UK Scientists Recommend Caution in Nanotechnology

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."

Comments

Perhaps its just an idea of a layman but...

[Creepy Crawler]

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?

Re:Perhaps its just an idea of a layman but...

[cephyn]

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

Re:Perhaps its just an idea of a layman but...

[Goldsmith]

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.

Hope they've learn their lesson.

[MindStalker]

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.

Re:Hope they've learn their lesson.

[MindStalker]

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

Caution

[Mark_MF-WN]

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.

Re:Caution

[remou]

> 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???

unfortunatly..

[Lord Bitman]

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

Re:Caution where it's necessary

[Otter]

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.

Co-Carcinogens

[DigiShaman]

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.

Completely ridiculous

[slubberdegullion]

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!

Re:Well, them...

[cephyn]

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

did i just post that?

Re:You Lewis Herold Brown's grandson or something?

[DigiShaman]

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*