here's the relevance : a bow and arrow and a gun both shoot projectiles. One of them has more regulation due to improved efficacy at shooting projectiles. The

here's the relevance : a bow and arrow and a gun both shoot projectiles. One of them has more regulation due to improved efficacy at shooting projectiles. The presumption here would be that the materials designed for killing cells would do so in a drastically better fashion than materials that are designed for better brake performance but which also coincidentally shed harmful particles. Using your concept : it would raise questions if we heard about a human-lead effort to develop the most cataclysmic volcano eruption ever produced. I didn't get the premise that it's supposed to be a gotcha; it's not. It's just a different thing. We gain benefit from better brakes, it's not all loss.