Talk:Nanobe

message: So, what are the codes for "lacking evidence", "personal opinion" and "not enough good references"?
This is a terrible scientific article. Sources and references need to be provided.
Controversial; yes. Unproven; yes. License to promote any old opinion; not really.
Can someone append tags to this article to indicate its tenuous nature?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.88.180 (talk) 12:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  General problems 

message: The statement "Some researchers believe nanobe-like organisms might be implicated in a number of diseases. They might be responsible for the formation of some types of renal stones. They might even explain mysterious calcification of teeth in the human mouth, and thus actually be a useful or necessary symbiont (like Acidophilus)." is, I feel, absurd to mention unless it has some sources directly mentioned. In point of fact, the article mentioned says that "*Biomineralization* could result in the formation of bones, shells, teeth, and kidney stones, and arterial plaque.", so the paraphrase is very far from the written article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.93.65.51 (talk) 22:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wishful thinking? 

message: How can something be ten times SMALLER than something else? It's impossible. If it's even 1 time smaller it becomes non-existent.. What exactly did the contributor mean by "ten times smaller"? 1/10 the size? That's what I'm going to assume and change the article to reflect, because having it read "ten times smaller" is simply ludicrous and makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
* Thanks for changing this. I see the phrase a lot in sloppy journalism, and it drives me crazy: "700 times smaller than a human hair"! (even ignoring that human hair of different colours varies in size quite a lot). Monado (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ten times smaller??? 

message: For more about this merge (that probably won't happen)
goto Talk:Nanobacterium
Why is it being merged? Some researchers say they have live nanobacteria. Nanobes are clearly not alive, even if they once were. 132.205.45.110 16:37, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Which exact issue?  Which article? — Omegatron 06:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt “nanobe” is a contraction of “nanobacteria.” It’s probably an analog of “microbe.” 2601:441:4480:53B0:81A8:E928:68DD:51A3 (talk) 05:18, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Merge with nanobacteria? 

message: No news that I've heard. Having just re-read the paper for the first time in several years, and being a geologist working in the oil industry (which Phillipa never was - I knew her in her PhD time at Aberdeen), the prospects that I perceive for the 'nanobes' described being a contaminant in the rock samples is very high. My suspicion is that Phillipa et al have realised this and moved onto their next project. Crucially, though they describe that they had samples from several wells and across a 1700m (vertical, implied) depth range and temperature ranges of 117 to 170°C (bottom-hole stabilised temperature, implied), they describe NO differences in the behaviour of 'nanobes' from the different samples. That's a pretty major difference in implied environment, for no observed differences in behaviour.
(That the paper cites sample depths as being below sea bed is an indicator of the author's unfamiliarity with oilfield work. You cite either measured depth, or true vertical depth sub-sea, but not an unqualified depth below seabed. But I see that mistake made every week by people in the industry.)
Full disclosure - I remember Phillipa from when I was a BSc student and she was doing her PhD. I'd really like this report to have been good science ; unfortunately the team seem to have spent their time on the microscopy and biochemical assaying, and not looked at their sampling protocol. That's not good. Looks like a surface-living contaminant to me. A weird bug for sure.<P>
A Karley (talk) 05:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Developments 

message: The third paragraph in the article says that nanobes are 20nm in diameter, while the third point under 'Claims' says that they are 20nm in length. From the provided photos, it is clear that those can't both be true.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.11.77.89 (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicting information 

message: Mabye this article should review and take into account new evidence not supporting nanobes as living, please see physorg article or references below:
 
 Article  
 http://www.physorg.com/news128167633.html
 Referenced in Article 
 Martel, Jan, and Ding-E Young, John. 
 “Purported nanobacteria in human blood as calcium carbonate nanoparticles.” 
 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. April 8, 2008. vol. 105, no. 14, 5549-5554. 
98.216.106.148 (talk) 01:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current investigation into nanobes reveals that they are abiotic 

message: I'm not sure why this article focuses so much on the "life or not" question. I would like to know how prevalent nanobes are (say, in my immediate environment, or on or in my body) and what their behavior consists of (growth rate, favored substrates, effects on air/water/minerals). What advance in scientific instrumentation led to their observation? Same tools as have allowed the pursuit of nanotech? I cannot find any information on this. My sense is they are more common than microbial life, coating the world around us and being present in tissues of biotic organisms. Anyone know?
Big A 71.61.18.244 (talk) 04:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Their observation depends on electron microscopy. Since there is no knowledge of their genomes, or if they even have genomes, we can't detect them using methods like PCR. As to how common they are, if they are just peculiar forms of crystals, then they will be as common as the rocks that produce them. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: They are interesting. But until the "life" question is solved, if ever, they are just peculiar curiosities. Student7 (talk) 21:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Life question vs prevalence and behavior 

message: I find the * Color photo of a nanobe colony link in the links section at least improper. It has someone's face (probably the hoaxer's) imposed in the background, an artificial colouring and lens-flare. If you have to see something by electron scanning microscope, it does not have colours. As far as I know of course.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.75.108.135 (talk) 16:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  improper link 

message: I am not previously familiar with the subject, but I do not feel nanobes are well described here.  The text calls them "filaments," and the illustrations show something that looks like electron microscopy. But of what substance?  Are they inorganic silicates, or nucleic acids, proteins, or sugars?  Are they structures containing several of these elements?  Surely there's been some chemical analysis?  Thanks.63.227.124.126 (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chemical composition? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Nanobe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090614004824/http://nai.nasa.gov/news_stories/news_print.cfm?ID=137 to http://nai.nasa.gov/news_stories/news_print.cfm?ID=137
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018)