Urgent research needed into risks from nanomaterials in household waste

From the OECD.

http://www.oecd.org/newsroom/urgent-research-needed-into-risks-from-nanomaterials-in-household-waste.htm

22/2/2016 - Urgent research is needed to assess the possible risks to human health and ecosystems from the ever-increasing amounts of engineered nanomaterials going into household waste and ending up in the environment, according to a new OECD report.

 Nanomaterials in Waste Streams: Current Knowledge on Risks and Impacts says engineered nanomaterials are entering landfill sites, incinerators, and wastewater treatment facilities that are not designed to filter out particles as tiny as a millionth of a millimetre in size. Nanoparticles are thus ending up in sewerage sludge used as agricultural fertiliser and in sewage plant effluent that flows into rivers and lakes, as well as in recycled goods.

 “Nanomaterials are revolutionising everyday products, with benefits to society, but there are many unanswered questions about the risks some may pose to our health and the environment,” said OECD Environment Director Simon Upton. “We urgently need a better understanding of these risks so we can assess whether our waste treatment systems should be adapted to contain them.”

Engineered nanomaterials are valued for the novel properties caused by their near-atomic size. The number of products containing them leapt fivefold from 2006 to 2011 as manufacturers used them to improve performance in more than 1,300 products from car tyres and tennis rackets to smartphone batteries, deodorant and hair conditioner.
The report says that while state-of-the-art waste treatment plants may collect a large share of nanomaterials from waste, less efficient processes used in much of the world mean a significant amount is likely released into the environment as exhaust gas from incineration, as ash applied on roads, as treated wastewater or leaches into soil and water sediment.

Most concerning is the existence of nanomaterials in the dried and composted wastewater sludge that is often spread on farmland as fertiliser. In France, for example, half the national wastewater sludge is used for agricultural fertilisation. The potential transformation of engineered nanomaterials in soil, their interactions with plants and bacteria and their transfer to surface water has never been studied in depth.
The report calls for research into the type and amount of nanomaterials entering waste streams, what happens to it inside treatment facilities and the potential impacts of residual waste containing nanomaterials. It recommends greater safety measures for workers at recycling facilities.

Existing research suggests the distinctive properties of nanomaterials – which can more easily penetrate skin and cells than larger compounds – may carry health and environmental risks including cancer causing properties in lungs, toxic effects to the nervous system and antibacterial properties that could harm ecosystems. Despite this, waste containing engineered nanomaterials is disposed of along with conventional waste, with no special precautions or treatment.

2015 Analysis (including 2014)

Last year I did an analysis of the coverage of topics. Doing that again I can include a comparison with 2014.

2015 Coverage of technology regulatory issues

	Counts
Regulation issues & commentary	7
European laws & courts	3
Uber	2
Autonomous vehicles	2
Energy	2
Patents copyright etc	2
cybersecurity and dark net	2
Bitcoin	1
Space mining	1
Tax digital companies	1
Cloud computing	1
Wearables	1

What is noticeable about this list and was actually clear during the year 'regulation' as topic emerged as its own topic very clearly. The obvious omission as I look back over the year is that I didn't cover the drones as much as was present in the press.

Comparison 2014-2015

• 
  

Here is the table comparing the two years.

	2014	2015
Cybersecurity	4	2
Drones	4	X
New vehicles	3	2
Policy issues and analysis	3	7
Nanotechnology	2
Digital and data law	2	3
Uber	2	2
Mining / space mining	1	1
Labour markets	1
Bitcoin	1	1
Energy		2
Patents / copyright		2
Cloud computing		1
Wearables		1
Taxing digital companies		1

2015 Rate, Direction and Coupling

Economist cover topics for 2015

As an added bonus this year I have conducted an analysis of Economist cover page technology topics during 2015. Only stories on the cover are mentioned here + highlighted points = a link to the cover picture.

3-01-2015

•     Workers on Tap
•   Hacking and the Hermit Kingdom
•    Betting the Farm on Faming
•    Silicon Valley’s robber barons

10-01-2015

•       How microeconomics got hot (story about internet shopping etc)
•    The internet’s hidden benefits

31-01-2015

•        Gold & delicious: Apple’s profits

21-02-2015

•        The tech talent war

28-02-2015

•     Planet of phones
•        America’s oversold manufacturing boom

14-03-2015

•      Apple and the age of wearables

28-03-2015

•  The whole world is going to university
•   Coal’s dark future

04-04-2015

•     Sexism in Silicon Valley

11-04-2015

•       The promise of Sky-Fi

18-04-2015

•       Europe v Google: The gloves come off
•       A Robot can do the cooking

02-05-2015

•     How to down a drone

09-05-2015

•      Artificial Intelligence
•     The self-service economy
•      Why humans cause heatwaves

30-05-2015

•       The weaker sex

13-06-2015

•     Where Uber goes next
•      The robots are coming slowly

20-06-2015

•      Computers make a quantum leap

27-06-2015

•      Electricity without wires

04-07-2015

•     Uber jobs in the modern worker

18-07-2015

•   The Internet of Things, a hacker’s paradise

25-07-2015

•    Empire of the geeks

08-08-2015

•   Set innovation free – time to fix the patent system
•    Regulators: masters of the universe

15-08-2015

•   Google does a Buffett

22-08-2015

•    Editing humanity

29-08-2015

•    The scam of pay-as-you-go government
•     Spycraft and corporate security
•     Visions of virtual reality

12-09-2015

•     Learning to love Siri

19-09-2015

•   Electric aircraft on the runway

26-09-2015

•     Car industry’s dirty secrets
•    Welcome to the drone age
•     Pornography and generation XXX

10-10-2015

•     Kill seven diseases, save 1.2m lives per year
•     An end to corporate tax dodges

17-10-2015

•    Piggy in your middle: gene edited organs
•     Dell, EMC and the cumulus effect

24-10-2015

•     Reinventing the company
•    Online reviews: five star fakes

31-10-2015

•   The trust machine: How the technology behind bitcoin could change the world

14-11-2015

•    Softbank: a rare risk taker in Japan

21-11-2015

·         Does German industry do digital (not on the cover- displaced by Paris shootings)

28-11-2015

• Tech unicorns, a species in trouble

Feds Say They’ll Count Computers As Human Drivers - but its complicated

The full story is at Wired and I recommend it http://www.wired.com/2016/02/feds-say-theyll-count-computers-as-human-drivers/


A few snippets with some highligting

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT says that when it comes to regulating self-driving cars, computers and software systems can be considered the “driver” of the vehicle. It’s a major moment in the effort to introduce autonomous driving to America’s roads, which is hampered as much by regulatory questions as by technological hurdles. But really, it’s just a starting point for figuring out how to update the arcane labyrinth of rules that govern how our cars work now.

The news came in a letter from the branch of the Department of Transportation that handles car regulations, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), to Google, which had asked for clarification on rules that pertain to the self-driving car it’s developing, which lacks a steering wheel and pedals. “NHTSA will interpret ‘driver’ in the context of Google’s described motor vehicle design as referring to the SDS [self-driving system], and not to any of the vehicle occupants,” the feds’ letter to Google says. “If no human occupant of the vehicle can actually drive the vehicle, it is more reasonable to identify the ‘driver’ as whatever (as opposed to whoever) is doing the driving.”....And boy, are there a lot of details. Title 49, Subtitle B, Chapter V, Part 571 of the Electronic Code of Federal Regulations, “Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards,” is a thousand-page monster that lays out, with excruciating precision, the standards manufacturers must follow for any passenger car (or bus, or motorcycle) they intend to sell. Those rules are “arguably anachronistic,” Walker Smith says, but that doesn’t mean they’re easy to update.

Defining the car’s operating system as its driver brings up two big problems. The first is that many of NHTSA’s regulations explicitly refer to human anatomy. The rule regarding the car’s braking system, for example, says it “shall be activated by means of a foot control.” The rules around headlights and turn signals refer to hands. NHTSA can easily change how it interprets those rules, but there’s no reasonable way to define Google’s software—capable as it is—as having body parts.

This is massive news for the self-driving technology industry, but it is only the start.

First city I know that has regulated Uber - Canberra

From the Australian Broadcasting Corporation

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-30/uber-launches-in-canberra/6898514

Updated 30 Oct 2015, 2:38pm

Uber X was launched in the ACT on Friday, with Canberra becoming the first city in Australia to regulate ride sharing. On Thursday, the ACT Government passed legislation to allow ride share services, like Uber, to operate in the Territory. As of 12:00pm Friday, Canberrans were be able to catch a lift with the service. 

Uber's Australian general manager David Rohrsheim told 666 ABC's Canberra's Philip Clark that there were about 100 approved Uber drivers in Canberra who were ready to work. He said Canberra's new regulations enshrined in law what his company has already been doing in most other states and territories. "They (the ACT Government) put in place regulations around background checks, vehicle inspections and insurance, all of which we've had from day one," he said. "And now that's the law in Canberra." He congratulated the ACT Government on its approach to ride sharing. "What the Chief Minister has done here is actually taken a look at opportunities, not just to open up to new things like ride sharing... but also how can they improve options for the taxi industry," he said. "They've actually lowered a lot of the fees and the red tape ... and actually made it easier for people to launch taxi apps. "So I think you'll see a whole bunch of innovation inside the taxi sector. And it will always be another choice to help you get around."

How Many American Cities Are Preparing For The Arrival of Self-Driving Cars? Not Many.

From.

http://techcrunch.com/2015/11/09/cities-self-driving-cars/?utm_content=bufferdccf4&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer#.5dyqogp:dWem

Only about 6 percent of the country’s biggest cities are planning for or thinking about autonomous vehicles or self-driving cars in their long-range transportation plans, according to the National League of Cities.

What’s even more surprising is that only 3 percent of these cities’ transit plans are even taking into account the impact of ride-hailing companies like Uber and Lyft even though they already operate in 60 of the 68 largest markets in the U.S. That’s according to a content analysis of transportation planning documents from the country’s 50 most populous cities.

Change is coming fast. Seven auto manufacturers and technology companies including Cadillac, Tesla, Google, Volvo, Audi, Mercedes-Benz and Nissan have said they expect to bring driverless cars to market by 2020.

 This mismatch is kind of a big deal because the key driver in whether autonomous vehicles will lead to a neo-dystopian repeat of the mid-20th century policies that fueled sprawl and isolated living in neighborhoods with little walkability or not is — land-use policy.

......

Australia's electricity system will need up to $1 trillion of investment by 2050

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-03/electricity-networks-need-up-to-$1-trillion-of-investment-ena/6996200

Australia's electricity system will need up to $1 trillion of investment by 2050, regardless of whether consumers are providing their own energy or buying it from the grid, according to a new industry report.

The Energy Networks Association (ENA) is working with the CSIRO to develop a 10-year roadmap for the industry, to help it cope with a rapidly changing market.
"We're expecting to see a lot more of the decision-making being done by customers, and customers deciding what technology they'll install," the association's chief executive John Bradley told AM.

The CSIRO has modelled four different scenarios for Australia's energy market: one where consumers "set and forget" their energy use, the rise of the "prosumer" who is actively involved in sourcing their energy, another where people leave the grid altogether, and finally a market of 100 per cent renewables.

More here

http://www.ena.asn.au/electricity-network-transformation-roadmap

U.S. Space mining law

A shout out to The Space Resources Sigils by Helene Lavoix @HLavoix for this.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/space-mining-us-treaty-1.3339104 CBC News Posted: Nov 26, 2015 7:12 PM ET

U.S. President Barack Obama signed legislation on Wednesday providing a framework for space companies to mine ore from asteroids and other bodies, but legal critics are worried the measure could lead to violations of international law.

The Space Resource Exploration and Utilization Act gives any American who successfully extracts natural resources from outer space the property rights over the haul.
That could mean anything from water found in asteroids as blocks of ice to iron or platinum from near-Earth objects. And the profits could be huge.

But it has long been agreed between countries that outer space is not to become another Wild West, some legal scholars argue, and the new law risks privatizing a realm that is meant to belong to all of humanity.

 "My view is that natural resources [in space] should not be allowed to be appropriated by anyone — states, private companies, or international organizations," said Ram Jakhu, a professor at McGill University's institute of air and space law.

 He said the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, signed by the U.S. and other countries, makes it clear that the surfaces and contents of asteroids and other celestial bodies are protected from commercial harvesting.

The treaty's Article 2 reads, "Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means."

"There really shouldn't be any private property rights in outer space," he said.

That view isn't unanimous among legal scholars, however. Some say small asteroids don't qualify as "celestial bodies," while others say it's not "appropriating" an asteroid to extract minerals from it. And the new law does contain a clause making it clear the U.S. isn't asserting sovereignty or exclusive rights over any celestial body.

But Jakhu said the overarching purpose of the treaty is clear from its first clause, which reads: "The exploration and use of outer space … shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries … and shall be the province of all mankind."