It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

EPA Proposes SNUR for Four Multi-Walled Carbon Nanotubes

page: 1
19
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2022 @ 07:44 PM
link   


According to EPA, the PMNs state that the use of the substances will be as electrically conductive materials; heat dissipation materials; heat generation materials; additives for weight reduction; additives to improve physical or mechanical properties; additives in batteries, energy storage, and electrode applications; and additives in field emission applications.



EPA Proposes SNUR for Four Multi-Walled Carbon Nanotubes

To me the most important Takeaway of this story is that the EPA with this rule-making will wipe out all American industry in multi wall carbon nanotube technology for the foreseeable future for no apparent reason other than to give the advantage to the Chinese manufacturers who practically own the entire industry at the moment. My company is directly impacted so I find this particularly irritating since it would essentially end my business if this rule passes. You can bet that I will be doing everything I can this month to make sure this rule is not Allowed to go forward and destroy my company and remove an important and key domestic production of an incredibly important technology. It’s almost like the Chinese communist party wrote this rule to protect their own industry from US production I can see no other impact from other than that. It certainly isn’t going to help the United States nor is it going to protect this important strategic material from complete domination by foreign companies specifically the Chinese.
edit on 11/6/2022 by machineintelligence because: Spelling



posted on Nov, 6 2022 @ 07:55 PM
link   
a reply to: machineintelligence

From your source:



EPA states that it was unable to estimate the environmental hazard of these new chemical substances. EPA issued the Order under TSCA Sections 5(a)(3)(B)(ii)(I) and 5(e)(1)(A)(ii)(I), based on a finding that in the absence of sufficient information to permit a reasoned evaluation, the substances may present an unreasonable risk of injury to human health or the environment.


Interesting.

I never appreciated that standard in play.

Rather ironic, considering the entirety of the vaccine production topic.



posted on Nov, 6 2022 @ 08:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: machineintelligence

From your source:



EPA states that it was unable to estimate the environmental hazard of these new chemical substances. EPA issued the Order under TSCA Sections 5(a)(3)(B)(ii)(I) and 5(e)(1)(A)(ii)(I), based on a finding that in the absence of sufficient information to permit a reasoned evaluation, the substances may present an unreasonable risk of injury to human health or the environment.


Interesting.

I never appreciated that standard in play.

Rather ironic, considering the entirety of the vaccine production topic.


This is interesting.

And very human. The idea that something is a threat, unless proven otherwise, is literally caveman stuff - hard-wired into our modern human bodies.

I also find it interesting that they deem the evidence insufficient, when there is already a larger industry tied to this (as the OP points out) if we think globally.

The question I can’t answer (but maybe the OP’s author can), is, beyond handing this production to China… what other implications does this have? What products/industries are most impacted? The top 5 knock-on effects?

Interesting topic, albeit a frustrating one for the OP I’m sure.



posted on Nov, 6 2022 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: VulcanWerks

Good questions. Perhaps the OP will weigh in with more. Good topic.



posted on Nov, 6 2022 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: VulcanWerks

Thistweet pretty much sums up my response.

twitter.com...

Erg
edit on 11/6/2022 by machineintelligence because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2022 @ 08:32 PM
link   
a reply to: machineintelligence



Based on the presence of cobalt oxide as a residual at 2.1%, EPA identified concerns for the P-20-64 chemical substance for acute neurotoxicity, dermal and respiratory sensitization, mutagenicity, and carcinogenicity.


I do appreciate the robust nature of confronting a substance that poses environmental exposure threat, but to outright ban domestic manufacture of these four designs of nanotubes raises suspicion if we can just find less toxic alternative ingredients that gets the job done.



posted on Nov, 6 2022 @ 08:34 PM
link   
a reply to: DirtWasher

We have far better environmental controls here in the United States than they do in China to exclude American production of this important technological development is simply absurd on its face. It serves no function in protecting the environment to drive production of this material to Third World countries or China which has a very poor record of environmental conformity to standards.



posted on Nov, 6 2022 @ 08:43 PM
link   

To protect against these risks, the Order requires:

No domestic manufacture (e., import only);


Hmm.

I'm curious what you use it for.
edit on 6-11-2022 by godsovein because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2022 @ 08:46 PM
link   
a reply to: godsovein

So these items may be so dangerous, you can't make them here, but you can still import them.

And we wonder why all of our institutions are so dysfunctional.



posted on Nov, 6 2022 @ 08:51 PM
link   
a reply to: godsovein

We have tested this material for ballistic protection and we have tested it in electrical conductivity and we have tested it for a number of other unique physical parameters which demonstrate that it is remarkable and is capable of shaping the future by making very strong conductive elements that weigh practically nothing and have tremendous physical characteristics. To end domestic production of such an important strategic material is beyond absurd in my opinion. Of course I have a vested interest because this rule would end my company and about the last two years of my life and all of my investments and my money and my time would be gone and the future of humanity would be in question considering that the Chinese would still have the technology and we simply would have no domestic production of it.



posted on Nov, 6 2022 @ 09:14 PM
link   
a reply to: machineintelligence

It's all BS.

"The Executive Order launches a comprehensive review of U.S. supply chains and directs federal Departments and Agencies to identify ways to secure U.S. supply chains against a wide range of risks and vulnerabilities. Building resilient supply chains will protect the United States from facing shortages of critical products. It will also facilitate needed investments to maintain America’s competitive edge, and strengthen U.S. national security."
www.whitehouse.gov...
I guess the EPA didn't receive the memo.

We should all be used to things being ass backwards in clown world by now.

Sorry to hear about the threat to your business. Don't vote blue anymore, I don't know what else say honestly.



posted on Nov, 6 2022 @ 09:21 PM
link   
For your further reading on the mentioned contaminant,
MSDS Cobalt Oxide

It says it is quite stable and non reactive but could cause cancer. Not terribly toxic at only 2 of a possible 5, 5 being most toxic.

You can buy the stuff by the pound on eBay for ceramic glazing. It makes a blue color when fired in glass and ceramic. Cobalt blue glassware is an example that has been produced for at least four thousand years.

Are they going to ban all cobalt oxide or just what is useful? Unless they stop production world wide, what difference does it make in the USA if it is allowed to be imported but not used in manufacturimg?
edit on 11 6 2022 by beyondknowledge because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2022 @ 10:00 PM
link   
a reply to: loam
When you look at the rule-making and you see that that sentence where they say that they’re going to disallow American production only X imports and it gives no explanation you realize that every other component of the rule-making include some sort of explanation yet this one does not. I am going to venture a guess that the reason no purpose is given is because the purpose is not wanted to be known and that purpose would be that they are in bed with the communist Chinese party and they would like American production to end and the Chinese to control the technology meaning that it would cement their control of a huge portion of that technology sector into the future. Multi wall carbon nanotubes are the most useful material for battery electronics and conductive pathways conductive elements and metal replacement we’ve ever seen it’s also structurally very strong lending itself very well to making armor from wearable body armor to armor for tanks and structure for aircraft. Why would we give production of something that important to the Chinese that makes no sense. Our future could literally be dependent on this material. Just today I was designing a replacement for electrical powerlines using this technology because it will carry 10 times the current in a tiny amount of space that will not melt or burn even under a high load.

edit on 11/6/2022 by machineintelligence because: Spelling



posted on Nov, 6 2022 @ 10:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: machineintelligence
a reply to: loam
Why would we give production of something that important to the Chinese that makes no sense.


Or it does and people still refuse to believe it.

Given the past few years, there's been a lot of ducks walking and quacking.

Just sayin'.



posted on Nov, 6 2022 @ 10:54 PM
link   
a reply to: loam

This tweet is getting some reposts.
twitter.com...



posted on Nov, 6 2022 @ 11:09 PM
link   
With how Joe has attacked America's energy independence, maybe this policy direction is another win for China?

I have worked in places with lots of stuff that will kill you if used incorrectly. There are lots of carcinogens amongst industry. Something does not smell right for the EPA approach on this one, especially as development is still new and there are safe ways available to handle toxicity issues. Might lose a few researchers as things get learnt the hard way.

Could it be that this technology has the capability to revolutionize many industries and make redundant a lot a jobs? The Patent office has lost control to rein in things so the EPA is stepping up to put the breaks on? Could it be that in this chain of research around carbon nanotube there is some free energy devices further down the track? With how nuts the oil industry has been on suppressing any competition in the energy sector, could this be another potential motive for the EPA's action?

As for what you can do, any chance of getting some Department of Defense contracts? It will bring a host of other issues, but can help getting the EPA off your back. Taking a trade secret approach over a patient one is another way that has been successful with this jab rollout and the toxicity issues that presents.

Otherwise if this does go ahead, might have to consider some legal shopping and find a jurisdiction that is more supportive of your endeavors. Large multinational corporations do it all the time.



posted on Nov, 6 2022 @ 11:32 PM
link   
a reply to: kwakakev

Well the DOD department defense network information center was on my website on 3 November so I know they’re aware of us since this ruling was posted they’ve been on my site. We are reaching out and talking to defense contractors about the defense applications which are obvious and we have sent samples in for testing. The Chinese have all also gotten samples so they’re aware of us. When you’re looking for funding everybody finds out what you’re doing pretty quickly. We’re going to have to sue them because they are doing this right at the beginning of our crowd source funding for our material to increase our production to operate on a global scale.

www.einpresswire.com... K5436JszqsBMMtIpuZ9UPtY419thpEtfjR1HUULg


edit on 11/6/2022 by machineintelligence because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2022 @ 12:34 AM
link   
a reply to: machineintelligence

With things still at the proposal stage, getting some legal advice and engaging with the EPA is a good a time. Lot easier to turn things around now than once policy is approved. It is still going to be tough with things going as far as they have.

Have you contacted other nanotube manufactures and seeing how they are approaching this issue? With a combined front of many manufactures it will give more weight in challenging this EPA direction.

At this time it looks like there is more to this policy than the toxicity issue. Is someone like China just trying to monopolize the market, or is there a real, deeper hidden threat if this technology is to continue, like some kind of 'gain of function' or some sentient black goo just waiting to emerge?

If there really is some nanobot tech in these jabs, looks like someone is trying to keep a tight lid on this technology.



posted on Nov, 7 2022 @ 01:02 AM
link   
If the EPA going to block that mfg technology in the US, they should ban any products made by using same technology from being imported in the US.



posted on Nov, 7 2022 @ 01:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Echo007

Then how would the architects of this scheme get their kick backs?

I mean, isn't obvious already?

This whole situation reeks.





top topics



 
19
<<   2 >>

log in

join