos any more, ex
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by saskboy (600063)
        Drinkypoo says, "But smoking isn't actually ALL that bad for you if you don't do it like a chimney."

        Exactly how does one smoke and not resemble a chimney. I suppose you could close the flue, but that resembles a chimney fire.
        Soot is carcinogenic whether or not there are additives in it. If that capital ALL makes you feel more safe smoking, that's simply your brain justifying the risk. My lungs don't accept your justification, and neither does logic.
      • Smoking of ANY form is bad for you. Inhaling 200+ degree ANYTHING is going to scar and damage your lungs. Go buy a vaporizer, already, the only byproducts are water, nicotine, and glycerin for tobacco when vaporized, and nearly pure THC, CBD, and CBN for pot when vaporized.

        Smoking is so 1700s.
    • by KillerCow (213458)

      they were using lead compounds ... At a moment where many people wonder if the use of nanoparticles is safe, it's good to know that nanotechnology has been widely used for a very long time.

      Well...humans have done other things for a long time that were none too healthy.

      Like, using lead compounds to dye their hair.... I highly doubt that they didn't suffer from lead poisoning. The implication that it has been "safe" for a "very long time" is ridiculous.

    • Also, talking on mobile phones is also safe, since new data has uncovered that ancient Egyptians used to talk as well!
    • by Riturno (671917)

      Pewter is not inherently a problem since it is primarily tin with a bit of copper, with possibly some other non-toxic metals. You can still get pewter drinking vessels and utensiles, which are safe to use.

      The problem is that some pewter contains lead to add color and change the hardness. This is especially true of older pewter. This pewter is not safe.

      Modern pewter is generally not a problem.

    • Interesting point about pewter vessels yes they used to contain lead but
      http://www.pewtergallery.com/about.html [pewtergallery.com] newer pewter vessels are lead free (Britania Pewter).

      A little more research brought this page up

      http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/xmas98/phan/ph an.html [mja.com.au]

      It seems theres a danger from certain glazes used on pots and Lead Crystal is also a dodgy thing to use.
      it seems storing your whiskey in a lead crystal decanter may also be bad for your health.

      not something i had taken note of before so thanks fo
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Lordpidey (942444)
      Wait, asbestos is bad for you? *cough* I feel fine *hack* I mean its white gold, it can be *wheeze* used for anythi *keels over*
    • by treeves (963993)
      Hey, now that you mention it, aren't cigarette smoke particles actually nanoparticles too!!! (Tobacco smoke particles: 0.01-1.0 micron = 10-1000nm) And we've been "using" them for a long time!
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 06, 2006 @05:49PM (#16055560)
    This is another Roland Piquepaille article.
  • Safety (Score:5, Insightful)

    by evanbd (210358) on Wednesday September 06, 2006 @05:50PM (#16055565)
    Huh? I'm pretty sure the Egyptians didn't do a lot of work to decide if it was safe. The lead used would be unsafe regardless of the nanoparticulate nature of the compound. Lead was used in lots of other ways through history, too. That doesn't make it safe.
    • by poptones (653660)
      Not only did they use it for hair dye, they used it for face powder... and various test have revealed many of these folks died of lead poisoning.

      So, yeah, this anecdote is comepltely supportive of modern nanoparticle technology...

    • Oh come on. If nanotechnology was unsafe, it never would have passed the stringent review of the Ancient Egyptian Food and Drug Administration (AEFDA). Clearly this article is proof positive that we should immediately deploy nanotechnology everywhere without worrying about safety.
  • the fact that they didnt live much past 30 doesnt bode well... not saying it had anything to do with the crystals.. just that it is a little hard to get a long term study when everyone who uses it died from some ailment or another within a decade or two.
  • by eln (21727) * on Wednesday September 06, 2006 @05:51PM (#16055577) Homepage
    These same people were drinking wine from lead goblets, I don't know if they are the ones we should be looking at for safety advice.
    • by jaysones (138378) on Wednesday September 06, 2006 @06:08PM (#16055714)
      It's hardly safe- All of these people are dead!
    • These same people were drinking wine from lead goblets, I don't know if they are the ones we should be looking at for safety advice.

      Exactly!

      And apart from nanotechnology and cool pyramids, what have the Egyptians ever done for us?
      • by vertinox (846076)
        And apart from nanotechnology and cool pyramids, what have the Egyptians ever done for us?

        A catchy 80's song? [wikipedia.org]
      • All right, but apart from the nanotechnology, cool pyramids, sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Egyptians ever done for us?

        Brought peace?

        Oh, peace - shut up!
  • by Anonymous Coward
    ...that doesn't mean they were doing so *safely*. We don't know the health risks ourselves now, let alone what health problems the Egyptians, Greeks or Romans experienced - hence this is completely irrelevant.
  • Good point... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Error27 (100234) <error27.gmail@com> on Wednesday September 06, 2006 @05:54PM (#16055598) Homepage Journal
    At a moment where many people wonder if the use of nanoparticles is safe, it's good to know that nanotechnology has been widely used for a very long time.

    Rubbing your head with lead sulfide definitely sounds safe enough, I guess that proves that nothing can go wrong with using technology.

    • There are a number of uncertainties for sure. For exmaple we are not sure of the method of use of the nanoparticles. A prevalent hypothesis is they... Applied it directly to the forehead
  • by Gopal.V (532678) on Wednesday September 06, 2006 @05:55PM (#16055608) Homepage Journal

    We've made enough and more mistakes along the path of our history to assume one of our "reinventions" is safe merely because somebody else used it before. Mad hatters, heavy metal colours, hallucinogenic potions, trepanning - just find a more upto date list.

    Unless you want to add some mysterious oriental magic to it ... *meh*

  • by way2trivial (601132) on Wednesday September 06, 2006 @05:55PM (#16055609) Homepage Journal
    I mean, you do realize- all those people are dead now?

    a 100% mortality rate does not bode well for the method...

  • Fallacy (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Glog (303500) on Wednesday September 06, 2006 @05:58PM (#16055632)
    At a moment where many people wonder if the use of nanoparticles is safe, it's good to know that nanotechnology has been widely used for a very long time.

    People have been smoking for much longer than the tobacco companies have been selling cigarettes. They've also been drinking alcohol for even longer than that. Neither of those is safe today (the former more unsafe than the latter).
    • Snoking does damage to the body, alcohol does dmage to the brain. Which is worse is different for different people.

      Personally, I'd choose to damage my body before my brain. No use living 20 more years if you're a dumbass wasting other people's oxygen.
      • by ceoyoyo (59147)
        There's evidence that nicotine (or alcohol, not sure which way around it is) addiction makes it more likely that you'll get addicted to other things as well. That's why smoking and drinking so often go together.
  • I have successfully created room-temperature fusion power by putting my phyladendron on the kitchen window sill.
  • PbS != safe (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Lead sulphide? Galena? Safe? Yeah, let's also make orange and red pigments from orpiment [wikipedia.org] and realgar [wikipedia.org] while we're at it.

    The fact ancient peoples used something does NOT necessarily make it "safe" in any sense.
  • Bah.

    This is chemistry.

    Now, if the ancient Egyptians had been synthesizing lead sulfide nanoparticles inside a pyramid-shaped fab, I'd call it nanotechnology and bow to the wisdom of the ancients.

    When, exactly, did Slashdot become so retarded?
    • Q and A (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rs79 (71822) <hostmaster@open-rsc.org> on Wednesday September 06, 2006 @06:21PM (#16055804) Homepage
      Q: "When, exactly, did Slashdot become so retarded?"

      A: During the Bush admistrations war on science, reason, morals and ethics.

      • Q: "When, exactly, did Slashdot become so retarded?"

        A: During the Bush admistrations war on science, reason, morals and ethics.

        Slashdot must have been seriously retarded to begin with, if Chimpy McHitlerBurton's pathetic, fumbling attempts at theocratic fascism were all it took to make it... even more retarded?

        What, exactly, is your theory here?
    • When, exactly, did Slashdot become so retarded?

      When they started posting every piece of crap that came along from Roland Piquepaille.

  • Now thanks to nanotech, we can enjoy the same longevity and quality of life that the ancients enjoyed.

    Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go appoint my horse to the Senate, "bathe" in oil, and marry my sister.

  • Safe? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by TheWoozle (984500)
    While lead sulfide [sciencelab.com][PDF] isn't particularly hazardous, I wouldn't categorize it as safe. Lead poisoning is on my list of things to avoid. YMMV.
  • Are you kidding? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bshort404 (112024) on Wednesday September 06, 2006 @06:03PM (#16055673) Homepage
    Without a doubt, this is the worst post ever.

    The Egyptians used nano-particles? There's a world of difference between a very small mineral grain and a synthesized nano-bot.

    Get a clue.
    • Gravity had not yet been invented, so those blocks were much lighter back then. A couple of slaves could probably have done it in a day.

      Well that about an absurd a statement as linking them to nanotech. Just because a process they used generated nano particles does not mean that they understood what they were doing and made concious engineering decisions to build nano particles.

  • of substance abuse, or rather the use of dangerous substances for purposes of medicine, cosmetics and even polishing hats, should I trust nanotechnology based on the evidence that we will stick the stupidest things on and in our bodies?
  • Real article link... (Score:4, Informative)

    by mendaliv (898932) on Wednesday September 06, 2006 @06:05PM (#16055693)
  • Not so... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by teutonic_leech (596265) on Wednesday September 06, 2006 @06:09PM (#16055720)
    When do people get this into their thick heads: Correlation does not equal causation. I know this might not be the best application for quoting this, but the fact that nano particles were 'accidentally' used does not make this 'nanotechnology'. Yet another attempt to hype this new term and in the process completely obfuscate and dilute its true meaning. Nanotechnology is the science and technology of building devices, such as electronic circuits, from single atoms and molecules. I'm fairly certain the ancient Egyptians were a few steps behind that technological achievement. I'm even miffed when they call microparticles (e.g. sunscreens, lubricants, etc.) a result of 'nanotechnology' - it's a grayzone yes, but we should keep our definitions in check.
  • Well if they're so smart, then why are they all dead? Noodle THAT one for a while!
  • At a moment where many people wonder if the use of nanoparticles is safe, it's good to know that nanotechnology has been widely used for a very long time.

    Right. Unless they were rubbing lead onto their bodies.

    Dude, nanotechnology or not, they were using lead. Lead is toxic, remember?

    OK Slashdotters, let's all get on the Nanotechnology Is Modern Cool And Futuristic And Is Therefore A Good Thing So It Must Be Safe In All Cases bandwagon.

  • I wonder how often they had to get their roots (excuse me, we're supposed to call it "regrowth" now) touched up. Did they make a follow-up appointment the same day they got their dye job? Did people keep appointment calendars back then?

    Refusing to dye your hair is like telling the truth -- you never have to remember to go back to touch it up, and you never have to try to remember what you said. I'm always amazed that people aren't content with their natural hair color. A dye job may look pretty cool when it
  • by circletimessquare (444983) <`circletimessquare' `at' `gmail.com'> on Wednesday September 06, 2006 @06:32PM (#16055865) Homepage Journal
    calling what the ancient egyptians were doing with PbS "nanotechnology" is like saying me popping my zits is "ecosystem terraforming"

    "At a moment where many people wonder if the use of nanoparticles is safe, it's good to know that nanotechnology has been widely used for a very long time"

    oh yeah! i just farted! therefore, global warming isn't a threat to mankind!

    that's about the same level of logical deduction there dear author!

    who wrote this crap and who greenlighted it?
  • by smellsofbikes (890263) on Wednesday September 06, 2006 @06:51PM (#16056000) Journal
    Romans and Greeks used lead paints to make their faces white. After the fall of Rome, people selectively poisoned themselves with arsenic [chemheritage.org] to make themselves look paler. And, given the health impacts of stuff like silicosis [cdc.gov] and asbestos [lakesidepress.com] damage, both of which are related to particle size and shape, I'd say that any small particle had better be eyed pretty warily by anyone with brains, no matter what idiots in the past have done with it.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      And now people selectively poison themselves with dangerous UV rays in order to make themselves look tanner.
  • by infolib (618234) on Wednesday September 06, 2006 @07:02PM (#16056060)
    At a moment where many people wonder if the use of nanoparticles is safe, it's good to know that nanotechnology has been widely used for a very long time

    Ok, all the comments about lead-not-safe and this-isn't-nanotech aside, I think there's something to be said for regulating compounds differently based on particle size.

    We do know that some substances changes chemical properties depending on their particle size. We also haven't yet researched the health risks of nanotubes very well, but I think we should do so before spreading tons of the little critters around in field emission displays [wikipedia.org]. They might be quite hard to clean up after the fact.

    This is not a call for "safety above all" - it's just an appeal to consider what is already known. (A comparison with cell phones, for instance, would show that cell phone frequencies are by known physics very unlikely to influence chemical reactions beyond thermal effects, hence allowing them per default is quite sensible).

    Oh, and why did I write "nanotech" instead of nanotech? Because the term has become a buzzword so broad as to be almost meaningless, not least because thousands of labs have gained access to funding by putting a "Nanotech lab" sign on the door while continuing their usual work. (My place is partly like that). So be careful when using the term "nanotech" - it might mean vastly different things to different people and the ambiguity is being exploited.
  • "At a moment where many people wonder if the use of nanoparticles is safe, it's good to know that nanotechnology has been widely used for a very long time"

    Their lifespan was 30 or 40 years... nanotech must be safe! Nanotech also did wonders for their environment - the Giza plateau is still one of the most lush and fertile in the world!

  • "Nano, nano, nano!"
  • I use nanotech every time I cover my face with a folded handkerchief to avoid breathing smoke. Or light incense to absorb odors.

    Romans used lead water pipes in ancient times. But that didn't prove it was safe, even if they didn't realize they were getting lead poisoning.

    Archeological studies of ancient chemistry and other technologies [google.com] has a lot of value informing our modern applications of related technologies. As well as teaching us to respect our elders. But we shouldn't worship the ancient tech as if it'
  • Just look at the facts, look at those Greeks, Egyptians and Romans - they are all dead now. I mean they used that stuff, and now they are dead.
    So use it at your own risk - that "might attract babarian hordes" warning label is not there for nothing, ya know.
  • ... by a civilization that's gone. Maybe not the best role model.
    • by RKBA (622932)
      Can you name any ancient civilization of that era that isn't gone? ;-)

      I'm quite sure their descendants live on very happily today.
  • Ignoring the whole nanoparticle issue for the obvious absurdity, people have been using unsafe items to make themselves more attractive since the first monkey noticed how luxurious his fur was when he ate arsenic.

    A brief list of methods used to enhance appearance that cause long-term damage:

    • Belladonna - used to enlarge women's pupils, and make their eyes seem more attractive
    • Arsenic - used to enhance hair and weight gain (since in most societies where food isn't readily available, being fat is a sign of
  • by Chacham (981) *
    At a moment where many people wonder if the use of nanoparticles is safe, it's good to know that nanotechnology has been widely used for a very long time."

    Safe? You do realize that they all have dyed a long time ago, don't you?
  • Yeah, the ancients used it, so it must be safe.

    Must be nanotech, too, since the particles are very small.

    Hell, cutting people up with obsidian arrowheads and knives must aslo count, since the edge of an obsidian blade is only a few atoms thick.

    Hint: Just because something's nano-scale, and is a technology, does not ipso facto make it a nanotechnology.

In the sciences, we are now uniquely priviledged to sit side by side with the giants on whose shoulders we stand. -- Gerald Holton

Working...