MEH: Having read the same article, I agree with John that a national fund, similar to that of the Superfund that is limping along under CERCLA, is premature, and perhaps even unnecessary. However, the idea of offering nanotechnology insurance, I think, has merit from an environmental protection standpoint. Environmental contamination insurance is now available when purchasing a piece of property that could be contaminated. Similarly, why couldn’t insurance be offered to protect against "nanotechnology contamination?" The goal should be to remediate any nanomaterial contamination, if it happens, as quickly as possible. Admittedly, there are hurdles to overcome before a company may offer such a policy, and even then, it may not be cost effective to do so. However, given the types of insurance policies that are available today, the option of purchasing a policy addressing nanomaterials is not something that should be dismissed quickly. As John points out, this is a new and emerging field in which much is still to be learned. No idea should be shelved out of hand.
