Nanotech Gone Awry?

westcoaster004 writes "Chemical and Engineering News is reporting what appears to be 'the first recall of a nanotechnology-based product' due to health risks associated with it. The recall of 'Magic Nano' spray, which is for use on glass and ceramic surfaces to make them repel dirt and water, comes after at least 77 people in Germany contacted regional poison control centers after experiencing illness after using the product. The German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment has also issued a warning." Relatedly dolphin558 writes "There is an interesting story in the Washington Post on the unknown dangers facing employees of nanotechnology firms. The jury is still out on whether traditional HAZMAT safeguards are suitable when handling nanomaterials, many of which can be harmful. Research into potential workplace hazards is beginning to ramp up as the industry and government become more aware of this issue."

Comments

Nanotech?

[shadowcode]

What I wonder is, how much of this product is actually related to nanotech? Isn't it just some fancy spray with 'nano' slapped on the label?

Re:Nanotech?

[aussie_a]

I always think of nanotechnology as dealing with self-replicating machines that are at the atomic scale. But I suppose any "spray" can technically be classed as nanotechnology (if you define it as "technology at the atomic scale").

Aaah, definition games. Fun.

Re:Nanotech?

[jcorno]

According to one of the five linked articles, it contains silicon and silica nanoparticles. The same article mentions that the problem is only in the aerosol version of the product, not the spray pump. It could just be the propellant causing the problem, but that seems pretty unlikely. I don't think they'd have to resort to using an unorthodox propellant if you can use the stuff in a spray pump.

Re:Nanotech?

[ozmanjusri]

Isn't it just some fancy spray with 'nano' slapped on the label?

It's claimed to have nano-sized particles of silica and silicone suspended in ethanol and water. Silicone is known to be a mild dermal irritant, so I'd guess the illness is a result of silicone inhalation.

The nanotech aspect may be relevant in that the small particle size would allow the spray to bypass the body's protection mechanisms and directly affect the alveoli. That would be consistent with the symptoms described. It's drawing a long bow to call it a nanotech hazard though.

Re:Nanotech?

[Maset]

Have they never heard of silicosis?

Re:Nanotech?

[ozmanjusri]

"to bypass the body's protection mechanisms and directly affect " is a pretty common property of nano particles.

Yes, but it is not a function of nano technology. Any respirable particle (one which is small enough to enter the alveoli) will have similar consequences. That includes things like grain dust, silica, asbestos, metal fume from welding - the whole pantheon of existing nano sized, but not nano tech toxins.

Re:Nanotech?

[Columcille]

I always think of nanotechnology as dealing with self-replicating machines that are at the atomic scale.

You've watched too much StarGate. :)
From Wikipedia:

Nanotechnology is any technology which exploits phenomena and structures that can only occur at the nanometer scale, which is the scale of several atoms and small molecules.

Re:Nanotech?

[Knuckles]

Except that the widespread use of "low"-tech nanotech (like the spray in the story) will increase the number of types of those particles tremendously, and will likely come up with new types all the time.

Re:Nanotech?

[AoT]

Is it so crazy that people are concerned that the very first thing we did with genetic modification on a broad level was to alter food? I mean, what if we had started irradiating all our food when we first discovered radiation? People like you, who unquestioningly support any new scientific advance as good are just as dangerous, if not more so, than those who reject all advances outright.

As for the dangers of the current genetically modified food; we really can't tell. It isn't as if all types of genetically altered food would present the same dangers, some may be perfectly safe, other not so safe. The big problem now is the increasing use of pesticides when growing crops and the increase in price for farmers. Not the big industrial farms, they make up for the price in economies of scale, but the small farms and local producers. It is often cheaper, and more profitable, for small farmers to grow organically.

So on the whole, I have found that I would prefer to not have a relativey new technology pervading our food supply as it does now.

Re:Nanotech?

[AoT]

We have been selectively breeding food, not genetically engineering. And yes, in fact, we do run a greater risk of creating poisonous strains of corn. Before that would have been impossible, or near enough, now we can do it with the inclusion of a simple gene sequence.

GM food is engineered to require less pesticides.

That is at best misleading and at worst outright wrong. The RoundUp Ready line of crops are specifically engineered to resist pesticides so that higher levels can be used. Some plants do require less pesticides, but these are the ones which produce their own pesticide.

As for your contention that GM food reduces the amount of land needed, I'd like some hard statistics on that. If it's true that would be a good thing, but given how wrong you were on the previous point I'll assume you're wrong for lack of evidence.

Re:Nanotech?

[sp0rk173]

There's one problem, environmentally and socially, with GM crops: Monoculture. When you have thousands of individuals with the exact same genetic make up spread across several hundred acres, you have a population ripe for massive dissease spread. Viruses, insects, and especially microorganisms go through many generations in one crop cycle and can adapt and exploit the flaws genetic engineers may have missed or even inserted by mistake. I think it's ludicrous to assume that our research and development can, in the long run, stay abreast of these kinds of threats when there are systematic temporal constraints (funding, peer review, the iterative nature of it, etc) inherent in scientific research that don't exist in nature. The random variation that exists in "natural" breeding prevents a full-on plant pandemic, but when so many individual plants are so genetically similar, it only takes one fungus, virus, insect, etc to take out an entire kind of crop. Even if it is contained, massive economic loss could very conceivably occur.

Why would we want to set that kind of situation up? Oh, right. Because it makes monsanto rich, and secondarily makes congressmen rich. Gotcha.

could be very good...

[joe 155]

One of the problems with the regulation of nano technology here in the UK is that when a product is deamed to be safe no new procedures have to be gone through in order to use the same product on a nano scale, but the impact which they could have could be completely different. I am a fan of nano technology but I see this case as a good thing, it will encourage greater testing and safety procedures whilst not turning people into anti-nano zealots because (thankfully on many levels) no one seems to have died.

Re:could be very good...

[sjames]

It's unfortunate that a LOT more thought doesn't go into products that incorporate nanoscale particles. They probably shouldn't be in home use at all at this point. Many perfectly harmless products can become MUCH more harmful in the form of nano-particles. Further, typical masks and respirators aren't much help for particles that small. Certainly the filters used typically in a central heating/air system won't help.

Nano particles have a way of getting much deeper into a person than conventional aerosols. The conventional aerosol might penetrate a bit into the lung and be eliminated more or less harmlessly while the nanoparticles go right into the bloodstream and into all of the tissues including the brain. There are a lot of products that are definatly not non-toxic but may be used almost as if they were simply because no significant amount normally enters your system.

Nanotech bounding forth with no safety concerns,,

[blankoboy]

I have been wondering why it is that we only hear all the cool and jazzy things related to nano-technology but nothing to address the concerns regarding it. What about the 'grey goop' and the studies that showed the effects of nano particles on fish? Frightening to say the least.

Yet we are all more concerned with getting a 100GB Flash based ipod, cars and clothes that don't ever need to be washed, etc etc.....

Safey first? Bah, $$$ first...

repeat: Nano technology is evil!

[suv4x4]

First, the scratches and broken screens on iPod Nano and now this!

Will Nano particles become the next asbestos?

[LiquidCoooled]

Allowing nano scale particulates to be released in the home seems like a foolhardy way to save a bit of time.
I like the principle of nano tech, especially in embedded applications (like within a ceramic chip casing) but spraying it around just screams of stupidity.

People should just clean their windows manually, a good cloth can be found here.

Nanotech = negative image

[Zouden]

I wonder how long until the word "nanotech" falls out of favour because it becomes associated with dangerous "science gone too far".

We aren't even nearly at the stage of nanomachines ("grey goop"), yet I imagine the public is beginning to feel that everything with the nano-prefix is dangerous. Soon companies and scientists will start using other words to describe the technology. This is fine with me - I actually think that a lot of "nanotechnology" could be better described with other words (same with AI).

Re:Nanotech bounding forth with no safety concerns

[Kream]

Many here will remember Crichton's "Prey", a book that details a nanotech swarm gone mad, and "infesting" a woman to such a degree that her husband, the protagonist, does not realise at first.

A critique of this fearmongering...

"...gray goo would be very difficult to design. It would be far more complex than a car--probably more complex than the Space Shuttle. General Motors recently made headlines by taking only a few months to design a car. It's completely implausible that a failing company could create an evolving gray goo by re-engineering a specialized product in a matter of weeks; this same company couldn't even solve the relatively simple problem of keeping the swarm together in a breeze. Remember that the swarm-bots don't directly replicate; they are built by assemblers using bacterial chemicals. Among other tasks, the scientists would have had to rapidly invent a way to transfer the evolved program out of the successful swarm-bots and feed it back into the assemblers or the bacteria to produce the next generation. This would require a completely new set of molecular machinery."

Full critique available here

Re:Nanotech bounding forth with no safety concerns

[JaredOfEuropa]

At the end of ten hours, there are not thirty-six new replicators, but over 68 billion.

And then their "food" in the petri dish runs out, and the next morning a scientist takes care of the problem with a spray can of "Nano-b-gone". Don't lose any sleep over it... there are plenty of real dangers of nanotech to worry about, such as the one cited in the main article.

What i'm waiting for

[lucaq99]

I can't wait until i can get a nano iPod Nano. I wonder if that will be dangerous if inhaled...

Definitely nanotech

[liquid stereo]

Believe it or not, but this is more nanotech than most of the "nanotech" that you hear/read about. I'm a scientist working in this area, and nanonparticles are not only one of the fundamental building blocks for nano-structured materials but are themselves the attention of scientists, researchers, and engineers working in a variety fields. They're useful for drug delivery, potential gene/protein delivery devices, biomedical imaging, paints, chemical/gas sensors, etc. They're also in all reconstituted orange juice. These concerns are real. Hyperbole and over-reaction on both sides doesn't serve the public.

Any particulate is potentially harmful to lungs

[XNormal]

Any particulate is potentially harmful to lungs. Even the most benign materials. Our lungs are designed to breathe gas, not solids.

Nano is just the latest example of that.

Borg spam

[Ritz_Just_Ritz]

I dunno. I look forward to getting my first spam hawking nanites that will migrate through my body and increase the size of my m4nh00d.

What does the warning label on the can say?

[TEMMiNK]

WARNING! Use of this product may cause side effects!
* Inhalation of this product may lead to the reconstitution of internal organs into basic geometric shapes.

But I mean.. thats ok right? At least they are telling you...

Nanotechnology is just a buzzword

[Pigeon451]

We've been using nanotech for years, the media and industry have decided that it's "cool" and hype it. Nanotech takes the crown away from microtechnology. In 20 years, picotech will be the next buzzword. :)

New nano risk!

[NixLuver]

There is a nanoparticle produced by many modern devices that is deadly to humans. In concentrations as low as 1600ppm, it can cause death in two hours or less, and it's only TWO ATOMS ACROSS! It's called, oddly enough, "CO", and it's colorless, tasteless, and odorless. The FDA should require nano-labels on each nanodangerous nanoparticle! They are putting us at risk every day!

TFA says that nobody involved knows if the product *actually* contains 'nano technology'... It's chemistry, peeps... I doubt this stuff is assembled with SEMs. Really!

Early Adopters have more fun

[sammyo]

Late Adopotors live longer.

Vas ist los?

[craXORjack]

Ich sprayen die "Nano Magic" ohnen die stain und zuddenly ze bottel becommen part auf mein handen! Und mein monocle fuzen to meinen eye zocket! Was ist happenung to mir? Und die voices. Where kommen sie frommen? Und vas ist dies "Kollectiv"? Stoppen mit die sprechen voicen! Nein, nein, Ich nicht funf von sieben! Gott in Himmel, ich must kontacten diese authorities schnell...

Preview Preview preevue!

[WinPimp2K]

respirable asbestos fibers are three to twenty METERS in diameter?

0.01 meters = 1 centimeter, not 10 namometers.

I'm guessing you were referring to micrometers, but if you had previewed you might have realized your mistake (7-10 orders of magnitude?) in trying to use formatting commands.

Your point and others about this spray not being nanotech is absolutley correct.

As for those who dismiss the idea that the problem may be related to the aerosol even though no problems were reported with the pump version, your blind faith in Ludd has been recopgnized. I hereby grant you the rank of Private in the Barbie Brigade ("Math is hard" platoon). If you will state a conclusion in direct opposition to facts plain enough for even you to state them clearly, then you will continue to allow your betters to think for you.("betters" in the purely feudal sense by the way).

Now, if you had instead said something like:

Although all of the reports have been from users of the aerosol product and none yet from the pump product, there should be further study to make sure that the problem is caused by the aerosol. If the actual problem does turn out to be inhaled nano particles, then the aerosol delivery system may be accelerating the onset of symptoms by increasing the concentration of inhalable nanoparticles when they are applied. Once applied, nanoparticles may be released back into the air over time. One possible delayed release method would be shockwaves propogated through the material the product is sprayed on. Such as a door closing. A good experiment would be to lock the marketers of the "nano spray" in a room liberally treated with their product and then subject the walls of that room to multiple shockwave effects (beating on the walls, slamming the doors repeatedly, and maybe playing loud music with a very heavy bass component).

One might also repeat the experiment with the manufacturers of the spray. To determine the "placebo" effect, run two more blind tests with nano-protestors - one group exposed to the nano spray and one group exposed to pine-scented air freshener.

This is still all just hype

[argoff]

The truth still is that there are a lot of huge entrenched industries that see nanotech as a competitive threat and are desperate to regulate it before it eats into their revenue stream. Just ignore this, it is just another trumpet horning in the wind. It is just another excuse looking for a problem to regulate. Compaired to the potential benefits that nanotech has to offer, problems like these are like the hairline scratch on a 3 ton statue of gold. The nano age is here to stay like it or not.

Re:Nanotech bounding forth with no safety concerns

[DRJlaw]

Eric Drexler's Engines of Creation , an exhaustive exploration of the possibilities and risks of nanotechnology, speculates about a grey goo scenario where the exponential growth of out-of-control nanobots overtakes the world.

"Thus the first replicator assembles a copy in one thousand seconds, the two replicators then build two more in the next thousand seconds, the four build another four, and the eight build another eight. At the end of ten hours, there are not thirty-six new replicators, but over 68 billion. In less than a day, they would weigh a ton; in less than two days, they would outweigh the Earth; in another four hours, they would exceed the mass of the Sun and all the planets combined - if the bottle of chemicals hadn't run dry long before."

We already have nanomachines that replicate themselves every 1000 seconds or less (that's a doubling time of roughly 17 minutes). They're called bacteria. We use them to treat sewage, alter milk into cheese, and produce synthetic insulin feedstock, along with several thousand other uses. Some of these applications have been in existence for most of recorded history. Startlingly, the Earth has not been converted into bacteria.

The Grey Goo argument is an interesting layman's theory that falls apart if you give it any real thought. You cannot build a self-replicating machine out of simply anything. The machine will rely on critical "nutrients", whether they are nitrogen, phosphorous, or copper, that simply aren't available in large quantities in much of the environment. The machine will also require a readily available energy source, which ultimately means solar power since life does a reasonable job of exhausting chemical based energy sources on the surface of the planet.

Face it, evolution favors favors fast replication, efficient resource utilization, and wide geographic distribution. In four billion years, using technology that we can just barely duplicate (mostly by scavenging parts from nature), evolution has created -- TADA! -- algae and pseudomonas (for example). The last time I checked, these self replicating micromachines weren't threatening to turn my house into more algae and pseudomonas at any significant rate.

Grey goo is a nice science fiction story, but frankly it's never going to happen. If you want to fear deadly self-replicating nanomachines bringing an end to civilization, then you need to focus on infectious diseases (mostly viruses) like the rest of the highly educated public.

Possible dangers of nanoparticles

[Apa]

I recently heard of research showing that nanoparticles (that is, particle of nanoscale size) can penetrate the blood brain barrier among other things. Aparently they can also enter the body trough the skin and lungs and interact with cells in previously unseen ways etc. That mean great posibilties for new medicines etc of course, but it would also sugest a posibility for serious healt hazards...

http://www.tuc.org.uk/h_and_s/tuc-8350-f0.cfm
http://www.technologyreview.com/Materials/wtr_15 847,318,p1.html