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."
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
ban these "atom" things! (Score:0, Insightful)
These nano things called "atoms" apparently can do all kinds of crazy things, even combining and connecting to each other! We need to ban them.. think of the children!
In all seriousness, these things are treated just like every other chemical and substance, but it's headlines because it has the word "nano" in it, so that makes it cool all of a sudden. Dioxin molecules are small too, can we get an article on how you should not brush your teeth with it?
Enter cells? So do cosmic rays... and leprechans! (Score:2, Insightful)
We have to live with the fact that many things natural and unnatural effect us every day, and with due diligence even the most harmful of materials can be useful. What if it's ability to enter cells and "to usurp traditional biological protective mechanisms" is precicely what we need to cure AIDS, cancer, and every other ailment mankind faces from natural threats that definitely can "usurp
Jonah HEX
Re:Bunch of useless speculation (Score:5, Insightful)
Most thought that radiation was harmless or even a cureall after it was first discovered. Dismiss the concern at your own risk.
Nano materials occur in nature, (Score:5, Insightful)
wouldn't we have evolved defences?
also, and related, the following, by John C. Monica, 2007.
The distinction between "engineered," "incidental," and "natural" nanoparticles is beginning to blur. A vocal contingent advocates regulation of the first category without much focus on the later two. We recently asked whether this distinction is meaningful for certain EHS purposes. The human body may not differentiate between exposure to the three categories of materials. On the other hand, it makes sense to be concerned with reducing man-made risks first.
Here is a related question: What happens to this definitional scheme when naturally occurring nanomaterials (ex/ carbon nanotubes and fibers) are harvested/mined and then used for commercial purposes? While they are not "man-made" in the traditional sense, they presumably pose the same exposure risks as engineered nanomaterials created in a lab. The industry is currently exploring cheaper ways to mass-produce nanomaterials. Consequently, we will undoubtedly see more "natural" nanomaterials being used in commercial applications. This issue merits serious consideration in any attempt to regulate nanotechnology and/or create uniform standards and nomenclature.
"Engineered" = purposefully created; man-made. "Incidental" = unintentionally created; by-product of human activity. "Natural" = found in nature; volcanic rock; smoke.
Re:Bunch of useless speculation (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, there has been some research and it's not looking like safe always is the answer.
There is a middle ground. (Score:5, Insightful)
EITHER "plow ahead" OR "move as slowly as possible". This is a false set of choices. When you're walking down the street are your only choices to either run as fast as you can or move as slowly as possible?
To say that greater oversight makes sense is very different from "as slowly as possible". At this point we know that GM crops are interbreeding with non-GM crops. At the very least this is being used as yet another front in the We-own-your-life-through-controlling-your-IP war. Farmers who not only didn't want GM crops but actively tried to avoid them are being sued because seeds have blown across the plains and corporations are demanding payment for the resulting plants. Does this seem like grounds for investigation to you? It sure does to me.
There are dozens of these issues, if not many more. And, on top of everything else, after a quarter century of Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush, our regulators themselves are long overdue for more transparency. After all, Tyson Chicken was one of Bill Clinton's biggest campaign supporters and if you think that didn't affect the way his people dealt with this kind of thing then you haven't been paying attention. Not to mention the waves of junk science that the EPA and other government agencies have been subjected to from their own politically-appointed bosses since Dubya took office.
Should we huddle in a corner and live on raw twigs? No. Should we let anybody do anything anywhere anytime? Also no. But there is a middle ground and that is where we should be.
Greater effect means, um, greater effect. (Score:5, Insightful)
Typical of the research was a report earlier this month in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that found when nano-sized particles were given with chemotherapy, doses of the anticancer drug could be cut by about 95 per cent, without any reduction in therapeutic effect.
But the new report recommended that, given that the impact of nanomaterials on living things is "poorly understood,"...
I don't know about you but if my biochemistry teacher hammered anything into us it was two interrelated concepts:
- Just about everything in the human body runs off fewer than twenty mechanisms and these same mechanisms are used over and over to do many different things.
- All of these mechanisms are interconnected. You change how one is working and you'll affect at least two or three.
Let me add a third: when you massively change the strength of a reagent, you change what it does. Dilute hydrogen peroxide is a useful and safe antiseptic. Increase the concentration twenty times and you have a rocket fuel that melts your flesh.
If any approach makes some approach twenty times as powerful then it is doing other things, too. Count on it. We've seen this over and over, from birth control pills to heart medication.
Re:Different perspectives (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is the right mindset?
Why has there got to be one "right" mindset? The world is large enough for more than one approach. If the US wants to test every new technology irrespective of the risks, let them reap the benefits - and pay the price if there is danger. More conservative regions of the planet can at the same time hold back, avoiding both the risks and the benefits of early adopters.
Why insist on experting your mindset instead of letting other people simply keep theirs?
Re:Bunch of useless speculation (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, lets start with some plausible hypotheses as to how the materials might be unsafe, and then study those.
Granted, there will be lots of media hysteria like there was in the case of the supposed cell phone/brain cancer link years ago, but that's inevitable. Since it's inevitable, we might as well proceed in the most epistemologically sound way. That would be to do our best to show that these materials are unsafe, then (hopefully) fail in each specific mechanism we can think of.
Logically, you might claim that we're assuming that the materials are unsafe, but that's only as a null hypothesis regarding specific mechanisms. That's not the same as assuming the materials might be unsafe in some way which is beyond the capacity of human ingenuity to anticipate. That would not only bar trying anything new, it would also bar continuing anything we're already doing. For that matter, it also bars stopping anything we're already doing.
Maybe possibly potentially... (Score:5, Insightful)
"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... 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 16-member panel that wrote the new report included some of Canada's leading scientists and top international experts on nanomaterials."
Ok, that's a lot of ifs and maybes. How about you do the testing before adamantly stating that "Nanomaterials More Dangerous Than We Think." And how about more than 16 people, not all of which are scientists and experts on nanomaterials, actually chime in on this.
Re:Nano materials occur in nature, (Score:4, Insightful)
Why is it someone on Slashdot can understand this, but no one on this Canadian blue ribbon panel was able to make that connection?
"Nano" is a new prefix, which is commonly applied to old materials. There's nothing inherently evil about small particles, they do occur in nature. If a new material comes along using nanotech, it should be subject to testing just like any other new material. If an old material (like titanium dioxide) has been tested for decades, and now gets the "nano" label, we need to understand that marketing spin does not change the chemical or physical properties of a material.
Re:Different perspectives (Score:2, Insightful)
This is why I believe that there are only two choices. One to embrace technology and one to take a wait and see attitude. There is no way to embrace the new technologies without simultaneously exposing all the consumers of it to the risks, with disregard for their will, I might add. And there is no way to take a wait and see attitude without something to wait for. A wait and see attitude without taking any action results in deadlock, so it requires someone, somewhere deploy the technology.
The first choice propels science and technology, the second choice leads to stagnation. I still can't say which one is the better choice, considering the risks.
Re:Different perspectives (Score:3, Insightful)
First of all, there are no GM fruits grown on a commercial scale in the US. There are only a few different GM vegetables grown commercially in the US.
Secondly, US and EU farming enterprises both get huge subsidies from their respective governments. US and EU farming enterprises both generate huge surpluses of food and wine. US farming enterprises pay large amounts to Monsanto for rights to use GM seeds. EU farming enterprises pay nothing to Monsanto. Who is upset? Monsanto.
In the developing world, farmers grow their own extremely cheap non-GM food. Why is it so expensive to import in US and EU? Trade tariffs, imposed because US and EU farmers have lobbied their respective governments to tax imports of cheap food that would compete with their own produce.
You're an idiot. (Score:5, Insightful)
Things like nanotubes, buckyballs and nanosilver particles DON'T EXIST IN NATURE. How do you think nature (even our own cells) will react to them?
I read another article in physorg concerning nanosilver, and how it has the potential to kill soil bacteria [physorg.com], which are a fundamental part of the ecosystem.
It's not the atoms you moron - it's how they're artificially combined and exposed to the environment.
Want a more common example: chromium picolinate, which is sold as the perfect solution for losing weight. The truth is, in tests done with fruit flies, it generates chromosomal aberrations, impedes progeny development,[13] and causes sterility and lethal mutations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromium_picolinate#Health_claims_and_debates). And it's already being sold commercially!
I don't have a problem with nanomaterials being manufactured for, say, microprocessors. But adding nanoparticles to common household items like refrigerators, stoves, and even the socks you wear, that's going too far.
Just look where the industry and big corporations have situated us. Without proper safety research in antibiotics, we now have to cope with drug-resistant "superbacteria". Well, these bacteria didn't exist 50 years ago! And yet antibacterial soap, shampoos and whatnot are STILL being sold in mass quantities.
Mankind is destroying the planet because of greedy idiots who only see money. Anyone who says "where are the safety studies?" is called a fearmonger who opposes progress.
It is not a meaningful distinction (Score:5, Insightful)
Health risks are going to be identical no matter how you categorize a material.
Consider asbestos. Asbestos particles are certainly very similar in many respects to some of the engineered nanomaterials. If I manufacture artificial asbestos, it will have the same toxology as 'natural' asbestos.
The meaningful question in my mind is 'Is there a significant source of natural exposure to material X?' If so then we would be reasonably justified in making the assumption that similar exposure to the same material from man made sources will have similar effects, and we also have grounds for making a default assumption that the human body can tolerate the material to a certain extent.
However it seems to me that there are or will be a large class of nanomaterials which are substantially different from anything found in nature. It would seem prudent to study the toxicity of such materials carefully before they see wide use.
Personally I don't see a close correspondence between GMOs and nanomaterials. GMOs incorporate genetic elements which are already found naturally in a variety of organisms. Furthermore even if we designed some 'artificial genes' the proteins expressed via those genes are not going to be radically different from those found in existing organisms. Obviously such a protein would need to be tested for toxicity, but it would be no more likely to be hazardous than one isolated from a natural source.
To my mind the majority of the fears the public has about GMOs are largely unfounded. There are various issues, but it is far more tenable to believe GMOs are largely benign than it would be to believe that nanomaterials are. Thus a stance of 'GMOs are safe unless proven otherwise' is not unreasonable, but a similar stance with regard to nanomaterials probably is not.
So my opinion would be that engineered nanomaterials should be studied for biological effects before widespread commercial deployment. That might not be necessary for certain limited engineering uses, but we SHOULD be reasonably cautious. If you want to sell me a consumer good which contains engineered nanomaterials, they should require review and approval in some fashion similar to the rules in place for potentially toxic chemicals. And those rules themselves probably require beefing up.
The other issue that has never been addressed with any types of materials is synergistic effects. Any given material might be safe in and of itself, but in the real world we get exposed to a 'soup' of compounds and materials every day. Seems to me the major thing we should all be worried about is just how thick does that broth get before we're done in by the entirely unknown and unforeseen interactions between them?
Re:Enter cells? So do cosmic rays... and leprechan (Score:3, Insightful)
What if it's ability to enter cells and "to usurp traditional biological protective mechanisms" is precicely what we need to cure AIDS, cancer, and every other ailment mankind faces from natural threats that definitely can "usurp ... protective mechanisms"?
Great, then we can make powerful drugs with nanoparticles. But that just reinforces the point that maybe we should think twice before going along with current trends, such as liberally slathering nanoparticle-laced sunscreen on ourselves.
And they were right about radiation! (Score:5, Insightful)
Radiation is extremly safe and it does cure many disease that have no alternative treatment. We are bathed in radiation at every second of every day with no ill effects but just like oxygen and water, in excess it will kill you very quickly. Just because it COULD kill you doesn't mean it is dangerous.
If you RTFA you will find that they say nano could enter cells, could cause cancer, could disrupt cellular processes OR it could be perfectly harmless (as harmless as dirt) BUT there isn't enough information to tell.
Personally I think the largest concern with nano is carbon nanotubes because they have the potential to cause the same problems as asbestos. But what is important is to do your due diligence and TEST anthing you want to sell.
There is no reason to fear nano, only to be a little cautious.
Using radiation
Re:Nano materials occur in nature, (Score:4, Insightful)
Here is a related question: What happens to this definitional scheme when naturally occurring nanomaterials (ex/ carbon nanotubes and fibers) are harvested/mined and then used for commercial purposes? While they are not "man-made" in the traditional sense, they presumably pose the same exposure risks as engineered nanomaterials created in a lab.
Asbestos fibers occur naturally. Mercury occurs naturally. Lead occurs naturally.
Why are all those regulations out there for natural things? Naturally-occurring means it's good for you, right? We have evolved defenses! Your lead cannot harm me, I'm bulletproof! ...
See the problem with that argument? Mercury didn't kill people, until it was dumped into drinking water by irresponsible companies primarily because no regulations were in place. Lead didn't kill anyone, until it was used in cars and leached into ground water (although the current additives aren't much better).
If we wait for catastrophes to regulate/monitor/study something we know is dangerous, we're simply repeating historical ignorance.
Re:Different perspectives (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Different perspectives (Score:2, Insightful)
That doesn't explain the difference in opinion regarding GM foods among the populace, though.
No one in the US is clamoring for GM foods to be everywhere, but they aren't protesting in the streets about it either [indymedia.org].
Contradiction (Score:4, Insightful)
"Nanomaterials More Dangerous Than We Think" seems to directly contradict "there are inadequate data to inform quantitative risk assessments on current and emerging nanomaterials." At most it would seem "Nanomaterials May Possibly Be Dangerous"
Re:Bunch of useless speculation (Score:5, Insightful)
Show me some research.
Would you understand it?
I spent a bit of time studying Nanotech at uni while reading Physics. I am hopelessly out of date now and I would probably barely understand it, especially as this involves the intersection of Physics with Biology.
I am fairly astounded you can be as arrogant as to dismiss on going research by various universities as "pointless worrying" just because they have not finished it yet. Research is often fairly talked about in academic circles long before it is published.
This also reminds me of asbestos. It was known to be potentially harmful for a great many years in academic circles long before it was proved to be harmful. Since I know of people who died of asbestosis I have a little more time for this sort of research being discussed long before a link has been thoroughly proven beyond all scientific doubt.
I can quite easily see how another extremely fine particle similar to asbestos fibre that has never existed naturally in any quantity could have the potential for serious harm if inhaled, swallowed or placed in contact with the skin. The scale of nanotech particles means they could quite easily become airborne if not handled carefully.
Re:Bunch of useless speculation (Score:5, Insightful)
#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
#2 Completly true...which is a good thing. We are essentially bags of salty water with a lot of gunk like lipids and proteins lying around and a huge amount of free energy in constant use. We are potentially the most hostile environment a nano-particle is likley to encounter. The huge surface area means it is much more likley to get gummed up and inactivated almost immediatly causing no more harm than any other chemical you ingest.
These are not hypothesis, they are facts. I am not suggesting there will be no harm but I am suggesting that there is no reason to think that nano-particles as a class will be more toxic than other classes of chmicals.
Re:And they were right about radiation! (Score:3, Insightful)
:) I actually work for a drug company managing the regulations. Yes, most if not all drugs have more side effects than therapeutic effects. Any time you poke a complex system like your body you will probably mess up more things than you fix.
The real question is...Are you happier and healthier despite the side effects? If the answer is yes than great, if the answer is no than ...STOP TAKING IT.
You will NEVER get a drug that just fixes you and doesn't hurt you somewhere. The same is true of drinking, eating and breathing. Drinking water makes you need to pee (a side effect), eating gives you gas and can make you fat...and believe it or not you actually breath the most dangerous poison known to man...oxygen.
Always remember the awful truth...you, ddgconsultant, you will die some day. Everything kills you to some extant. The only question is quality of life in the mean time.
Re:And they were right about radiation! (Score:5, Insightful)
That's true.
However, there's the old adage that you cannot prove a negative. That is what current testing methods attempt to do. "This does not cause cancer..." "This drug has no serious side effects...".
Unfortunately, some cancers take decades to show up, and some cancers are specific to humans and do not appear in the test subjects. And some cancers only show up in the test subjects when they are subjected to massive quantities of the material.
The testing we have, for the most part, takes two forms. One is to (effectively) soak a mouse (or bacterial culture) in full-strength test material and see if it dies (or mutates). (Yes, that's a very simplified description.) If it doesn't, we go to human testing, which is highly statistical in nature simply because we cannot test everything on everyone, and we certainly cannot soak the new test subjects in 1000 times the normal dose just to see what happens. If a certain sample of people (very small) survives the test, we call it good.
And then we wind up with recalls of really beneficial drugs because a small percentage of the population doesn't react well to them. The benefit to those it can help is ignored in the haste to protect the few who had a bad reaction. And, unfortunately, there will always be people who have a bad reaction to something, since there are so many people and so many ways a "bad reaction" can happen. Especially true when you consider that the drug is being given to people who are sick in some way to start with.
There is no reason to fear nano, only to be a little cautious.
I agree. Fear is useless. Caution is good. What level of caution is applied is the question.
Re:But remember . . (Score:3, Insightful)
Bacteria and fungi are the equivalent of grey goo. In a way they are everywhere, and if left alone they will eventually gobble up much of the stuff - plastic, wood, even some (most?) metals.
But there are limitations of what they can do. Nanotech grey goo isn't going to turn the earth to a huge blob of grey goo. If it were so easy some bacteria would have done it years ago.
The goo will need a source of energy and materials to build copies. Say you have a metal based goo, no matter what, it takes significant energy to reshape metal to new goo. Where is the goo going to get that energy from? Say it stores up sunlight somehow, it'll still take quite a long while to do it.
If the goo is on a metal vehicle and the vehicle moves, how is that goo going to stay on? It'll fall to the ground and die (some bacteria have the "spore" mode when stuff gets bad).
2) Competition
What happens if some fungus takes a liking to the goo? You think the goo will have a counter plan? Fungi have been around for 1.3 billion years, and you can bet on the goo winning if you want, I won't
Any "classical" goo we make from _scratch_ is unlikely to be a huge threat. So I'm not that worried about it.
A huge threat would be some nut with USD1 million to modify an existing virus, and make one that is "really bad" (e.g. 3 month incubation period and kills > 90% of its hosts) and then letting it go free. Basically Anyone with enough money and know how/"know who" can have their "Kill hundreds of millions of people on earth" button. Currently the suicidal nuts don't have the resources to make that button yet. But if the cost goes down, who knows.
I read the article (Score:3, Insightful)
Being Canadian, I'm proud of my Canada -- but not for this stupid article. I'll summarize for you:
Q: What do we know about these materials?
A: Very little.
That's the whole article. Scientists didn't take a nanomaterial and find something wrong with one type. Scientists looked for research that had already been done, and found that none had been done.
Well congratulations on the newspaper article reading "Today, no one discovered anything.". Now that's a front-page headline!