Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Biotech Science

Buckyballs Kill Fish 304

Posted by Hemos from the dealing-with-the-dangers dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The Washington Post (free registration, not too invasive) has a disturbing article on a new study of the environmental dangers of nanotech. Buckyballs caused "severe" brain damage in largemouth bass when added to their aquariums in concentrations of 0.5 ppm, a concentration level on par with common US pollutants. They also caused die-offs of Daphnia, waterfleas that are a crucial part of the ocean food chain. "The new findings are somewhat surprising because many scientists had predicted that buckyballs would not linger in water but would quickly form clumps and sink." The findings have yet to be peer-reviewed."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Buckyballs Kill Fish More

Buckyballs Kill Fish

Comments Filter:

  • Que Sera Sera (Score:5, Funny)

    by illuminata ( 668963 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @05:13AM (#8701498) Journal
    Well, we're all going to die anyway.

    But, if I had my choice in the matter, I'd want to die by the hands of something cool enough to be named buckyballs.

    Imagine the death certificate. CAUSE: Buckyballs.

    Imagine the eulogy. "It's so sad that he was taken from us so soon by buckyballs..."

    Yeah, so, you still don't want buckyballs to kill you?

  • Misleading Synopsis (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 29, 2004 @05:17AM (#8701511)
    The buckyballs aren't getting into the fish and casuing brain damage, this is all a coverup for the escape of a very dangerous nanotechnology. Millions of nanobots are playing dodgeball with these buckyballs...sometimes the fish get in the way, and BAM, brain damage.
    • Heh, buckyballs! Pah! Just imagine what happens when Microsoft starts playing around with Nanobots! They will screw it up as usual and we will have a runaway Nanobot chrisis and if we do not stop Bill Gates NOW his runaway nanobots will disassemble the entire planet and reassemble it molecule for molecule as a giant windowslogo and passing Alien explorers will rack their brains for generations to come pondering the question "WTF were these idiots thinking!...... Oh damn my aching brain... black helecopters

  • "hazards and risks are poorly understood" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Necro Spork ( 260099 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @05:18AM (#8701515)
    "Because of the novel arrangements of the atoms in these molecules -- and because the laws of physics behave differently at such scales -- nanoparticles display bizarre chemical properties."
    The laws of physics do not behave differently on a HUGE carbon 60 molecule! The article fails to show what the buckyballs do to the fish or aquatic fleas. Does anyone have insight?

    • Re:"hazards and risks are poorly understood" (Score:5, Interesting)

      by silentbozo ( 542534 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @05:27AM (#8701555) Journal
      You must have missed the section where it refers to the oxidizing effects of buckyballs:

      But buckyballs can also steal electrons from surrounding molecules -- a process known as oxidation and a common mechanism of tissue damage.

      Basically, you have a great replacement for hydrogen peroxide or chlorine. Great for disinfecting, bad for living tissues over a prolonged exposure time. The question is, are the buckyballs being consumed in the process, or are they acting as catalytic agents? If they're acting like catalytic agents, we could have the makings of another CFC fiasco on our hands. I'm thinking buckyballs have to be consumed at some point - otherwise all the buckyballs created by natural processes like fires would have killed off everything alive a long time ago.
      • buckyballs can also steal electrons from surrounding molecules -- a process known as oxidation

        So, this process of 'stealing' is referred to as 'oxidation'.

        Sounds like a Microsoft buzzword, always covering over some form of villainy with a word that makes it sound less harmful - such as 'Integrated Computing'.

        (Sorry, had to slip that one in. Go ahead, call me a troll. DAMN! It was worth it!)
      • "Stealing" oxigen is not really oxidation, it's reduction or whatever it's called in english. Chemically, this means that buckyballs (which I don't quite understand how are formed - anyone care to point to some good reference?) act in the opposite way as chlorine or hydrogen peroxide, which are efficient oxidants.
    • Well, the structure and shape of things at these scales sometimes has an effect. Any one of a thousand possibilities. For example, diatomaceous earth is very finely crushed shells of fossilized microscopic creatures. It's used as an effective poison to many insect pests. There's nothing really poisonous about the substance chemically, but the nanoscale fractured edges will cut into the insects and draw out moisture, killing them. Not necessarily the same thing happening here, but it's an example of how the shape or structure of something can change its effect.

      Another example: say you had a thousand lumps of metal. If you form them into cubes and throw them on the ground, they can be walked over relatively easily. If you form them into balls, it may be difficult to walk over them without stumbling. If you form them into caltrops, walking on them will cause injury. These properties are all independent of the raw effect of the metal itself.

      • Prions: Deformed Proteins (Score:5, Informative)

        by handy_vandal ( 606174 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @08:00AM (#8702084) Homepage Journal
        Well, the structure and shape of things at these scales sometimes has an effect. Any one of a thousand possibilities. [diatomaceous earth] ... nothing really poisonous about the substance chemically, but the nanoscale fractured edges will cut into the insects and draw out moisture, killing them. ... an example of how the shape or structure of something can change its effect.

        Another example: say you had a thousand lumps of metal. If you form them into cubes and throw them on the ground, they can be walked over relatively easily. If you form them into balls, it may be difficult to walk over them without stumbling. If you form them into caltrops, walking on them will cause injury. These properties are all independent of the raw effect of the metal itself.

        Good points. Another example:

        Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy [google.com] (Mad Cow, CJD, etc.) is caused by deformed proteins (according to the prevailing, although hotly debated, "prion" theory).

        Chemically, prions are "just proteins" -- but structurally, they're fucked up in some way which spreads the deformation to adjacent normal proteins.

        -kgj
    • According to the article I read last night -- which I can't remember the newspaper or find in google news -- the buckyballs were destroying lipids in the fish's brain. Which is bad, because that gives no reason to think it wouldn't do the same thing in humans -- lipids are just fats.

      I was going to try to find the link, but then I realized why bother? Until these findings have undergone peer review, there's not a lot of point in trying to figure out what it means.
      • You mean, buckyballs destroy fat? Soon we will see the Weight Watchers buckyball pills! :-)
        • It specifically mentioned lipids in the brain -- lipids being a good portion of brain tissue. But that doesn't mean you aren't right. Remember the old joke? "Get rid of 20 lbs of useless fat..." ;)

          • Re: Lipids (Score:4, Informative)

            by MachDelta ( 704883 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @07:37AM (#8702009)
            Lipids are a good portion of ALL tissue. Cell membranes are made primarilly of phospholipids (a nifty little molecule that forms walls due to its polar nature). Without lipids, there'd be nothing to hold your cells together, so you'd just be a puddle of cytoplasm (which would, like, suck).

            So having buckyballs in your head, randomly destroying brain cell membranes would be a very bad th... Ooh! Look! A FISHY!!

      • peer review (Score:5, Interesting)

        by budgenator ( 254554 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @10:59AM (#8703724) Journal
        I have a 70 gal aquarium indoors and a 3800 gal "aquarium" outdoor, and when someone tells me that they are keeping large-mouth bass in a 10 L aquarium and the fish suffered brain damage with-in 48 hours my first thought is what did you expect? and how did you keep the control group so healthy?.

        I'm hoping that these guys research is totaly wacked because fullerenes aren't that hard to make and if they are realy that toxic, the implications are a bit staggering given the amount of genocidal activity in the world today.

  • And... (Score:2, Funny)

    by dcw3 ( 649211 )
    Blueballs kill geeks, so I'm not feeling real sorry for the fish at this time.

  • ...just become part of the muck... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by zakezuke ( 229119 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @05:26AM (#8701549)
    "Everyone assumed they'd just become part of the muck, if you will," Bucher said. "This is telling us we need to pay attention to this area."


    It makes me think about the time I lived in Virgina near the Appomattox River. The charming Allied Signal were developing Kepone, but after discovering it caused nerve damage to humans dumped it in the river. It remains today part of the muck... so toxic they won't consider dredging it.

    I'm sure there are other examples of toxic waste which was assumed to be safe when it just became part of the muck... it just scares me that this is the logic used in may cases.

  • Proof positive. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Rothron the Wise ( 171030 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @05:27AM (#8701554)
    I knew it,
    Soccer rots your brain.

  • Is this a real threat? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Necro Spork ( 260099 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @05:29AM (#8701562)
    From what I have read buckyballs have really neat conductive and structural properties. The article fails to state that there have been no commercially viable applications for the molecules. As long as that is true the fishes have little to worry about.

    • Re:Is this a real threat? (Score:5, Informative)

      by eclectro ( 227083 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @06:00AM (#8701684)
      As long as that is true the fishes have little to worry about

      What this does show is that buckyballs are not an inert substance.

      The problem is that if it affects fish, it most likely affects animals higher up on the food chain (us).

      Knowing this, we can not go washing buckyballs down the sink, where it will find its way into streams, rivers and lakes.

      As bad as it is for the fish, if humans eat the contanimated fish, that could have bad biological repercussions (not unlike mercury).

      • Re:Is this a real threat? - lifetime (Score:5, Insightful)

        by pwarf ( 610390 ) <pwarfNO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Monday March 29, 2004 @06:46AM (#8701809)
        It should be noted that buckyballs were added to aquarium water with fish already in it, and damage was assessed after 48 hours.

        Even a reasonably high level of toxicity might not be a major problem if the buckyballs are not persistent in a real-world environment. This is sort of like the short--half-life radioisotopes. They are more toxic precisely because they decay more rapidly, but if they have a half-life of a few days or less, disposal is simply a matter of letting them sit for a while.

        The mechanism of effect needs to be determined to assess whether eating contaminated fish would have bad biological repercussions. If buckyballs are just really good oxidizing agents after being broken biologically, the residual effects would be minimal. If, on the other hand, the buckyballs are somehow acting catalytically or as immunological irritants, bioaccumulation could be likely and there would be a threat to humans from eating contaminated fish.

        Unfortunately, there is precedent [nanotechweb.org](bottom of page 7 of the PDF) for fullerenes acting as catalysts.

        However, the paper linked to above also notes, "Fullerenes are also effective at mopping up free radicals, which damage living tissue. This has led to the suggestion that they might protect the skin in cosmetics, or help hinder neural damage caused by radicals in certain diseases, research on which in rats has already shown promise."[emphasis added] (page 9)

        But then the same paper mentions that the size is similar to biologically active molecules, and has an affinity to an active site on an enzyme important to HIV.

        It seems a thorough, well-designed toxicology study of fullerenes is in order. It is important that a study of the toxicity be done with conditions reasonably close to real world conditions.
        • Even a reasonably high level of toxicity might not be a major problem if the buckyballs are not persistent in a real-world environment.

          This is the problem that the article alluded to.

          The buckyballs were not attracted to one another and did not "clump up" and sink. Rather they remained afloat and the fish became exposed.
          • I'd consider 48 hours still pretty short-term. Also, I would consider it cold comfort if the buckyballs didn't decompose but accumulated the sediment. Well, maybe buckyballs need the equivalent of condensation nuclei to quickly precipitate. I didn't see a detailed experimental procedure when I read the article, but it wouldn't be surprising if the water was relatively clean when the buckyballs were added. It would be ironic if it were simply too clean, and buckyballs didn't pose much of a threat in dirtie

  • What about other carbon arrangements? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by JaredOfEuropa ( 526365 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @05:31AM (#8701569) Journal
    I'm curious to find what other carbon nano-arrangements will do to sea life (or other life for that matter). What about carbon tubes? These appear to have numerous useful applications in superstrong carbon fibers. If we build a space elevator with carbon tubes, and the cable breaks, we can expect a whole lot of this carbon stuff to end up in the ocean. I remember that earlier experiments showed that carbon tubes did not pose an environmental risk, but I've never read what these experiments actually entailed.

    And no, I didn't read the article :) I do not want to register, and adding the 'partner' thing to the URL somehow doesn't work for me.

    • Re:What about other carbon arrangements? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by PacoTaco ( 577292 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @05:50AM (#8701648)
      What about carbon tubes?

      They'll probably kill you [i-sis.org.uk] too.

      • Not that the results shouldn't raise warning flags, but does this look like another "give mouse 1000x the maximum exposure they'd ever really see, and watch them, surprisingly, die". 0.5mg of nanotubes in one dose?! That'd be like me inhaling almost a pound of nanotubes. Put a pound of almost anything in my lungs, and I can bet my health wouldn't be the best.
        • That's mighty light mice you've got there...

          Remember that 0.5mg is 0.0005g is 0.0000005kg, and mice probably weight in the range of 5-10g. So you seem to have an error of 3 decimal places, it's a bit under 0.01% of body weight that the mice inhaled, not 1%...
    • I'm curious to find what other carbon nano-arrangements will do to sea life

      It most likely would be the same as buckyballs, as the molecules are made out of the same atoms, hence the same biological reaction would take place.
      • Well, diamond is also made out of the same atoms. But AFAIK no brain damage from diamond has been reported.

        • Re:What about other carbon arrangements? (Score:2, Funny)

          by Anonymous Coward
          "But AFAIK no brain damage from diamond has been reported."

          Except, perhaps, in women?

        • Re:What about other carbon arrangements? (Score:5, Funny)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 29, 2004 @06:14AM (#8701721)
          Ummm ...
          You have a girlfriend?
          If you do, take her to a jewlers
          Show her the diamonds
          Watch her IQ drop like a stone :)

        • Re:What about other carbon arrangements? (Score:5, Informative)

          by eclectro ( 227083 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @07:05AM (#8701876)
          But AFAIK no brain damage from diamond has been reported

          That's because diamonds don't get flushed down the drain, and if they did they would sink to the bottom of the lake and become part of the "muck".

          If you Read The Fine Article, that's what the scientists thought would happen to the buckyballs. But in tests they remained suspended in the water and fish and small crustaceans became exposed and subsequently were affected.

          There are a couple of other things to remember. Diamond is a crystalline form of carbon, which does make it inert, as other atoms are not attracted to form bonds with it. Buckyball molecules do not have this lattice structure, and are going to be more reactive. Here [wisc.edu] is a tutorail on the different aspects of carbon chemistry.

          There are industrial processes that use diamond (like saws), and the resultant powder can be dangerous. But this is the case for any fine powder that might be inhaled, and the toxicity is going to be dependant upon the powder.

          But generally, these are "microparticles", not "nanoparticles", which may react differently in a biological system. Being a magnitude smaller, they will by their nature tend to stay afloat longer. Rather than "clump together" and sink like other particles would.

          Here is a study about diamond's biocompatibility. [imm.org]

          Their conclusion - "Thus it appears that diamond is extremely -- indeed outstandingly -- biocompatible with living cells."

    • Re:What about other carbon arrangements? (Score:5, Funny)

      by AtomicBomb ( 173897 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @07:26AM (#8701966) Homepage
      I have heard that another carbon arrangement, known as diamond, is a pretty toxic chemical that affects the brain of many female homo sapien. It is also known to be additive.

      Strangely, this material seems to have little effect on male home sapien, although the lack of it seems to affect the reproductive potential of that subspecies.

  • Some of the fish died, others heavily mutated. Here's a picture [univie.ac.at] of the mutated fish.

  • Bad terminology (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AlecC ( 512609 ) <aleccawley@gmail.com> on Monday March 29, 2004 @06:10AM (#8701710)
    The word "nanotechnology" spans two competely different fields: nanomachines and nanomaterials.

    Nanomaterials is what this article is about. The whole field of nanomaterials is exploitng the fact that extremely small particles of materials show physico-chemical behaviour different from that shown at larger scales. Not that the laws of pysics change as some people have said, but that tiny size has an effect upon which laws manifest. Some of those changes are useful - which is why people are researching them. Some are, surprise surprise, dangerous. You get that with any new invention - fire destroys as well as warms.

    Nanomaterials are here, now. We need to worry about them like any other new chemical (which, in a way, is what they are - on the boundaries of chemistry and materials physics). But not more. Of course they should be tested - and guess what, they are, as this article shows. No more (or less) of a risk than any of the hundreds of new chemicals which emerge every year. Move along, folks, nothing to see here.

    Nanomachines are a totally different question. Nanomachines are extremely tiny machines build up either from molecules, or by using silicon engineering developed for microchips to machine silicon (actually two very different technologies lumped together, but so be it). Apart from a few very crude devices, nanomachines are still a long way from any serious production.

    People have hypothesized that it might be possible to build self-replicating nanomachines, and that such self-replicationg nanomachines might replicate so fast as to take over the world and reduce it to "grey goo". While you cannot say that this is absolutely impossible, it is very, very far ahead of anything even dreamed off. While a few useful widgets might emerge in the next few years, such gadgets are orders of magnitude away from anything presenting a serious risk to people at large.

    (And, actually, I believe we already have self-replicating nanomachines: they are called viruses).

    But, because of the confusion of the two terminologies, people are saying "Panic about what nanomachines might do because nanomaterials are here now".

    • Re:Bad terminology (Score:4, Informative)

      by heavyVoid ( 694996 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @07:23AM (#8701952)
      Viruses are not self replicant machines/molecules. They just contain the information to create more virus. The information needs to be interpreted by an infected cell and its enzimes. Some advanced viruses also contain information to assemble enzimes needed for the other stages of the virus assembly. But the same applies: if they run out of cells to replicate, they can't continue.

      A very different thing would be nanomachines who have the full ability to replicate themselves using only inorganic or simple organic molecules from the environment. A big chain reaction is there not only possible, but very probable.

      I think that a good idea would be to make nanomachines which are not fully autoreplicant, but that rely on limited resources to replicate, such as other non-autoreplicate nanomachines or nanotools.

      • Re:Bad terminology (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Sgs-Cruz ( 526085 )
        You mean bacteria? If we make self-replicating nanomachines, they'll just have to compete with already existing microorganisms, which have had a long, long time to perfect what they do.

        • Re:Bad terminology (Score:3, Interesting)

          by heavyVoid ( 694996 )
          That's right. They had such a long time perfecting what they do, that they never kill their host specie. Bacteria may kill individuals, but any parasitic bacteria that killed their entire host species killed themselves.
          Besides, to compete, they must have similar needs in food or habitat or other limited resources. I don't clearly see how nanomachines might have the same needs as bacteria.

  • At last!!! (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    A way to create my ill tempered mutated sea bass!

  • Don't worry, be happy (Score:4, Funny)

    by Bug2000 ( 235500 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @06:12AM (#8701715)
    At last, we have found a way to make Billy largemouth bass fish shut up for good...

  • Old Joke (Score:3, Funny)

    by Channard ( 693317 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @06:19AM (#8701736) Journal
    'Do you have Buckyballs?' 'No, it's just the way I walk.'

  • Seriously dangerous... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Genda ( 560240 ) <mariet@nOspaM.got.net> on Monday March 29, 2004 @06:24AM (#8701749) Journal
    Please remember that we are composed primarily of organic compounds... we react in a serious way to molecular carbon. All life on the planet reacts in a serious way to molecular carbon.

    Carbon fibers, can and do penetrate cell walls. It's already been discovered that incredibly small concentrations of buckytube carbon fibers, can cause tremendous and unexpectedly servere lung damage, and that those bucky tubes quickly begin dispersing through the other tissues in the body with potentially serious and unpredictable impacts.

    Buckyballs can transport metal ions into places metal ions normally can't go in our bodies. Buckyballs can pass easily through the blood brain barrier, and there's no information yet on their impact to neural, blood, or critical organ tissues.

    Seeing as nature decided to use carbon as it's primary source of nanotech, and that we are almost certainly going to do the same, we would be wise to make sure that our creations are minimally compatible, and interoperable to the existing machines. To not take these issues into consideration, is to risk unprecedented damage to our environment, and ourselves.

    Genda
    • I understand the concern often put forth towards new materials, and I would be the first to say extensive testing should come *before* extensive deployment of new compounds....but....

      I'd love to know the sources for the carbon fiber health risk study. Most of the ones I was able to find describe physical problems (structural damage to cells, clumping in airways, etc) and not chemical reactions to the Carbon contained with the buckyball/tube. I was under the impression that the carbon bound within such

  • Sounds to me like... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ...the mechanism they use to clump up is to bond with organic compounds, particularly fish brains.

  • Non-too invasive reg? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Isldeur ( 125133 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @06:38AM (#8701790)


    The Washington Post (free registration, not too invasive)

    The problem I have with the Washington Post registration is that their cookies are coming from some other domain than washingtonpost.com.

    I've noticed this because I can allow washingtonpost.com but it still tells me to turn on cookies and won't allow me to register.

  • The Plus side. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jellomizer ( 103300 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @06:43AM (#8701799)
    Well on the plus side they found this out before they started making a ton of products that use it. Compared to the 50's where you had commercials like "DDT it is good for you and it is good for me" (But not good for birds) and many other chemicals that got applications then found to be dangerous. At least now scientist are putting more research for in checking for safety then just assuming that something else will happen. Humility and good science works well together.

  • To answer the obvious question... (Score:4, Funny)

    by CleverNickedName ( 644160 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @07:04AM (#8701869) Journal
    Buckyballs are large, inflatable substitutes for banisters and cheese-boards. Traditionally carved out of frozen nougat, they are known to cause jealousy in lab rats.
  • I guess I never really thought about it.

  • Daphnia are freshwater protozoa (Score:3, Informative)

    by wmarcy ( 716319 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @07:19AM (#8701934) Homepage
    Not salt water, they have nothign to do with the oceans ecosystem. I guess they just pulled protozoa form the air to get us whipped into a frenzy about. Did Jason Blair write this article?

  • diesel trucks (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Barbarian ( 9467 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @07:30AM (#8701983)
    I remember hearing somewhere that the black exhaust you typically get from a diesel truck as it goes through the first few gears after a dead stop is composed mostly of incomplete fullerines.

  • Should have read the fine print... (Score:5, Funny)

    by hustin ( 684493 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @07:33AM (#8701991)

    ... Where it clearly states:

    Do not taunt happy fun ball.

  • DO NOT... (Score:5, Funny)

    by emtboy9 ( 99534 ) <jeff.jefflane@org> on Monday March 29, 2004 @07:44AM (#8702038) Homepage
    Do not taunt aqueous buckyball!!
  • Maybe if the nanoparticles were even smaller, they would just pass right through the aquatica and not hurt them.

    • Re:Apply Shrinkage to the Buckyballs (Score:4, Funny)

      by TwistedGreen ( 80055 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @08:53AM (#8702378)
      And how, pray tell, are you going to shrink an atom?

    • Re:Apply Shrinkage to the Buckyballs (Score:5, Informative)

      by jc42 ( 318812 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @09:48AM (#8702830) Homepage Journal
      Suppose you reduce the buckyball to the minimal number of C atoms, 1. You'd then get things like CO2, CH4, CH3OH, etc. None of these is biologically inert, though some are more active than others.

      Or don't go to such an extreme. Reduce the BB to just a single C ring, say to one of the 6 C atom. If each takes on one water molecule, you get an H and an OH attached to each atom. This is a form of glucose, which is also biologically active.

      If you take a piece of a BB that is one hex ring and an adjacent penta ring, and attach simple radicals to the dangling bonds, you get all sorts of interesting molecules, most of which are biologically active.

      In general, clumps of C atoms smaller than a buckyball are rarely biologically inert. They have dangling or unstable bonds that interact with nearby molecules.

      If you want to convert fullerenes to an inactive form, you need to make them much larger. Then they start to look locally like graphite. But graphite, while stable, isn't inert. Google for "graphite" and "catalyst", and you'll learn a lot about the subject. Graphite is a very common industrial catalyst, with small amounts of various atoms or small molecules attached to the C atoms.

      One way I've seen this explained for non-physicists is to notice that in all these multi-carbon forms, each 6-C ring has three single and three double bonds. A double bond is less stable than a single bond (and a triple bond even less stable). So the C atoms on each end of a double bond are likely to break one of those bonds, and bond instead to passing atoms or molecules. Often the difference in bond strength isn't large, so it's easy for other passing molecules to steal away the attached clump of atoms, and the C then reverts to the double bond.

      This is a "biochemistry for dummies" explanation of how carbon takes part in such a huge range of chemical reactions. But it gets across the idea that, when you see a ring of carbon atoms with a few double bonds, you are looking at a diagram of a molecule that is likely to interact with many other molecules in its vicinity. The underlying C ring will probably be fairly stable, but it has excess electron bonds that want to connect to something.

  • Article, No Reg Required (Score:5, Informative)

    by jwgoerlich ( 661687 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @08:00AM (#8702086) Homepage Journal

    OP comes from New Scientist, picked up by the Washington Post.

    Check it out w/o registering:
    http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns999 94825 [newscientist.com]
    • The article refered to in the parent says:
      So while they are new to science they are reasonably common in nature.
      I'm starting to wonder if the "Buckyballs Kill Fish" headline is akin to "X causes cancer" headlines where the study exposes the poor creatures to such enormous amounts of substance X that they have to die.

  • Stupid Fish (Score:4, Funny)

    by SEWilco ( 27983 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @08:10AM (#8702134) Journal
    "The new findings are somewhat surprising because many scientists had predicted that buckyballs would not linger in water but would quickly form clumps and sink." The findings have yet to be peer-reviewed."

    This study was not needed.
    The science is settled.
    The consensus in the scientific world already decided that buckyballs sink.
    Because the study has not yet been examined by peers in the scientific world, this can not be happening.
    Scientists already decided buckyballs are safe.
    There is no need to expend the effort in getting some of this "water" material and actually test it.
    Because the results of buckyballs in water are already known, something must be wrong with this experiment.
    Science is always right, this must be part of a smear campaign organized by opponents to science.
    Obviously, the fish must have conspired to try to show science is wrong.
    The fish must have pretended to have brain damage or caused the damage as part of the plot.
    Stupid fish.

  • Asbestos all over again? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Lawrence_Bird ( 67278 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @08:45AM (#8702306) Homepage
    I think there might have been a post along this line in regards to nanotubes, and a portion of this link [environmentalfutures.org] has some information on conflicting research on health risks. Given the nightmare that asbestos turned out to be, it seems to me (a big supporter of science and technology) that we need a 'go slow' approach with this stuff. There is no earth shattering compelling need for anything made of nanotubes or buckyballs today that can't wait a few years for accurate and conclusive testing.

  • why nanotechnology? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by joethebastard ( 262758 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @09:36AM (#8702734)
    i hate to sound anal about this, but what does buckminsterfullerene have to do with nanotechnology? i realize they could be used for nanotechnology, but C60 is just a big molecule. there's no nanotech involved in making fullerenes; you can build a carbon arc in your garage if you want to have them. no microscopic manipulation required. you separate them out.... using a solvent. this isn't nanotech, it's chemistry. whoever wrote this article should think before using buzzwords.

    also, interestingly, it should be noted that the toxicity of fullerenes isn't a surprise; when richard smalley and company came up with the fullerene structure in the mid-80's, everyone assumed they were toxic (the molecules, not the scientists). most chemicals with a benzene ring (benzene, toluene, PAHs) are pretty nasty stuff; a buckminsterfullerene molecule has 20 benzene rings in it. it would be a miracle if it weren't toxic.

    so anyway, in this article, a group of scientists used well-established chemistry techniques to create an aromatic carbon molecule, and showed that it's toxic. why is this news?

  • Details in NewScientist article (Score:5, Informative)

    by Presence1 ( 524732 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @09:40AM (#8702767) Homepage
    There are some more details here on the mecahnism of the buckyball action.

    http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns9 99 94825

    They found it to be moderately toxic, and to cause damage known as lipid peroxidation. This can impair the normal functioning of cell membranes and has been linked to illnesses such as Alzheimer's disease in humans. They also referred to other studies of both fullerenes and nanotubes causing lung damage.

  • Mad Bass Disease? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Royster ( 16042 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @10:40AM (#8703506) Homepage
    How does someone diagnose "severe brain damage" in bass? Do they flop in a flamenco rhythm when pulled out of water? Do they play hooky from the rest of the school?

  • tiny bubbles (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Monday March 29, 2004 @11:08AM (#8703822) Homepage Journal
    Aren't viruses fulleresque [buckminster.info]? They kill fish, and others, too. As long as the second law of thermodynamics [secondlaw.com] is in effect, we must assume anything we manufacture, however worthwhile, is disruptive, unless we learn otherwise.

Slashdot Top Deals

The world will end in 5 minutes. Please log out.

Close