Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK Scientists Recommend Caution in Nanotechnology

Posted by michael on from the black-lung-disease dept.

PizzaFace writes "An independent study of issues posed by nanotechnology has warned that nanoparticles could pose unique risks and should be regulated by government, and generally should be considered hazardous until shown to be safe. Nanoparticles are now being used in some cosmetics, and workers in some industries face exposure on the job. As the report summary notes, 'Concerns have been expressed that the very properties of nanoscale particles being exploited in certain applications (such as high surface reactivity and the ability to cross cell membranes) might also have negative health and environmental impacts.' The year-long study was commissioned by the United Kingdom and done by a joint working group of the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering. The Washington Post reports that the U.S. government is aware of nanotechnology but is letting industry regulate itself for now."

30 comments

  1. Perhaps its just an idea of a layman but... by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 4, Funny

    Hasnt biology been crafting nano-stuff since.. the beginning?

    Whether it be a buckeyball or a double helix, cant the body handle it? You know.. evolve?

    --
    1. Re:Perhaps its just an idea of a layman but... by cephyn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      evolution doesnt help the little guy. just your great^10 grandchildren.

      --
      Moo.
    2. Re:Perhaps its just an idea of a layman but... by Goldsmith · · Score: 2, Interesting

      While I agree that nanotechnology needs to have some oversight to make sure everything is kosher, I think we have a lot more to worry about from biology.

      I work at making carbon nanotube chemical sensors. The "nano" part is grown right on the chip, and promply pinned down with metal lithography, thereby protecting it from any living tissue which might come by and try to hurt it.

      My biology inclined fiance is working on using natural proteins as targeted drug delivery systems. Delivering cancer drugs only to cancer cells and that sort of thing. Very noble.

      While the world seems intent on debating the "ethics" of my very small wires, no one seems to question the motives behind an undetectable, targeted drug delivery system (using natural protiens to deliver steroids only to the muscles?).

      What with atomic bombs and gene patents we scientests have done a poor job convincing the public we know what we're doing. If we find something which occurs "naturally" it will be viewed by the public in a better light than something which was developed.

  2. Hope they've learn their lesson. by MindStalker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hopefully US companies remember asbestos and the like. And understand that they will get their asses sued into the ground if they arn't sure these product are absolutly safe.

    1. Re:Hope they've learn their lesson. by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      Just for clarification though, I think the stunt of suing companies for asbestos when nobody had an idea that they were dangerious when it was originally made is idiotic to say the least.

    2. Re:Hope they've learn their lesson. by ooPo · · Score: 1

      Yes, let's stake the lives of people on the word 'hopefully'.

    3. Re:Hope they've learn their lesson. by MindStalker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hopefully my tires won't blow on the way home smashing me into a semi. Yes, our lifes hang on hopefully all the time.

    4. Re:Hope they've learn their lesson. by KjetilK · · Score: 1
      Problem is to find out. It may just be very, very difficult.

      I think the problem is the cutthroat business environment we have. If everything was done in the open, the problem would have been much less, and it would be much easier to form in informed opinion.

      --
      Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
    5. Re:Hope they've learn their lesson. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I think the stunt of suing companies for asbestos when nobody had an idea that they were dangerious when it was originally made is idiotic to say the least.

      Asbestos was known to be dangerous in the 1930s.

  3. Caution by Mark_MF-WN · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Obviously, some caution is required. But it would also be a shame to see this technology be slowed down. What we really need is some kind of consortium that will let companies work together to come up with reasonable standards that wont hinder their work. Legislation should be avoided until it proves necessary.

    1. Re:Caution by remou · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > Legislation should be avoided until it proves necessary.

      you mean like when massive amounts of people die from it, or something???

      not trying to flamebait here, but could you maybe elaborate a bit what you mean by 'proves necessary'

      haven't they already shown that nano-particles can go through pretty much any barrier the human body has and show up in any part of your body???

  4. unfortunatly.. by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    the only thing that will make nanotechnology safe is yet more nanotechnology. So we can't be too cautious :)

    --
    -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
    1. Re:unfortunatly.. by Goldsmith · · Score: 1

      Damn, you've figured us out!

  5. Caution where it's necessary by Pi_0's+don't+shower · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I can't believe this! Here we have some strong evidence that this nanotechnology can prove dangerous, and our government does nothing to inform people of the risks.

    BOTOX injections are just fine, too, apparently. Why would botulanum toxin be dangerous, anyway?

    Yet, on the other hand, potentially life-saving research like stem-cell research is *banned* by the US government.

    Maybe what should happen is that in vitro testing of *all* such biotechnology should be allowed without regulation, but once human test subjects come into play, that's when the government needs to step in. (Sorry for the outrage at the government's inconsistency and irresponsibility.)

    1. Re:Caution where it's necessary by Otter · · Score: 3, Insightful
      You're conflating two utterly different questions -- safety on the one hand and an issue of bioethics on the other. (And botox, which has nothing to do with either.)

      You can disagree about how tightly nanoscale particles should be regulated and you can disagree about what stem-cell research should be funded by the government (for the bazillionth time, stem-cell research is not banned, let alone "*banned*") but one has nothing to do with the other.

      --
      What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
  6. Anybody else disturbed by by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

    The first use of nanotech being in cosmetics? Oh yeah- we don't really know how dangerous this stuff is, so let's kill off a bunch of teenage girls to find out.

    --
    SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    1. Re:Anybody else disturbed by by enforcer999 · · Score: 1

      I wonder how they label it in cosmetics? Do they put a warning? This is something I would like to know.

    2. Re:Anybody else disturbed by by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *rolls eyes* You're freaking out over a few custom molecules? Perhaps you should do a little reading about Nanotech before shouting that the sky is falling.

  7. No need to worry! by chcorey · · Score: 1

    No need to worry! Cosmetics are tested on animals first. I knew there was a reason behind why we were doing animal testing, other than making some freakishly looking rabbits. *shudders* - Core

    --
    Dog for sale: eats anything and is fond of children
  8. Well, them... by OgdEnigmaX · · Score: 1

    or the great^10 nanoparticle-unresistant grandchildren you fail to sire because of said nanoparticles...

    1. Re:Well, them... by cephyn · · Score: 1

      well this is assuming you survive the nano-plague that killed 90% of your fellow humans. you survived, though not without great pain, illness and physical torture by the nanoplague. Often you wished you'd rather have been dead. Luckily, Susie Thomas also survived, and you were able to prove that her earlier "not if you were the last man on earth" protests and rebuffs were just hyperbole. THEN you were able to sire said little rugrats, who just now happen to be resistant to the great nanoplague, thanks to yours and susie's just-barely-resistant-enough genes. Though you'd rather be dead.

      --
      Moo.
    2. Re:Well, them... by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1

      This is also assuming the guy can get laid. This is /. after all.

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    3. Re:Well, them... by cephyn · · Score: 2, Funny

      Susie will give in, once I release the nano-plague...

      did i just post that?

      --
      Moo.
  9. I totally read that as by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "...and understand that they will get their asses glued to the ground..."

    And here I was thinking "Now there's a creative punishment!"

  10. Co-Carcinogens by DigiShaman · · Score: 2, Informative

    Asbestos is known to be a Co-Carcinogen. That is, by itself asbestos doesn't do anything. But, if your a smoker then asbestos makes it much easer for the carcinogen agents of tabacco to slip through the cell walls and disrupting the DNS. Thus, lung cancer is 50 times more likely to happen in a smoker exposed to asbestos then not being exposed.

    All in all, I think the fear of nano-particles being another co-carcinogen is justified untill further research is done.

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  11. Completely ridiculous by slubberdegullion · · Score: 3, Funny

    This is utterly ridiculous. Like horses worried about car exhaust. We ruthlessly kill bacteria and bugs and such as a matter of course because we are so much superior to them, but then nanotechnology is as superior to us as we are to bugs, and yet we protest at dying to support its first stirrings! Truly the human race is the most arrogant, if not the most intelligent, thing that will ever exist on the planet!

  12. You Lewis Herold Brown's grandson or something? by Chmcginn · · Score: 1
    Asbestos is known to be a Co-Carcinogen. That is, by itself asbestos doesn't do anything.

    Wow, I'd love to see some sources for that. As would a lot of other people... like my uncle who spent twenty years in construction, my supervisor who spent way too many years in a US Navy office building tiled with the stuff, and my cousin, who worked for his dad. Guess how many of them smoke? And guess how many have had some "pre-cancerous tumours"?

    --
    Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
    1. Re:You Lewis Herold Brown's grandson or something? by DigiShaman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Smoking is the number one cause of cancer with or without asbestos involved. But if your a smoker and have been exposed to asbestos, your soon to be dead and don't know it yet. However, asbestos can still help in the effect of cancer causing agents if you're working around chemicals and live in a city with smog such as LA.

      That said, in theory if you lived a hermetically sealed bubble (like bubble boy) and have been exposed to pounds of asbestos, you will not get cancer. I personally have not been involved in such studies, but it does sound reasonable when you understand how simple asbestos really is. It's nothing more then fibrous material. Yet, because it's so microscopic, it does have a nasty effect on cell walls in the effect it punctures them.

      In the mean time, check out these links.

      http://www.asbestos-lawyer.com/asbestos_diseases .h tm

      http://www.deq.state.la.us/evaluation/airmon/ar9 7/ ar97_6.htm

      There are others too. Just google for it as "Co Carcinogen Asbestos" without the quotes.

      Note: I find it sad that you can't find your own fucking sources. Your posting on slashdot yet fail to google for them yourself. That's rather...pathetic. *sigh*

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    2. Re:You Lewis Herold Brown's grandson or something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      That said, in theory if you lived a hermetically sealed bubble (like bubble boy) and have been exposed to pounds of asbestos, you will not get cancer.

      You're an idiot. Asbestos is a carcinogen and a co-carcinogen.

  13. Please learn how to make links. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    if your a smoker
    your soon to be dead
    Your posting on slashdot

    "you're" and "You're".

    Also:

    Please learn how to make links.
    <a href="http://www.asbestos-lawyer.com/asbestos_dise ases.htm">asbestos diseases</a> and <a href="http://www.deq.state.la.us/evaluation/airmon /ar97/ar97_6.htm">Asbestos / Lead Programs</a>
    (without any spaces put there by Slashdot) yields: asbestos diseases and Asbestos / Lead Programs

    You're posting on slashdot yet fail to make links for yourself. That's rather...pathetic. *sigh*