Insurance Industry Warned of Nanotechnology Risks

SilentScream writes "Cordis reports that major reinsurance company Swiss Re has advised insurance companies that they may need to reconsider covering products manufactured using nanotechnology until more is known about any possible side effects of the technology. The recommendation is detailed in a 57-page report titled 'Nanotechnology - Small matter, many unknowns', which is available on the Swiss Re web site. The report acknowledges that further research is needed but outlines the possible effects of nanotechnology on the human brain and the potential for an asbestos-like threat."

Re:Yeah right

[PhuCknuT]

Uhm, they aren't talking about skynet or grey goo or any technophobic BS like that. They're talking about nano-sized dust that could cause problems similar to asbestos when inhaled. It's absolutely a real problem that should be researched.

Re:Why dont they study

[PhuCknuT]

Unlike cloning dinosaurs and time travel, this isn't sci-fi BS that they are talking about. They aren't looking into grey goo or other technophobic crap like that, the article is simply about the effects of nanoscopic particles on living tissue. There is evidence to show that nanodust could cause lung problems or worse, and research needs to be done before nanotech starts being widely used.

Re:Yeah right

[schemanista]

I am sorry, but if so is the case, then why aren't scientifics and/or government agencies takinng care of it instead.

From the FA, had you chosen to read it:

'As a major risk carrier, the insurance industry can only responsibly support the introduction of a new technology if it can evaluate and calculate its inherent risks,' says Swiss Re. 'A risk needs to be identified before its consequences can be measured and a decision can be reached on the optimal risk management approach...

... A concern for many insurance companies could be that claims such as those related to asbestos exposure could be repeated. Recent illness-related claims have sometimes dated back to exposure in the 1970s, and have cost insurance companies billions of euro.

It seems to me that a the board of directors of a corporation that may find itself financially affected by unintended consequences which arise from the use of nanotechnology probably has a duty to its shareholders to be at least a little nervous about possible future liabilities.

Re:Glad

[Dynamic Ranger]

We tend to be suprised because we are more used to thinking that businesses raise prices either to cover increased costs or to take advantage of increased demand.

In this case, if there are increased costs or demand for "nano-insurance" it is not obvious. More likely, companies who make profit by mitigating risk are *creating* new market space by spinning up the popular uncertainty/unfamiliarity of the new technology as "risk."

Poorly researched

[bradbury]

While it is fine for the insurance industry to want to protect itself it would be better if they actually did quality research. Citing the ETC group or Greenpeace as references seems to suggest a distinctly European bias (Oh no lets avoid technology progress as that would ruin our little socialistic state... It is the same argument that they have invoked against genetic technologies).

In fact they fail to reference, meaning they probably have not read, the three concrete references on nanotechnology. They are respectively works by Robert Freitas: Nanomedicine Vol. IIA: Biocompatibility [amazon.com], Nanomedicine Vol. I: Basic capabilities [amazon.com] and Drexler's Nanosystems [amazon.com]. It is worth keeping in mind that all of these are college level textbooks and the popular press and/or the authors of corporate press releases may not bother to read them (unfortunately).

Any published reports that do not cite these resources (or at least cite sources that cite these resources) can reasonably be assumed to have little or no understanding of nanotechnology and nanomedicine.

Freitas deals extensively with the biocompatibility problem in Nanomedicine Vol. IIA. and if you do not see a detailed analysis of this volume (which is several hundred pages, extensively referenced) in an insurance risk analysis then that analysis is either misinformed or incomplete. On top of that an insurance analysis should deal with the potential benefits of nanotechnology which include extending the human lifespan to several thousand years. There is no analysis for the insurance industry of the reduced payments for life insurance due to the benefits of the technology. I.e. there is no comparison of the potential downside vs. the potential upside.

I would suggest that SwissRe has failed to do a complete job in its analysis.

Re:One of the most effective ways to gain leverage

[Goldsmith]

You might want to use a few different examples than lead and mercury, because those ARE regular chemicals, elements even. We've had health problems with those for hundreds of years. While that is a problem we'll have associated with nanotechnology, it's not something NEW to worry about, as it's a general electronics manufacturing problem.

I'm not disagreeing with you at all, just saying that you've got two problems here. One is the industrial-age old problem of metal pollutants, the other is the brand new problem of unknown nanoscale materials.

There are many many new materials discovered every week which have unknown health and environmental effects. Where do nanotubes go when they're not used in a device, and how long do they stay there? We don't know. We need to be active in researching these things and advertising the results.

Really though, get some better examples because it sounds a little silly to call solder a nanomaterial.

Re:Glad

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't agree with you line of thought. While I concede that the first world does have a negative growth rate and that fact it, perhaps, worrisome, I think you're leaning into a very dangerous area when you consider mandating reproduction.

Your idea also fails to take into consideration that though intelligence is possibly a genetic trait, morals ethics and work ethic are not. Sure, interested individuals can teach these ideals, but I personally know far too many academics and professionals with poor moral or ethical fiber, and would just as soon hope that those individuals choose not to reproduce and share those values with their children.

On the other side of the coin, I have also spent a large amount of time among people who are constantly grouped into the "Trailer Trash" category, but have proven to be some of the most upstanding citizens and human beings I know, stuck only in their lifestyle by a lack of opportunity to better themselves educationally.

Just a thought.