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."

Yeah right

[Neurotoxic666]

"Are these invisible particles dangerous to our breathing? What happens if nanotechnologically manufactured products end up on the refuse dump and their particles are released into the environment?"

Are they even aware that Skynet is taken from a movie? Like science needed more technophobic zealots anyway...

lawyers run the show

[vijayiyer]

Yet again, lawyers will dictate the course of technology - the fear of a lawsuit jacks up insurance rates, which makes research and development excessively costly.

Mmm

[bo0ork]

When an insurance company says something is bad or good, and is willing to back it with money (or not, as in this case), I trust them. Unlike product manufacturers, these guys actually has something to lose by being dishonest.

Eh? I know there's no such thing as...

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

...nanotechnology. I'm sure you also know. "Nano" is just a morpheme people bandy around who are trying to get funding. But this is terrible news. It looks like the insurance companies have been fooled into thinking it does really exist and so are going to use it as a convenient excuse to increase our premiums.

Listen to the insurance companies...

[sohojim]

Put simply, they have a lot of money tied up in everything, and it's all about the numbers to them. Everything from how many 40-year-olds break their left ankle all the way up to what happens if millions of people inhale nanobots that destroy their lungs on the inside.

They also addressed climate change from a relatively broad range of perspectives a couple of years ago. See this report [lbl.gov].

Of course, if we all go gray goo, there won't be anyone left to pay a claim to. :-)

Re:Good Primer on Nanotech

[B'Trey]

Every technology is risky. We should go back to plowing fields with oxen and hunting with a bow and arrow, then we'd be safe from all of this horrible technology. Millions might die of hunger, but hey, at least they won't be killed by technology.

Common Sense

[ShinSugoi]

As much as I would like to join the cries of "horrible insurance rates", the Insurance industry has good reason to be hesitant. We really don't know what sorts of effects many nano-sized objects will have when they interact with the human body, and it's perfectly understandable for them to desire to measure the risk before they insure it.

That is, after all, the basis of their business model.

Re:Mmm

[JosKarith]

Riiiight.
Insurance companies are notorious for using anyting that happens as either -
a) a reason to jack up premiums, or
b) a reason to not pay out.
or both.

Generally, insurance companies write clauses into their contracts to weasel out of paying in the 2-3 most likely circumstances.
and compulsory insurance is just a license for them to print money.

One of the most effective ways to gain leverage

[StandardCell]

For those of us who are even slightly environmentally or health conscious, the effects of nanotech-related waste of one type or another should be of concern. From the mercury used to extract gold to the lead used in the solder of so many electronic devices, we now have a new potential threat in the form of nanomaterials.

It's not my intention to come off as a luddite, but these materials are potentially nasty. They react in very different ways than regular chemicals, and for the first time we have materials we can't assume that the natural environment of our planet will simply sweep them away to where we can't see them and where they won't affect us. We really need to be paying attention right here and right now because these materials can persist in our environment for a long time and are not easily incinerated or chemically treated.

The insurance industry should be taking a close look at covering the liability of companies involved in the manufacture and use of nanomaterials. The companies using nanomaterials ought to be held to the highest standards and employ rigorous manufacturing, environmental protection and recycling programs. Why should insurers be covering risk if their manufacturing plant is releasing carcinogenic and mutagenic material that embeds itself in the soil and never leaves it? I believe in conjuntion with government environmental protection agencies, companies will think carefully about employing such techniques. We can't afford to let it get to the point where the government or individuals start suing because of the damage, but neither can a company afford to get its insurance premiums hiked substantially or its coverage dropped.

The bottom line: if you're concerned about nanotech manufacturing facilities, live near a dump, or otherwise are going to be near these materials, get active and involved and start reporting the facts about nanotech materials to companies' insurers and other government agencies to ensure your safety and that of your children.

Also, on a slightly unrelated note, insurance companies are a great way to gain leverage against companies and organizations that screw you over. Whether you complain incessantly about unmaintained gym equipment, an apartment building full of mold, or an employer who insists on putting its employees in potentially dangerous situations, an insurer will always be interested in anything that's not disclosed to them that would affect their coverage risk. If you can find out who insures a company with such a "flaw," you can exact justice by simply documenting the issues with the insurer. Believe me, they DO listen and they WILL get on it.

Re:lawyers run the show

[taped2thedesk]

"Yet again, lawyers will dictate the course of technology - the fear of a lawsuit jacks up insurance rates, which makes research and development excessively costly."

But if lawsuits do happen, and the insurance companies don't charge the nanotech firms enough to , then the costs will get passed on to the consumer through higher insurance rates for everything else. In the end, it really doesn't matter... consumers will get screwed either way.

At least by raising rates, the insurance companies are encouraging more research into potenial health hazards of nanotech. Failing to research these hazards would be extremely unethical, and would be bad from a business sense (if there are problems once nanotech is widespread, a lot more R&D money will have been wasted than if they found it early on and could either abandon the research or find ways to make it safe). Once it can be shown that nanotech isn't going to be cause lung problems, etc., then rates will drop back down. This encourages nanotech companies to to conduct the research now (to get their rates down), rather than wait until we're hit by a wave of mesothelioma.

I can't believe I'm actually defending insurance companies :-/

Re:This shouldn't surprise anyone

[Short Circuit]

I'm surprised nobody's been doing research to find accidentally manufactured nano-products.

Nanotubes and buckyballs were originally manufactured by burning graphite rods, IIRC. And you can't tell me similar conditions don't exist elsewhere, such as coal-based power plants and steel refineries. Other particles of potential concern can probably be found in the same way.

Finally, AFAIK, there's not much difference between nanotechnology-produced devices and other artificially-produced chemicals. If anything, a nanomachine would be humongous, compared to common hydrocarbons or even laundry detergents. Just because it has the word "nano" in it doesn't mean we don't already work with smaller things.

Re:Why dont they study

[thayner]

They could also study how many lives will be saved by nanotechnology, but being an insurance company this is not their focus. If nanotechnology saves 1000 lives and kills one, the insurance company's problem is still the millions of dollars they'll need to pay out in lawsuits.

Re:Glad

[Scott Richter]

I am glad to see some sort of forward thinking on the possible risks on this new technology. Though it surprises me to see the source isnt government regulation, but instead insurance hesitation.

I truly mean no offense, but the way you phrase your statement - "*this* new technology" - belies the fact that you (like the insurance companies here) don't know what nanotechnology *is*.

First, nanotech is a very loose definition for anything small. It isn't a technology - it is a very heterogeneous collection of diverse technologies bearing no resemblance to each other except that they have small, well-controlled features. To be described as nanotech, your device must have features or design control on a level below 200 nm. As such, things that are "nanotech" need not even be small, but rather large and very regularly patterned.

As such, each technology needs to be evaluated separately, just as larger technologies would. People in general don't know what nanotech is - and isn't - and in the scientific world, it's just a word to put on grant proposals to impress reviewers.

People are afraid of "nanotech" (whatever it is or isn't) because they don't know what it is. Are there some technologies that have the potential for danger? Of course, and that's true on any size scale.

To make real-world examples, here are some things that would meet the definition of nanotech:

iridescent peacock feathers

crystals of anything, including salt.

A layer of oil on water

living cells

computer chips

When you give examples of this nebulous, fear-inspiring phenomenon, it's hard to be afraid of the concept. Again, trying to deal with "nanotech" as a united whole is a flawed premise from the start,.

Re:Yeah right

[lovecult]

Far from seeming to be technophobic zealotry, the report appears to ask questions from a philosophically disinterested perspective.

It does not say "It will all go horribly wrong", in a technophic vein.
Rather, asks open, critical questions, that lead to the question most important for the interests of the insurance industry:
"are we at risk of losing money?"
Hardly zealotry.

Skynet succeeds as a dramatic device, because of its resonance in our culture.
It is a reflection of healthy distrust.

We have learnt to love the beauty of scientific philosophy and the comfort it has brought us.
But, we had out fingers burnt by asbestos, thalidomide, dirty air, ... the list goes on.

Why should we cede automatic trust to those who can make huge profits now, and never have to pay more than a fraction of the cost when things go abominably wrong?

I for one, refuse to bow to our new nanotech engineering masters

Re:Glad

[kin_korn_karn]

The Young Republican/Ayn Randian contingent around here will all be dependent on a corporation someday, and that corporation will let them down. Maybe put them in a bad financial situation (unless they live in mommy's basement for their ENTIRE life, not just their entire young adult life). Will you all say, "thank you sir, may I have another?" Will you say that it was the right thing to fuck you over? Do you suffer from that much self-loathing?

When you are dying in the gutter because you've sold the entire country to corporations that shipped your job overseas, I pray to God you're not stupid enough to thank them for it.

Litigation, insurance and business

[PerlMonkey]

There is a very serious downside to this, stemming indirectly from our current litiginous climate. Basically, if the insurance companies refuse to cover something it is effectively illegal due to many existing requirements for insurance.

It's like having a rottweiler in a house - sure it's legal, but you can't get insurance for the house, which means you can't get a mortgage, which means you can't buy a house unless you pay for it out of pocket...so it may as well be illegal for you to have a rottweiler.

One might say that this is just free market at work, yet there are aspects of goverment regulation here which underpin the system - like allowing lawsuits against uninvited people entering your property and being bitten.

Likewise, we'll see that unless the goverment idemnifies the nanotechnology companies (small chance of that) they will be unable to enter the field even though there is no formal prohibition against nanotechnology manufacturing.

Re:Glad

[Planesdragon]

The Democrat/Statist contingent around here will all be dependent on the government someday, and that government will let them down.

Slight clarification: When the government lets down the socalists, they will go and get a new government with essentially the same capital, less a bit for overhead.

When the corporations let down the libertarians, they'll start from scratch with no capital whatsoever.

If you have the choice between a dystopia where no one does business--and thus we all barter and farm to survive--and one where we all starve to death for lack of money and aren't allowed to farm land because we don't own it--which one would you prefer?

Re:One of the most effective ways to gain leverage

[Curunir_wolf]

It's not my intention to come off as a luddite, but these materials are potentially nasty.

No, instead you come off like a chicken-little-hippy-activist scare monger.

Yes, precautions developing nanotech are important, but the potential benefits to everyone are tremendous. We need to be supporting this type of research, not running around encouraging the ignorant to demonstrate and complain about how worried they are.

This exact attitude is why there is a shortage of nuclear power in the US, which could have been replacing the polluting coal and oil plants over the last 20 years.

California didn't institute rolling blackouts because they thought it was convenient, it was because of the NIMBY lobby and vocal ignorant masses pushing legislation that made it impracticle to build ANY kind of power plant. Surprise, surprise, there is then an energy crisis on the left coast.

Don't throw out the baby with the bath water. There are plenty of folks, such as the CBEN [rice.edu] studying nanotech to ensure safety. We don't need to raise a public outcry.

How new are buckyballs and other nanotechnology?

[Carl Vicimus]

Nanotech objects are common place. Really!

When the research regarding the risks of buckyballs and other nanoparticles came out, I sent a letter to New Scientist where it was announced criticising them for "bad science". Buckyballs were specifically accused of hurting test subjects.

The testing may be valid, but leaves the wrong impression. Buckyballs are easily made by burning benzene and collecting them from the soot. Benzene is burned when we burn wood, coal, and gasoline. We've been burning these materials by the millions of tons for hundreds of years. Consequently, humans have been exposed and "harmed" by them over the same period.

This doesn't mean that we can't be harmed by new chemical compounds that are made through nanotechnology. It does mean that the threat is not new. The fact that we think of ourselves as able to control them doesn't mean that they are a significant danger.

The reports are bad science because they measure a boa constrictor along its length and tell us that is 16 foot in size without telling us it is only 6 inches tall.

Research is needed for the use of new chemicals, but the fact that we construct the chemicals with a new process doesn't make them more dangerous.

Re:Insurance as a check for captalism?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Were people required by law to own horse insurance or mule insurance when those were the methods of transporation? I don't think so. Now, every one is required by law, to own a min. of car insurance."

Thats because:

1: horses look where they're going and use their own brain to avoid hitting things, but cars go where they're pointed regardless of how drunk or stupid the driver is;
2: horses, being wetware, don't cause the extensive stuctural damage on collision with stationary objects that cars do;
3: horses, as a rule, do not travel at the same speed as cars for the same duration;
4: no model of horse has ever been known to burst into flames on impact

The basic minimum of car insurance is third-party cover, which is really a garantee that you can pay restitution for any damage your negligence or stupidity causes. That is a reasonable minimum requirement for being allowed to pilot a potentially lethal in public.

You may argue that you aren't stupid, but if you can't see the point of protecting yourself from bankrupcy due to law suits (and lets face it, accidents happen, no matter how good a driver you think you are), then you invalidate your protest.

You may consider yourself a better than average driver; 70% of people do, which means at least 20% must be wrong. Think about it; if you can't see the value of protecting yourself from bankrupcy, you may wish to re-think you ability to self-assess your driving prowess.

"How long until it is required by law that every citizen must be paying for health insurance..."

In the US, you would be an idiot not to pay for health insurance, but that is because of the abysmal quality of free medical services compared to the civilized world.

"...life insurance..."

Why would that ever happen? If you manage to die, who would that harm? The only types of insurance that are mandatory are where someone OTHER THAN YOU is at risk. Get it? Its about your potential to cause harm to others, not about you (sorry, not everything in the world is about you).

"...and lawyer insurance or be put in jail?"

If you could be jailed for lack of lawer insurance, you could argue that your lack of insurance garantees you won't receive a fair trial, thus the law would be self-defeating. The courts would overturn such a law faster than you can say "Catch 22".

Laws requiring insurance are made when the majority prove themselves either too stupid or selfish to consider what consequences for others their actions have. The alternative is that people injured at no fault of their own are compensated from public funds; if you object to mandatory insurance, I'm prepared to bet that you would squeal like a stuck pig at the idea of your tax dollars subsidising other people's recklessness.

Re:Glad

[greenrd]

Your strident over-simplification

... was a pretty damn accurate satire of Randroid lunacy. He was ridiculing the juvenile thinking of the Randroids. I think you missed the point.

Re:Glad

[greenrd]

An insurance company is not much more than a collection of individuals grouped together to share the risk each one represent and help each other in case something goes wrong.

With one crucial difference. It is a profit-seeking entity which would heartlessly deny coverage to a kid dying of cancer if it thought it could get away with it. Unlike a community that was genuinely interested in helping each other even if it might mean some sacrifice.

So, each one is interested to be better covered at the lowest price.

That doesn't follow from the assumption that insurance is basically a community that is genuinely interested in "helping each other if something goes wrong". You assume everyone thinks like a red-in-tooth-and-claw capitalist, when in reality not everyone does.

From this, everything else can be predicted...

Your "model" doesn't explain why the US health insurance model is so much more expensive than the British NHS (hint: profit-seeking?), so your "model" is flawed.