Nanotubes "As Deadly as Asbestos" 180
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.
Re:Report at 11.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Face Masks? (Score:3, Insightful)
You need full Respirator gear if you want to stop nano-tubes from getting in your lungs. Even then, with it being so small, your only chance of stop those tubes is if they are even long enough to get caught in the filter.
Thank GOD people have taken the initiative [patentstorm.us] and developing [newscientist.com] nanotube filters. [technologyreview.com]
Re:Report at 11.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone who is genuinely surprised should seriously evaluate their "New tech never has downsides" prejudice. When we refuse to acknowledge issues like this early, we end up confirming the paranoia of the anti-tech people, and making ourselves look like jackasses.
Big surprise (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Report at 11.... (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a big concern here (Score:2, Insightful)
no, all they had to do is find some group with some respectability to push stuff out like this. Even if it gets disproved in years the lawsuit opportunities have just expanded.
Actually... (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is when said micro particle are supposed to be indestructible (an attribute shared by both asbestos and nanotubes). You got a constant activity of the immune system, which never manage to actually destroy the intruders. Only white cells die and newer cells come trying to clean up the mess, in an endless cycle.
This inflammation over-activity is what leads to the cancers.
But besides, there's nothing incredible there. If one creates a new material that is supposed to be indestructible, there are bound to be problems - both environmental and health - due to that fact that, yes, indeed, the material can't be destroy / got rid of.
Re:Good News For Lawyers (Score:3, Insightful)
"Venue shopping" doesn't mean finding jurisdictions that will take your "frivolous" case (quoted from TFA). It means finding the best court for your client. And jurisdiction statutes keep you from filing your case anywhere you want. If the court's county (or city or district) doesn't have a logical relationship with the injury, you can file suit there, but your case will be dismissed or transferred. It's a waste of time.
If you get past the FUD that the legion tort-reform entities put out, and actually think about what's going on here, we're talking about doctors' insurance rates. Doctors, who get paid obscene amounts of money. Doctors, upon whose judgment we rely to -keep us from dying.- Doctors, whose innocent mistakes can mean families left without a wage-earner, forever.
They've got enough money to have a giant lobby (which happily works with the insurance lobby, one of the most evil IMHO), and they've got enough ego to develop Jesus complexes. I, for one, am not worried about whether they get a windfall vis a vis a cut in malpractice-insurance rates by 40%.
At the end of the day, if we want doctors to move to Texas and we want to incentivize it by reducing premiums, we can either divert tax money toward subsidizing premiums, which puts the burden on everyone (i.e., the consumers of medical services), or we can do like Texas and put the burden on injured people and their families by cutting into the amount they can recover. Which sounds more fair to you?
Re:There is a big concern here (Score:5, Insightful)
* If they are one particular kind of nanotube
* and they are not highly charged (their normal state)
* and they are made airbourne (which they normally arn't)
* and someone breathes this in (unlikely in many applications)
then they may have an increased possibility of lung cancer
Re:Report at 11.... (Score:3, Insightful)
It means that any nanobot capable of self-reproducing is a planet-destroying threat.
Re:Okay enough is enough (Score:3, Insightful)
I just wouldn't be jumping the gun with how dangerous it is until further studies are done.
Who said it's a freaking surprise? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sometimes I wonder if some scientists are so specialized they can't see the forest for the trees.
Oh, so you would have classified carbon nanotubes as a definite carcinogen based on this "forest" view you have? A view that doesn't even understand how cancer is actually caused by these substances?
There's nothing inherently surprising about this. It's how science works. A real scientist, instead of a
Five years ago: Nanotubes may cause cancer.
Today: Research shows nanotubes can cause cancer.
So what's your beef again?
Re:Okay enough is enough (Score:3, Insightful)
They just need to be longer (Score:3, Insightful)
Use case considerations (Score:3, Insightful)
Asbestos is a fiber that is most dangerous when used in insulation or as part of an ablative surface like a brake pad. In the first case, it is specifically being manufactured into a loosely bound form so that it maximizes the number of small air pockets in between. In the second case, it is constantly being worn away by its designed use, resulting in small particles of it completely covering every surface near it.
Carbon nanotubes are being used for their structural strength or conductivity. Their value is derived largely from how tightly it can stay bound to the rest of the structure that it is part of. As a result, there are no imaginable use cases where more than negligible free-floating nanotubes would exist in an environment.
This is not to say that this isn't useful information. Although a USE case for nanotubes doesn't exist, there are definitely cases where conditions do exist for the particles to become airborne. Any time you use a subtractive process (buzz saws, lasers, water cutters, whatever) to shape nanotubes then you'll get particulates that need to be managed. Similarly, we should know better than to use nanotubes to build any type of strike plate. They probably wouldn't handle that kind of stress well anyway. Their MIGHT be a danger in high-vibration environments, but generally a thin coating would deal with that.
In any case, it's useful that a profit-centric organization will be informed that NOT taking precautions can be more expensive than the precautions, and this is always valuable. They can't say "but we didn't know!"
Re:Report at 11.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Then there is the exaggeration of asbestos danger. "As deadly as asbestos"? In most situations, so what? Asbestos is deadly if you work in a mine or manufacturing plant for asbestos products and you are exposed to it in the air in LARGE quantities every day for YEARS. Otherwise the risk is really no worse than for any other common type of particulate and the technical solution for heavy exposure is simple: wear protective gear so you aren't breathing the stuff in, and make sure it doesn't escape into the surrounding environment.
If it is sitting in a product minding its own business (i.e. not being mechanically ground up and suspended in the air when it is in use) the risk is zero. It's not like the stuff is irradiating the surrounding area with "asbestos rays" or something.
Of course there can be a downside to tech, but there's a downside to ordinary natural materials when humans use them in ways the human body can't handle. Check out the DHMO website [dhmo.org] for example.
Re:There is a big concern here (Score:4, Insightful)
The choice of asbestos as a comparison is more than an appeal to emotion; it's actually fairly valid. Both substances appear much the same way to a mammalian tissue, both affect the immune systems in a similar way, and both tend to be very long-lived once inside the lungs. True, this does mean we will have to be VERY careful with this stuff. But better to know that now, rather than decades later, after it is too late.
Re:Report at 11.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Report at 11.... (Score:5, Insightful)
You do however still get idiots that argue that things are perfectly safe even decades after they have been found to be a major problem - which is why I've seen that asbestos sparkles prettily in the wind when I worked near such an idiot. The stuff appears to be perfectly safe if you don't breath it in. However it is such a menace since it breaks into particles that are light enough to drift on the wind, get into your lungs, never get out and irritate tissue until that portion of lung is dead. Carbon nanotubes are also likely to get stuck - hence the care taken since day 1.
Re:So why isn't fiberglass insulation banned? (Score:3, Insightful)