Slashdot Mirror
Nanotubes "As Deadly as Asbestos"
Stony Stevenson writes "Certain carbon nanotubes may be as hazardous to humans as asbestos.
A paper to be published in Nature Nanotechnology suggests that inhaling certain types of nanotubes can lead to the formation of mesothelioma, a type of lung cancer commonly caused by exposure to asbestos.
"This is a wakeup call for nanotechnology in general and carbon nanotubes in particular," said Andrew Maynard, co-author of the report and chief science adviser to the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies." I'm really hoping that those medical face masks get popular again. That's a look that should really be cyclic, like bell-bottoms and thongs. Update: 05/21 19:18 GMT by T : See also this page at the Nanotechnology Project, which features a link to video commentary from Andrew Maynard, the researcher mentioned in the above-linked article.
The effective word there is "breathing." There's TONS of asbestos out there that needs to be left well enough alone (unless it degrades). Removing it may put more of it in the air than leaving it alone ever would.
I'm really hoping that those medical face masks get popular again. That's a look that should really be cyclic like bell-bottoms and thongs.
You need full Respirator gear if you want to stop nano-tubes from getting in your lungs. Even then, with it being so small, your only chance of stop those tubes is if they are even long enough to get caught in the filter.
Thank GOD people have taken the initiative and developing nanotube filters.
Not sure why this is a troll. This has been one of the probable issues with carbon nanotubes since day 1, and now there is evidence suggesting that yes, actually, it is an issue.
Anyone who is genuinely surprised should seriously evaluate their "New tech never has downsides" prejudice. When we refuse to acknowledge issues like this early, we end up confirming the paranoia of the anti-tech people, and making ourselves look like jackasses.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
The first thing I thought when companies started selling carbon nanotubes for research was that we had no idea how toxic this stuff could be. The most obvious question was what would it do to your lungs when inhaled. Not a big surprise.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
It's still an environmental hazard. Better to know that this is an issue with nanotubes, so we can take early precautions and keep this from being like asbestos; a perfectly useful substance that was demonized because it was deployed poorly, and hurt a lot of people.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
for this industry. The door has been opened to litigation. Meaning the products will all soon contain a "lawsuit tax" embedded into them. The choice of item they associated nano tubes with is nothing short of inflammatory. Asbestos? The live of lawyers everywhere.
no, all they had to do is find some group with some respectability to push stuff out like this. Even if it gets disproved in years the lawsuit opportunities have just expanded.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
The problem is when said micro particle are supposed to be indestructible (an attribute shared by both asbestos and nanotubes). You got a constant activity of the immune system, which never manage to actually destroy the intruders. Only white cells die and newer cells come trying to clean up the mess, in an endless cycle.
This inflammation over-activity is what leads to the cancers.
But besides, there's nothing incredible there. If one creates a new material that is supposed to be indestructible, there are bound to be problems - both environmental and health - due to that fact that, yes, indeed, the material can't be destroy / got rid of.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
For every WSJ article trumpeting the apparent success of the latest "free market except when we don't like it because it hurts rich people" program, there's another side to the story.
"Venue shopping" doesn't mean finding jurisdictions that will take your "frivolous" case (quoted from TFA). It means finding the best court for your client. And jurisdiction statutes keep you from filing your case anywhere you want. If the court's county (or city or district) doesn't have a logical relationship with the injury, you can file suit there, but your case will be dismissed or transferred. It's a waste of time.
If you get past the FUD that the legion tort-reform entities put out, and actually think about what's going on here, we're talking about doctors' insurance rates. Doctors, who get paid obscene amounts of money. Doctors, upon whose judgment we rely to -keep us from dying.- Doctors, whose innocent mistakes can mean families left without a wage-earner, forever.
They've got enough money to have a giant lobby (which happily works with the insurance lobby, one of the most evil IMHO), and they've got enough ego to develop Jesus complexes. I, for one, am not worried about whether they get a windfall vis a vis a cut in malpractice-insurance rates by 40%.
At the end of the day, if we want doctors to move to Texas and we want to incentivize it by reducing premiums, we can either divert tax money toward subsidizing premiums, which puts the burden on everyone (i.e., the consumers of medical services), or we can do like Texas and put the burden on injured people and their families by cutting into the amount they can recover. Which sounds more fair to you?
It brings attention to the idea that "grey sky" is just as deadly as "grey goo."
It means that any nanobot capable of self-reproducing is a planet-destroying threat.
If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
I just wouldn't be jumping the gun with how dangerous it is until further studies are done.
Small molecules can get in the spaces between cells cause and cancer. That's not new, just ask benzene.
/. insta-pundit who seeks only to find a way to sound smarter than scientists, first considers the possibility of something causing cancer based on their domain knowledge, then tests to see if their hypothesis is true.
Sometimes I wonder if some scientists are so specialized they can't see the forest for the trees.
Oh, so you would have classified carbon nanotubes as a definite carcinogen based on this "forest" view you have? A view that doesn't even understand how cancer is actually caused by these substances?
There's nothing inherently surprising about this. It's how science works. A real scientist, instead of a
Five years ago: Nanotubes may cause cancer.
Today: Research shows nanotubes can cause cancer.
So what's your beef again?
The enemies of Democracy are
Not to mention these mice are genetically predisposed to develop cancer. These strains in the lab are not nearly as diverse genetically as humans. If 90% of mice get something that does not mean 90% or even 9% of humans would get the same disease or problems. Scientists try to accomodate for the shorter mice lifetime by increasing the dose of the suspect cancinogen. I always thought that was not too a reasonable trade. Higher doses can cause different problems than a low dose over time. of course as someone said the press just sees the chance to slam science by reporting bad news or to sell more papers/magazines with sensational stories based very loosely on fact.
The problem is in short carbon nanotubes. If they can finally figure out how to make them longer we won't have the health problems and maybe I can ride a Space Elevator in my lifetime.
I'm certain that free-floating carbon nanotubes inhaled are a problem. They might even be a serious skin irritant, and that should be considered. Comparing it to the hazards of asbestos, however, doesn't really fly, and here's why.
Asbestos is a fiber that is most dangerous when used in insulation or as part of an ablative surface like a brake pad. In the first case, it is specifically being manufactured into a loosely bound form so that it maximizes the number of small air pockets in between. In the second case, it is constantly being worn away by its designed use, resulting in small particles of it completely covering every surface near it.
Carbon nanotubes are being used for their structural strength or conductivity. Their value is derived largely from how tightly it can stay bound to the rest of the structure that it is part of. As a result, there are no imaginable use cases where more than negligible free-floating nanotubes would exist in an environment.
This is not to say that this isn't useful information. Although a USE case for nanotubes doesn't exist, there are definitely cases where conditions do exist for the particles to become airborne. Any time you use a subtractive process (buzz saws, lasers, water cutters, whatever) to shape nanotubes then you'll get particulates that need to be managed. Similarly, we should know better than to use nanotubes to build any type of strike plate. They probably wouldn't handle that kind of stress well anyway. Their MIGHT be a danger in high-vibration environments, but generally a thin coating would deal with that.
In any case, it's useful that a profit-centric organization will be informed that NOT taking precautions can be more expensive than the precautions, and this is always valuable. They can't say "but we didn't know!"
Wake up - the future is arriving faster than you think.
But what does it have to do with *tech*? Or nanotubes? I mean, breathing in ordinary silica or quartz -- one of the most common natural materials on the surface of the planet -- causes silicosis. Therefore, it doesn't matter if you are breathing rock dust in a quarry or breathing something manufactured, such as fiberglass: it's bad for you. Breathing dust of *any* type into the lungs is demonstrably harmful, and can lead to chronic and debilitating diseases. In that respect, how are nanotubes any more harmful than other common natural or artificial materials?
Then there is the exaggeration of asbestos danger. "As deadly as asbestos"? In most situations, so what? Asbestos is deadly if you work in a mine or manufacturing plant for asbestos products and you are exposed to it in the air in LARGE quantities every day for YEARS. Otherwise the risk is really no worse than for any other common type of particulate and the technical solution for heavy exposure is simple: wear protective gear so you aren't breathing the stuff in, and make sure it doesn't escape into the surrounding environment.
If it is sitting in a product minding its own business (i.e. not being mechanically ground up and suspended in the air when it is in use) the risk is zero. It's not like the stuff is irradiating the surrounding area with "asbestos rays" or something.
Of course there can be a downside to tech, but there's a downside to ordinary natural materials when humans use them in ways the human body can't handle. Check out the DHMO website for example.
Silicon is especially dangerous because its atomic structure is similar to carbon, and it can "pollute" lungs' chemicals, substituting carbon. Then trouble begins because lungs don't work well, they kinda turn to stone.
... from the forgotten corner in europe
You do however still get idiots that argue that things are perfectly safe even decades after they have been found to be a major problem - which is why I've seen that asbestos sparkles prettily in the wind when I worked near such an idiot. The stuff appears to be perfectly safe if you don't breath it in. However it is such a menace since it breaks into particles that are light enough to drift on the wind, get into your lungs, never get out and irritate tissue until that portion of lung is dead. Carbon nanotubes are also likely to get stuck - hence the care taken since day 1.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.