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.
Breathing solids into lungs which are supposed to process gases is a bad thing. More at 11.
From TFA:
"Short or curly carbon nanotubes did not behave like asbestos and, by knowing the possible dangers of long, thin carbon nanotubes, we can work to control them," he said. "This is good news, as it shows that carbon nanotubes and their products could be made to be safe."
Thank god I can keep up my habit of snorting curly nanotubes.
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
I'm really hoping that those medical face masks get popular again
uh, where does CmdrTaco live that medical face masks were once a popular fashion item? I certainly don't remember that fad. Bell bottoms, I do unfortunately remember, but not medical face masks...
That's a look that should really be cyclic like bell-bottoms and thongs.
There are some people who should never be seen cycling in thongs.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
I am jaded enough to think there are lawyers happy to see studies like this. I know some people who worked with asbestos a long time did get legitimately ill, but it was sad to see how false and exaggerated claims of illness were used to make money and ruin businesses. The extent of ploy might be suggested in the tort reform that took place in Texas:
"Why Doctors Are Heading for Texas"
"In sum, these reforms have worked wonders. There are about 85,000 asbestos plaintiffs in Texas. Under the old system, each would be advancing in the courts. But in the four years since the creation of MDLs, only 300 plaintiffs' cases have been certified ready for trial. And in each case the plaintiff is almost certainly sick with mesothelioma or cancer.
No one else claiming "asbestosis" has yet filed a pulmonology report showing diminished lung capacity. This means that only one-third of 1% of all those people who have filed suit claiming they were sick with asbestosis have actually had a qualified and impartial doctor agree that they have an asbestos-caused illness."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121097874071799863.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
It's wise to be careful with nanotube technology of course - and also to be careful with studies that give the legal types excuses to plunder.
Certain cellulose centitubes may be as hazardous to humans as a rabid badger. A paper to be published in Nature Centitechnology suggests that inhaling certain types of centitubes can lead to hemoptysis and accute asphyxia, a condition commonly caused by exposure to rabid badgers. "This is a wakeup call for centitechnology in general and wooden toothpicks in particular," said Andrew Maynard, co-author of the report and chief science adviser to the Project on Emerging Centitechnologies.
The situation with nanomaterials is the same as the situation with radioactive materials when that field was new. Having worked at Los Alamos National Laboratory, I can say that there used to be practices that were normal that are now regulated to hell, with respect to materials handling, dust generation/cleanliness, etc. Currently, I work somewhere else, and I work with nanomaterials all day long - and when I say nano, I mean powders with individual particles of about 5-20 nm diameter. All the personal protective equipment I usually don is nitrile gloves and safety goggles, and try to work with the material under a fume hood. We try to have safe work practices, but I have the feeling that in 40 years regulations will make you do all your work with them in gloveboxes/cleanrooms/respirators.
Long thin nanotubes, of course, are the ones that have the greatest potential for making superstrong construction materials.
... the dust and debris of worn out nanotech ... as a major theme. Nano-tight plastics and filters, collectively called "nanobar" (which seemed to be a generic term, not a brand name) were all over the place.
Neal Stephenson's Diamond Age had the health hazards of "toner"
Welcome to the Diamond Age, don't forget your respirator.
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
Not exactly. A carcinogen like benzene works differently than a nanofiber like asbestos or carbon tubes. Benzene's affect is purely chemical. Asbestos (and nanotubes) cause damage through physical damage. One mechanism is when the fibers are longer than about 17 microns and are too long for white blood cells to envelop (frustrated phagocytosis). Because the fibers can work their way into lung tissue these fibers form a constant source of inflammation and scarring. Another is the fibers can spear individual cells and cause them to leak and physically interfere with chromosome function. It is worth being careful.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
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