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