From: Damien Broderick (d.broderick@english.unimelb.edu.au)
Date: Thu May 09 2002 - 00:42:11 MDT
At 12:05 PM 5/8/02 -0700, you wrote:
>One group or the other is going to have to give
>ground at some point. The claims being made
>by the company are "impossible" according to
>articles in the report.
Weeelll... a very quick glance at
http://www.nationalacademies.org/ssb/nanopanel2.htm
shows this discussion summary:
>In terms of reaching a consensus, Panel 2 members,
> with the exception of Dr. Kajander, who described
> nanobacteria in the size range of 100 nm, considered that the
> lower size limit of bacteria-like particles believed to be
> cultivable corresponded to spherical organisms with a
> diameter in the size range of 200 to 250 nm. The
> nanobacteria of Kajander are "obligate" parasites (e.g., they
> require very rich media to achieve host-free growth) and so
> may fall into the category of organisms adopting a
> host-dependent life style. Thus, despite a very large amount
> of discussion, a general consensus was reached that was in
> agreement with the theoretical arguments put forward during
> the workshop, that the lower limit of size for a free-living,
> DNA-based organism corresponds to a spherical organism
> with a diameter in the size range of 200 to 250 nm. For
> host-dependent organisms the size may be smaller, and the
> extent of the smallness will certainly depend on the extent to
> which genetic and physiological functions have been
> discarded.
Olavi Kajander is not mocked and hounded from the room.
Damien Broderick
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:55 MST