Nanotech Paint To Kill Bacteria 208
ColGraff points out reporting at Science News about the possibility of killing bacteria with paint. Scientists in the UK have found that high concentrations of titanium oxide nanoparticles in paint can kill bacteria by creating hydroxyl radicals when exposed to ordinary fluorescent light. Titanium dioxide is present in most white paint at concentrations of 30% or so, but not always at nanoparticle scale. The researchers found that an 80% concentration of TiO2 nanoparticles worked well to kill E. Coli bacteria. There is hope that the technique could be used against "superbugs," which are resistant to multiple antibiotics. A researcher not associated with the UK team pointed out the problem with developing products based on this idea: "[A]nything that survives and sticks around grows greater resistance... ultimately [antibiotic paint] will be its own worst enemy and the bacteria could grow to be even stronger."
A researcher says what? (Score:5, Interesting)
What a crazy thing to say. It's true, for sure, but has always been the case in the arms race against bacteria. It's what natural selection does...
What could possibly be the researcher's motivation to say such a strange thing?
*cough*She's the founder of a rival nanotech firm*cough*
A coincidence, or fear mongering unscientific FUD? You decide!
Re:A researcher says what? (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually that was the very forst thing I thought of. Basically the paint is harnessing photon energy to increase the availability of an energetic and highly reactive compound. It also kills bacteria. If some bacteria figures out how to live in the environment --- alkyline loving bacteria exist-- then it will have free food and no competition.
Unlike anti-bacterial soaps, this food source is persistent so the bacteria can more quickly adapt.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Also, there are enviroments that no bacteria can evolve to survive in, at least from their current state, either because it is just too hostile to life, or because it is too different from their usual environment that they can't adapt quickly enough, because it requires changing too many genes.
The hostile environment option is probably not so nice for us either, you wouldn't want to heat your kitchen top to 3000 degrees to sterilize it, because that would be unpractical and dangerous. But no organism could
Re: (Score:2)
Re:A researcher says what? (Score:5, Insightful)
So we get bacteria who adapt to live in conditions that are totally unlike the conditions inside a human body.
Was this supposed to be a bad thing?
(Captcha: fitness. I swear, the thing has a mind of its own.)
Wrong kind of logic (Score:4, Interesting)
So we get bacteria who adapt to live in conditions that are totally unlike the conditions inside a human body.
It's really not a matter of what "conditions inside the human body" are like. Conditions inside the human body don't normally include the presence of vast amounts of amoxicillin, for example. And yet, when you have a bacterial infection, taking amoxicillin tablets will get rid of them for you.
Bacteria that aren't "adapted to the conditions inside the human body" aren't a threat to begin with, so they're irrelevant. The problem with antibiotic resistance is that, if you wipe out 99% of bacteria, leaving only the 1% that are resistant to that antibiotic, when those multiply to fill the space left by the ones you killed, you have as many bacteria as you started with, but now your antibiotic is useless.
Not that the arguments in TFA make much sense, mind you, but saying that bacterial resistance is only an issue if they're "adapting to conditions inside the human body" is missing the point. Normal conditions inside the human body don't include antibiotic drugs.
Re: (Score:2)
But will the resistant bacteria be as adapted to human body? I mean, everything is a tradeoff. If they have for example proteins that won't get denatured by certain bad chemicals, then those proteins probably are not as efficient at what is their primary function. Less efficient proteins, less efficient bacteria, easier job for human immune system to deal with 'em.
Actually I think that would be a good thing to research. Can we develop anti-bacterial substanses that guide their evolution into direction that
Re:A researcher says what? (Score:4, Insightful)
That would mean (by definition) that they have evolved into a new species. More than likely, they wouldn't be able to live inside the body anymore.
I am working on developing a similar technology in my lab, one that I would argue is better, because it doesn't require light or UV.
Re:A researcher says what? (Score:4, Informative)
I think evolution finds creative and interesting solutions to problems that we wouldn't think of.
I wouldn't underestimate their ability to "dramatically change their membrane" (if there is no clever way to avoid it), while also being able to live in a human body.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:A researcher says what? (Score:5, Informative)
Its all about resources.
Having resistance to something takes up resources. So this bacteria might need x food, whereas its paint-resistant form might need x+3 food. If there's only x+3 food available to the bacteria, that's all it can do. It can't even reproduce because x+3 isn't enough for the cells to divide. Now, what if you slathered the wall with antibacterial soap? The bacteria would need to have soap-resistance at another +2 food, which isn't there.
It would likely die out.
The point isn't making the wall completely sterile, but is just making it a hostile environment for bacteria. The more a bacteria has to invest to protect itself, the less it can invest in its other traits, given a limited amount of food.
Spore? (Score:2)
So this bacteria might need x food, whereas its paint-resistant form might need x+3 food. If there's only x+3 food available to the bacteria, that's all it can do. It can't even reproduce because x+3 isn't enough for the cells to divide. Now, what if you slathered the wall with antibacterial soap? The bacteria would need to have soap-resistance at another +2 food, which isn't there.
And they say that video games are not educational...
Re: (Score:2)
Spore has a nice way of simplifying things.
In reality, the bacteria would need a multitude of different things besides 'food'. Like it might need either a raw source of vitamin A, or facilities to convert something else into vitamin A..
Biology takes a shotgun approach more than a selected one. Think of a brute force password cracker run by a protein-based computer. It has to find the right 'password' consisting of modules that might give it a competitive edge when it comes to other bacteria. Every corre
Re: (Score:2)
Spore has a nice way of simplifying things.
As does Slashdot.
Where's the beef? (Score:2)
Sir, you made some interesting claims here! Do you have any studies to back up your claim? In the words of a commercial, "Where's the beef?" List some studies in a reputable scientific journal by reputable biologists.
Re: (Score:2)
Our immune system costs us a fairly constant amount of energy ...
In a world where we didn't need an immune system to survive, we'd be better off without it.
Re: (Score:2)
But. And this is my objection to the original quote. The environment is special. If they live off the special conditions the paint offers, then they can't live easily off it. If they adapt to it so it doesn't kill them then they have added biochemical machinery that is pointless off the paint environment. Most likely, I can't say for sure of course, the paint will either kill the critters or evolve them towards a weakened, specialised state.
Anyway my 2 cents.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Thou shalt not question the merit of any technology, applied or not. - Slashdot's version of Rule #34
Re: (Score:2)
"The organisms that survive this defense generally do it by preventing the host's cells from exposing them to the radicals, and not by having a resistance to the radicals themselves. (I'm not aware of any that withstand radicals, but I'm willing to be informed)."
Deinococcus radiodurans can withstand hydroxyl and superoxide radicals inside itself. These things can withstand extremely high doses of ionising radiation, UV light, hydrogen peroxide, and desiccation by freeze-drying:
http://medgadget.com/archives/ [medgadget.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What a crazy thing to say. It's true, for sure, but has always been the case in the arms race against bacteria. It's what natural selection does...
It's not crazy at all, nor is it FUD. What is crazy is ignoring antibacterial resistance. As TFA says, almost 100,000 become infected with antibiotic-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in hospitals alone. And that's not a competitor saying that.
Falcon
Re:A researcher says what? (Score:5, Interesting)
And yet the response is always "just use soap and water".
So why aren't we getting soap-and-water-resistant bacteria? Presumably because such an evolved trait is too "expensive".
A genetics professor of mine once explained that when I asked if bacteria can become resistant to alcohol. (As he was wiping his hands with Purell.) He said, yes, you can induce bacteria to evolve alcohol-resistance in a lab environment, but it's such an expensive adaptation that as soon as the alcohol exposure is reduced, the trait rapidly disappears again.
So the real question would be, is any resistance encouraged by this nano-particle approach an expensive trait or not?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
IANAB, but I understand that the soap breaks apart the lipids that compose the cell membrane and that is what makes it very effective at killing bacteria. A resistance to this is apparently not easy for a single celled organism to develop.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm...
I will start with, "I am not a chemist."
Having said that I had a conversation some years ago with a chemist who was very clear, at the time but I forgot most of it, that there are often misleading uses of the word soap. Soap does one thing and detergents do another.
One attracts stuff to the molecules and the other changes the molecular structure. I think soap is the former.
I'm not entirely sure but I think that may have some bearing on this conversation.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not entirely sure, but I think you may be right.
Re: (Score:2)
I am having a hard time typing tonight. But... A detergent would break things down and most modern septic systems depend on the bacteria. I think this is how it goes. A soap is VERY specifically designed these day, it attracts particulates sort of like how a magnet attracts pieces of iron.
A detergent would attempt to break the substance down (like dish detergent breaking down oils) what it comes in contact with. Again, I am not a chemist. Someone smarter then I hopefully should come along, this is /. after
"just use soap and water". (Score:2)
In many cases all that is needed is soap and water.
So the real question would be, is any resistance encouraged by this nano-particle approach an expensive trait or not?
The thing is is once these approaches of using antibiotics gets started they won't end, at least not without something dramatic happening. Instead when a biotic becomes resistant industry will work to make a more powerful antibiotic. Strains of Mosquito born malaria are getting resistant so companies are trying to develop stronger drugs, t
Re: (Score:2)
Antibiotic drugs are a pretty big waste of money in terms of development. Most of the easy to produce cheap ones have long since been discovered and many are already running into serious problems with efficacy. Even if there are a few new ones which are easy to create, they still have serious issues with how long they'll be useful.
If this sort of approach works, there's potential to make bacteria more difficult to spread. But really, antibiotics as we know them now are of decreasing value, and doing so at a
Re: (Score:2)
>But really, antibiotics as we know them now are of decreasing value, and doing so at an increased rate than before.
Hmm... tell that to the makers of Zyvox, Tygacil, Doribax, and Cubicin. All of them are new potential blockbuster antibiotics on the market, and most of them are seeing widespread hospital inpatient use.
antibotics (Score:2)
Antibiotic drugs are a pretty big waste of money in terms of development
I don't think antibiotics are a waste. What I do consider deadly is improper use of antibiotics. Such as not following through with an antibiotic regime a doctor prescribes. Or flushing unused drugs down the toilet. Both of these are part of the reason microbes develop drug resistance.
Falcon
Re: (Score:2)
That's because soap and water is about mechanical cleaning. The soap loosens the muck and the water washes it away.
Re: (Score:2)
A coincidence, or fear mongering unscientific FUD?
Unscientific FUD. Either she has no clue what an antibiotic is, or she's intentionally twisting the facts around. An oxidizer isn't an antibiotic, it's a disinfectant if anything. What's the big difference you ask? Well, try drinking some H2O2 or sodium hypochlorite (both are strong oxidizers and disinfectant) to treat a bacterial infection.
Re: (Score:2)
Eh? Care to provide a link to where she talks about not killing them 'where they aren't causing any problems'?
I understand the principle- How would the same criticism not apply to the next amazing antibiotic to be discovered? FUD, pure and simple.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the same it's different. Most antibiotics are not painted across entire rooms. Nor are they applied indiscriminately over an area for an indefinite period of time.
People that take antibiotics or that spread them all around the house do risk the possibility of killing of necessary strains as well. It's not FUD, it's a genuine concern which has to be considered when prescribing antibiotics or when deciding where to use that disinfectant spray.
Antibiotics do come with side effects such as the probabil
Nanotech is coming along... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a good thing I did a search for "paint the bacteria" to avoid the -1 Redundant for the obvious joke... although bacteria look really good with a nice coat of white semi-gloss paint.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a naturally selective process. You start with a ton of bacteria and about 4,000 art critics. At first the bacteria only paint random pictures, but the ten best are picked by the art critics. The bacteria that painted those 10 are removed, the rest are killed and a new generation of more artistic bacteria emerge from the 10. Repeat this process for about 50 generations and you would be surprised at how creative those little buggers can be.
And my brother post is incredibly funny, mod him up.
Let's hope they keep it controller (Score:4, Insightful)
Tetrasodium-including soaps have already given a free boot camp for bacterias at home when folks have been buying the stuff thinking it somehow makes places healthier. There's a difference between clean and sterile environments, and clean is really all that you need.
Re:Let's hope they keep it controller (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem here is British, a historical lack of hygiene.
The paint proposed could be a solution but I doubt whether they'll ever be able to recuperate the investments by lack of an export market...
Another issue is that by now it's known nano particles are potentially in the same league as Asbestos fibres and spreading them on large surfaces might introduces other problems.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if the British can get this to adhere to tooth enamel, this could be a major breakthrough.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Tetrasodium-including soaps have already given a free boot camp for bacterias at home when folks have been buying the stuff thinking it somehow makes places healthier. There's a difference between clean and sterile environments, and clean is really all that you need.
Unfortunately as the products in the market that has, and is labeled as having, antibiotic properties shows most people don't think clean is enough. When I clean I use baking soda, a citrus cleaner, and vinegar. I try to stay away from antibio
Re: (Score:2)
are you talking about tetra sodium EDTA,
EDTA is also known as H4EDTA, diaminoethanetetraacetic acid, edetic acid, edetate, ethylenedinitrilotetraacetic acid, celon A, gluma cleanser, versene acid, nervanaid B acid, nullapon B acid, ethylene diamine tetracetic acid, tetrine acid, trilon BS, vinkeil 100, warkeelate acid, N,N'-1,2-ethanediylbis(N-(carboxymethyl)glycine)edetic acid, YD-30, Dissolvine Z. EDTA [wikipedia.org]
by any chance? I use it at work and inspite of a scary reading MSDS it's pretty benign stuff.
Allergies (Score:3, Interesting)
Not only that but there is some evidence that children need some exposure to germs for their immune system to develop properly. Without this exposure their immune systems start to react to normal items that are a part of their environment. Allergies for short. In extreme cases it can actually develop into an autoimmune disorder. I'm not saying that it is healthy to live in a pig sty.
Aristotle said it best when he thought up the "Golden Mean".
Who needs grey goo? (Score:4, Funny)
So much for grey goo [wikipedia.org].
Now we can have eggshell goo, sky blue goo, burnt sienna goo... the mind boggles.
Re: (Score:2)
Well.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Lets give people lead in small dosages from age of a baby to 18.
Whoever we dont kill will make the rest of them immune.
Or shall we say that boric acid with cockroaches will make boric acid resistant cockroaches? I think not.
Some things in biology are terminal, regardless of dose
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Lets give people lead in small dosages from age of a baby to 18. Whoever we dont kill will make the rest of them immune.
No, but over a 600 year period, humans will have a greater resistance to lead.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you really sure about that?
Why hasnt this been true in the case of boric acid vs cockroaches? We've used boric acid over 100 years, and no resistances as of yet.
There's just certain chemicals that directly affect the chemistry of a biological critter that I dont think we could ever adapt to.
Well, I was going to say that an example would be sodium cyanide... but this [thenakedscientists.com], specifically
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Also, it's not clear that cockroaches could evolve immunity to boric acid while still remaining cockroaches. In other words, the biological changes required to make them resistant to the stuff could be so severe that we might not recognize the result as a cockroach.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It might not. Instead it could wipe out humans completely, to be replaced with another species that is more resistant to lead.
Unfortunately... (Score:3)
Oops (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So is pretty much every other drug. They are dose-dependent poisons with useful side effects (paraphrased from the first sentence of the first lecture in my med school pharmacology course).
That said, I'm not sure I want to welcome our new 'brighter-than white' overlords. As a previous poster has mentioned things generally need to be clean, not sterile.
Re: (Score:2)
DISCLAIMER:It is advised that you don't lick the paint.
That should solve the issues ;)
Titanium dioxide toxicity (Score:2)
How do they break DNA if they're outside the cell nucleus?
Does the titanium dioxide in your sunscreen get taken up by skin cells? Does it even make it past the epidermis? (Not rhetorical questions, asking because I don't know).
Getting really weird, does this mean that if you're stuck without a first aid kit at the beach that you could substitute sunscreen for antibiotic ointment?
UV light triggered mechanism -- good and bad (Score:5, Informative)
I found an article that has much more information about the actual mechanism of the TiO2 anti-bacterial effect [nrel.gov].
The nice thing is that the titanium acts as a catalyst, so ideally it isn't consumed in the reaction.
The bad thing is that this requires UV light (below 385nm), which is really only present from "ordinary fluorescent lights" because they have bad phosphor coatings. All fluorescent lights really generate tons of UV, which is downconverted to visible via that white phosphor coating on the glass. But some UV escapes, and that's the stuff that triggers this anti-bacterial reaction. So good for anti-bacterial, but bad for skin cancer.
In any case, maybe this is the kind of thing where some dedicated UV lights could turn on when no people were in a given room, and that would make for the best of both worlds?
--
Hey code monkey... learn electronics! Powerful microcontroller kits for the digital generation. [nerdkits.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Do Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs (CFLs) produce a hazardous amount of UV light?
Regular fluorescent light bulbs used in your home and office, including CFLs, do not produce a hazardous amount of ultraviolet light (UV). Ultraviolet light rays are the light wavelengths that can cause sunburn and skin damage. Most light sources, including fluorescent bulbs, emit a small amount of UV light, but the UV light produced by fluorescent light bulbs is far less than the amount produced by natural daylight. The amount of UV given off by regular fluorescent light bulbs used in your home and office are not hazardous. A recent report from E Source indicates a level of UV radiation from CFLs at a range of 50-140 microwatts/lumen. In comparison, this report also sites that some incandescent products have been found to have UV levels exceeding 100 microwatts/ lumen.
Old news (Score:4, Interesting)
So you can use this new nano-titanium paint with a UV light and kill bacteria within 96 hours... or you can use the nano-silver paint [e-spaces.com] to kill them with no light needed in 2 hours. And it's been around for around 4 years.
Operating Theatres (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes because they store all that equipment right on the wall or ceiling, and if the wall will clean it, that means that's a lot of savings for/from the autoclave. Unless it is stuff like doorhandles, there is little reason to make everything self-'disinfecting'.
Needs more research (Score:5, Insightful)
A researcher [...] pointed out the problem [...]: "[A]nything that survives and sticks around grows greater resistance"
If those were his words, then I guess this "researcher" needs to do a bit more research, perhaps starting with a book written by a certain "Charles Darwin".
If the bacteria "stick around" it's because they are already resistant. Meaning they get to multiply, not to "grow greater resistance" (if they survived, their resistance is as "great" as it needs to be).
All that antibiotics do (in the long run) is change the relative populations of different kinds of bacteria (eliminating the ones that aren't resistant, leaving more room and resources for the resistant ones to grow). They don't actively make bacteria "get stronger", as the quote suggests. It's not as if the bacteria send a sample of the antibiotic to their underground lab where bacterial boffins come up with an antidote. They don't even have proper immune systems.
It's annoying when even "scientists" attribute some sort of "guiding intelligence" to the process of natural selection (or to individual bacteria, for that matter).
P.S. - And yes, I'm aware of plasmids, but bacteria can't suddenly rush out to buy some when they need them [ * ], so it's still a matter of selection, not "self-improvement".
[ * ] Unless they're playing Bioshock.
I disagree (Score:2)
It is fine to use the shorthand "grow a greater resistance" to explain the behavior of the strain's evolution. [...] s/he used a layman-accessible shorthand.
I disagree. I don't think it is fine, because "laymen" will interpret that as "bacteria that have contact with an antibiotic will learn how to resist it". Ask around and you'll find that most people belive this. That is, after all, how our immune system works, and how humans (and other complex life forms) deal with challenges.
They don't understand the difference between individual bacteria adaptation ("bacteria growing a resistance") - which doesn't really happen - and strain evolution through (random) muta
Re: (Score:2)
You're mostly right, but not entirely. The difference is that with simple forms of life, such as bacteria, their DNA copying process isn't as error-free as ours (and even ours isn't 100% error free). So every time they divide, a number of mutations occur.
And how does that contradict any of what I wrote? I kind of assumed that the average Slashdot reader is aware of the fact that random mutations occur (and not just during division / reproduction, although that's the most likely moment). Did I walk into a creationist website by mistake?
If one of those mutations end up giving them some resistance to the antibiotic, that strain is going to dominate
It's not hard to "dominate" when you happen to be resistant or immune to a poison that has killed or is killing everyone round you. But it's not the antibiotic that grants the bacteria the resistance (that would be kind of cou
Interesting fact... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Stronger? Or just different? (Score:4, Interesting)
I realize that we face a pretty tough battle with certain "superbugs", but wouldn't one expect that as these bacteria adapt immunity to current antibiotics that they'll open up a weakness to something else? I suppose it's _possible_ that they're evolving to be stronger in a general sense, but usually I think of evolution as becoming more fit for one's environment -- which usually makes one less fit for another environment. Engineering is all about tradeoffs -- whether via intelligent design (our designs) or evolution (natures "design"). We created a new environment for them by introducing antibiotics, which they've adapted to. So we'll change the environment again.
I understand this is not simple or straightforward, but I think the idea of "superbugs" is a bit of misnomer -- they're only super until we find the next weakness, and I imagine they'll always be one, even if it takes us a while to find it.
Cheers.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Who can say for sure what will happen? This brings to mind what happened to a strain of E. Coli. They were experimenting on a streptomycin resistant strain and they noticed something strange. Some colonies actually needed streptomycin to live! Evolution can do some really strange and unpredictable things.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This paint attacks them via a much different mechanism than antibiotics do. When the TiO2 nanoparticles are moist and exposed to ultraviolet light it breaks down the water into hydrogen gas and a Hydroxide ion, The hydroxide ion is the same that is generated when lye or sodium hydroxide is added to water and it chemically burns the bacteria to death. I suspect this paint will not last very long because it will decompose on exposure to moisture and ultraviolet light, just like the bacteria it is killing.
Re: (Score:2)
Resistance is an expensive trait. Bacteria which evolved many resistances would be as bloated as Vista and similarly unable to perform their original function efficiently, thus mostly harmless (pun doubly intended: It would also be a very effective Douglas Adams-esque way of dealing with the threat)
(oh look btw, 11 updates plus the friggin' no-thank-you Silverlight, and a mandatory reboot which I can only postpone.)
Re: (Score:2)
"wouldn't one expect that as these bacteria adapt immunity to current antibiotics that they'll open up a weakness to something else?"
No.
"I suppose it's _possible_ that they're evolving to be stronger in a general sense, but usually I think of evolution as becoming more fit for one's environment -- which usually makes one less fit for another environment."
It _sometimes_ results in organisms that are less fit for other environments, but the many, many cases of plants and animals that humans have deliberately
What could possibly go... ? (Score:2)
"ultimately [antibiotic paint] will be its own worst enemy and the bacteria could grow to be even stronger."
Oh wait. Already in the summary. No need to tag it. No need to even read TFA.
Well done, sir. I'm impressed. ;^)
--
Toro
Antiseptic Antibiotic (Score:3, Interesting)
The reason antibiotic resistance develops is because antibiotics are highly targeted to a certain bacterial mechanism, usually one enzyme or protein, or a complex of enzymes working together. For obvious reasons, these have to be enzymatic mechanisms and proteins unique to bacteria, and not found in humans, primates, mammals, etc.
On the other hand, chlorine kills everything, regardless of details of underlying biology. Presumably, this paint would do the same, unless they evolve some complex way of dealing with titanium dioxide, which is highly unlikely IMHO.
Re: (Score:2)
It alway seemed ludicrous that health facilities spend major amount of money buying disinfectants that only work slightly better than laundry detergent and bleach costing 1/100th as much to use. Usually the dirtiest thing in a hospital is the wheels on the mop bucket anyways; how is antibacterial paint on the walls going to stop that?
Weird article, really. (Score:2)
Also, mentioning superbugs in this context doesn't make sense. Killing superbugs _outside the human body_ is no problem at all, and they will not be able to develop any kind of resistance against most forms of disinfection (that includes using oxidizers). Saying that they might become resistant to something that oxidizes the shit out of them is like saying they might become resistant to being heated to 200C - there's a few physical and chem
welcome (Score:2)
I for one welcome our new bacteria killing, aesthetically pleasing, nano-overlords.
cvs 2 (Score:2)
The Three Most Important Questions... (Score:2)
1) Does it come in black?
2) Is it suitable for use on doors?
3) Does the answer to 2) change if the door was originally red, and if so, how?
A little more global thinking please... (Score:2)
They used to put lead in house paint, and mercury on seeds, to prevent unwanted biotic infestations. Then they discovered the benefit was small, and the harm they were doing to people was great. We live in a modern world that is at odds with the very evolutionary machinery that created us. Part of the problem is that we seemed hell bent to ride the proverbial horse in the direction it's not going. We try to beat our environment into submission, all the while forgetting that we are still part of that enviro
Re:Just what we need, more toxins in environment (Score:5, Informative)
Titanium dioxide accounts for 70% of the total production volume of pigments worldwide. It is widely used to provide whiteness and opacity to products such as paints, plastics, papers, inks, foods, and toothpastes. It is also used in cosmetic and skin care products, and it is present in almost every sunblock, where it helps protect the skin from ultraviolet light.
Re:Just what we need, more toxins in environment (Score:5, Informative)
Actually i think i heard of evidence that the titanium dioxide particles in sunscreens, especially nano particles are harmful.
http://www.ccohs.ca/headlines/text186.html [ccohs.ca]
"With such widespread use of titanium dioxide, it is important to understand that the IARC conclusions are based on very specific evidence. This evidence showed that high concentrations of pigment-grade (powdered) and ultrafine titanium dioxide dust caused respiratory tract cancer in rats exposed by inhalation and intratracheal instillation*"
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/health-fitness/nanotechnology-7-07/nanoparticles-in-sunscreens/0707_nano_sunscreen_1.htm [consumerreports.org]
Lab studies indicate that both of those nano-ingredients create free radicals that damage the DNA of cells and possibly cause other harm as well. And even low exposure to nanoparticles of titanium dioxide can damage the lungs of animals if inhaled
http://locokazoo.com/2008/08/05/the-sun-screen-health-disaster/ [locokazoo.com]
http://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid=6838.php [nanowerk.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I wish I had mod points for you. I have heard reporting on the possible hazards of nano particles in sunscreens. They are small enough to pass right through the skin into the blood stream. And then what happens? We don't really know. But if there's a chance they could behave like, say, asbestos, why rush into it? You know, asbestos was used on movie sets to simulate snow before we found out how harmful it was. Just one classic example of assuming cool new stuff is safe.
Re:Just what we need, more toxins in environment (Score:5, Informative)
A) and B) have been known for a long time. C) is still being studied, but the results I have seen so far in peer-reviewed journals (not random health websites) show that nanoparticle sunscreens are not harmful in any real-life circumstance, and looking at your locokazoo link, the zinc oxide sunscreens are the only ones I would even consider putting on my skin. The rest are organic photo-sensitizer molecules that are more harmful than zinc oxide even without light shining on them.
None of your links contain any scientific evidence saying nanoparticle sunscreens are harmful. Yes, titanium dioxide powder is bad for your lungs, but the titanium dioxide or zinc oxide suspended in sunscreen or mixed into paint is not particulate, and therefore has more chance of being eaten than breathed, and it is non-toxic in the digestive system. Again, no evidence has shown that the small concentration of "free" hydroxyl radicals formed when light shines on the titanium dioxide in sunscreen has any effect on exposed human surfaces.
Re: (Score:2)
Zinc oxide is seriously bad for your lungs as well, that's why welders are wearing respirators under thier welding helmets now. Breathing vaporized zinc oxide is easily good for a trip to the hospital for pneumonia and is often fatal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This line of thinking has not stopped the port of San Diego from considering telling boat owners to stop using copper based paint. Why? Because there is a high level of copper in the water. Without checking for any other source of copper, they just assumed it was the boats and big stink ensues. And I would be willing to bet a can of bottom paint that there are far worse things in the water than copper.
obligatory simpson joke (Score:2)
mmm, radicals
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then why don't we just use food coloring to kill bacteria?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In a hospital, yes. Because you are more likely to find people who don't have a working immune system, and, already being ill with something else, they are more likely to catch other things.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually if you didn't have E. Coli in your gut you'd have a vitamin K deficiency and would likely bleed to death soon. There are a lot of "germs" growing in us that with out we'd be either dead or miserable without yet too many do the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How do you know that they have to shed other resistances? Do you know of any studies that support your claim? I doubt that you can find any credible studies that say so because scientists will always hedge their bets. One can't predict that this will actually be the result.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you know that they have to shed other resistances?
Because if they didn't, they'd already have lots of resistances.
In fact, bacterial genomes are ruled by two principles: (1) they are as big as they can be, and (2) bits that aren't being used stop working after a few generations. So, if you add a resistance gene, something else has to go, and resistance genes that aren't being used stop working. In addition, a lot of resistance genes make the bacteria sick.
Do you know of any studies that support yo
Re: (Score:2)
He's claiming that bacteria are already at, or very near, their local peak. If they're not at the local peak, they're at a peak that is probably near it.
They had billions of years to search for that peak, and so they have probably found it. If they haven't found it, then they probably will not find it, and its not their "local peak" at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes I remember, we stopped using it because it was over-applied by cotton farmers and now the Malaria that it almost wiped out is again killing mass numbers of people. It's usage is making a dramatic comeback, it's easily one of the safest and most environmentally friendly insecticide for indoor use there is.