Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science Technology

Can Asbestos Help Us Understand Nanotoxicity? 127

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the don't-put-them-in-there-put-them-in-there dept.
Roland Piquepaille writes "Occupational Hazards is running an interesting article about how using our knowledge of asbestos could help us to assess the risks from nanoparticles, or their nanotoxicity. Today, it's unknown if nanomaterials under development are dangerous to human beings or to our environment. Some people think that nanoparticles can move to our lungs or our brains, presenting a significant threat to our health. Other scientists think there is no danger because we have been exposed to nanoparticles for thousands of years, such as ashes from volcanic eruptions. For example, nanotubes which are now used for many industrial developments, have similar shapes as fibers like asbestos, being long and extremely thin. And like nanomaterials today, asbestos was considered as harmless when humans were exposed to it. While the comparison has some merit, more research needs to be done before drawing any conclusion."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Can Asbestos Help Us Understand Nanotoxicity? More

Can Asbestos Help Us Understand Nanotoxicity?

Comments Filter:

  • Sure. It's actually quite simple. (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Boihazard == Bad
    Nanotoxins == Bad

    What part of dead are you having trouble understanding?

  • Something's up... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @06:14PM (#13831032)

    Weird, occupationalhazards.com isn't registered to Roland Piquepaille. What's the catch?

    • Re:Something's up... (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      It's the new Roland Piquepaille 'advertisement model' Roland takes your cash up front and gets your site's story in this case, ocupationalhazards.com, submitted to slashdot, and roland gets a cut, slashdot gets a cut, and everyone's happy. News for Turds, Shit That pays.

    • Hmm, there must've been a mistake. A copy and paste error, perhaps? Anyway, here's the link [primidi.com] everyone's really looking for.

      It's okay.. I have excellent karma.. I can handle it.. *aaarggh*

  • Visit to the woodshed? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by RobertB-DC ( 622190 ) * on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @06:15PM (#13831039) Homepage Journal
    This looks to be the second article in a row from the esteemed Monsieur Piquepaille that doesn't link to an article in his blog. Check out his story posting history [slashdot.org]:

    Can asbestos help us understand nanotoxicity? Wed Oct 19, '05 12:23 PM
    Pillows Dangerous for Your Health Sat Oct 15, '05 12:28 PM
    Molecular Gastronomy, The Science of Cooking Mon Aug 29, '05 11:32 AM
    The Eyes of the Space Shuttle Wed Aug 03, '05 12:58 PM

    BIG gap between the two latest non-self-referential stories, and the weekly shameless self-promotion that used to be his trademark.

    I suspect that somebody either gave Mr. P a stern talking-to, or more likely the editors just quit accepting his stories. Now, he's back, chastened and better for it. You've got to admit, the guy has an eye for science stories. He's just got to have confidence that if he posts good stuff, the click-throughs to his main page (linked appropriately to his name) will follow in time.

    I'm all for shameless self-promotion, of course, but I'm content with the URL link in the post heading. Well, mostly [dixie-chicks.com]...
    • Well, I'd like to thank Roland for his pillow article. Recently i began experiencing sore throats and nasal problems. After reading the pillow story, I decided to buy myself a new pillow.

      Problem solved :) These 2 days I've slept much better than in a long time.

      (Ironically, this might also have to do with nanotoxicity *cough* :P )
    • I suspect that somebody either gave Mr. P a stern talking-to, or more likely the editors just quit accepting his stories.

      Or maybe he did submit with a link to his site and someone edited (gasp! the horror!) them out?

  • Nah (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @06:15PM (#13831043)
    The chances are minute.

  • Don't lick the Space elevator Johnny! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by saskboy ( 600063 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @06:16PM (#13831054) Homepage Journal
    "Other scientists think there is no danger because we have been exposed to nanoparticles for thousands of years, such as ashes from volcanic eruptions. " /sarcasm on/
    And humans haven't had ANY as of yet unexplained health problems over those thousands of years either. /sarcasm off/

    I think it was a bloody shame that the EPA declared New York's air safe to breath after the attack on the World Trade Center, when trillions of nano-toxins were released into the air for cleanup and emergency crews to inhale. We're going to see more of New York Lung, in the years to come.
    • Volcanic ash is generally extremely toxic. It contains a wide variety of interesting substances such as sulphur and flourine which tend to do bad things to human and animal internals when they mix with water. In addition the nanoparticles are sharp and linked to longer term lung disease.

      If nanotech substances are like volcanic ash I'd be about as worried as if they were like asbestos personally.

    • And humans haven't had ANY as of yet unexplained health problems over those thousands of years either.

      Unexplained health problems were a wonderful thing for a Roman Senator's career. Then again, I always thought we weren't bleeding enough humors.

    • EPA Liars (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @08:25PM (#13831822) Homepage Journal
      I live in NYC, and I don't trust the EPA to tell me that nanoparticles are safe. They lied to us after 9/11/2001 about the poisonous air. They lied to the heroic volunteers and police/fire/EMTs who could have worn masks while digging in the rubble. Instead thousands of people are walking testimonials to the EPA's lies about air pollution. I see them every day. The EPA's got a lot of work to recover its credibility. And I haven't seen anything to convince me that they're on that path.
      • Ok, don't know anything about EPA and NYC air during 9/11 but one thing caught my atention, the comment "could have worn masks". Is there a way of filtering out particles small enough to be called NANO particles? Standard facemasks (as seen on Michael Jacksson and Japanese street walkers), to my knowlegde, aren't rated to catch partkles that small (at least the masks we used last summer at my job weren't).

  • So what about other large molecules? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by vik ( 17857 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @06:18PM (#13831064) Homepage Journal
    Plasticisers, stabilizing agents, enzymes, catalysts and all these wonderful pharmecuticals that we consume and then pee into the environment are also nanomachines, just ones built with bulk chemistry rather than direct nanoscale assembly.

    Didn't we ought to focus on what they do in the environment, rather than propagate scare stories about future nanomachines that can be pre-programmed to safely degrade?

    Vik :v)
    • The molicules you've mentioned are only chemical hazards. Asbestos, buckytubes, etc are large enough to be physical hazards. IE they might slice through several cells without reacting with anything, thus ensuring that they persist. And they can slice through any structure, not just specific chemicals like enzymes and prions do.
      • There is a huge difference in scale. A biologically dangerous asbestos fibre is 3,000-10,000 nanometres in diameter. It is not a nanoscale object, and is significantly larger than a cell.

        A buckytube is generally only a few nanometres in diameter, and relatively unreactive.

        If you want examples of dangerous carbon-based particles, you need look no further than the unfiltered particulates emitted from all diesel exhausts. There's scant concern about those - diesel engines continue to operate unabated worldwide

        • Re:Asbestos is not nanoscale (Score:5, Insightful)

          by bcattwoo ( 737354 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @08:10PM (#13831718)
          There's scant concern about those - diesel engines continue to operate unabated worldwide.

          I work for the EPA and happen to know a couple people looking into the health effects (in mice) of fine particulates and are just starting a new project to look at diesel particles. My fellow postdoc friend has been smelling like diesel a lot lately. The odor is really quite a nice accompanyment to lunch :)

          The problem with abating diesel particulate pollution is that a lot of people will likely bitch loudly about the cost of prevention or switching to a less polluting technology. It is a lot easier to study the potential effects of a new technology before it gains widespread adoption rather than trying to put the genie back in the bottle.

          • "There's scant concern about those - diesel engines continue to operate unabated worldwide."

            Actually, the Mine Safety and Health Administration has been worried about diesel particulates in underground mines for a decade now. The OSHA-regulated world is just now catching up.

            Hint: clean/replace your air filters twice as often.

            True story:
            Nice Inspector; "Your LHD failed the test, but I need to take a leak, and I'll take the second test to verify the result after I get back. Why don't you check when the air fi
          • Diesel nanoparticles?? You mean as in common contaminants, or the longchain carbon molecules themselves? And what about fuel-oil home heating furnaces that use #2 diesel??

            Whilst reading here, it did occur to me to wonder about "microfibre" fabrics that are now becoming more common (especially since the price has evidently now dropped to about the same as regular fabrics) -- do they pose broken-fibre inhalation hazards that ordinary fabrics don't?

            • Diesel nanoparticles?? You mean as in common contaminants, or the longchain carbon molecules themselves? And what about fuel-oil home heating furnaces that use #2 diesel??

              I guess that wasn't clear. Fine and ultra-fine soot particles from diesel combustion are what is being studied.

              • Ah, okay. Um.. what's different about soot from diesel combustion, as opposed to combustion of other commonly-burnt large-molecule fuels (frex, wood)??

                • I am not really involved in the PM research, but I would guess that the differing contaminants and burn conditions will lead to different composition and size distribution of the particulates in the soot. For example, diesel soot will likely have higher concentrations of sulfur containing compounds than what you would get from wood. Soot from coal combustion might contain mercury and other heavy metals. I think the combustion of the gaseous/aerosolized diesel also leads to finer soot production than say
                  • "I think the combustion of the gaseous/aerosolized diesel also leads to finer soot production than say the combustion of wood logs in a fireplace."

                    Seems reasonable, and in line with what I've observed. Diesel soot seems very fine-grained, much akin to cig smoke residue (as observed inside computers!)

                    Coal smoke (presumably consisting largely of coal soot) is "heavy" enough that when the temperature is below -40 degrees, it struggles up the chimney, slides down the side of the building, and lays there in a pi
        • Actually plenty of people in Japan were kicking up a fuss in the last few years about the health (breathing mostly I think) problems caused fine particle pollution from diesel cars on motorways built close to the areas that they live.
  • We demand MORE asbestos! MORE asbestos!
  • better nanotoxicity than the regular kind.

  • Asbestos? (Score:5, Informative)

    by geomon ( 78680 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @06:43PM (#13831151) Homepage Journal
    I'm not sure if asbestos is an appropriate analog for nano-based respiratory hazards. When Dr. Irving J. Seilkoff published his report on the link between asbestos and respiratory ailments, there was already an abundant record of impairment in the form of asbestosis. Asbestosis is a scarring and sedimentation of the lung due to particulate inhalation. It is in a general family of respiratory ailments known as pneumoconiosis. That group includes silicosis (affects quarry workers) and black lung (coal miners). The link that Seilkoff is credited with is the connection of asbestos to lung cancer, which is has only one known asbestiform species in direct connection: crocidolite [mesoinfo.com]. This blue amphibole was used in ship construction and in homes in and around Australia (sorry mates!). This asbestiform mineral has been directly connected to one of the most virulent forms of lung cancer, mesothelioma. This cancer of the plural lining is fatal within months of diagnosis.

    Connections between other asbestiform minerals and cancer is more complex. Tremolite and serpentenite have also been linked to lung cancer, but the connection is much more tenuous. Another factor that would complicate the study of asbestos as an analog is the size: an asbestos fiber is counted for toxicological purposes only when it fits a 5:1 aspect ratio and is >5 micron in length. That is the geometry that is most likely to fit into the alveoli. This deep penetration of asbestos into the tissues of the lung is presumed to be the mechanism that leads to cancer. Plaques form around the embedded spines of asbestos as microphages attack and envelope the fibers. This process leads to a general lessening of the effective surface area for gas transfer leading to shortness of breath. The mechanics leading to cancer, however, are dubious and have plagued researchers for more than two decades.

    I can't see how the study of asbestos can illuminate any area of occupational health. I can, however, see how injury claims attorneys would use the experience of asbestos litigation in any future attack on the nano-industry.

    • >5 micron in length.

      That should be less than 5 micron in length.

    • I can, however, see how injury claims attorneys would use the experience of asbestos litigation in any future attack on the nano-industry.

      Even more importantly, designers of materials and components can make sure that particles of the same shape and size as problem asbestos fibres do not end up in people lungs. This has been dealt with for decades in many industries, dust is even taken very seriously in small scale and hobby wooden furniture construction.

      This blue amphibole was used in ship construction a

      • Even more importantly, designers of materials and components can make sure that particles of the same shape and size as problem asbestos fibres do not end up in people lungs.

        The key difference that's missing here is that asbestos is so dangerous because it's so refractory. Other fibrous materials of the same shape and size (i.e. textiles, SMF, glassfibre) don't have the same health effects because they are absorbed by the body. Even other refractory materials such as non-crystalline silica don't cause pn
    • geomon:

      You seem up on the research.

      I had heard (nasty untracable rumor) that the connection between asbestos and cancer had been detected in smokers and/or without controlling for amount of tobacco smoke exposure.

      Given that tobacco smoke has a plethora of known carcinogens and that an asbestos puncture both breaches barriers between the air (with its high concentration of smoke in smokers) and the live cells (or even their innards) and causes inflamation (which leads to massively increased sensitivity to ca

      • Re:I had heard ... (Score:2, Interesting)

        by ZoomieDood ( 778915 )
        I'm a politician in a parks & rec district that recently underwent national media attention on asbestos, and have had some opportunity to do some research on this - as well as get squeezed in a battle between the EPA and our county govt. on this asbestos issue - primarily over the perceived threat to property values (and taxes collected from it).

        My seat of the pants analysis of this is based somewhat on a 2003 conference held in San Francisco with attendance by a worldwide collection of asbestos related
      • Zoomie Dood seems to have the more current stuff in his post, but I will add that the data is pretty convincing that the synergistic effect of exposure to asbestos and smoking is about 50 times that of exposure to either material alone. I'm not sure of the precise toxicologic mechanism, but it is possible that the paralysis of cilia by smoking contributes to deep penetration of the fibers into the lungs. Teasing out how this contributes to cancer is challenging. Your comment about the carcinogens created by
        • "I'm not sure of the precise toxicologic mechanism, but it is possible that the paralysis of cilia by smoking contributes to deep penetration of the fibers into the lungs."

          I wish it were just paralysis of the cilia. Smoking causes the ciliated cells of the respiratory tract to be replaced by squamous epithelial cells, which lack cilia. This is one of the major causes of smoker's cough. Also, the incidence of cancer in squamous epithelial cells is higher than that of the reticulated cells that normally
    • Cancer secondary to absestos might be simply a side effect from chronic micro-injury and irritation, with the severity/alacrity of response dependant on genetic susceptibility to cancer. Frex, I've personally seen bruising to mammary tissue in lactating animals very quickly turn into first mastitis and then localized adenocarcinoma, and I know the same chain of events has been reported at least twice in humans (tho AFAIK hasn't been seriously looked at as an initiating factor in genetically-susceptible hum
    • I am an insurance broker specializing in the placement of coverage for former manufacturers of asbestos containing materials. As such, I have read something on the order of 600 medical,epidemiological, and regulatory articles on the subject. There is one statement presented as fact in the parent that is actually most likely not true, and it is a very important point both for the prevention of future illness and for the current elephantine morass of asbestos litigation. That asserted fact was that the onl
  • Other scientists think there is no danger because we have been exposed to nanoparticles for thousands of years, such as ashes from volcanic eruptions.

    Yeah, because coal miners certainly never have health problems. And there's certainly no build-up in the lungs from smoking, either.

  • The real question comes in why asbestos causes harm. Is the the morphology (shape) of it that is the key? Or is it the chemical properties? Or is it both?
    I must plead my ignorance when I say I don't know if that question has been fully answered yet. I do know that from certain Taconite [wikipedia.org] mining operations they have found non-asbestos minerals that have a similar shape to asbestos, and have found higher rates of rare cancers, of the kind known that asbestos can cause, in the region around the mines. That mig

    • Re:Health risk like Asbestos? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @06:51PM (#13831210)
      why asbestos causes harm. Is the the morphology (shape) of it that is the key?

      A doc friend of mine told me asbestos particles are long and pointy and act as minute glass shards inside the lung alveoles, and they pierce cells over and over as the lungs open and collapse during respiration. Cells repair themselves all the time, but under these repeated micro-stresses, they have to do it a whole lot more, and eventually fail to do it correctly and turn into cancer cells.

      • Re:Health risk like Asbestos? (Score:3, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        It's not just the poking of holes in cells. Membranes self heal pretty well. The other thing to take into account is that macrophages try to distroy the foreign matter by releasing chemicals like hydrogen peroxide. Those damaging chemicals can get into the normal cells via the holes punched in the membranes and damage the DNA inside, which could lead to cancer.

  • "long and extremely thin" cannot be dangerous... (Score:3, Funny)

    by ScentCone ( 795499 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @06:46PM (#13831173)
    Nay, those are the very Sacred Properties of His Noodly Appendage [venganza.org]. Carbon Nanotubes are merely the newest Tower Of Babel - a feeble attempt to use puny "science" to achieve Sublime Pastaness.

    Carbon... pah! It's carbohydrates that are pure and holy!
  • *announcer voice*

    "Have you been exposed to Nanotoxic material? Call Schmoe, Moe and Larry now for a quick settlement!"

    Anything and everything may cause adverse problems in any given person. Take lactose intolerance. Just because one thing is determined to be harmful to most people doesn't mean it's harmful to all. How many people were exposed to Asbestos? How many people have mesothelioma, not all of them I will guarentee you that.

    Does that mean those people got lucky or that they aren't susceptible to
  • STFU you stupid nanomaterials, I like smoking.

  • Nanoparticles already a problem (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    If I recall coreectly, people working on the space elevator (Lawrence Livermore Labs) were creating long strings of bucky balls (carbon nanotubes) as it is a very strong, very light material. The problem that they discovered (this was a few years ago) was that if you put 0.5 parts per billion of buckyballs into a fish tank (500 gallon aquarium), within 3 days, 20% of the fish start exhibiting signs of mental retardation. Within 5 days, the number soars to 80%, accompanied by 10% of the most severely affec
    • within 3 days, 20% of the fish start exhibiting signs of mental retardation

      I really must ask: did they give the fishies SAT tests or something? because I have to say, all fish look retarded to me, especially when they see me hook and pull their friends out of the water one by one, yet keep coming at the same floating dead worm over and over again...

    • We know how to make non-toxic buckyballs (Score:5, Informative)

      by vik ( 17857 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @07:40PM (#13831526) Homepage Journal
      That study is somewhat old hat. Have a look here [physorg.com] and you'll see that the mechanism is now understood.

      In short, you can make toxic, or non-toxic buckyballs. The more bits you dangle on the outside of the buckyballs, the less toxic they become. Nanomachine designers will be aware of this and act accordingly.

      Vik :v)

      • Not to nit-pick too much, but from that study we now know how to make non-cytotoxic buckyballs, or at least how to control their cytotoxicity. The test was just cell culture driven, and suggested that modifications to the buckyballs reduced their general cytotoxicity in culture. A mechanism (free radical generation by the buckyball) was suggested but has not been proven.

        The article stated, and I heartily endorse the statement, that this is not a full toxicologic risk assessment, but simply a first step.

      • A question I have about that study is whether the surface modifications to the buckyballs affects some of their desirable properties as well as their toxicity? ...as their sphericity is one of their touted benefits.
    • That's true of a lot of chemicals. The "nano" isn't the issue. Seriously, there's nothing magical about nano-anything. Chemistry is inherently nanotech - molecules are pretty damned small. Anyone who lumps all of "nanotech" together and speaks about it as some cohesive unit doesn't know what the hell they're talking about. Any material needs to be tested, whether it's considered "nano" or not.
  • Okay, without any detailed research into the subject we can probably safely assume the following:
    • Nanoparticles are very very easily absorbed through the skin and through breathing.
    • Nanoparticles might, due to its size, bind differently and more aggressively with certain organic molecules in your body.
    • It is still unclear what the 'toxicity level' for nanoparticles would be. Bear in mind that 'natural' size particles react/bind differently and the toxicity level might be a lot less based on a particular rat

    • The toxicity of one nanosubstance will surely be NO indication of the toxicity of another

      It obviously depends entirely on the mechanism. I suspect that is why asbestos was mentioned, it it effectively chemically inert in the lungs so the size and shape of the particles is the important thing.

      On that scale, anything and everything can happen...

      It is not intelligent design - we can work out the rules and find out what is happening. Things like the behaviour of very small titanium dioxide particles on the

      • It is not intelligent design - we can work out the rules and find out what is happening. Things like the behaviour of very small titanium dioxide particles on the skin are very well understood (which is why the most recent sunscreens have TiO2 particles doped in a similar way to silicon semiconductors).
        Since you appear to be interested in the subject matter - there is a great page [skinbiology.com] on the toxicity of suncreens in the U.S. - it's not directly related to TitaniumDioxide or Zincoxide, but to other chemicals u

        • Many of them are carcinogenic and cause more harm than good in the long run

          Hence the doping of titanium dioxide and zinc oxide to stop the formation of free radicals after radiation is absorbed. The work was done in Britain (titanium dioxide) and Australia (zinc oxide) and has got a bit of press.

          It is a hard call as to whether some of the early high SPF sunscreens do more harm than good, since the reaction happens in the presence of a lot of sunlight which would do damage anyway - and it does have a bit t

          • It is a hard call as to whether some of the early high SPF sunscreens do more harm than good, since the reaction happens in the presence of a lot of sunlight which would do damage anyway - and it does have a bit to do with particle size due to the relatively high surface area.

            Well, the article I referenced indicates that since the introduction and widespread use of sunscreens in particular in Australia the occurance of skin cancers and melinoma has increased rapidly. That research also takes in considera
  • nanotubes which are now used for many industrial developments, have similar shapes as fibers like asbestos, being long and extremely thin.

    although similar structures can mean similar results doesnt mean itll always be that way. although this is a bad example, it gets the point across. Sodium, poison the human; Chlorine, poison to the human; NaCl, eccential to the human.

    also "being long and extremely thin" is not something a chemist would exactly say is a good reason for similar structure. hell, gasol
    • Technically, sodium is kind of essential too. Check out "sodium / potassium pump" next time you've got a few minutes on google.

    • although similar structures can mean similar results doesnt mean itll always be that way

      The mechanism involved as to why something effectively inert like asbestos can kill you depends on the shape of the particle - generally things that can get into the lungs and never get out are bad, which is why there are health issues with nanotubes that have to be dealt with in the design process - either on the level of the material design (develop a similar material with particles of different shapes) or on the level

  • of course (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Goldsmith ( 561202 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @06:51PM (#13831213)
    Are nanotubes and like materials dangerous?
    Yes.

    So... don't go around breathing in nanotubes. I hope we've learned from our past health failings enough to use these materials responsibly. Who am I kidding though?

    People are not going to understand that the cancer probe or glucose sensor made of nanotubes is actually safe, while the nanotube sweaters may be a bad idea.
  • Last time I read it, it was around $37.
    I'm not an AdWords/AdSense member, so I didn't have to agree to the TOS saying I can't discuss the money.
    Something worth $37/click linked to by Mr. Roland. I can't help but suspect something deeper than an interest in informing the /. community of asbestos problems.
    • I have experience with Asbestos spamming :P

      The clicks can be worth from $2 (depending on where you are in the world/time) to almost $100, sometimes you'll log on and see $70 - one click and you feel like jumping out of your seat. :D
    • I did a small test on how much one can actually get from an asbestos page. I made a quiz about mesothelioma [bemmu.com] (which is caused by asbestos exposure). Since the page IS related to asbestos, all the AdSense ads are of course for asbestos and mesothelioma. I put a $50 prize (Amazon gift certificate) to be given to one of the people who can answer the questions on the page correctly and posted the quiz to all sweepstakes sites on the net. As I started getting hundreds of hits per day with a CTR of 1.2% I thought
  • people often ignore there are many types of asbestos, and only a when used incorrectly, or without the proper precautions is it truely harmful.

    I'd like to know what form of asbestos they are talking about.

    Blue Asbestos (crocidolite) == bad (no longer used) White Asbestos (chrysotile) != bad (used until the 1980s when enviromental wackos tried to ban in one of their many over generalized 'missions')
  • is that (at least with buckyballs and nanotubes) they're non-biodegradable (in this they're similar to asbestos). I recall watching the photo of a macrophage destroyed because it tried to swallow an asbestos particle.

    The questions to be asked are:

    Can the nanoparticles destroy the human cells, or alter their DNA as a side effect?
    Can they clutter in the bloodstream or inside the organs?
    • The real question is if it will give me super powers
    • Carbon Nanotubes have already been proven to be toxic in laboratory mice and in some extreme cases fatal.

      This [sciencenews.org] article shows that inhalation of nanotubes can cause lung scaring significant DNA damage, blood clotting and the death of macrophages similar to that of exposure to asbestos.
    • I sure hope they are not toxic.

      I met a guy the other day that makes these things (nano-tubes, buckyballs) for NASA. They are producing them for use in lubricants that can function in the extremes of space and hard vaccum. He owns a lab near my office.

      He showed me his hands. Pointing to a finger with a deep scratch that was black at one end, he says "those are buckyballs in the black part." Then pointing to a section of his palm with a buckshot spattering of black spots he says, "these are nanotubes in h

  • Greed Greed Greed (Score:4, Insightful)

    by argoff ( 142580 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @07:18PM (#13831384)
    While I am sure there are risks to nano technology, I think the real force driving all this "concern" is plan and simple greed.

    Nano technology is what's called a "disruptive" technology. That means that it will enable people to do things for pennies on the dollar that used to cost billions. Because of this it threatens what is called "barriers to entry" for many large corporations. According to business 101, the most profitable businesses have high barriers to entry that help keep competitors out and lock profits in.

    The only problem is that when a company can't compete off of it's "natural" barriers to entry, then it's only option is to compete off of "regulatory" barriers to entry. Hence the strong incentives and financial pressure to make sure nano technology is a super overregulated industry before it even exits the starting gate.

    So now all the other "concerns" about nano technology that keep poping up should be far more clear.
    • Nano technology is what's called a "disruptive" technology. That means that it will enable people to do things for pennies on the dollar that used to cost billions

      Disruptive technology != doing things for pennies on the dollar. Disruptive technologies by their nature have a high barrier for entry (it is not an evolution of current technlogy), but it is high for both established and unestablished players in the market.

      The only problem is that when a company can't compete off of it's "natural" barriers t
  • I come from small-town Montana (Thompson Falls, population 1300). Our Junior High school was, for many years, very full of asbestos insulation. The ceilings were usually in bad repair, so I expect that the citizens of our fine city were almost universally exposed to asbestos. However, I cannot recall any non-smoker in the city dying of lung cancer. Nanotoxicity is unlikely to happen except for manufacturers and other people exposed to large quantities: you and I are simply unlikely to be exposed to enough t
  • Its doubtful that your body would even recognize these particles enough to filter them out. Even if they did it might be too late.

    Most of the time, the body filters out chemicals by converting them to easier-to-handle chemicals. When these resist change (much like plastics, dioxins, etc, there's room for accumulation. When things accumulate in the body, bad things happen. Look at prions.

  • Nanotoxicity? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Jonboy X ( 319895 ) <jonathan.oexnerNO@SPAMalum.wpi.edu> on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @07:35PM (#13831500) Journal
    Nanotoxicity? If you ask me, anyone stupid enough to eat their iPod deserves what they get.
  • We all know (now, if not before reading the summary) that carbon nanotubes and asbestos particles have similar shapes. How do their dimensions compare? Methinks this would be particularly relevant to their biochemical properties, and might make any similarities meaningless.
  • "Other scientists think there is no danger because we have been exposed to nanoparticles for thousands of years...For example, nanotubes which are now used for many industrial developments, have similar shapes as fibers like asbestos."

    Urrr....yeah. Nothing to boost my confidence like comparisons to that pantheon of healthfulness and human safety, asbestos.

  • Some people think that nanoparticles can move to our lungs or our brains...

    YES! And there they will create little robots [google.com] that will start controling our brains!

    • The border between blood and brain can be crossed by only very few substances. This border is the reason why so many drugs have to be take in very high doses if these drugs have to affect the brain.

      Nanoparticles, however, just jump over this border as if it were nonexistant. And don't forget that there is no known way to filter nanoparticles, eg, in air. You may be able to filter nanoparticles in a very small volume, but that's it. You cannot build an gasmask with the ability to filter out nanoparticles.
  • Too much coal dust will kill you. Too much radiation will kill you. Too much Vitamin A will kill you. Too much tylenol will kill you. A large bale of marijuana will kill you, if dropped from sufficient height. And varying amounts of above substances can make you sick. We need to know safe acceptable limits whenever the population en masse will be exposed to new substances. Lots of tricky details to sort out, and no simple answers.

  • Danger of asbestos was known since 1898 (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @09:10PM (#13832094)
    The dangers of asbestos were actualy knowns since as early as 1898, when Lucy Dean, one of the first women inspectors for factories in the UK wrote about asbestos work as one of the top four dusty occupations which came under observation that year 'on account of their easily demonstrated danger to the health of workers and because of ascertained cases of injury of brinchial tubes and lungs'.

    Similar observations followed in the years 1909 and 1910 and were widly circulated amongst policy-makers and politicans. By 1918 insurance companies in Canada and the United States declined insurance cover for asbestos workers 'due to the assumed injourious conditions in the industry'.

    I repeat; the danger of asbestos was known from the very beginning and shorty thereafter insurance companies decliend to cover asbestos damage. That was in the 1920s. Asbestos was however used into the 1980 as a cheap and fire resistant material.

    I think we should learn from the mistakes in the past and try not to repeat them.

    Read this http://reports.eea.eu.int/environmental_issue_repo rt_2001_22/en/issue-22-part-05.pdf [eu.int] for more informations about asbestos and the problems it's use created.
    • Asbestos was however used into the 1980 as a cheap and fire resistant material.

      You seem to be under the impression that we have stopped using asbestos (and asbestos related minerals) as a fire resistant material. You see those shingles on your roof? Asbestos. You see those ceiling tiles in your office? Asbestos.

      My friend works for an asbestos testing lab. On a trip to home depot he pointed out dozens of building materials with a "Warning: This contains xxxxxxx" where xxxxxxx is some mineral that has th

  • Fibreglass causing similar problems? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I've often wondered whether all those millions of fibreglass insulation blankets that have been installed in house ceilings will begin to cause similar problems to asbestos when they begin to break down.

  • Not nanotubes (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Sir Holo ( 531007 ) on Wednesday October 19, 2005 @09:49PM (#13832284)
    Nanotubes disintegrate in water. (Humans are bags of mostly water.) So you'll have to look elsewhere for your asbetos-like lung-daggers.
  • Asbestos is a naturally occuring mineral.
    Just because something is natural, doesn't mean it won't try to kill you.
    Take ... for instance ... my dogs toot ;)
  • Without some analytic tools we will only be able to say toxicity is somewhere on the scale between candle soot and ebola.

    The Lawrence Livermore Labs story I had not heard before. In fact probably a lot of young people in universities especially overseas have not, and also may not know about the way to dial down toxicity on buckyballs.

    The scariness and persistence of the "strings of buckyballs toxicity" issue is massive, and it seems possible that when nanofibers break or are subject to varied chemical envi
  • We never thought you'd stoop this low.

    Anyone with any experience in adsense knows a thing or two about 'abestos'.....

    man..
  • I recall reading a book by an authoritative writer (who also happens to be a doctor, so he must be right) about these nanoparticles. Apparently, they can evolve some form of complex behaviour, fly around in swarms and prey on human beings, turning them into food or subservient zombies! Ah, by the way, global warming is just a huge scam by politicized scientists who want to gain power and raise funds.

  • When the article mentions "cooking" it means Teflon without naming the product, right?
  • While the comparison has some merit, more research needs to be done before drawing any conclusion.

    Why, whenever rich industries are involved, do we take the obviously backwards stance that "Until you prove its harmless, lets assume its probably not."

    How about, keep that shit out of my stainguard pants until you show me *why* its safe.

Slashdot Top Deals

Scientists will study your brain to learn more about your distant cousin, Man.

Close