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."
Different perspectives (Score:4, Interesting)
In the US, we all count on GM agriculture to provide us with cheap and plentiful fruits and vegetables as well as provide feed grain for our chemically-enhanced cows and chickens. Genetic manipulation provides us with our way of life and for the most part we are happily accepting of it.
In other parts of the world, this type of "frankenscience" makes people uncomfortable. There is a strong pushback against GM crops because for all the benefits of them, the drawbacks are as yet unknown.
Should we plow ahead with these new technologies, or should we move as slowly as possible to delay unwanted contamination? We can create test groups and phased deployments of these new products, but there is no good plan for widespread deployment that takes into account both the safety of the product users as well as exposing them to potential dangers against their will. Either we sell technologically-improved products, or we don't.
Which is the right mindset?
Re:There is a middle ground. (Score:2, Interesting)
I didn't mention the IP ramifications of GM crops because they are completely irrelevant to their safety and not germane to this conversation.
There are only two choices when it comes to GM crops. The choice to use them or the choice to eschew them. At the consumer level, there is almost no chance to exercise choice at all since there is no way to determine whether a product contains GM components or not. The only possible leverage a consumer has is to purchase expensive organic products, but that is only possible for those who have extra disposable income (a group sadly shrinking in recent years).
So if you use GM crops in the production of a product, you reap the immediate benefits of higher margins due to cheaper ingredients, but you also have a huge unknown factor as to how those ingredients will affect your consumers in the long term. Maybe not at all, but maybe horrifically, maybe somewhere in between (Olestra?).
The choice boils down to risk management. For the immense gain in production, are we willing (as a citizenry) to accept that there are unknowns that may adversely affect us? In the US, the answer is yes. In many other industrialized countries, especially in Europe and some parts of Asia, the answer is no.
Re:Enter cells? So do cosmic rays... and leprechan (Score:3, Interesting)
Alright I'll say what everyone is thinking:
Asbestos
That one material and the resulting deaths are why nano-anything is scary nowadays.
Re:Enter cells? So do cosmic rays... and leprechan (Score:3, Interesting)
Asbestos is actually a great example, as there was only one specific kind that really did the damage most people think of, and the rest was hand waving similar to this. It just worked due to fears of the Jury easily being mislead by information they do not understand, which is why most of the "wins" are settelments.
Re:There is a middle ground. (Score:3, Interesting)
ACtually I buy eggs, steak, fish, milk, fruits, vegatables from local farmers who do not use GM methods. I'm aware that restaurant food is of questionable origin but I don't eat out that often, and since airline food is expensive and crap and I don't fly very often that is also an easy avoid. Notice I said "when possible". Are you aware that you come off as a pompous git?
Stephenson - Again (Score:3, Interesting)
In the Diamond Age, Neil Stephenson already touched on this very concept.
http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/content.asp?Bnum=245 [technovelgy.com]
IIRC, Harv isn't doing well in this particular scene since he's trying to explain why he's hacking up a lung after being outside for a little while.
Re:Bunch of useless speculation (Score:5, Interesting)
It's easy to hypothesize how nanomaterials can be unsafe. All of biology works off of very tiny objects of specific shapes. These shapes allow different things to happen depending on how they fit each other, and where they fit, sort of like keys in locks. When making things of very small size we have to be careful about the shapes of these things, because we don't know what keyhole in a cell somewhere it might accidentally fit into, triggering some change in the cell that we don't know about due to not enough research.
Re:You're an idiot. (Score:3, Interesting)
Life as we know it is based around these naturally formed structures. They fit each other in the ways that they do, because if they didn't, life as we know it would be something else. If we create things that fit to cells in the body in unexpected ways, we get life as we do NOT know it.
Re:Bunch of useless speculation (Score:5, Interesting)
1. Our bodies are not designed to filter nano-sized particles
Our bodies already seek and destroy viruses.
Re:And they were right about radiation! (Score:2, Interesting)
Oblig. Star Trek NG quote: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Ugly bags of mostly water".
Seems I saw at least one study of carbon nanotubes in mice that showed that they were not problematic. And the summary's subject is, as usualy, misleadingly false. More true would be a headline "Nanomaterials Might Be More Dangerous Than We Think but then they might be safer".
Re:And they were right about radiation! (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, I am looking.
I work for a Pharmaceutical monitoring the safety, efficacy, manufacturing and advertisement of drugs and medical devices. I am keeping my eyes open for these types of products because it directly affects my job.