The head of IBM Research was on CNBC talking about IBM's announcement that it will be investing three billion dollars toward developing new chip research. As an example of it being practical and not just science fiction he pulled out a new chip from his pocket that was based on carbon (no doubt meaning graphene). He explained IBM was spending this money now because it was convinced it would be able to go beyond the physical barriers inherent with silicon and have a new industry within ten years.
You didn't miss it. I posted it on another forum where some of the posters who post here called me a liar (and still do). No need to go through that again for nothing. It doesn't matter what I say my "motive" is and your implication it does has already been shown untrue.
I now post on YMB because some posters were defaming me here for my posts on other boards. If they want to defame me, they may as well do it to my face.
My bet in the Graphene sector would be Samsung through their Advanced Institute of Technology R&D Tank.. The amount of R&D they have been doing frankly makes CVV look like...well...nothing. But they are so big that the hypsters can't play with that stock they way they do with CVV. (That appears to be the real value of CVV right now, the potential to scam investors on the graphene hype).
Graphene has a lot of potential (read POTENTIAL) but is many many years off even if breakthroughs occur. And a lot can happen in the meantime. CVV could very well bellyup in a year or so. All of the signs are there, the CEO has run the ship into an iceberg but has put the graphene night goggles on to keep anybody from seeing anything but graphene hype ( A "provisional patent"- HAR!). And he has his minions pushing that agenda on this and many other forums under aliases while he dumps his stock and "retires", .
The articles I posted represent but one potential that could derail Graphene in the meantime. (To avoid another "PROVE IT" challenge, I ask that people make special note the word COULD... those that can read, that is).
Accept it??? what a laugh. Never even considered that you guys would even consider it much less accept it. Nope, you all reacted exactly as expected. In the face of electron microscope pictures showing graphene embedded in the cells, the mere possibility of heath concerns is flatly denied and you attack me for even posting it.
And I never thought it would be otherwise.
I somehow missed the past post you reference, so I remain a bit in the dark as to the motive(s) behind your posts. If can we put CVV and Graphene aside for a moment, what is your general opinion for the future of nano material development, from an investment point of view? If favorable, what are some investment ideas that you consider to be at the forefront in this technology space? If no interest in nano materials, I shall withdraw my curiosity as to why you have chosen this particular YMB to express yourself and bother you no more. Thanks.
Ben, your colors are showing! Also, that you have a ver thin skin!! Just a heads up, you appear to be intellectually unarmed when debating smbalcombe....
Sentiment: Strong Buy
Ben, you accept EVERY scientific paper on it's face? Or do you use discernment? Or do you accept findings that support your opinion and defend it as if the words were yours? Just because you posted a negative assessment does not mean it is correct or any one other than you has to accept it!!
Sentiment: Strong Buy
The paper said there was reason to be concerned. They provide compelling evidence from very educated people that there is concern. But you felt the need to respond and have spent the whole day refuting that, trying with an amazing desperation to show there is no concern. Your assumed authority is that are a genius. or something.
These articles are germane to graphene and should be considered by any investor. IF graphene were to be found similar to asbestos and banned, any investment in graphene would be worthless. People need to consider that far more than the hypsters; "GRAPHENE...TO THE MOON!" #$%$.
Your attempts to dissuade people from at least considering these papers are frankly sickening.
I know, I know...you never said any such thing.
Actually I find arrogant, uneducated morons far more irritating. I didn't disagree with this paper or the authors (and I didn't even mention the people who funded the research).
Well we agree on something...there is nothing worse than a "smart" moron.
In reply to a request to post something not showing Graphene in glowing terms. I posted this article. Your verbose and circuitous arguments conclude that this article does not say anything that would make one wonder about the potential for harmful effects of graphene. And it is obvious you disagree with the persons who took the time and money to study and publish this "meaningless" paper.
But then, you are smarter than they are....
"Interestingly, in the absence of sharp corners or edge protrusions, the cell membrane has a high intrinsic energy barrier against penetration by long graphene edge segments even though they are atomically thin. Such uniform, atomically smooth, horizontally aligned, long-length graphene edges are rare, however, so in practice cell penetration is spontaneous due to the presence of atomic- or nano-scale edge roughness that essentially eliminates the energy barrier."
You need to read up on energy barriers versus mechanical penetration. The straight edges can't surmount the energy barrier but the jagged edges can subvert it by piercing the lipid bilayer. In your own message to me you even write about the protrusions. You do know the difference between straight and pointy, right?
So for the last time, if manufacturing gets to the point of being able to produce uniform, atomically smooth horizontally aligned long length edges, it prevents entry of the graphene to the cell as it can't pierce it and can't surmount the energy barrier
So you read the abstract. Kudos. There are suggestions of similarities which I have acknowledged repeatedly but this requires further research to establish what the consequences are. If increased oxidative stress and levels of reactive oxygen species are temporary (like in exercise) or the genotoxicity doesn't cause damage that has any appreciable effects on DNA/DNA expression, then these points of similarity are not that similar after all. Which is why they recommend further research!
I insist anything you say is belittled simply because YOU said it. You say stupid things which makes me think you're stupid (see how that works?)
Take your use of disambiguation for example. It demonstrates you know neither the meaning of the word nor how to use it in a sentence.
The article does NOT state that straight edges prevent entry. To the contrary it says SIMULATIONS predict that but it is NOT what is observed in real life**. That is the WHOLE POINT OF THE PAPER! I have to ask...Can you read? If Yahoo would let me, I would underline it for you. Here's lay talk for the below quote:
"The imaging experiments show edge-first uptake and complete internalization for a range of FLG samples of 0.5- to 10-μm lateral dimension" TRANSLATION, experiments show the graphene slicing into the cells.
"In contrast, the simulations show large energy barriers relative to kBT for membrane penetration by model
graphene or FLG microsheets of similar size." TRANSLATION, Simulations predicted the opposite of what the experiments showed.
"More detailed simulations resolve this paradox by showing that entry is initiated at corners or asperities that are abundant along the irregular edges of fabricated graphene materials. " TRANSLATION, so we redid the simulations with more detailed criteria and showed that the first SIMULATION was WRONG.
"Local piercing by these sharp protrusions initiates membrane propagation along the extended graphene edge and thus avoids the high energy barrier calculated in simple idealized MD simulations." TRANSLATION, the cells are pierced.
**"The imaging experiments show edge-first uptake and
complete internalization for a range of FLG samples of 0.5- to
10-μm lateral dimension. In contrast, the simulations show large
energy barriers relative to kBT for membrane penetration by model
graphene or FLG microsheets of similar size. More detailed simulations
resolve this paradox by showing that entry is initiated at
corners or asperities that are abundant along the irregular edges
of fabricated graphene materials. Local piercing by these sharp
protrusions initiates membrane propagation along the extended
graphene edge and thus avoids the high energy barrier calculated
in simple idealized MD simulations"
Wow you can't even understand what I write and it's in lay terms. The paper said straight edges prevent entry. I merely suggested that if this bit of knowledge could be used in the manufacturing process it could provide a potential solution to any potential issues from the entry of graphene. I never disputed the entry of the graphene. And even if I had only read the title (it is not a headline - it is not a news paper) I would still know this.
But what you still don't understand is that it is not the penetration of lipid bi-layer that is the problem and hence why you think the cell is being shredded.
You can resort to childish insults all you like, it just demonstrates you have no ability to defend yourself with logic, knowledge or reason.
However I am glad you enjoyed the pictures - it is good to know you didn't waste all your time.
Yes you did offer a lengthy rebuttal, the first on the board. But you riddled it so full of disambiguations and misstatements as to create the same effect.
Remember you entered into this fray accusing me of claiming the graphene had similar characteristics in the lungs as asbestos. I denied that and referred you to these articles which state that clearly**. Yet you insist that NOW any such reference is belittled because there must be PROOF of a connection. That was never the allegation and your efforts to change it are rebuffed. There is no more PROOF of this any than there is PROOF Graphene will do 1% of what is being touted it MAY do someday.
** "Given the known cytotoxic and carcinogenic properties of asbestos fibers, toxicity of fibrous nanomaterials is a topic of intense study. The mechanisms of nanomaterial toxicity remain to be fully elucidated, but recent evidence suggests points of similarity with asbestos fibers, including a role for generation of reactive oxygen species, oxidative stress, and genotoxicity. Considering the rapid increase in production and use of fibrous nanomaterials, it is imperative to gain a thorough understanding of their biologic activity to avoid the human health catastrophe that has resulted from widespread use of asbestos fibers."
So you admit you erroneously jumped to the conclusion that "straight edges prevented entry" (which means you first only read the headline and not the article), and now admit that they do slice into the cells. (There are electron microscope pictures of this in figure 4)
Yet my statements are false and I am trying to mislead people because I refer to that slicing into the cell as "shredding" the cell.
You are the worst kind of moron. But thanks for showing it.
I don't care if you agree with me. I care about you posting lies. Which is what you did. Also you can't criticise someone for not debating with you and then just offer "does daddy know you are using his computer" as your retort (particularly as I offered you a lengthy rebuttal).
I used the papers you posted. Everything I said is from them. I just read them and understood them. For example I can quote the Sanchez paper: "The toxicity, fibrogenicity, and carcinogenicity of asbestos are related to its physical and chemical properties, some of which are also shared by fibrous carbon nanomaterials." See the chemical bit? Guess what that means?
The physical damage it the damages done to the chromosomes from engtanglement. Not from penetrating the cell wall. They don't know what, if any, damage is done to the chromosomes by graphene yet.
Yes the body's immune system responds to carbon particulate but whether this goes on to produce a chronic period of inflammation is not yet known. It's is this chronic inflammation combined with the inability to complete the usual immune cell cycles that give rise to the cancerous cells.
"While the % of cancerous cells are very small..." This sentenced is completely flawed. Cancerous cells proliferate continuously and as such just one is, in theory, sufficient to cause a tumour. Healthy surrounding cells regardless of their number are not able to stop cancerous cells (except immune cells) and are out-competed. The damage to the DNA and chromosomes by the fibres can prevent expression of regulatory proteins which would normally stop mitosis after one round thus creating cancerous cells.
Please stop now you are just embarassing yourself.
Nope I made no conclusion as I didn't produce the papers. I merely reiterated what the authors concluded, for you and anybody else who didn't read them: in essence, that there is need for more research to determine if graphene could cause health problems. Neither I nor they said that it did or didn't (admittedly I did make the leap between the authors comments about straight edges preventing entry and a possible manufacturing solution to the problem but that's how new research ideas are formed).
You, on the other hand, made a wild claim that is not made by the authors, which contradicts various and accepted research and which highlights your complete lack of understanding of the papers: "This paper finds that Graphene shreds the lung tissue in exactly the same way as asbestos".
So either you don't know what you're talking about or you are intentionally trying to mislead people.
Which is it?
To be fair, neither answer is exactly a convincing reason to listen to anything you have to say.
"Agree with me or you are a paid skiwy." As expected......when you can't debate, simply defame those who have another opinion. What a brilliant mind you have.
Does daddy know you are using his computer?