it's pretty straight forward, how could a scientist such as a doctor, identify that nano-robots are the cause of some disease without knowing what it is looking for ?
It would somehow need to be by serendipity, either by a doctor studying a specific disease or another scientific field, as these robots are omnipresent but in a relatively small quantity (~100 ug/m3).
they would also be the cause of a rise of cancer mainly.
so to summarise:
- they are everywhere, on earth, in every ecosystems
- remained hidden for decades
- 300-600 nanometers
- made of carbon diamonoids
- they can be found in any body tissues
in "small" concentration
- are a cause of (but are not limited to) the rise in cancer in the population
- they replicate themselves at a slow rate (still have to figurate a good one) by disassembling matter around them.
for the concentration it seems that I need much more present ton insure a detection chance.
The nanobots do not actually aim to cause cancer, what they effectively do is disassemble matter to replicate themselves. I was thinking that if they were on small quantities, acting relatively slowly, then it would cause a rise in cancer in the population as a result of our body having to heal itself constantly against it. it seems now a bit too naïve...
as their effect is not limited to humans, but can be seen as a primary factor of erosion, decline of biodiversity etc...
and because of these multiple sources, theoretically unrelated, be identified as a such.
Edit to clarify their behaviour, they literally just consume and replicate as they are a mistake.