Nanomaterials More Dangerous Than We Think 239
bshell writes "A Canadian panel of leading scientists warns that nanomaterials appearing in a rapidly growing number of products might potentially be able to enter cells and interfere with biological processes. According to a story in the Globe and Mail, the Council of Canadian Academies concluded that 'there are inadequate data to inform quantitative risk assessments on current and emerging nanomaterials... Their small size, the report says, may allow them "to usurp traditional biological protective mechanisms" and, as a result, possibly have "enhanced toxicological effects."' The council is an independent academic advisory group funded by the federal government, but operating at arms-length from Ottawa. The 16-member panel that wrote the new report included some of Canada's leading scientists and top international experts on nanomaterials."
Re:Bunch of useless speculation (Score:5, Informative)
A Review of Carbon Nanotube Toxicity and Assessment of Potential Occupational and Environmental Health Risks
Lam, Chiu-wing; James, John; McCluskey, Richard; Arepalli, Sivaram; Hunter, Robert
Critical Reviews in Toxicology, Volume 36, Number 3, May-June 2006 , pp. 189-217(29)
Re:You're an idiot. (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, all those things exist in nature (buckyballs & carbon nanotubes get formed whether anything organic burns or in the presence of lightning strikes, for instance), but they don't exist with the purity or at the concentrations that humans can make in the lab.
I'm not saying such materials are "safe", but you're overstating your initial premise.
Re:Bunch of useless speculation (Score:5, Informative)
Well, lets start with some plausible hypotheses as to how the materials might be unsafe, and then study those.
There are two things that make nano-[anything] problematic
1. Our bodies are not designed to filter nano-sized particles
2. nano-[anything] has vastly more surface area, which makes it much more reactive (ie possibly toxic) at lower concentrations.
These are not hypotheses, they are facts. All that's left to study is which elements are toxic in nano-form and which aren't. And I'm personally much more comfortable with a default assumption of "unsafe" than the opposite.
Re:Bunch of useless speculation (Score:5, Informative)
#1 Not true! The actual environment that our cells operate on IS nano. Every crucial function in the body demands exceptionally tight control of structures much SMALLER than most nano-sized particles are likley to be
Maybe we're talking about different things.
When I say that our bodies are not designed to filter nano-[anything] I meant the respiratory system and the circulatory system. Yes "The actual environment that our cells operate on IS nano" but most of the stuff floating around our bodies is micro-sized, not nano-sized and the body's defense system is setup to defend on that scale.
Re:Nano materials occur in nature, (Score:3, Informative)
Oh? Never heard the saying "mad as a hatter [worldwidewords.org]"?
Oh? The preponderance of historical evidence [wikipedia.org] says otherwise.
Re:And they were right about radiation! (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, Asbestos is a very safe material...it is only when it is powdered or otherwise disintegrated that it becomes dangerous. Asbestos is still used in most buildings. It is still common in household good...it is justcarefully controlled during application and removal.
The reason medical science took so long to catch up is because modern medical science was Invented After asbestos was first used. It wasn't till the 40's and 50's that medicine began to realize that disease can be caused by something other than bacteria.
Now we know better what to look for...while it is important to pay attention, we are much better off to spot a problem before it becomes an issue.