Slashdot Mirror


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."

18 of 173 comments (clear)

  1. Nanotech? by shadowcode · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:Nanotech? by aussie_a · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:Nanotech? by jcorno · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:Nanotech? by ozmanjusri · · Score: 5, Interesting
      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.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    4. Re:Nanotech? by ozmanjusri · · Score: 4, Interesting
      "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.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    5. Re:Nanotech? by AoT · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

  2. could be very good... by joe+155 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    *''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
  3. repeat: Nano technology is evil! by suv4x4 · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  4. Nanotech = negative image by Zouden · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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).

    --
    "A week in the lab saves an hour in the library"
  5. Re:Nanotech bounding forth with no safety concerns by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 3, Interesting
    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.
    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  6. Any particulate is potentially harmful to lungs by XNormal · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
  7. What does the warning label on the can say? by TEMMiNK · · Score: 5, Funny

    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...

    --
    "The stupider people think you are, the more surprised they will be when you kill them..."
  8. Nanotechnology is just a buzzword by Pigeon451 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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. :)

  9. New nano risk! by NixLuver · · Score: 4, Funny

    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!

  10. Early Adopters have more fun by sammyo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Late Adopotors live longer.

  11. Vas ist los? by craXORjack · · Score: 5, Funny

    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...

    --
    Liberals call everyone Nazis yet they are the closest thing to it.
  12. Preview Preview preevue! by WinPimp2K · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    --

    You either believe in rational thought or you don't
  13. Re:Nanotech bounding forth with no safety concerns by DRJlaw · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.