Slashdot Mirror
Graphene Could Be Dangerous To Humans and the Environment
Zothecula (1870348) writes "It's easy to get carried away when you start talking about graphene. Its properties hold the promise of outright technological revolution in so many fields that it has been called a wonder material. Two recent studies, however, give us a less than rosy angle. In the first, a team of biologists, engineers and material scientists at Brown University examined graphene's potential toxicity in human cells. Another study by a team from University of California, Riverside's Bourns College of Engineering examined how graphene oxide nanoparticles might interact with the environment if they found their way into surface or ground water sources."
Grey goo
Graphene oxide is CO2 FFS.
We like exotic nanostructures because they have cool properties that their bulk counterparts don't. Unfortunately, this ends up meaning that a knowledge of the toxicology of the bulk material is of only limited use for inferring what the cool nanostructure will do. Carbon shows signs of potentially being rather nastier in its fancy forms than it is in more familiar flavors; but other nanomaterials might go the other way.
Ever since I first heard about the idea of grey goo, I've always wondered why no-one realises that grey goo already exists: they're called bacteria and viruses. They reproduce unchecked, can have catastrophic consequences for all other forms of life, and are largely carbon-based nano-machines.
Is it more toxic than the widely-used dihydrogen monoxide?
A wonder material that turns out to be extremely dangerous?
You don't say? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos
What was invented by Elon Musk?
The biological properties of lead were very well known.
Didn't keep people from adding it to fuel and blowing it out of the tail pipes of virtually every car for a couple of decades.
This time it's nano materials.
The only thing we learn from history is that we don't learn from history.
If graphene threads are as thin and strong as stated, would they not present an extreme cutting hazard?
As in slice your arm off before you notice?
the carbon on the planet into nanotube meshes or sheets, eventually pulling all the carbon out of the air. Like Ice 9!
Remember how graphene was first made? There's even a YouTube video on it now! Ban this dangerous sticky tape and pencils before terrorists get their hooks - I mean hands - on them!
Come back when you can say "is" or "isn't". Until then, this doesn't even qualify as tabloid-worthy. It's not even a supposition, as that would require you to state an opinion either way, regardless of how ill informed.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
It used to be calls soot.
And inhaling that is hazardous to your health.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soot
It is hardly surprising that graphene can, in some circumstances, be dangerous. Exhaust particulates, which he have known for years are dangerous, contain (now we know what we are looking for) large numbers of graphene nanoparticles, which may well contribute to their damaging effects. Just about every chemical ever tested has bad effects at some scale. What I didn't get from either article was any sense of the scale of the danger. Obviously, it is early days in the research, and one would only expect an order of magnitude estimate. But is is such a danger that we should not allow graphene products into the home lest they spill, or merely one which demands normal safety precautions in the factories for future graphene products? A warning of danger without some idea of the scale of the problem is just sensationalist: it induces fear without giving any idea as to what should be done, if anything,
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
I thought fragments of graphene were found in graphite, so shall we start to ban all pencils while we're at it?
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
Graphene too dangerous in the environment? Well better ban all wood fires and BBQ grills because graphene forms pretty commonly on the inside of metal stoves/grills.
Chicken little is at it again.
Damn , I can sue school for toxic pencils
Dont forget that current CPUs use an array of toxic metals as dopants in their manufacture. Such as arsenic. Not to mention the many process chemicals.
Petro chmicals? Refinereries? If so then there are many more side effects to look at.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
We need to ban all carbon compounds since they can all be dangerous.
Then we can get back to inorganic farming.
...everything kills you.
I dont have a chemistry background, can someone translate some of this for me, or at least link me to something that tries? The excerpt talked about ground water movement, but not really about WHY that is a bad thing.
If it's not broken, let's fix it till it is.
3d printing, cars, the internet, space rockets, bitcoin...
Dihydrogen monoxide, hydrogen hydroxide, hydroxylic acid, etc. are all humorous names for the abundant compound oxidane. In solid phase it's also called ice, in liquid phase it's water, and in gas phase it's steam. It doesn't have the same sort of allotropic variation as elemental carbon.
Making an outright claim that the scientists are SPECIFICALLY LOOKING FOR TOXICITY, when really they're making preliminary datasets by which future studies MAY OR MAY NOT yield actual findings: maximising click-throughs since 1985.
I would have thought IF, and I emphasize "IF", graphene were harmful to Humans and the environment, We would have already seen such damage since the originally discovered sources of graphene are simply thin layers of graphite, which is in abundance.
I don't really keep up with materials science, but have never encountered one single nanoparticle that isn't detrimental to humans, animals, or the environment. If we did discover a safe one it would probably be because it's already found in nature.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
I've destroyed orders of magnitude more glass containers than I have eaten them.
The goal isn't to derive energy, but acquire resources or destroy barriers. Silicon and Oxygen are pretty useful as are sodium and calcium potentially. And whatever is useless, can be discarded. The mythical Nanobots wouldn't digest their way through glass, they'd just break the glass down as needed.
If? IF? More like "when". How on earth could one prevent any substance from getting into the water supply?
I'm all for using technology that might increase the power efficiency or the speed of computing but not at the expense of our water supply. Better look into any possible side effects on the environment before rolling something like this out to the general consumer.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
ComesAsNoSurprise
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
lol
>likely it was a political agenda
get back on your meds...
Wonder material until we realized its actually causing all sorts of troubles :(
Blood brain barrier.
Nuff said.