Nanotubes "As Deadly as Asbestos"

Stony Stevenson writes "Certain carbon nanotubes may be as hazardous to humans as asbestos. A paper to be published in Nature Nanotechnology suggests that inhaling certain types of nanotubes can lead to the formation of mesothelioma, a type of lung cancer commonly caused by exposure to asbestos. "This is a wakeup call for nanotechnology in general and carbon nanotubes in particular," said Andrew Maynard, co-author of the report and chief science adviser to the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies." I'm really hoping that those medical face masks get popular again. That's a look that should really be cyclic, like bell-bottoms and thongs. Update: 05/21 19:18 GMT by T : See also this page at the Nanotechnology Project, which features a link to video commentary from Andrew Maynard, the researcher mentioned in the above-linked article.

Report at 11....

[y86]

Breathing solids into lungs which are supposed to process gases is a bad thing. More at 11.

Re:Okay enough is enough

[the_humeister]

The problem is that mice don't live very long, 3 years at most. Epidemiological studies over decades have shown the association of asbestos to both lung cancer and mesothelioma. So conceivably we may not know until decades later unless we get a proper mouse model for cancer production with carbon nanotubes (if it causes cancer...).

Good News For Lawyers

[chromozone]

I am jaded enough to think there are lawyers happy to see studies like this. I know some people who worked with asbestos a long time did get legitimately ill, but it was sad to see how false and exaggerated claims of illness were used to make money and ruin businesses. The extent of ploy might be suggested in the tort reform that took place in Texas:

"Why Doctors Are Heading for Texas"

"In sum, these reforms have worked wonders. There are about 85,000 asbestos plaintiffs in Texas. Under the old system, each would be advancing in the courts. But in the four years since the creation of MDLs, only 300 plaintiffs' cases have been certified ready for trial. And in each case the plaintiff is almost certainly sick with mesothelioma or cancer.

No one else claiming "asbestosis" has yet filed a pulmonology report showing diminished lung capacity. This means that only one-third of 1% of all those people who have filed suit claiming they were sick with asbestosis have actually had a qualified and impartial doctor agree that they have an asbestos-caused illness."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121097874071799863.html?mod=googlenews_wsj [wsj.com]

It's wise to be careful with nanotube technology of course - and also to be careful with studies that give the legal types excuses to plunder.

Face masks are common in many places

[querist]

I don't know where Commander Taco lives (or Subcommander Taco, either), but I know that those face masks are quite common in many Asian countries for at least two purposes.

1. to protect others from your cold, etc.

2. to protect yourself from smog in large cities, such as Beijing.

I've been to Beijing, and those masks were quite necessary. :-( I like Beijing other than the smog.

Re:Actually...

[stevelinton]

Lung are designed to be able to process most solids, mainly being able to destroy and remove small foreign solids (dust and a-like) that may pose problem (The bigger solids are coughed out so they don't end up inside the lungs - they pose problem, but higher up in the ventilation pathway).

The problem is when said micro particle are supposed to be indestructible (an attribute shared by both asbestos and nanotubes).

Another problem is shape. The system is designed to process round solids, not very long thin ones.

Re:Duh?

[BattleApple]

Cigarette filters aren't (and never were) made of fiberglass. And I doubt much, if any, of the filter gets inhaled. However, Wikipedia says that Kent used asbestos in their filters in the 50's
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cigarette_filter#Manufacture [wikipedia.org]

Re:Why is this a surprise?

[Hoi Polloi]

Not exactly. A carcinogen like benzene works differently than a nanofiber like asbestos or carbon tubes. Benzene's affect is purely chemical. Asbestos (and nanotubes) cause damage through physical damage. One mechanism is when the fibers are longer than about 17 microns [epa.gov] and are too long for white blood cells to envelop (frustrated phagocytosis). Because the fibers can work their way into lung tissue these fibers form a constant source of inflammation and scarring. Another is the fibers can spear individual cells and cause them to leak [tripod.com] and physically interfere with chromosome function [nih.gov]. It is worth being careful [aliciapatterson.org].

Re:Why is this a surprise?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes I wonder if Slashdot poster are so generalized that they can't see the trees in the forest.

If it were as simple as you describe then every small molecule would cause cancer. In fact, the two mechanisms for the carcinogenicity are completely different for benzene and carbon. Benzene is similar enough to the nucleotides in our DNA that it frequently displaces and/or intercalates among the nucleotide pairs, causing mutations. Nanotubes in the lungs basically get stuck there because the body's natural defenses can't remove them (as true with any nanosized aerosols, like silica or asbestos). Anytime you have a continuous immune response, the inflammation eventually leads to cell damage and risk of cancer.

Re:Actually...

[Corporate Troll]

Mod up... Asbestosis [wikipedia.org] is best described to the layman as "small needles" destroying the lungs.

Re:There is a big concern here

[ukemike]

One of the biggest reasons that asbestos has proved to be fertile ground for lawsuits is because the negative health effects have been know for about 100 years now, and corporations still used it in large quantities through the 1970s. That demonstrates a certain recklessness. "We're willing to risk your health for our profits."

I work in the asbestos business, and I can tell you that enforcement of asbestos regulations is REALLY lax. The main item that drives employers to follow OSHA regulations and protect their employees is fear of litigation. The main thing that drives manufacturers to keep asbestos out of their products is fear of litigation. You should be grateful to that fear of lawsuits, it is the only thing that prevents industry from continuing to put asbestos in thousands of building products.

Face masks are less effective than tinfoil hats

[ukemike]

Face masks are less effective than tinfoil hats at filtering smog. They are useless for filtering CO, O3, NOx, PM10 particles, or diesel particles, which are the dangerous elements of smog. Facemasks are designed to keep really big dust particles like sawdust out of your lungs. They are also designed to keep spittle from falling into body during surgery. They are NOT gases or fine particles.

Re:Actually...

[camg188]

Fiberglass does not cause mesothelioma. Currently the only know cause of mesothelioma is asbestos. Fiberglass fibers are thick enough that your lungs can eventually expel them, but they can damage your lungs in large volumes by clogging and cutting tissue. Fiberglass will not split into thinner fibers like asbestos does. The thickness of the fiberglass fibers also keeps them from getting deep into lungs.

Re:We should use nanotubes for attic insulation!

[Anonymous Coward]

Vermiculite was only contaminated from one source and for only a little while. The chances that your vermiculite is contaminated is slim. I use that stuff all the time for gardening. They sell it at home depot.

Re:Actually...

[avandesande]

How about Byssinosis [wikipedia.org] or lung disease caused by cotton fibers? We still use cotton textiles though.
My point is that any small particulate (look up silicosis) does not belong in the lungs. Nanotubes will most likely be encapsulated in some kind of epoxy matrix which would entail little or no hazard.

Re:Report at 11....

[ukemike]

It is illegal to demolish a building anywhere in the US without first conducting a "thorough inspection for the presence of asbestos." In most places you cannot get a demo permit without showing proof that the inspection was done. Many states only allow certified people to conduct the surveys.

SatanicPuppy is right. In a well maintained building it is usually better to leave it in place and manage the asbestos materials than to remove the materials for no reason. But that is not the same as ignoring the issue. If you're gonna safely manage asbestos-containing materials (ACM) then you have to know where they are. The worst thing you can do is say, "we're gonna leave well enough alone" then "lets knock down this wall, which may or may not contain asbestos, to make this office bigger."

I am an asbestos consultant, and I have surveyed hundreds of buildings. Only a tiny handful had no asbestos in them Even brand new buildings usually have some asbestos in them.

I always get a good laugh when someone tells me, "oh well we had the popcorn ceiling tested and this building is asbestos free." Here is a short and far from complete list of materials that frequently contain asbestos:
joint compound/taping mud on sheetrock
texture coats on sheetrock
plaster, esp acoustical plaster
vinyl floor tiles
linoleum
adhesives of all sorts
roofing
roofing patching material
pipe insulation
duct insulation
duct tape
transite
acoustical ceiling tiles
'popcorn' or 'cottage cheese' ceiling
fireproofing
fire door cores
exterior paint

Actually if it isn't wood, glass, ceramic, metal, or plastic then it is suspect. If it is one of those there is a decent chance that it is glued on with ACM adhesive.

Re:Actually...

[TheLink]

Looking at the NIH link on that page, it seems like it's not as bad as asbestos:

"Symptoms usually improve after stopping exposure to the dust. Continued exposure can lead to damaged lung function. In the U.S., worker's compensation may be available to people with byssinosis".

Re:Report at 11....

[davidsyes]

That might explain why san fransideshow will continue to have blight-raggedy-assed buildings in existence, with innards just plastered and sealed up to "look" new, but not be new. Sounds like reinforcing superfund/toxic sites to me.

But, at least for seniors and some low-income people, there are NEW habitats build where some older buildings have been torn down or which burned down and toxics removals was a non-issue. Short of raggedy-shit burning down, it might be relatively impossible for some of the more infested, embarrassing-but-income-tax-revenue-generating properties will linger on.

Re:Report at 11....

[Hubbell]

I'm a carpenter (albeit 20 years old and only an apprentice) but I can tell you that fiberglass is worse for you than almost anything else in the construction industry. The only reason it's still legal is cause they have nothing else to replace it with.

Re:Report at 11....

[ukemike]

Asbestos Abatement contractors have gotten big contracts based on my surveys, and rightfully so. The law requires removal of most types of asbestos materials from a building before demolition (or rennovation.) The alternative would be to send huge clouds of known carcinogens downwind during the demo or renovation.

I am fairly certain that no lawsuits have come out of my work. I am fairly certain because I haven't been deposed or subpoenaed. Actually to a large degree I am in the business of preventing lawsuits. Building owners hire us to monitor and document the removal of asbestos so that if someone were to sue them they can wave our report and say, "We did it according to the law, and here are all the lab results showing that it was done right. I am also fairly certain that millions of people would have been exposed to carcinogenic or toxic stuff if it weren't for my work and the work of many thousands of industrial hygienists all over the work.