Slashdot Mirror
Nanomaterials More Dangerous Than We Think
bshell writes "A Canadian panel of leading scientists warns that nanomaterials appearing in a rapidly growing number of products might potentially be able to enter cells and interfere with biological processes. According to a story in the Globe and Mail, the Council of Canadian Academies concluded that 'there are inadequate data to inform quantitative risk assessments on current and emerging nanomaterials... Their small size, the report says, may allow them "to usurp traditional biological protective mechanisms" and, as a result, possibly have "enhanced toxicological effects."' The council is an independent academic advisory group funded by the federal government, but operating at arms-length from Ottawa. The 16-member panel that wrote the new report included some of Canada's leading scientists and top international experts on nanomaterials."
Things like "grey goo" could never really happen.
Hey, man, don't tell me how much dangerous I've thought nanomaterials are. This doesn't surprise me in the least.
It's all about the information. And what we do with it.
I thought that this was an accepted risk from the beginning, there was no real debate about it.
Show me some research. Otherwise this is a bunch of pointless worrying, which is what it is at this point.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
But the nanos' danger is real and big.
Rendez-vous in a few years to see the bad side effects...
-- Rastignac was here.
Great, now the world's militaries will utilize nanomaterial warfare and stifle the world's population but drowning us in an infinite sea of dust we can't see...
... More at 11.
These nano things called "atoms" apparently can do all kinds of crazy things, even combining and connecting to each other! We need to ban them.. think of the children!
In all seriousness, these things are treated just like every other chemical and substance, but it's headlines because it has the word "nano" in it, so that makes it cool all of a sudden. Dioxin molecules are small too, can we get an article on how you should not brush your teeth with it?
Oh and fields from electric razors... and radioactive materials from nuclear tests...
... protective mechanisms"?
We have to live with the fact that many things natural and unnatural effect us every day, and with due diligence even the most harmful of materials can be useful. What if it's ability to enter cells and "to usurp traditional biological protective mechanisms" is precicely what we need to cure AIDS, cancer, and every other ailment mankind faces from natural threats that definitely can "usurp
Jonah HEX
Horror & SciFi Erotic Nudes
In the US, we all count on GM agriculture to provide us with cheap and plentiful fruits and vegetables as well as provide feed grain for our chemically-enhanced cows and chickens. Genetic manipulation provides us with our way of life and for the most part we are happily accepting of it.
In other parts of the world, this type of "frankenscience" makes people uncomfortable. There is a strong pushback against GM crops because for all the benefits of them, the drawbacks are as yet unknown.
Should we plow ahead with these new technologies, or should we move as slowly as possible to delay unwanted contamination? We can create test groups and phased deployments of these new products, but there is no good plan for widespread deployment that takes into account both the safety of the product users as well as exposing them to potential dangers against their will. Either we sell technologically-improved products, or we don't.
Which is the right mindset?
wouldn't we have evolved defences?
also, and related, the following, by John C. Monica, 2007.
The distinction between "engineered," "incidental," and "natural" nanoparticles is beginning to blur. A vocal contingent advocates regulation of the first category without much focus on the later two. We recently asked whether this distinction is meaningful for certain EHS purposes. The human body may not differentiate between exposure to the three categories of materials. On the other hand, it makes sense to be concerned with reducing man-made risks first.
Here is a related question: What happens to this definitional scheme when naturally occurring nanomaterials (ex/ carbon nanotubes and fibers) are harvested/mined and then used for commercial purposes? While they are not "man-made" in the traditional sense, they presumably pose the same exposure risks as engineered nanomaterials created in a lab. The industry is currently exploring cheaper ways to mass-produce nanomaterials. Consequently, we will undoubtedly see more "natural" nanomaterials being used in commercial applications. This issue merits serious consideration in any attempt to regulate nanotechnology and/or create uniform standards and nomenclature.
"Engineered" = purposefully created; man-made. "Incidental" = unintentionally created; by-product of human activity. "Natural" = found in nature; volcanic rock; smoke.
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
Resistance is Futile...
Repkicators are dangerous.
Film at 10pm
(On the SciFi channel)
Yep, new episodes of Stargate Atlantis start tonight.
we better start developing organic weapons that the machine can't take control of.
You are presently two extremes as if they were the only options.
EITHER "plow ahead" OR "move as slowly as possible". This is a false set of choices. When you're walking down the street are your only choices to either run as fast as you can or move as slowly as possible?
To say that greater oversight makes sense is very different from "as slowly as possible". At this point we know that GM crops are interbreeding with non-GM crops. At the very least this is being used as yet another front in the We-own-your-life-through-controlling-your-IP war. Farmers who not only didn't want GM crops but actively tried to avoid them are being sued because seeds have blown across the plains and corporations are demanding payment for the resulting plants. Does this seem like grounds for investigation to you? It sure does to me.
There are dozens of these issues, if not many more. And, on top of everything else, after a quarter century of Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush, our regulators themselves are long overdue for more transparency. After all, Tyson Chicken was one of Bill Clinton's biggest campaign supporters and if you think that didn't affect the way his people dealt with this kind of thing then you haven't been paying attention. Not to mention the waves of junk science that the EPA and other government agencies have been subjected to from their own politically-appointed bosses since Dubya took office.
Should we huddle in a corner and live on raw twigs? No. Should we let anybody do anything anywhere anytime? Also no. But there is a middle ground and that is where we should be.
It's all about the information. And what we do with it.
Leprechan? Is that a short Irish camwhore?
Does this mean we'll start seeing nano particles as a new form of free radicals, complete with store shelves full of "nano anti-oxidants"?
Great. What we really need is more snake oil pseudo-medicinal junk for sale, because clearly there isn't enough already.
Alright I'll say what everyone is thinking:
Asbestos
That one material and the resulting deaths are why nano-anything is scary nowadays.
To quote from TFA:
Typical of the research was a report earlier this month in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that found when nano-sized particles were given with chemotherapy, doses of the anticancer drug could be cut by about 95 per cent, without any reduction in therapeutic effect.
But the new report recommended that, given that the impact of nanomaterials on living things is "poorly understood,"...
I don't know about you but if my biochemistry teacher hammered anything into us it was two interrelated concepts:
- Just about everything in the human body runs off fewer than twenty mechanisms and these same mechanisms are used over and over to do many different things.
- All of these mechanisms are interconnected. You change how one is working and you'll affect at least two or three.
Let me add a third: when you massively change the strength of a reagent, you change what it does. Dilute hydrogen peroxide is a useful and safe antiseptic. Increase the concentration twenty times and you have a rocket fuel that melts your flesh.
If any approach makes some approach twenty times as powerful then it is doing other things, too. Count on it. We've seen this over and over, from birth control pills to heart medication.
It's all about the information. And what we do with it.
I always think nanotechnology materials are like man-made virus...
"A Canadian panel of leading scientists warns that nanomaterials appearing in a rapidly growing number of products might potentially be able to enter cells and interfere with biological processes... Their small size, the report says, may allow them "to usurp traditional biological protective mechanisms" and, as a result, possibly have "enhanced toxicological effects." The 16-member panel that wrote the new report included some of Canada's leading scientists and top international experts on nanomaterials."
Ok, that's a lot of ifs and maybes. How about you do the testing before adamantly stating that "Nanomaterials More Dangerous Than We Think." And how about more than 16 people, not all of which are scientists and experts on nanomaterials, actually chime in on this.
Contains small parts. Keep away from children.
Asbestos is actually a great example, as there was only one specific kind that really did the damage most people think of, and the rest was hand waving similar to this. It just worked due to fears of the Jury easily being mislead by information they do not understand, which is why most of the "wins" are settelments.
a handful of selfish greedy people are no match for millions of selfish, greedy people -u4ya
Not to be confused with Leper-Chan.
Things like nanotubes, buckyballs and nanosilver particles DON'T EXIST IN NATURE. How do you think nature (even our own cells) will react to them?
I read another article in physorg concerning nanosilver, and how it has the potential to kill soil bacteria, which are a fundamental part of the ecosystem.
It's not the atoms you moron - it's how they're artificially combined and exposed to the environment.
Want a more common example: chromium picolinate, which is sold as the perfect solution for losing weight. The truth is, in tests done with fruit flies, it generates chromosomal aberrations, impedes progeny development,[13] and causes sterility and lethal mutations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromium_picolinate#Health_claims_and_debates). And it's already being sold commercially!
I don't have a problem with nanomaterials being manufactured for, say, microprocessors. But adding nanoparticles to common household items like refrigerators, stoves, and even the socks you wear, that's going too far.
Just look where the industry and big corporations have situated us. Without proper safety research in antibiotics, we now have to cope with drug-resistant "superbacteria". Well, these bacteria didn't exist 50 years ago! And yet antibacterial soap, shampoos and whatnot are STILL being sold in mass quantities.
Mankind is destroying the planet because of greedy idiots who only see money. Anyone who says "where are the safety studies?" is called a fearmonger who opposes progress.
Health risks are going to be identical no matter how you categorize a material.
Consider asbestos. Asbestos particles are certainly very similar in many respects to some of the engineered nanomaterials. If I manufacture artificial asbestos, it will have the same toxology as 'natural' asbestos.
The meaningful question in my mind is 'Is there a significant source of natural exposure to material X?' If so then we would be reasonably justified in making the assumption that similar exposure to the same material from man made sources will have similar effects, and we also have grounds for making a default assumption that the human body can tolerate the material to a certain extent.
However it seems to me that there are or will be a large class of nanomaterials which are substantially different from anything found in nature. It would seem prudent to study the toxicity of such materials carefully before they see wide use.
Personally I don't see a close correspondence between GMOs and nanomaterials. GMOs incorporate genetic elements which are already found naturally in a variety of organisms. Furthermore even if we designed some 'artificial genes' the proteins expressed via those genes are not going to be radically different from those found in existing organisms. Obviously such a protein would need to be tested for toxicity, but it would be no more likely to be hazardous than one isolated from a natural source.
To my mind the majority of the fears the public has about GMOs are largely unfounded. There are various issues, but it is far more tenable to believe GMOs are largely benign than it would be to believe that nanomaterials are. Thus a stance of 'GMOs are safe unless proven otherwise' is not unreasonable, but a similar stance with regard to nanomaterials probably is not.
So my opinion would be that engineered nanomaterials should be studied for biological effects before widespread commercial deployment. That might not be necessary for certain limited engineering uses, but we SHOULD be reasonably cautious. If you want to sell me a consumer good which contains engineered nanomaterials, they should require review and approval in some fashion similar to the rules in place for potentially toxic chemicals. And those rules themselves probably require beefing up.
The other issue that has never been addressed with any types of materials is synergistic effects. Any given material might be safe in and of itself, but in the real world we get exposed to a 'soup' of compounds and materials every day. Seems to me the major thing we should all be worried about is just how thick does that broth get before we're done in by the entirely unknown and unforeseen interactions between them?
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
What if it's ability to enter cells and "to usurp traditional biological protective mechanisms" is precicely what we need to cure AIDS, cancer, and every other ailment mankind faces from natural threats that definitely can "usurp ... protective mechanisms"?
Great, then we can make powerful drugs with nanoparticles. But that just reinforces the point that maybe we should think twice before going along with current trends, such as liberally slathering nanoparticle-laced sunscreen on ourselves.
It's more likely than you think.
The days of the digital watch are numbered.
[Citation Needed]
Radiation is extremly safe and it does cure many disease that have no alternative treatment. We are bathed in radiation at every second of every day with no ill effects but just like oxygen and water, in excess it will kill you very quickly. Just because it COULD kill you doesn't mean it is dangerous.
If you RTFA you will find that they say nano could enter cells, could cause cancer, could disrupt cellular processes OR it could be perfectly harmless (as harmless as dirt) BUT there isn't enough information to tell.
Personally I think the largest concern with nano is carbon nanotubes because they have the potential to cause the same problems as asbestos. But what is important is to do your due diligence and TEST anthing you want to sell.
There is no reason to fear nano, only to be a little cautious.
Using radiation
In the Diamond Age, Neil Stephenson already touched on this very concept.
http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/content.asp?Bnum=245
IIRC, Harv isn't doing well in this particular scene since he's trying to explain why he's hacking up a lung after being outside for a little while.
"Nanomaterials More Dangerous Than We Think" seems to directly contradict "there are inadequate data to inform quantitative risk assessments on current and emerging nanomaterials." At most it would seem "Nanomaterials May Possibly Be Dangerous"
Well, the worrywarts can daub some Scalosian water on their skins and speed up things a wee bit...
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
One word on your mockery: Asbestos.
Or a new alien form like those on Threshold TV show ?
I'll give a quick personal experience opinion on this...
Great Grandmother worked at McCord Gasket during WWII era, total 15+ years on the job. She described how the "girls" would be covered head to toe in asbestos dust during the workday, they wore simple paper masks when needed due to the quantity of dust in the air. Neither her or anyone she knew had medical problems from the type of asbestos used.
Jonah HEX
Horror & SciFi Erotic Nudes
What I am thinking is that the website found the article and twisted its original text.
Example: 'Their small size, the report says, may allow them "to usurp traditional biological protective mechanisms"', which can be helpful when the body cannot protect itself with its antibodies, T-cells, etc...
There are several forms of asbestos:
SLTC Working definition of Asbestos: A term for naturally occurring fibrous minerals. Asbestos includes chrysotile, crocidolite, amosite (cummingtonite-grunerite asbestos), tremolite asbestos, actinolite asbestos, anthophyllite asbestos, and any of these minerals that have been chemically treated and/or altered. The precise chemical formulation of each species will vary with the location from which it was mined. Nominal compositions are listed:
Chrysotile Mg(3)Si(2)O(5)(OH)(4)
Crocidolite Na(2)Fe(3)(2+)Fe(2)(3+)Si(8)O(22)(OH)(2)
Amosite (Mg,Fe)(7)Si(8)O(22)(OH)(2)
Tremolite-actinolite series Ca(2)(Mg,Fe)(5)Si(8)O(22)(OH)(2)
Anthophyllite (Mg,Fe)(7)Si(8)O(22)(OH)(2)
Of these 6 forms of asbestos there is no controversy whatsoever in the medical literature that all but chrysotile asbestos are carcinogens. There is a minority view that chrysotile asbestos does not cause mesothelioma (the signature cancer) but the majority view, is that it does. The debate, in my opinion, is largely moot since almost no 'pure chrysotile' asbestos exists - it is usually contaminated with small, but meaningful amounts of the other (amphibole) asbestos fibers at 1/2 - 2% concentrations by weight.
Why worry if you don't know the result?
...."
..... I am horrified ..
I don't know what to think about such claims. THe majority of people around me is thinking like this.
How can I change this ? How can I change the fact, that there are zilions of people on this earth, so stupid to think like that ???
And they are producing this nano-shit and they are singin : "Why worry
I don't know what to do
"Fearmongering" tag? Give me a break. If there's any data on stuff like this, even if it's not enough to be conclusive, I want to know about it. True, maybe the title should've bee "Nanomaterials MAY BE More Dangerous Than We Think", but not every mention of possible but unproven danger is fearmongering.
This isn't Wikipedia, and there is no requirement on Slashdot to spoon feed information. Go do your own research and refute it if you can, or Google a few variations of asbestos and mesothelioma, and you should see the crystals that destroy the macrophages are indeed specific.
a handful of selfish greedy people are no match for millions of selfish, greedy people -u4ya
"Ugly bags of mostly water".
Seems I saw at least one study of carbon nanotubes in mice that showed that they were not problematic. And the summary's subject is, as usualy, misleadingly false. More true would be a headline "Nanomaterials Might Be More Dangerous Than We Think but then they might be safer".
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
The problem with the "Label the GM foods" hue-and-cry is that the labeling schemes don't make any attempt to distinguish between different varieties of GM foods. So it is an all-or-nothing labeling, and there's no way for the consumer to say, for instance, "I know that I need to avoid strain XYZ4023 of GM rice, but I trust strain XYZ4012, which was determined safe by the FDA in 10 years of testing and contains enzymes to control my cholesterol which may prevent me from dying an early death."
For GM food labeling to be sensible, it needs to treat each GM strain as a seperate item on the ingredients list so consumers can make an informed choice about which strains they are willing to trust.
I don't think Aubrey de Grey will live to see it, let alone me, but I can see a time when we will have nanorobots repairing our bodies cell by cell. Imagine figuring out how to put telomeraise back into chromosomes without causing cancer!
In fact I can see a time when everything you use will be made of interlocking nanorobots. No death, no want, in fact it may well be that we discover a way to reanimate formerly living cells; you will have all of the biblical prophesies of heaven on earth come true, thanks to scientific research.
Look at now compared to medevil times; you most likely live in far greater opulance than 10th century kings.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Consumer Reports had an article on this a year ago.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
Unfortunately when the supervisor is out of sight (and sometimes even when he is around), OSHA and everything it stands for gets dumped in the trash faster than you can say "profit".
The guys on most building sites I know are more than happy to ridicule any of their wannabe-play-by-the-rules colleagues who doesn't go along with the tough guy line:
This sort of conversation is followed by presumed atmospheric fiber saturation mayhem as said wall covering is quickly demolished. Nobody takes their complaints to OSHA, either anon or by name, as everybody wants to keep their jobs as recession bites. One time a whole cloud of the white dust was floating up and over the site towards the neighboring properties with moms and kids running around.
How about not being a pedant and realizing that although you can't prove anything absolutely safe, you can do some basic due diligence to show that it's not horribly toxic.
Do you want to be the guy that gets the first new thalidomide baby? If there were any justice in the world, people like you, who claim we don't need to test new technology to determine what damage it might cause, should be the ones to suffer.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Why do guys like you want to kill off any new industry using fears of the unknown? This anti-capitalistic attitude is spreading like wildfire, and damaging the economy. Its getting so bad that people are trying to regulate entire industries out of existence. Did you know the entire Canadian export revenue from the time proven industry of chrysotile could disappear if threats like these are not shown up for the dangerous propaganda they are? Thought not.
Why is this flagged as "greygoo"? The grey goo scenario involves self-replicating nanites consuming the planet. What the article is talking about is a more mundane concern about toxicity.
Grr! Arg!
Who wants to kill off anything? I just want them to bear the full costs of what they do, instead of, by default, expecting the public to pay for externalities.
You speak of capitalism as if it is some sort of sacrosanct theocracy that no one should question. Industries that cause harm should be regulated. Capitalism is a tool that we use to fulfill our needs. When it does not do so, another tool must be used.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
but did anyone else notice that this picture from the article would make it seem that you could get 1nm sized cubes by dividing a 1cm cube continuously into EIGHTHS.
Get thanks what a nice fellow you are.
And a nutter that can not read to boot.
Your statment.. "you can do some basic due diligence to show that it's not horribly toxic."
And from my post.
"I am all for doing research to see what the dangers are but if you require any technology to be be proven safe then nothing will ever pass.
You can not prove anything is "safe"."
Gee it seems like I am actually all for due diligence. Just not for absolute proof of absolute safety which you can never achieve.
It is my hope that even people like you will never have to deal with a sick child. Unlike I don't wish for thing like that for anybody.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
About a week ago I started using a new brand of tooth paste. I'm hesitant to say which one because I don't want too many others like me. Since I have begun using the product I've been able to see through women's skirts and leap over tall buildings. I even bench pressed a Humvee that was too close to my car.
"I guess I'm gonna fade into Bolivian."
Backtrack all you like. Lets look over your post, shall we, and see what we can see?
"Show me research, that nanomaterials are safe. Otherwise we shouldn't allow them based on speculation that they are safe. "
I can show you research that Oxygen, water, cars, airplanes, ships, trains, and fire are not safe.
I am all for doing research to see what the dangers are but if you require any technology to be be proven safe then nothing will ever pass.
You can not prove anything is "safe".
You were trying to refute someone who simply asked that research be done to show a product is safe. You say that products can not be proven safe. You recommend researching for dangers, now what would it show if there were no dangers? It would show that the product is safe.
It really sounds like you are advocating for a very low standard of proof, the very same low standard that allowed horrible calamities like thalidomide to happen.
But I don't seriously hope you or anyone has a web footed duck baby. And maybe if we require that new products be shown not to cause harm, i.e. that they are SAFE, then no one will have to have another.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Instead of:
'Nanomaterials More Dangerous Than We Think',
How about:
'Nanomaterials MAY BE More Dangerous Than SOME PEOPLE Think'
Reading /. is getting more like the tabloids every day!
If I am not for myself, then who will be for me? If I am only for myself, what am I? If not now, when?
I am not back tracking at all.
The original post stated that they wanted research that showed nanotech was safe. Nothing is 100% safe. I simply pointed out that many things that we live with everyday are not absolutely safe. Live really is a case of risk management. The problem is people seem to be very clueless about what is and is not a risk.
I am not calling for what I consider a low standard of proof at all. I am calling for a reasonable standard and frankly one that I and probably not you are qualified to quantify. I don't like reactionary fear mongers and I am willing to call them out.
As to your final statment. If you don't seriously hope that people have to deal with a web footed baby then you should shouldn't say that you do. Shouldn't a person be judged by what they say and do? I may be over sensitive since I have a sister that is a single mother that has an Autistic child with several other health problems. He was on a breathing and heart monitor as an infant. I spent many a night taking care of him and dealing with a sick child.
BTW Thalidomide wasn't used in the US. It hadn't passed FDA testing yet it was only being used in clinical studies. I guess we should give the FDA a big thumbs up for that one. It was mainly a problem in Europe.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
The following review can be interesting: Nanomaterials and nanoparticles: Sources and toxicity
Biointerphases -- December 2007 -- Volume 2, Issue 4, pp. MR17-MR71
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=VIRT01000017000017000001000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=Yes&type=ALERT
55 pages though - not for those who don't like to RTFA...
so they are going to ban water? I mean it's a material composed of nanoscale components.
And as far as I know, there are no large scale research projects that have proven without doubt that water doesn't have any harmfull effects, and there are even many cases reported of people dying from water......
I never said I wanted you to have a web footed duck baby. I asked if you wanted one, and stated that if there were justice in the world, people who opposed testing would be the ones to suffer when dangers that could have been discovered by such testing surface.
And you are wrong about Thalidomide. It was sold in the US from 1957-1962. You may be thinking of it's 1998 approval by the FDA for use treating erythema nodosum leprosum.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I think you may be wrong.
http://www.ibis-birthdefects.org/start/thalfact.htm
"Thalidomide was one of the first drugs recognized to cause birth defects in humans. Although thalidomide was never released in the United States,"
And here
http://www.marchofdimes.com/professionals/14332_1172.asp
"What is the history of thalidomide?
Thalidomide was first prescribed in the late 1950s in Europe to treat anxiety, insomnia and, in pregnant women, morning sickness. It also was marketed in numerous other countries, including Japan, Australia and Canada. It was withdrawn from the market in the early 1960s when doctors learned that it caused devastating birth defects. About 10,000 children around the world were born with major malformations because their mothers had taken the drug during early pregnancy (2).
Until 1998, thalidomide had never been approved in the United States. This was largely due to the stubborn skepticism of FDA medical officer Frances Kelsey, MD, PhD (3). Dr. Kelsey wanted proof that it was safe for humans, particularly for the embryo. By late 1961, the drug's unique ability to cause serious human malformations was becoming clear.
The worldwide thalidomide tragedy changed the way drugs are developed, tested and regulated in the United States, significantly broadening FDA authority (3). Dr. Kelsey often is credited with sealing the FDA's reputation as the world's premier authority on food and drug safety."
I could be wrong but I think the US managed to miss this one.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
You recommend researching for dangers, now what would it show if there were no dangers? It would show that the product is safe.
No. That's the flaw behind the logic of asking somebody to show that something is safe. He can't.
You can only do a series of tests showing that the material doesn't have certain adverse effects on a control group under certain conditions. But there will ALWAYS be people arguing against the experiment. There will always be people saying that maybe it affects pregnant women, maybe it causes tumors after very long exposure, maybe it kills some kind of animals, or only people with certain gene, maybe it produces global warming, global cooling, water turn into wine. You can always think of a test that wasn't done, or just done for enough time.
My point is that we should draw a line, very clear and precise line. Once those basic tests have been conducted, the product is safe until proved otherwise.
That is not something as trivial as it sounds, ecology is based on your "prove that it is safe" premise. Anything that sounds scary is tagged "unsafe until proved otherwise".
Why limit to banning nanomaterials, nuclear power and genetic manipulation? Why don't we ban metals, wood, food, electricity? After all, none of those have been "proved safe" in a scientific way. Yes, we used those for centuries... but maybe tomatoes produce some kind of cancer, or maybe potatoes kill some animal that is in danger of extinction.
Safety can't be proved if you don't draw a line. And the line hasn't been drawn, and it won't be drawn until people realizes there isn't such thing as absolute safety.
there are inadequate data to inform quantitative risk assessments on current and emerging nanomaterials... Their small size, the report says, may allow them "to usurp traditional biological protective mechanisms" and, as a result, possibly have "enhanced toxicological effects."
This is a hypothesis. They literally have no idea what they're talking about. Here's an example:
(Scientist A): Huhuhuh... hey Beavis, wouldn't it be cool if tiny particles of stuff could like, uhhhhh... enter your cells, because they're small and stuff?
(Scientist B): Hneheheheheh yeah YEAH! Entering cells!
(Scientist C): Hmm interesting... let's do experiments to test this...
We have Scientists A and B so far.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Honestly I appreciate kdawsons positive attitude toward us and our progressive ways of putting benefits for society before potential downsides only a tree hugging hippie could worry about. (I'm liberally reading his mind here.)
I would like to remind you though that at least one of us treasures his individualism even more, and to think that someone could read someone else's thoughts is frankly said threatening.
Je me souviens.
Okay, Parnell. Whatever you say. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Repo_Man#J._Frank_Parnell
Phased plasma rifle in the 40-watt range.
Argument to moderation is one way to push dangerous ideas into mainstream by ill-informed people who take everything for face value. Guess what? The truth is not in the middle. There are either risks or there aren't. I'd rather take the word of scientists with no dog in the fight over corporations who are ostensibly looking out for our best, long term interests.
Even those who evangelize nanotech as the next hope for the mankind are readily admitting that they have no clue what the potential risks are because they hardly themselves understand the mechanics of cell interactions with nanoparticles. I'd rather be overly cautious and alive than brave and dead.
Your argument is ridiculous. Nanotechnology isn't the only game in town. You can still enjoy a modern lifestyle without it. I'm not sure why you think that the choice comes down to nanotech-fueled products vs raw twigs.
I had a friend with flipper arms in high school, she said it was from thalidomide. Maybe she was secretly a... Canadian? I'd try to hide that too.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Specific? You mean, small and airborne, where they are essentially nanoparticles, which is the only way for asbestos to get into your lungs in the first place?
No one's saying that looking at asbestos wrong will kill you. But it is a very dangerous material that needs special precautions on handling and usage. If some nanomaterials are the same, it would be prudent to test that BEFORE industries start exposing people to large concentrations of them.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
How can it be fearmongering when NO ONE KNOWS YET what will happen as we produce more nano material? I confess, I have committed the sin of not reading the FA, and for once not even reading any comments, but I feel so strongly about this. If asbestos, in its current chemical and physical form can infiltrate the lungs to such a degree to cause severe illness, why shouldn't something a millionth or billionth of its size? We JUST DON'T KNOW yet (I never use caps normally). Therefore I advocate extreme cautiousness in the field of research. Thats not to say I don't want it investigated.. Just a little more humility from the people that play 'god' on our behalf.
You made the claims. It is up to you to support those claims.
Please don't try to educate me on the subject of asbestos and lawsuits. I am married to someone who worked for many years in the legal department of a certain large chemical company. I know more about asbestos, particularly the legal aspects, than I even care to know.
But if you are going to make extraordinary claims, please provide at least the hint of extraordinary evidence.
Being Canadian, I'm proud of my Canada -- but not for this stupid article. I'll summarize for you:
Q: What do we know about these materials?
A: Very little.
That's the whole article. Scientists didn't take a nanomaterial and find something wrong with one type. Scientists looked for research that had already been done, and found that none had been done.
Well congratulations on the newspaper article reading "Today, no one discovered anything.". Now that's a front-page headline!
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.
- Bertrand Russell
Risk of the stupid: we die earlier.
Risk of the intelligent: we don't get to use "nano-technology" right away.
I would rather follow the intelligent and alleviate the doubts then follow the stupid and end up dead.
computerchimp
PS lead exists in nature.....that is not too good for humans, is it?
"to usurp traditional biological protective mechanisms" ??
More likely "to avoid", or "to disable" ... I call this BS. There is a lot of "nanomaterials" that is very natural: it's called dust. We're still alive.
And a nutter that can not read to boot.
I've got to disagree with you there. You specifically said that nothing can be proven absolutely safe. In context, as a response to the idea that testing should be performed, it is a red herring. YOU brought absolute safety up. He did not demand proof of absolute safety. Also, it's spelt 'cannot' in Modern English.
It's a miniscule threat.
who is we? Most people i work with consider nanomaterial a serious health issue.
Until I got to your last paragraph I assumed that you were just giving a more specific rehash of what I had just written. Then I got to your last paragraph and it looks like somehow you think that we disagree.
"Toxins come in all shapes and sizes."? I couldn't agree more. In fact, I thought that this was exactly what I was saying.
Various kinds of researchers "have looked for the nanotechnological aspects of the human machine for decades"? Yes, I know. We've looked at plenty of things on that scale for decades, or longer, and clearly still have a very long ways to go. Don't think so? Ask any psychopharmacologist about how much we understand about the mechanisms of our most common medications for just about everything in the DSM.
Sure, we've studied and tested plenty. But not enough to be ready to stop.
It's all about the information. And what we do with it.
HIV is a polymorphic virus. How likely is it that these nanomaterials are likewise polymorphic?
I don't know but all the documentation I have found says that it was never approved in the US. She might have been a Canadian or just mistaken.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Nobody seems to ask this. Where's the list? Or is this just futurist speculation masturbation?