Buckyballs Kill Fish 304
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."
Que Sera Sera (Score:5, Funny)
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?
Goodbye illuminata the Wizard... (Score:5, Funny)
It could really happen, in Steamband (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Que Sera Sera (Score:5, Funny)
"We have seen too many bodybags and buckyballsacks"
Re:Que Sera Sera (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but environmental poisoning makes the difference between dying at birth because your nervous system is so damaged it doesn't know how to make your heart operate - or dying from old age at 90.
I know you were joking about it, but still..
Re:Que Sera Sera (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Que Sera Sera (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Que Sera Sera (Score:5, Insightful)
Just imagine... (Score:4, Funny)
but with a really bad stutter,
dictating the procedure into a recorder.
Re:Just imagine... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Que Sera Sera (Score:5, Funny)
I thought "Buckyballs" was an injury suffered by rodeo riders, like "Tennis elbow".
Re:Que Sera Sera (Score:3, Funny)
Misleading Synopsis (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Misleading Synopsis (Score:3, Funny)
"hazards and risks are poorly understood" (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re:"hazards and risks are poorly understood" (Score:2, Funny)
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!)
Re:"hazards and risks are poorly understood" (Score:2)
oxidation versus reduction confusion (Score:5, Informative)
Whenever something is oxidized, something else is reduced and vice versa.
Things that are easily reduced are good oxidizing agents; things that are easily oxidized are good reducing agents.
Despite the name, oxidation does not necessarily (or usually) involve oxygen; it refers to the change in oxidation number, and the term is just a vestige of a time when chemistry was less well understood.
Re:oxidation versus reduction confusion (Score:2)
Re:oxidation versus reduction confusion (Score:5, Informative)
Re:"hazards and risks are poorly understood" (Score:3, Informative)
Start here [wikipedia.org] and Google onwards :-)
Re:"hazards and risks are poorly understood" (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
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
Re:"hazards and risks are poorly understood" (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:"hazards and risks are poorly understood" (Score:2)
Re:"hazards and risks are poorly understood" (Score:2)
Re: Lipids (Score:4, Informative)
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)
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.
To Be more precise (Score:5, Interesting)
Brain damage is usually caused by oxygen starvation. Could the buckyballs be absorbing the oxygen from the bloodstream?
The biggest and quickkest damage doesn't come from the oxygen starvation itself, but by the return of blood flow.
Brain cells metabolism is oxygen based and produces lots of free radicals - toxic by-products that are produced by oxagen metabolism. Normally that isn't a problem for our cells, because they also have the tools to control free-radicals production and degradation (with help of anti-oxydizer and well controlled reactions...)
When blood flow is cut, cells are suffering from the lack of oxygen but are still managing to survive for a short period in some way (brain cells aren't as good at fermentation....)
During this period they may undergo some damage but are still viable (DNA and basic protein synthesis tools may be still intact). The problem is : part of this damage can happen on metabolic tools that are intended to control free-radicals. During this period, it doesn't matter, because as the cell doesn't recieve oxygen, it doesn't produce free radicals
The problems arises when blood flow comes back : some cell (the less damaged from the lack of blood) survive, some other, although viable get killed because oxygen metabolism restarts and free-radicals are produced again... but the cells aren't able to cope with them anymore !
This phenomenon is called Reperfusion Damage, and lot of research is currently done to find way to minimise it (example : using anti-oxidizers).
[HINT : google this keywords for more information on the subjet]
To get back to the main subjet : as this buckyballs are known to be good oxidiser, it's very probable that their oxydizing propreties are exceeding brain's capacity of handling free radicals
other typical damage of free radicals : cataract (I wonder if they found it too on the fishes ?)
other tissus like muscles are less prone to free-radical damage, because it's easier for them to divide and replace damaged cells with new clean one.
And... (Score:2, Funny)
...just become part of the muck... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:...just become part of the muck... (Score:5, Interesting)
Proof positive. (Score:5, Funny)
Soccer rots your brain.
Re:Proof positive. (Score:3, Informative)
Is this a real threat? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Is this a real threat? (Score:5, Informative)
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)
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.
Re:Is this a real threat? - lifetime (Score:2)
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.
Re:Is this a real threat? - lifetime (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:No Commercial Application?? (Score:5, Funny)
>
> Hmmm... you don't see any commercial potential here?
"Daddy, I hate fishing with hook and line! It's boring!"
"Sorry, Junior, you remember what happened the last time we tried dynamite. You can use a rod and reel all day, and worms are free. Dynamite's expensive - and you only get to use it once."
"Daddy, you suck!"
This ever happen to you? Well, we've got the answer. Now you can say goodbye to one-shotting the pond with dynamite and help your kids pick up the big ones on your next fishing trip!
What's the secret? Well, thanks to the genius of Buckminster Fuller, our scientists at Ronco have developed a product that works even better than dynamite. See it slam into this stainless steel plate at over 15,000 MPH... and see how it it bounces right back! And because it's made of 100% pure buckminster fullerene, there's nothin' better when it comes to killin' fish!
$19.99 plus shipping and handling! Show your kids the real meaning of "Branch to Fishkill" by ordering your Ronco Pocket Fisherman with Buckyco reusable hypersonic cruise missile today!
What about other carbon arrangements? (Score:4, Interesting)
And no, I didn't read the article
Re:What about other carbon arrangements? (Score:4, Insightful)
They'll probably kill you [i-sis.org.uk] too.
Re:What about other carbon arrangements? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What about other carbon arrangements? (Score:2, Informative)
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%...
Re:What about other carbon arrangements? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:What about other carbon arrangements? (Score:2)
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.
Re:What about other carbon arrangements? (Score:2)
Re:What about other carbon arrangements? (Score:2, Funny)
Except, perhaps, in women?
Re:What about other carbon arrangements? (Score:5, Funny)
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)
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)
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.
Re:What about other carbon arrangements? (Score:2)
Re:What about other carbon arrangements? (Score:2)
surely it would be transformed somehow?
Into burnt carbon stuff.
Diamonds require a complex process to form with the right combination of chemical, heat, and pressure factors.
All falling through the atmosphere would do is heat the carbon up to a high temperature.
Re:What about other carbon arrangements? (Score:3, Informative)
Picture of the mutated fish (Score:2, Funny)
Bad terminology (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
Re:Bad terminology (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
Don't worry, be happy (Score:4, Funny)
Old Joke (Score:3, Funny)
Seriously dangerous... (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:Seriously dangerous... (Score:2)
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
Seriously dangerous... (Score:5, Informative)
> health problems induced by graphite pencils or diamonds!
You're wrong.
From here... [wikipedia.org]
Fullerenes, or buckminsterfullerenes in full, are molecules composed entirely of carbon, taking the form of a hollow sphere, ellipsoid, tube or ring.
Fullerenes are similar in structure to graphite, which is composed of a sheet of linked hexagonal rings, but they contain pentagonal (or sometimes heptagonal) rings that prevent the sheet from being planar. They are sometimes jocularly called buckyballs or buckytubes, depending on the shape.
Re:Seriously dangerous... (Score:3, Informative)
Sounds to me like... (Score:2, Funny)
Non-too invasive reg? (Score:5, Informative)
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)
To answer the obvious question... (Score:4, Funny)
Fish have brains? (Score:2)
Daphnia are freshwater protozoa (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Daphnia are freshwater protozoa (Score:5, Informative)
Just as a sidenote, for anyone who doesn't know the significance of the Daphnia dying,
it basically means buckyballs are toxic (Daphnia are used for toxicity testing...)
Am I just stating the obvious? Well, you never know.
diesel trucks (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:diesel trucks (Score:3, Interesting)
Should have read the fine print... (Score:5, Funny)
... Where it clearly states:
Do not taunt happy fun ball.
DO NOT... (Score:5, Funny)
Apply Shrinkage to the Buckyballs (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Apply Shrinkage to the Buckyballs (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Apply Shrinkage to the Buckyballs (Score:5, Informative)
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)
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=ns99
Re:Article, No Reg Required (Score:3, Insightful)
Stupid Fish (Score:4, Funny)
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)
why nanotechnology? (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns
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)
tiny bubbles (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What is a buckyball? (Score:5, Informative)
AND NO, it's NOTHING DIRTY!!!!! (for once)
Re:What is a buckyball? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:What is a buckyball? (Score:5, Informative)
In the dozen years since their discovery in 1985, the soccer-ball-shaped molecules of 60 or more carbon atoms now known as fullerenes have displayed a dazzling variety of tricks. Although real-world applications are still a way off, researchers have coaxed these "buckyballs" to become superconductors at low temperatures, emit light and carbon ion beams, and form many other compounds with different properties.
Re:What is a buckyball? (Score:3, Informative)
Also, it's AFAIK the largest object for which quantum interference has been shown yet.
Re:What is a buckyball? (Score:4, Informative)
It's allotropic form. And yes, I'm blatantly karma whoring.
Re:What is a buckyball? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What is a buckyball? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What is a buckyball? (Score:3, Interesting)
He wasn't just an archetect. He was also a philosopher, writer, teacher at Southern Illinois University, etc. His philosophy was very much informed by quantum mechanics.
I'd recommend "Manual For Spaceship Earth," if the examples weren't so dated and obviously from the era he wrote in.
And, IMO, his philosophies are much better than his architecture. Can't stand those domes.
Any reader of Robert Anton Wilson, or critic thereof, should at least look a little into Prof. Fuller. It w
Re:What is a buckyball? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What is a buckyball? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Does this remind anyone of ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Q.