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.
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.
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.
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 ]
So
.... ... or they could just go outside and breathe some diesel fumes?
* If they are one particular kind of nanotube
* and they are not highly charged (their normal state)
* and they are made airbourne (which they normally arn't)
* and someone breathes this in (unlikely in many applications)
then they may have an increased possibility of lung cancer
Puteulanus fenestra mortis
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
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.
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.