Regulating Nanotechnology In Cleansers

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."

Comments

And Copper coins too

[ndg123]

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

colloidal silver!?

[kurthr]

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

Re:Silver is good

[Dunbal]

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.

Re:Silver is good

[Dunbal]

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