Slashdot Log In
Nanotech Gone Awry?
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Sun Apr 09, 2006 07:41 AM
from the always-takes-a-few-problems-to-get-a-closer-look dept.
from the always-takes-a-few-problems-to-get-a-closer-look dept.
westcoaster004 writes "Chemical and Engineering News is reporting what appears to be 'the first recall of a nanotechnology-based product' due to health risks associated with it. The recall of 'Magic Nano' spray, which is for use on glass and ceramic surfaces to make them repel dirt and water, comes after at least 77 people in Germany contacted regional poison control centers after experiencing illness after using the product. The German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment has also issued a warning." Relatedly dolphin558 writes "There is an interesting story in the Washington Post on the unknown dangers facing employees of nanotechnology firms. The jury is still out on whether traditional HAZMAT safeguards are suitable when handling nanomaterials, many of which can be harmful. Research into potential workplace hazards is beginning to ramp up as the industry and government become more aware of this issue."
Related Stories
[+]
Defending Against Harmful Nanotech and Biotech 193 comments
Maria Williams writes "KurzweilAI.net reported that:
This year's recipients of the
Lifeboat Foundation Guardian Award are
Robert A. Freitas Jr.and
Bill Joy, who have both been proposing
solutions to the dangers of advanced technology since 2000.
Robert A. Freitas, Jr. has pioneered nanomedicine and analysis of self-replicating nanotechnology. He advocates "an immediate international moratorium, if not outright ban, on all artificial life experiments implemented as nonbiological hardware. In this context, 'artificial life' is defined as autonomous foraging replicators, excluding purely biological implementations (already covered by NIH guidelines tacitly accepted worldwide) and also excluding software simulations which are essential preparatory work and should continue."
Bill Joy wrote
"Why the future doesn't need us" in Wired in 2000 and with
Guardian 2005 Award winner Ray Kurzweil, he wrote the editorial
"Recipe for Destruction" in the New York Times (reg. required) in which they argued against publishing the recipe for the 1918 influenza virus. In 2006, he helped launch a
$200 million fund directed at developing defenses against
biological viruses."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Nanotech? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Nanotech? (Score:4, Interesting)
Aaah, definition games. Fun.
Parent
Re:Nanotech? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Nanotech? (Score:3, Informative)
As for the dangers of the current genetically modified food; we really can't tell. It isn't as if all types of geneticall
Re:Nanotech? (Score:5, Informative)
GM food is engineered to require less pesticides.
That is at best misleading and at worst outright wrong. The RoundUp Ready line of crops are specifically engineered to resist pesticides so that higher levels can be used. Some plants do require less pesticides, but these are the ones which produce their own pesticide.
As for your contention that GM food reduces the amount of land needed, I'd like some hard statistics on that. If it's true that would be a good thing, but given how wrong you were on the previous point I'll assume you're wrong for lack of evidence.
Parent
Re:Nanotech? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nanotech? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's claimed to have nano-sized particles of silica and silicone suspended in ethanol and water. Silicone is known to be a mild dermal irritant, so I'd guess the illness is a result of silicone inhalation.
The nanotech aspect may be relevant in that the small particle size would allow the spray to bypass the body's protection mechanisms and directly affect the alveoli. That would be consistent with the symptoms described. It's drawing a long bow to call it a nanotech hazard though.
Parent
Re:Nanotech? (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, but it is not a function of nano technology. Any respirable particle (one which is small enough to enter the alveoli) will have similar consequences. That includes things like grain dust, silica, asbestos, metal fume from welding - the whole pantheon of existing nano sized, but not nano tech toxins.
Parent
Re:Nanotech? (Score:3, Interesting)
Preview Preview preevue! (Score:3, Informative)
0.01 meters = 1 centimeter, not 10 namometers.
I'm guessing you were referring to micrometers, but if you had previewed you might have realized your mistake (7-10 orders of magnitude?) in trying to use formatting commands.
Your point and others about this spray not being nanotech is absolutley correct.
As for those who dismiss the idea that the problem may be related to the aerosol even though no problems were reported with the pump version, you
could be very good... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:could be very good... (Score:3, Interesting)
It's unfortunate that a LOT more thought doesn't go into products that incorporate nanoscale particles. They probably shouldn't be in home use at all at this point. Many perfectly harmless products can become MUCH more harmful in the form of nano-particles. Further, typical masks and respirators aren't much help for particles that small. Certainly the filters used typically in a central heating/air system won't help.
Nano particles have a way of getting much deeper into a person than conventional aerosols.
Nanotech bounding forth with no safety concerns,, (Score:2, Informative)
Yet we are all more concerned with getting a 100GB Flash based ipod, cars and clothes that don't ever need to be washed, etc etc.....
Safey first? Bah, $$$ first...
Re:Nanotech bounding forth with no safety concerns (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Nanotech bounding forth with no safety concerns (Score:5, Insightful)
We already have nanomachines that replicate themselves every 1000 seconds or less (that's a doubling time of roughly 17 minutes). They're called bacteria. We use them to treat sewage, alter milk into cheese, and produce synthetic insulin feedstock, along with several thousand other uses. Some of these applications have been in existence for most of recorded history. Startlingly, the Earth has not been converted into bacteria.
The Grey Goo argument is an interesting layman's theory that falls apart if you give it any real thought. You cannot build a self-replicating machine out of simply anything. The machine will rely on critical "nutrients", whether they are nitrogen, phosphorous, or copper, that simply aren't available in large quantities in much of the environment. The machine will also require a readily available energy source, which ultimately means solar power since life does a reasonable job of exhausting chemical based energy sources on the surface of the planet.
Face it, evolution favors favors fast replication, efficient resource utilization, and wide geographic distribution. In four billion years, using technology that we can just barely duplicate (mostly by scavenging parts from nature), evolution has created -- TADA! -- algae and pseudomonas (for example). The last time I checked, these self replicating micromachines weren't threatening to turn my house into more algae and pseudomonas at any significant rate.
Grey goo is a nice science fiction story, but frankly it's never going to happen. If you want to fear deadly self-replicating nanomachines bringing an end to civilization, then you need to focus on infectious diseases (mostly viruses) like the rest of the highly educated public.
Parent
repeat: Nano technology is evil! (Score:5, Funny)
Nanotech = negative image (Score:5, Interesting)
We aren't even nearly at the stage of nanomachines ("grey goop"), yet I imagine the public is beginning to feel that everything with the nano-prefix is dangerous. Soon companies and scientists will start using other words to describe the technology. This is fine with me - I actually think that a lot of "nanotechnology" could be better described with other words (same with AI).
Any particulate is potentially harmful to lungs (Score:5, Insightful)
Nano is just the latest example of that.
Borg spam (Score:3, Funny)
What does the warning label on the can say? (Score:5, Funny)
* Inhalation of this product may lead to the reconstitution of internal organs into basic geometric shapes.
But I mean.. thats ok right? At least they are telling you...
Nanotechnology is just a buzzword (Score:3, Insightful)
New nano risk! (Score:4, Funny)
TFA says that nobody involved knows if the product *actually* contains 'nano technology'... It's chemistry, peeps... I doubt this stuff is assembled with SEMs. Really!
Early Adopters have more fun (Score:3, Insightful)
Vas ist los? (Score:5, Funny)
This is still all just hype (Score:3, Informative)