I'm not against nano-technology AT ALL. What I'm against is it's absolutely random use by any company that liked the texture some nanoparticles give to a face cream or whatever. That's irresponsible! The main point is always the same - simply the knowledge that certain material is safe in general, doesn't mean it will be safe in its nano version. Because nanoparticles often have difference properties than their "big" versions. And some of them can be quite dangerous for humans. I post 2 articles to support that. The moral of the first is that 1) inhaling nanoparticles is as bad as getting them injected 2) the nanoparticles tend to form different structures when in touch with different solutions and they CHANGE their original properties. In a way that we don't know yet. Now this is quit important, because this point is often skipped even for more mundane substances like the chemical add-ons in our food or cosmetics. The reason behind it is simple - it's hard to impossible to know all the possible reactions that those chemicals may or may not form. However for me one thing is pretty clear - a little simulation can tell us the more likely reactions so that they are tested. Obviously very little of them are directly lethal so far, but that doesn't mean they are not killing us more or less slowly or that they are no damaging to the next generations. And we have the technology to know which one are good and which one are bad. Why nobody is funding such research? I can tell you why. Because it's expensive. However, isn't it more expensive to give all those money on health care? And isn't human life ultimately the most valuable thing for us?
On recent request by EC to regulate nanoparticles in cosmetics, the producers cried out as loud as they could. I doubt it that the idea was abandoned, maybe only until new evidences are gathered. But from the second article it becomes clear that there are such evidences. Some nano-particles are TOXIC! As you can read, some nano-silver was found in the fish's embryo! That's certainly not a place for any toxic material to be. But there it is. How do you know we all don't have nano-silve in our eggs and sperm? And who tested if that's safe in the long run?! I think it's important to know what's good for us and what's bad and to use only the good stuff. Finally, the third article studied how nano-particles aggregate to form bigger structures. Those structures haven't been tested by companies that use nano-particles. And they should be tested.
I believe in technology to make our life better. What I don't believe in, however. is people. People who always go for the cheap option when it's much more expensive in the long run. But they don't care because someone else will pay the price. Ultimately, we all pay it.
Now we have the technology to know the difference. Then why don't we simply use it?
Engineers explore environmental concerns of nanotechnology
February 1, 2010
Linsey Marr and Peter Vikesland, faculty members in the Via Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Virginia Tech, are part of the national Center for the Environmental Implications of NanoTechnology (CEINT), funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) in 2008. CEINT is dedicated to elucidating the relationship between a vast array of nanomaterials — from natural, to manufactured, to those produced incidentally by human activities — and their potential environmental exposure, biological effects, and ecological consequences. It will focus on the fate and transport of natural and manufactured nanomaterials in ecosystems.
A challenge in tests of nanoparticles' toxicity has been that very small particles like to form aggregates, so testing interactions of the smallest particles with cells requires special approaches.
In their preliminary studies, results indicate that "oxidation does impact solubility, as absorbance after resuspending in water is lower for fullerenes exposed to ozone." The implication is that reactions in the atmosphere can transform nanoparticles and make them more likely to dissolve in water once they deposit back to earth. There, they can travel farther and come in contact with more organisms than if they were stuck to soil.
Already, the biomedical, optoelectronics, sensors and cosmetics industries are among the users of the C60 fullerene.
One of the components of natural water is natural organic matter (NOM). When the C60 fullerene is released in water, it forms "highly stable dispersed colloidal C60 aggregates or nC60," Vikesland explained. These aggregates can exhibit significant disparities in aggregate structure, size, morphology, and surface charge and behave very differently than the C60 alone.
The problem with NOM is its randomness, resulting in diverse characteristics of the aggregates that form when they mix with the C60.
These acids may significantly affect any conclusions ultimately reached regarding the impact of the C60 fullerene into the environment. source
Popular nanoparticle causes toxicity in fish, study shows
March 2, 2010 by Brian Wallheimer
(PhysOrg.com) -- A nanoparticle growing in popularity as a bactericidal agent has been shown to be toxic to fish, according to a Purdue University study.
Tested on fathead minnows- an organism often used to test the effects of toxicity on aquatic life -- nanosilver suspended in solution proved toxic and even lethal to the minnows. When the nanosilver was allowed to settle, the solution became several times less toxic but still caused malformations in the minnows.
"Silver nitrate is a lot more toxic than nanosilver, but when nanosilver was sonicated, or suspended, its toxicity increased tenfold," said Maria Sepulveda, an assistant professor of forestry and natural resources whose findings were published in the journal Ecotoxicology. "There is reason to be concerned."
Sepulveda and doctoral student Geoff Laban exposed fathead minnows to nanosilver at several stages of their development, from embryo to the point where they swim up from the bottom of their habitats to eat for the first time. Even without sonication, nanosilver caused malformations that included head hemorrhages and edema, and ultimately proved lethal.
Using electron microscopy, Sepulveda was able to detect nanosilver particles measuring 30 nanometers or less inside the minnow embryos.
Nanosilver is growing in popularity as a component of many products. It is used to kill bacteria in goods such as odor-control clothing, countertops, cutting boards and detergents. Currently, there are few regulations for nanosilver's applications in products, but Ron Turco, professor of agronomy and the paper's co-author, said the Environmental Protection Agency is reviewing the situation.source
Chemists make breakthrough in nanoscience research
July 12, 2010
A team of scientists led by Eugenia Kumacheva of the Department of Chemistry at the University of Toronto has discovered a way to predict the organization of nanoparticles in larger forms by treating them much the same as ensembles of molecules formed from standard chemical reactions. source
And finally (and not very related):
Army Corps critic sues La. university over firing
February 14, 2010 By CAIN BURDEAU , Associated Press Writer
(AP) -- Ivor van Heerden, a Louisiana State University scientist and a widely cited expert on levee failures after Hurricane Katrina, sued his college on Wednesday, alleging he was fired for his criticism of the Army Corps of Engineers.
source
Be warned!
Comments