. . . "42817" . "Risk of Nanotechnology" . . . . "RIV/46747885:24620/14:#0000641!RIV15-MSM-24620___" . . . . . "Louda, Petr" . "[9B3C5346CEBD]" . "Risk of Nanotechnology"@en . . . "24620" . "2"^^ . "http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2014/EGU2014-16751.pdf" . "Bakalova, Totka" . . "Risk of Nanotechnology" . "nanotechnology; nanomaterials; risk; health; environment"@en . . . . "Nano-this and nano-that. These days it seems you need the prefix \u201Cnano\u201D for products or applications if you want to be either very trendy or incredibly scary. This \u201Cnano-trend\u201D has assumed \u201Cmega\u201D proportions. Vague promises of a better life are met by equally vague, generalized fears about a worse future. These debates have some aspects in common: the subject is complex and not easy to explain; there is no consensus on risks and benefits. - A particular problem with nanotechnology lies in the huge gap between the public perception of what the hype promises and the scientific and commercial reality of what the technology actually delivers today and in the near future. There is nanoscience, which is the study of phenomena and manipulation of material at the nanoscale, in essence an extension of existing sciences into the nanoscale. Then there is nanotechnology, which is the design, characterization, production and application of structures, devices and systems by controlling shape and size at the nanoscale. Nanotechnology should really be called nanotechnologies: There is no single field of nanotechnology. The term broadly refers to such fields as biology, physics or chemistry, any scientific field really, or a combination thereof, that deals with the deliberate and controlled manufacturing of nanostructures."@en . . "Nano-this and nano-that. These days it seems you need the prefix \u201Cnano\u201D for products or applications if you want to be either very trendy or incredibly scary. This \u201Cnano-trend\u201D has assumed \u201Cmega\u201D proportions. Vague promises of a better life are met by equally vague, generalized fears about a worse future. These debates have some aspects in common: the subject is complex and not easy to explain; there is no consensus on risks and benefits. - A particular problem with nanotechnology lies in the huge gap between the public perception of what the hype promises and the scientific and commercial reality of what the technology actually delivers today and in the near future. There is nanoscience, which is the study of phenomena and manipulation of material at the nanoscale, in essence an extension of existing sciences into the nanoscale. Then there is nanotechnology, which is the design, characterization, production and application of structures, devices and systems by controlling shape and size at the nanoscale. Nanotechnology should really be called nanotechnologies: There is no single field of nanotechnology. The term broadly refers to such fields as biology, physics or chemistry, any scientific field really, or a combination thereof, that deals with the deliberate and controlled manufacturing of nanostructures." . "P(ED0005/01/01)" . . "Risk of Nanotechnology"@en . "2"^^ . "RIV/46747885:24620/14:#0000641" .