The US Department of Homeland Security has expressed interest in giving non-lethal offensive capabilities to drones used by its Customs and Border Protection service. Any such move is bound to be contentious, and tagging might prove more acceptable to US public opinion. Drones could also use smart tagging during riots so that the people involved can be identified and later arrested. [More]So if they use this powdered nanocrystal aerosol domestically and indiscriminately, as in "riots" (itself often a subjective term when those who have peaceably assembled get attacked by force initiators who will brook no lack of deference to "authoritah"),where the wind could evidently carry it to more than just the principals involved, and people breathe it in, what studies/clinical trials have been conducted to ascertain the long-term effects of such particles becoming embedded in lung tissue, etc., what were the methodologies used, were they published and peer-reviewed, etc.?
Would it be measured in parts per million? Per billion?
I mean, if there's a chance my government is going to spray me or mine or anybody else with this, I want to make sure somebody actually knows what exposure levels have been determined safe.
Maybe Voxtel's George M. Williams Jr. could conduct some trials where he has his two children breathe in various levels of his magic dust, and then get back to us in a decade or two...
Oh, and I hate to bring this up, but if a federal judge was going to require an environmental impact study on concealed carry before allowing guns in national parks, just imagine what stuff might do to condors, spotted owls, delta smelt and Delphi Sands Flower-Loving Flies...
Oh, and I hate to bring this up right now, but what if it gets into the water supply...?
[Via Florida Guy]
No comments:
Post a Comment