Slashdot Mirror
Nanocosmetics Used Since Ancient Egypt
Roland Piquepaille writes "French researchers have found that Egyptians, Greek and Romans were using nanotechnology to dye their hair several thousands years ago. Nanowerk Spotlight reports they were using lead compounds which generated lead sulfide (PbS) nanocrystals with a diameter of only 5 nanometers. At a moment where many people wonder if the use of nanoparticles is safe, it's good to know that nanotechnology has been widely used for a very long time."
...is hardly the same as using nanotechnology to repair your brain or otherwise ingest.
And aside from that, I'd hardly call this "nanotechnology" just because a hair dye process deemed effective by ancient Egyptians coincidentally happened to generate particle small enough to meet the definition of "nanoparticle".
Additionally, this is yet another questionable Roland Piquepaille submission.
Well...humans have done other things for a long time that were none too healthy. A few examples:
So just because people used to do something for a long time doesn't necessarily make it harmless.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
This is another Roland Piquepaille article.
Huh? I'm pretty sure the Egyptians didn't do a lot of work to decide if it was safe. The lead used would be unsafe regardless of the nanoparticulate nature of the compound. Lead was used in lots of other ways through history, too. That doesn't make it safe.
These same people were drinking wine from lead goblets, I don't know if they are the ones we should be looking at for safety advice.
...that doesn't mean they were doing so *safely*. We don't know the health risks ourselves now, let alone what health problems the Egyptians, Greeks or Romans experienced - hence this is completely irrelevant.
At a moment where many people wonder if the use of nanoparticles is safe, it's good to know that nanotechnology has been widely used for a very long time.
Rubbing your head with lead sulfide definitely sounds safe enough, I guess that proves that nothing can go wrong with using technology.
We've made enough and more mistakes along the path of our history to assume one of our "reinventions" is safe merely because somebody else used it before. Mad hatters, heavy metal colours, hallucinogenic potions, trepanning - just find a more upto date list.
Unless you want to add some mysterious oriental magic to it ... *meh*
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur
a 100% mortality rate does not bode well for the method...
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
People have been smoking for much longer than the tobacco companies have been selling cigarettes. They've also been drinking alcohol for even longer than that. Neither of those is safe today (the former more unsafe than the latter).
Lead sulphide? Galena? Safe? Yeah, let's also make orange and red pigments from orpiment and realgar while we're at it.
The fact ancient peoples used something does NOT necessarily make it "safe" in any sense.
While lead sulfide[PDF] isn't particularly hazardous, I wouldn't categorize it as safe. Lead poisoning is on my list of things to avoid. YMMV.
Insisting on "correct" English is like saying that there is only one, definitive recipe for chili.
Without a doubt, this is the worst post ever.
The Egyptians used nano-particles? There's a world of difference between a very small mineral grain and a synthesized nano-bot.
Get a clue.
-B
Here it is... http://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid=791.php
In general, any "nanotechnology" that isn't encapsulated will have this problem; a very large specific surface area can make things hazardous even if the substance is otherwise chemically inert.
And I'll second parent's assertion that it's not actually nanotechnology; it's friggin' chemistry. When you can program it, or it can reproduce, *then* you can call it genuine nanotech; not before.
When do people get this into their thick heads: Correlation does not equal causation. I know this might not be the best application for quoting this, but the fact that nano particles were 'accidentally' used does not make this 'nanotechnology'. Yet another attempt to hype this new term and in the process completely obfuscate and dilute its true meaning. Nanotechnology is the science and technology of building devices, such as electronic circuits, from single atoms and molecules. I'm fairly certain the ancient Egyptians were a few steps behind that technological achievement. I'm even miffed when they call microparticles (e.g. sunscreens, lubricants, etc.) a result of 'nanotechnology' - it's a grayzone yes, but we should keep our definitions in check.
Q: "When, exactly, did Slashdot become so retarded?"
A: During the Bush admistrations war on science, reason, morals and ethics.
Need Mercedes parts ?
Also, talking on mobile phones is also safe, since new data has uncovered that ancient Egyptians used to talk as well!
Send email from the afterlife! Write your e-will at Dead Man's Switch.
calling what the ancient egyptians were doing with PbS "nanotechnology" is like saying me popping my zits is "ecosystem terraforming"
"At a moment where many people wonder if the use of nanoparticles is safe, it's good to know that nanotechnology has been widely used for a very long time"
oh yeah! i just farted! therefore, global warming isn't a threat to mankind!
that's about the same level of logical deduction there dear author!
who wrote this crap and who greenlighted it?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
... their life spans were totally almost half of ours.
The people who wore these hair dyes were typically of the upper classes. The upper classes might well live to something even we would recognize as an advanced age.
Pepi II is thought to have ruled for 94 years. Ramses II lived to see his 90th birthday and his heir was in his 60s when he took the throne, ruling for about another 20 years.
Do not confuse life expectency with ages that might well be fairly commonly attainable. A huge chunk of the the lower life expectency is due to high infant mortality and death during childbirth, scewing the statistics. If one made it to the 21st year; and didn't work on pyramids and such, one's life outlook was held to be something around the classic age of man; four score and ten. That's why it's the classic age.
KFG
Pewter is not inherently a problem since it is primarily tin with a bit of copper, with possibly some other non-toxic metals. You can still get pewter drinking vessels and utensiles, which are safe to use.
The problem is that some pewter contains lead to add color and change the hardness. This is especially true of older pewter. This pewter is not safe.
Modern pewter is generally not a problem.
I read with some skepticism the negative comments[1] regarding Roland Piquepaille, some postulating that some staff member of Slashdot has a secret agreement to accept his submissions.
...
1 743091 735211 685241 579791 57186
Well, now, this takes the cake. Egyptians using nanoparticles? This is news?
Ahem, In Other News
When Gandhi incited civil disobedience against British rule by picking up a pinch of salt from the sea, those sodium chloride particles were less than one nanometre across![2] OMG! The Indians used nanotechnology to overthrow the British!!! WTF! Is this a harbinger of the war-like uses of nanotechnology??? BBQ!!!1!!11!one!1!
Can we have a topic devoted to Roland Piquepaille so that we can adjust our viewing preferences in accordance with the amount of adoration we feel for this Submitter of Many Slashdot Articles?
-----
Footnotes:
[1]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?cid=14501811&sid=
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?cid=14436063&sid=
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?cid=14049437&sid=
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?cid=13236725&sid=
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?cid=13188470&sid=
[2] (Yeah, I know the actual particles of salt he held were more than 1nm across, but then it dissolved into the sweat from his fingertips, and the salt regrouped into nanoparticles that spread out in a thin layer across his fingertips.)
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]
Romans and Greeks used lead paints to make their faces white. After the fall of Rome, people selectively poisoned themselves with arsenic to make themselves look paler. And, given the health impacts of stuff like silicosis and asbestos damage, both of which are related to particle size and shape, I'd say that any small particle had better be eyed pretty warily by anyone with brains, no matter what idiots in the past have done with it.
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
hah! that fool is completely ignoring all the available evidence!
At a moment where many people wonder if the use of nanoparticles is safe, it's good to know that nanotechnology has been widely used for a very long time
Ok, all the comments about lead-not-safe and this-isn't-nanotech aside, I think there's something to be said for regulating compounds differently based on particle size.
We do know that some substances changes chemical properties depending on their particle size. We also haven't yet researched the health risks of nanotubes very well, but I think we should do so before spreading tons of the little critters around in field emission displays. They might be quite hard to clean up after the fact.
This is not a call for "safety above all" - it's just an appeal to consider what is already known. (A comparison with cell phones, for instance, would show that cell phone frequencies are by known physics very unlikely to influence chemical reactions beyond thermal effects, hence allowing them per default is quite sensible).
Oh, and why did I write "nanotech" instead of nanotech? Because the term has become a buzzword so broad as to be almost meaningless, not least because thousands of labs have gained access to funding by putting a "Nanotech lab" sign on the door while continuing their usual work. (My place is partly like that). So be careful when using the term "nanotech" - it might mean vastly different things to different people and the ambiguity is being exploited.
Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
How's this?
Africa showed evidence of brain surgery as early as 3,000 B.C. in papyrus writings found in Egypt. "Brain," the actual word itself, is used here for the first time in any language. Egyptian knowledge of anatomy may have been rudimentary, but the ancient civilization did contribute important notations on the nervous system.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
"Researchers have also uncovered an Ancient Egyptian mandible, dated to approximately 2750 BC, having two perforations just below the root of the first molar, indicating the draining of an abscessed tooth. Recent excavations of the construction workers of the Egyptian pyramids also led to the discovery of evidence of brain surgery on a labourer, who continued living for two years afterwards."
"The Edwin Smith papyrus is the oldest known surgical text, dating back to the 1600s BC, although it contains information dating back to 3000 BC. It is an ancient Egyptian textbook on surgery, and describes in exquisite detail the examination, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of numerous ailments."
http://www.medgadget.com/wiki/wiki/Surgery
It is a medical Wiki page, so believe at your own risk...
"But this one goes to 11!"
Ignoring the whole nanoparticle issue for the obvious absurdity, people have been using unsafe items to make themselves more attractive since the first monkey noticed how luxurious his fur was when he ate arsenic.
A brief list of methods used to enhance appearance that cause long-term damage:
And we're supposed to entertain the idea that the Egyptians using nanoparticles in cosmetics is somehow a sign of safety. I have just one question. What the hell are you smoking?
The parent has a very good (though slightly off topic) point. The primary carcinogens in tobacco (and marijuana) are those that manifest themselves as particulate carbon based compounds (the same kind of thing that is carcinogenic in many things that have been exposed to a flame: burned, charred, and blackened food included (yes, even that delicious blackened cajun catfish) and the posited (and confirmed) carginogenic properties of many modern nanotech manufacturing biproducts (and primary products, for that matter)). I personally am waiting for the time when both tobacco cigarettes and pot are sold in small, self-contained cigarette-like vaporizers (assuming the Rockefeller drug laws truly and officially fade into the sunset). Once that happens, the only health risk of cigarettes will be heart disease (from the nicotine), but that risk, statistically, will be no worse than a moderate coffee habit (caffeine can cardiac arythmia and other heart conditions, as can nicotine).
The real barrier to entry in this "health conscious" tobacco product market is the tech - at the moment, an effective vaporizer will cost you at least $200, and requires a 110V electric socket - I, being rather far removed from this kind of technology (i'm a CS guy), wonder what it would take to make portable, battery (or chemically) powered vaporizers possible.
As a tobacco smoker, I anticipate (and quite reasonably forsee) the invention of the cancer free cigarette. It's quite reasonable to assume that the tobacco companies are working on something, based on tobacco, that is addictive because of its nicotine, but because of its delivery method or chemical make-up, does not cause cancer....talk about a cash cow, and imagine the marketing campaign...("Cancer free Marlboro's - all the smooth flavor with none of the guilt")
As a pot smoker (and college student), I'm saving my money to buy a digitally controlled vaporizer (as anything else is essentially worthless, at least as far as reducing carcinogens is concerned).
Just to continue this thought, for all of those out there that are curious about the effects of man's second best friend, marijuana, (it's been used for various reasons in various cultures for at least as long as the domesticated dog), but are concerned about the carcinogenic effects of smoking it, the healthiest way to consume it is ingestion. Just cook up 1-2 grams of midgrade marijuana per 3 - 4 tablespoons of butter or vegetable oil or olive oil (depending upon what the recipe requires)i n a pan at low-medium heat, until the marjuana is a golden brown, filter out the solid remnants of the plant, and using the same volume of the remaining filtered butter/oil that any given recipe calls for (as long as it requires fatty substances such as oil or butter) for a deliciously intoxicating (and in no way carcinogencic - assuming you don't burn it) treat.
To wrap this comment up - and bring it back on topic, consider this to be a minor insight on how to improve upon (without negating the benefits of) an unhealthy practice which the human race has been doing for thousands of years, as opposed to softening the perception of the dangers of nanomaterials by citing the ubiquitous and unquestionably bad, uninformed practices of an ancient (and quite dead) civilization.
The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. - Albert Einstein