Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Regulating Nanotechnology In Cleansers

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the don't-let-it-inside-you dept.

An anonymous reader writes to mention a Washington Post article about new EPA regulations on nanotech in cleaners. Nanoparticles are now used to do everything from waterproofing pants to making faster-burning rocket fuel, but one of the most common new applications is their use in household cleaners. The EPA is handing down new regulations saying that these silver-coated nanoparticles have to be safe for the environment. Their concerns stem from the fact that a large majority of cleansers, eventually, end up in large bodies of water. From the article: "Silver can kill microbes even in bulk form but is more efficient as nanoparticles. Nanosilver also can be easily incorporated into a variety of products, such as food containers and shoe liners. That characteristic has made it the most common type of nanomaterial marketed to consumers, according to a database of about 350 nanoproducts maintained by the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. Nanosilver has also been added to bandages to speed healing. That use and others in which the particles are applied to the body are regulated not by the EPA but by the Food and Drug Administration, which is currently considering whether it needs new rules for nanoproducts."

65 comments

  1. How useful is tihs EPA oversight? by 0jjjjjjjjjj0 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    From the article ...
    Jones said the final rules will be spelled out in the Federal Register sometime in the next few months. He acknowledged, however, that the EPA oversight will apply only to products advertised as germ-killing -- a detail that at least one major retailer has apparently noted.

    The Sharper Image, which until recently advertised as anti-microbial several products containing nanosilver, has dropped all such references from its marketing materials.


    So the companies that want to get around this only have to change how they market their products? Sounds like an effective use of government time/money to me.

    It should be all or nothing - you're controlling/monitoring all these nanosilver-based products, or none. It's like Australia's GST - it's applicable on all items - well, except healthcare, some foods (eg, orange juice is GST-free if purchased "to go" yet incurs the 10% tax if consumed in-store), international travel, and anything else the government of the day wanted to exclude.

    Exclusions like this make for an impractical management model which requires constant updating and refinement. The result? Companies say "I didn't know about that change to the law" and get off lightly.

    --
    WANRING: This warning is misspelt.
    1. Re:How useful is tihs EPA oversight? by timeOday · · Score: 1
      The Sharper Image, which until recently advertised as anti-microbial several products containing nanosilver, has dropped all such references from its marketing materials.
      So the companies that want to get around this only have to change how they market their products? Sounds like an effective use of government time/money to me.
      Huh? If they can't prove the stuff is antimicrobial, they shouldn't be allowed to advertise it as such. Sounds good to me.
  2. Those Silver Coins We Once Had by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 0

    I guess those silver coins we once had through 1964 were a pretty good idea after all. Couldn't pass infections through the money supply very easily that way.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    1. Re:Those Silver Coins We Once Had by cp.tar · · Score: 1

      IIRC, microbes can't survive on bronze, either... that's why bronze doorknobs are not a bad thing at all.

      Please correct me if it isn't bronze; I may have translated it wrongly.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
  3. Silver keyboards and mice by zcubed · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Someone needs to coat keyboards and mice with these nanosilver particles since I have to touch so many at work.

    1. Re:Silver keyboards and mice by Ruff_ilb · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that that would be the blingest thing EVER.

      --
      http://www.TheGamerNation.com/Forums
  4. This stuff needs to be biodegradable by Animats · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Releasing nanoparticles of an elemental metal into water may not be a good idea. Unless there's some chemical or biological process in the ecosystem that reliably prevents this stuff from building up over time, it's not good.

    It's a real problem. Carbon nanotubes are both toxic and non-biodegradable. Yet their Material Safety Data Sheet doesn't recognize this at all.

    The form of the tubes matters. Toxicity comes from the loose carbon bonds at the ends. This can't be treated casually; it needs to be better understood.

    1. Re:This stuff needs to be biodegradable by eric76 · · Score: 1

      My first question is whether we'll see an increase in argyria.

      Argyria is a non-health threatening medical condition resulting from the ingestion of silver that turns the skin greyish.

      It would be great for Halloween, but not the rest of the year.

    2. Re:This stuff needs to be biodegradable by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Argyria is a non-health threatening medical condition

            WRONG. You can DIE from Argyria. You have been misinformed. Oh sure, most people stop using silver salts when they start turning blue - and thus the disease is limited to the skin. But persistent use of silver can cause: coagulation disorders leading to potentially fatal hemorrhage, chronic kidney failure, fatty changes in the liver, kidney and heart, mucosal irritation leading to chronic bronchitis and/or diarrhea, neurological problems (guess what we use to see nerves properly under a microscope - Silver Nitrate lo and behold - this stuff kills neurons) that affect fine motor coordination, night vision, taste. It can also cause seizures, and respiratory paralysis.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    3. Re:This stuff needs to be biodegradable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "guess what we use to see nerves properly under a microscope - Silver Nitrate lo and behold - this stuff kills neurons)"

      I dunno, the fact that they're under a microscope sort of told me they were dead already...

    4. Re:This stuff needs to be biodegradable by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1
      Silver Nitrate lo and behold - this stuff kills neurons) that affect fine motor coordination, night vision, taste. It can also cause seizures, and respiratory paralysis.

      Not saying that colloidal silver is safe, but AFAIK, colloidal silver is small particles of elemental silver suspended in water. Silver nitrate is an ionic compound containing silver (Ag) that dissociates to form Ag+ and NO3- ions in water. Saying that silver is toxic because silver nitrate is would be like saying that hydrogen is toxic because HCN (hydrogen cyanide) is extremely toxic.

      -b.

    5. Re:This stuff needs to be biodegradable by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      colloidal silver is small particles of elemental silver suspended in water.

            And what happens to that elemental silver when you mix it with 1 molar HCl, which is what you have in your stomach? It's silver SALTS that are toxic. Elemental silver is not known to be toxic.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    6. Re:This stuff needs to be biodegradable by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      Westminister buckyballs had the same issues. When they were discovered they were going to be used for all sorts of medical applications.. with all that molecular space they could be used to hold several molecules of cutting edge drugs. When they tested it on the usual mice, they all got tissue damage and some got cancer because the buckyballs didn't break down as planned... they were so tough and so small they would literally cut right thru cell walls destroying things instead of helping. Sounds like the same thing they're afraid of here. The particles are so small they can get into places the "raw" element wouldn't be able to and cause more trouble.

    7. Re:This stuff needs to be biodegradable by khallow · · Score: 1

      I don't know of any metal that isn't soluble in water at those particle sizes. Even gold is though I gather it would take considerable time for gold nanoparticles to dissolve. I think an acidic environment would rapidly hasten this process. The question would then be if the nanoparticles dissolve in water faster than they are introduced?

  5. Silverado by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Pure silver is not toxic to humans, but some chemicals containing silver can be very harmful. Nanoscopic particles might have different lifecycles in the complex univers of human biochemistry, producing those dangerous chemicals, or others not previously seen. These new delivery methods must be tested before being assumed safe.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  6. Look on the brightside by edwardpickman · · Score: 1

    Silver plated bacteria.... Pretty.

    1. Re:Look on the brightside by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      might I say: Bling-Bling?

    2. Re:Look on the brightside by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Silver plated bacteria.... Pretty

      Think T-1000.

  7. Hazmat by toddhisattva · · Score: 0

    "There was a hazardous materials spill of silver nanoparticles today, in which a gram of the dangerous material was released into Bouldin Creek. (A gram is roughly one-millionth the length of a football field.)"

    1. Re:Hazmat by Rowanyote · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      How many grams to the hectare?

      Rowanyote

  8. It's a funny situation by juushin · · Score: 1

    We need the EPA to OK the use of nanoparticles in cleaning agents, and yet, diesel engines spew out metric tons of organic nanoparticles on a daily basis. It seems a bit ironic.

    1. Re:It's a funny situation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least nobody is advertising disel engine soot as good for you.

    2. Re:It's a funny situation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ya know . . . before spewing this you should know that right now my diesel runs more cleanly than your gas-guzzler. It is the rules of the road, it could not have been imported otherwise.

    3. Re:It's a funny situation by juushin · · Score: 1

      First, I ride a bike, so unfortunately, there is no comparison. Second of all, no, your diesel really doesn't run cleaner than a gas-powered ICE. Unless you are driving a Mercedes that is only a year or two old, then no, your emission dumps out more particulate matter than a gasoline engine. Diesel engines don't combust the fuel completely. They are messy. You have probably never seen the puff of black smoke that escapes your exhaust when you drive off from a red light, but everyone else behind you has. Third, 'spewing' is a strong word. It implies (arrogantly) that the person making the statement doesn't know what they are talking about when they post. I am a chemist and I understand combustion like you obviously don't understand your car.

  9. And Copper coins too by ndg123 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Copper is a pretty good antiseptic to, though obviously a bit expensive these days.

  10. Silver is good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Silver is a very powerful antiseptic.
    I've been using it for quite a while, known as colloidal or ionic silver.
    Cuts heal faster with less scaring.
    No colds in over 2 years [I drink it for other reasons, but it is a side benifit]
    The city of Boston [if I recall correct but in Mass. anyway] cut swimming pool costs by lowering chlorine [very poisonous] and adding ionic silver.

    So tell me who is whining here but the Big Pharms.
    If I can take care of all my major infection issues for pennies instead of paying them, they will stop it.
    Yes, they tried and have FDA regulations that it not be sold except as a *herbal* product, meaning no claims it will do anything.

    I make my own so I know what I am getting for about $1.80 for 1 gallon of pure distilled water and $0.15 of silver.
    This can be done with 3 9volt batteries but I prefer a controlled process with a $160 machine.
    So for less than the Doc, had full of 'scripts, and back to the Doc...I have a permanent solution.

    In the article only one person has something of a valid claim.
    Silver will also kill algae, so to some marine environments this is an issue.
    But the level used for health is in the 20ppm range and should fine in *open waters*.

    Have feared this happening...

    --WAP3

    1. Re:Silver is good by LarsG · · Score: 1

      What are the levels required for argyria?

      --
      If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
    2. Re:Silver is good by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Silver is a very powerful antiseptic.
      I've been using it for quite a while, known as colloidal or ionic silver.
      Cuts heal faster with less scaring.

            Is this your professional recommendation, doctor? Yes, silver is toxic - which is why it's an antiseptic. Beware, however - there is no mechanism for the human body to get rid of excess silver. If you continue to intoxicate yourself you will suffer the consequences. I invite you to look into the potentially fatal medical condition called "Argyria" before you continue to use colloidal silver.

            - A concerned physician

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    3. Re:Silver is good by Dunbal · · Score: 2, Informative

      What are the levels required for argyria?

            Between 5 and 20 grams. Lethal dose (at which 50% of humans die) is 500mg/kg. For the average 70kg male this is around 35g, not much more than that required to produce the clinical disease.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    4. Re:Silver is good by dr_dank · · Score: 2, Funny

      I invite you to look into the potentially fatal medical condition called "Argyria" before you continue to use colloidal silver.

                  - A concerned physician

      No doubt invented by the medical industry as a scare tactic to keep the commoners from cutting into your source of income. I suggest you look up "knowitallatosis" while you're at it, Mr. Science Man.

      Closed captioning of this post for the sarcasm-impaired has been made possible in part by a generous grant from the Natalie Portman Foundation - committed to excellence in hot grits

      --
      Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
    5. Re:Silver is good by Dunbal · · Score: 1, Informative

      I suggest you look up "knowitallatosis" while you're at it

            Here, some links from reputable sources for the terminally lazy. I don't know it all, but I know a lot more than you about this particular subject, at any rate. Sure, you can believe that doctors are "making this stuff up". Or you can believe the snake oil salesman when he promises to cure everything with silver. Eventually you'll come to us anyway. I have a special rate for people like you.

      http://www.emedicine.com/derm/topic595.htm

      http://dermatology.cdlib.org/111/case_reports/argy ria/wadhera.html

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=11107524&dopt=abstrac t

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd= Search&db=pubmed&term=argyria&tool=QuerySuggestion

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    6. Re:Silver is good by dr_dank · · Score: 1

      *sigh* Another Natalie Portman Foundation grant down the drain.

      --
      Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
    7. Re:Silver is good by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Another Natalie Portman Foundation grant down the drain.

            LOL, I got so pissed at being called a "know it all" I didn't even READ that ;)

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    8. Re:Silver is good by argoff · · Score: 1

      Please show me one person who has died from Argyria. Please state your medical credentials. Argyria is not known to be fatal, it never has been, it is a discoloration of the skin and that is all, and it only happens with extreme doses of silver such as 18 ounces of raw silver. You could probably drink 100 gallons of nano particle saturated water and not get a fraction of that. You are more likely to be bitten by sharks 10 times, and struck by lightening 5 times than to suffer from it. Silver is NOT toxic to humans, only to bacteria, that is why it is so popular as an anti-biotic. Also, it is true that the liver and kidneys don't filter it out, but the body can get rid of silver thru hair growth, nail growth, normal skin regeneration, laser treatment, and a what is called a "nician flush" (that is probably more dangerous than just leaving the silver there, but people who have had overdoses don't like the skin color of it). At todays low doses, the body is more than capable of getting rid of it faster than it accumulates it.

      Instead of being concerned about a silver overdose, you should be concerned about the EPA. First off, they are treating human health as less important than generic environmental causes - and they know it, notice the thanksgiving weekend press release. Second off, they are regulating nanotechnology, which is bullshit. It used to be fear of the rail roads, then fear of machines, then fear of electricity, then fear of computers, and today fear of the internet, and tommorow fear of nanotech. We've gone thru all this before. We don't need protection from nanotech, what we need is for the government to get off our back and stay off.

      Finally, third off. Silver is also a monitary metal that competes with the dollar as a currency, and it hasn't gone unnoticed that the federal reserve can not afford anything to happen that drives up it's value. They have saturated the economy with so much debt loaned out as dollars that a a spike in precious metal prices would kill them. Not to mention that the "shorts" in silver market (held by the biggest US banks) exceed the inventory in the market as I speak. Why are they trying so hard to suppress the price of silver? It's been used as an antibiotic and in common coins for over a century, and now all of a sudden the government is trying to regulate it's use. I call bullshit.

    9. Re:Silver is good by dr_dank · · Score: 1

      I didn't even READ that ;)

      You may be a highly-trained physician, but you're definitely a slashdotter first. :)

      I'll bet you tell your patients that, In Soviet Russia, cancer is dying of THEM!

      --
      Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
    10. Re:Silver is good by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      I'll bet you tell your patients that, In Soviet Russia, cancer is dying of THEM!

            Nahh, I tell them that in Korea only old people get Cancer, and that Cancer is like a beowulf cluster of cells...but they should welcome their new cancer overlords...

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    11. Re:Silver is good by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Please show me one person who has died from Argyria.
      Abstract from Neurology. 2004 Apr 27;62(8):1408-10. Myoclonic status epilepticus following repeated oral ingestion of colloidal silver.
                      * Mirsattari SM,
                      * Hammond RR,
                      * Sharpe MD,
                      * Leung FY,
                      * Young GB.
              Department of Clinical Neurological Sciences, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.
              The authors report a case of a 71-year-old man who developed myoclonic status epilepticus and coma after daily ingestion of colloidal silver for 4 months resulting in high levels of silver in plasma, erythrocytes, and CSF. Despite plasmapheresis, he remained in a persistent vegetative state until his death 5.5 months later. Silver products can cause irreversible neurologic toxicity associated with poor outcome.
            Abstract from J Clin Pathol. 1994 Jun;47(6):556-7. Systemic argyria.
                      * Prescott RJ,
                      * Wells S.
              Department of Histopathology, Bolton General Hospital, Farnworth, Lancashire.
              A 74 year old man presented with signs and symptoms of mild cardiac failure. His face and chest were severely discoloured, which was thought to be due to cyanosis. He deteriorated and died of bronchopneumonia. At post mortem examination multiple organs, including the skin, showed silver pigment deposition; he also had a gastric malignant neuroendocrine tumour. He gave no history of contact with silver compounds. Systemic argyria caused by chronic ingestion of silver compounds is a rare condition which, apart from its cosmetic effects, is thought to be relatively harmless; it is not thought to be carcinogenic. This condition can pose diagnostic problems for both clinicians and pathologists.

            Want more?
            I see no need to personally identify myself to you and everyone else on the internet with my precise credentials, however I am a general practitioner graduated from an accredited university and licensed to work in two countries including the US.

            Now that I have backed up my knowledge with references, care to share with me how you arrive at the conclusion that you can drink 100 gallons of nano-particle saturated water with no ill effect? I haven't seen any randomized double blind clinically controlled prospective studies that point this out.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    12. Re:Silver is good by argoff · · Score: 1

      Yes I do want more. Both of these people were over 70 and and other things could have esaially led to the same condition. In fact, both were probably already taking the silverbiotic to relieve something that was already tormenting them. The 2nd case, almost looks like a mis diagnosis based on the color of his skin.

      Also, did you read your own excerpts. The 2nd clearly says that Argyria is thought to be relatively harmless other than skin coloration. Exacty as I said, and what you didn't.

    13. Re:Silver is good by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      is thought to be relatively harmless; it is not thought to be carcinogenic. This condition can pose diagnostic problems for both clinicians and pathologists.

            Read the whole thing. Better yet, read the article. Better yet, continue to live with your delusions. I have other things to do than to waste time with you since obviously you'll never be satisfied. Good day sir.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    14. Re:Silver is good by Ninjaesque+One · · Score: 0
      IANADBMFHSDFAAM(I am not a doctor but my family have been doctors for about a millenium)

      At post mortem examination multiple organs, including the skin, showed silver pigment deposition; he also had a gastric malignant neuroendocrine tumour.


      Not giving any opinions on the argyria fatality rate, but this clearly states that silver pigments were deposited in his organs. Cause of death is ambivalent from the abstract alone, but it's quite clear that the guy had argyria.

      Anyways, too many antibiotics are never too good for you, anyways, with drug resistance and so on. Anyways, silver is too heavy to be effectively transfered into bloodstream from digestion. Feel like injecting molten and/or colloidal silver anytime soon?
      --
      Ninjas and pirates. How piquant.
    15. Re:Silver is good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More people die from lightning strikes than shark bites, and your so called "statistics" are just pulled out of your own nether regions.

  11. Prediction of the future by Kohath · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    These products are useful and help people. But they seem high-tech and hard to understand.

    My prediction:

    Some publicity-seeking scientist will figure out a way to kill an animal with these materials in some unrealistically large dose or something like that. There will be press reports about the "hidden danger" of these products lurking in your home. The Sierra Club will issue a press release about these products.

    Protests. California will ban them. Then they'll get taken off the market.

    The actual facts won't matter. If they're not dangerous, it won't matter.

    The Sierra Club will use this for fund-raising. The press will give each other awards for their reporting on the "dangers" of these substances.

    Folks like me calling for people to think and form their own opinions based on reality will be dismissed as tools of the hated "nanoparticle industry" or some similar ad hominem.

    1. Re:Prediction of the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Folks like me calling for people to think and form their own opinions based on reality will be dismissed as tools of the hated "nanoparticle industry" or some similar ad hominem.

      You mean you aren't already getting your monthly shill checks? Come on, let's get you into the billing system.

    2. Re:Prediction of the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "These products are useful and help people. But they seem high-tech and hard to understand."

      Glad you're here to clear that up. There I was expecting some dreadful scientific inquiry, with experiments and all that gobbledygook, but thankfully your assertion has obviated such a necessity. Kohath proclaims: "these products are useful and help people."

      "Some publicity-seeking scientist will figure out a way to kill an animal with these materials in some unrealistically large dose or something like that. There will be press reports about the "hidden danger" of these products lurking in your home. The Sierra Club will issue a press release about these products."

      Someone else's prediction:

      Lab tests will prove beyond doubt that some of the materials are safe and some cause cancer in humans.

      Industry will launch a well-funded publicity and lobbying campaign, convincing everyone that the cost of avoiding the carcinogenic ones would destroy our economy, turn the Earth into a Hell of vicious man-eating pine trees, and deprive us of such vital technology as antibacterial synthetic beach sand.

      Cancer rates will slightly increase, fish yields will slightly decrease, and laws will be passed to outlaw labelling your product as "non-carcinogenic" because it might discourage consumers from buying the carcinogenic competition.

    3. Re:Prediction of the future by Kohath · · Score: 0, Troll

      There I was expecting some dreadful scientific inquiry, with experiments and all that gobbledygook, but thankfully your assertion has obviated such a necessity. Kohath proclaims: "these products are useful and help people."

      Yeah. I guess you live in a world where people spend the time and money to invent things and routinely use things that aren't "useful" and don't "help people".

      Proclaiming something as useful and helpful because people use it for their benefit is such a ridiculous stretch. What was I thinking?

    4. Re:Prediction of the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In your original post, you cry out against people irrationally, with no valid evidence, villanizing these materials -- then in the same breath you irrationally, with no valid evidence, praise them. This is either hypocrisy, or you're asking the audience to "form their own opinions based on reality" without actually studying reality.

      "What was I thinking?"

      Yes, indeed.

    5. Re:Prediction of the future by Kohath · · Score: 1

      ...you irrationally, with no valid evidence, praise them...

      I said they were useful and helpful

      Once again. How is it irrational to proclaim that something is useful based on the fact that it is used by people? Am I to assume that all the users of the product are doing it by accident?

      And how is it irrational to suggest that these products are helpful? If the users of these products are using them on purpose, rather than completely by accident, then why are they doing it? To help themselves? Would a more rational assumption be that all the products' users hate themselves and are using the products in order to cause themselves harm?

      I guess there needs to be a government-funded study to clear up this up.

    6. Re:Prediction of the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Yeah. I guess you live in a world where people spend the time and money to invent things and routinely use things that aren't "useful" and don't "help people".

      Have you ever heard of asbestos insulation or mercury-poisoned hatters? I guess you live in a world where people never spend time nor money routinely using things that directly cause death and disease in the user.
    7. Re:Prediction of the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, asbestos and mercury cured hats rarely if ever cause disease for the end user. You can verify this yourself.

      As you say, though, the people installing said materials (hatters and insulationeers [tm]) are the ones that get the diseases. With the correct procedures, these people would not become sick either.

      But, that being said, they are still dangerous items with better replacements now, so why go to the effort of protecting people from installing dangerous materials when you can just not use dangerous things in the first place?

    8. Re:Prediction of the future by geekoid · · Score: 1

      actually asbestos flakes with time, and because of the way it does flake is harmfull to the end user.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  12. colloidal silver!? by kurthr · · Score: 2, Informative

    They're going to regulate a common substance (colloidal silver) that's been around and caused no problem (other than gun metal gray skin) in humans consuming it daily at high concentrations? I don't think it's a miracle cure, but it's been used as a mild disinfectant to treat burns and non-potable water for over a hundred years. Come on, if you're worried about Argyria you can't be that worried about toxicity.
    http://homepages.together.net/~rjstan/index.html

    Silver is highly reactive (with oxygen) so with such a high surface area it won't remain silver for very long at all, but will react with something else to become inert. I do suppose that if you fed huge amounts to a fish, and it turned black then predators might eat it more quickly, but that's silly. If the quantities were actually significant (like the amount of chlorine and ammonia we release) then I might be worried, but right now the cost of the material and manufacturing process make large quantities absurdly expensive ~$200/gallon.

    Let's worry about something that's actually a problem rather than jumping on the "nano" everything bandwagon. There are much bigger environmental problems, they just happen to make big companies money.

    What total idiots!
    Their own study indicates that humans who have consumed "a bottle a day for 30 years" suffered from argyria and little else.
    http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0099.htm#reforal.%20 Last%20accessed%202/01/05

  13. This should be insightful by Flying+pig · · Score: 1
    In fact, I have just bought an in-water external radiator for my boat and it is made of copper nickel alloy with silver solder. Although it is more expensive than stainless steel, the claimed benefit is that it does not suffer from fouling because algae and invertebrates will not attach.

    I'll report back in five years as to whether it is true or not - if I'm still around, and if Slashdot is still around.

    --
    Pining for the fjords
    1. Re:This should be insightful by geekoid · · Score: 1

      but what can happen is a the nonorganic material gets stuck, and then things begin to grow on that.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  14. NEW Technology? by SandyBrownBPK · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How about photographic prints? THEY also contain silver "nano-particles!"

  15. It might just be me , but by geekoid · · Score: 1

    the following line:
    "
    Closed captioning of this post for the sarcasm-impaired has been made possible in part by a generous grant from the Natalie Portman Foundation - committed to excellence in hot grits
    "

    may indicate sarcasm, and possible someone who was poking fun at the people who think Dr. have one big conspresy to get there 20 bucks.

    I'm glad to read someone who is concerned, and may even be knowledgable(this is slashdot) about a subject, but I have no idea how to end this sentence.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  16. I feel the same way about macro-particles. by Vellmont · · Score: 2, Insightful


    We need the EPA to OK the use of nanoparticles in cleaning agents, and yet, diesel engines spew out metric tons of organic nanoparticles on a daily basis.

    I'm with ya brother. These bastards at EPA have been doing the same thing for YEARS with macro-particles. Lead is all regulated up the ass.. You can't put it in paint, it's been taken out of gasoline, etc. And yet every winter the city is allowed to just dump sand around the streets!

    I mean, all macro-particles are equal right? We all know that when two things are the same in one way, they're the same in every single other way.

    --
    AccountKiller
  17. Up with bacteria! by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Overuse of cleaners and germicidals may actually be a problem, and not in the way that you'd think. The more pathogens we kill, the less we're exposed to on a regular basis. And our immune system needs regular exposure to bugs to stay "in shape" and also to develop antibodies that may be useful against stronger bugs. Unless you're HIV+ or otherwise immunocompromised, you don't need all surfaces in your home or even in your kitchen to be perfectly germ-free.

    -b.

  18. Since when... by Thumper_SVX · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Since when did we start calling "grit", "nanoparticles"? This is just silver dust being put in cleansers... so the particles are small? So what? Is this the latest "cool fad"?

    I suppose my dog no longer leaves puppy bombs in the back yard... they're just massive piles of millions of "nanopoop".

    1. Re:Since when... by cgenman · · Score: 1

      They're nanopoop if they're small enough to pass through your vaccuum cleaner's filter.

      --
      The ______ Agenda
    2. Re:Since when... by toddhisattva · · Score: 0
      Since when did we start calling "grit", "nanoparticles"?

      Since the yellow journalists went through all the trouble of learning to say and spell "nanoparticle" so they can scare their idiot readers!

      I'm of split opinion on this silver test case. First opinion, it's completely stupid to waste time on it. Second opinion, this will be good because the outcome of the test case is predetermined because it's harmless ole silver, and so technology can once again progress past the ecoweenies.

      Third opinion, is kill all the journalists.

  19. More problematic than nanosilver by McLuhanesque · · Score: 1

    A major concern is what happens when the nanosubstance enters the body with the ability to traverse the cellular wall. Check out some of the articles on nanoparticles in cosmetics and tanning solutions.

    We recently had to replace a washing machine. The salesman was touting the LG model that is lined with nanosilver, claimed as bacteriocidal. When I pointed out that substances that otherwise might be more or less safe take on different bioactive properties when in nano form, the salesman became very concerned and decided not to recommend that particular model any longer. (The other LG washers, btw, are really nice.)

  20. learn some history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lots of dangerous products have been pushed by 'brilliant minds' such as your own, ending in the death of hundreds or thousands of people.

  21. nanocleansers by gaelvin · · Score: 1

    The EPA is going to find it very difficult to regulate products containing engineered nanoparticles. Nanoparticles are present in many organic compounds, many manufacturers hide the fact that their products contain nanoparticles, and even defining what constitutes them can be difficult. And yet, consumers are quick to blame unfamiliar technologies, as when over 100 people were treated for respiratory problems after using Magic Nano cleanser. As it turned out there was no nano in Magic Nano, but that didn't stop one victim from claiming, "I blame nanotechnology!"

  22. Will no-one think - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    - of the nano-werewolves?!