Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
Someone needs to coat keyboards and mice with these nanosilver particles since I have to touch so many at work.
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.
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
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.
Silver plated bacteria.... Pretty.
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.
Copper is a pretty good antiseptic to, though obviously a bit expensive these days.
What are the levels required for argyria?
If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
"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.
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.
0 Last%20accessed%202/01/05
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.%2
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
How about photographic prints? THEY also contain silver "nano-particles!"
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.
...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.
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.
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?
I suggest you look up "knowitallatosis" while you're at it
y ria/wadhera.html
= retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=11107524&dopt=abstrac t
= Search&db=pubmed&term=argyria&tool=QuerySuggestion
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/arg
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
*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?
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.
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
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
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.
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?
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
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.
-b.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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!"