No, No, Nano: Micro Materials Could Pose Health Risks
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto 
on 07.10.08
Full Illustration of Article, complete with lame hockey rink analogy
A new Canadian study looks at the risks of engineered nanomaterials, and raises serious concerns. According to Martin Mittelstaedt in the Globe and Mail, the Council of Canadian Academies was asked by Health Canada to "study the state of knowledge about these novel substances and the regulatory changes needed to oversee their use. They 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."
About 517 different products containing nanomaterials, ranging from suncreens to tennis racquets, have been admitted to Canada from the United States. Dr. Pekka Sinervo, Chair of the study, says "One can argue fairly strongly that some of those products probably should be looked at on a going-forward basis. It's a new technology. We are concerned."
From the Globe and Mail:
"Scientists have been able to fashion these new substances by assembling them almost atom by atom, creating materials that have properties unlike the larger chunks of the matter from which they're made - much like a diamond and pencil graphite are both composed of carbon but have entirely different properties.
Nanomaterials in sunscreen
One example is titanium dioxide used in sunscreen. Nanoparticles of the material, engineered to have crystal structure, allow visible light to pass through them, but they also absorb ultraviolet light, making them ideal as the active ingredient in sunscreens. Titanium dioxide in a bulk form has a completely different attribute: It is used as the intense white pigment in paint.
Dr. Sinervo said sunscreens have been used for years without adverse human health impacts, suggesting they are harmless to people while reducing the risks of skin cancer.
But the issue of nanoparticles' overall impact on the environment is still under review. Researchers at Trent University in Peterborough, Ont., for instance, are currently investigating the effects of sunscreens when they get into water, trying to determine if they harm algae, amphibians or fish. They don't expect to complete their research until 2010." ::Globe and Mail
More on Nanomaterials in TreeHugger
Nano , Nano , Everywhere: the Nano Dishwasher : TreeHugger
Breakthrough in Solar Nano Technology : TreeHugger
Nano -Tech Batteries May Rival Lithium-Ions In Hybrids : TreeHugger
Copper Nanorods Increase Boiling Water Bubbles 3,000%!
Hairy Solar Panels Could Result From Nanowire Breakthrough
Nanocrystal Coating = White LED Big Breakthrough?
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Green Glossary: Naturopathy
- Spring for Organic Dairy, Save Money Elsewhere
- Are Your Floors Covered in Pesticides?
- Track Buses by Phone, Internet, Bus Stop
- Cure Your Toxic Yard: Plants That Extract Lead And Other Buried Pollutants
- Support Obama's Ocean Policy with a Friendly Letter
Ah finally we come to a topic I can truly debate. I believe nanomachines (or nano-particles if you will) have a great part to play in the future of our world. They must, of course, be carefully monitored during development, but we shouldn't hold back figuring out what they can do simply because it MIGHT be dangerous. They offer too many possible positive effects to hold back their development. This isn't to say it should be done on humans, but it should be allowed to be explored to it's fullest extent. The things they could provide to us could possibly solve world hunger, end nuclear strikes, cure "incurable" diseases, purify water, rebuild ecosystems and more.
Give nanos a chance :)
I just read in scientific american that a test done on mice with relatively huge quantities of carbon nanotubes showed that they were non-toxic, basically inert material. At least there's that, those look like they could be extremely useful.
Putting all nanomaterials in the same basket is basically like saying "chemitry is bad".
With all due respect, Cybercat, your lets go for it attitude is why we are in this big mess today. The automobile was the "environmentally sound" alternative to the horse. Maybe it was, but it has created a huge mess today.
Testing to ensure technology is safe for people and the environment is not "holding back development", it is a critical part of the development cycle that must not be eliminated.
Anyway, we already have all the technology we need to solve our problems and create a great future. It is more a matter of political will and people's commitment to solve problems that is the issue. Pretending that the solution is technology is just wishful thinking to avoid the real challenges we face.
Richard, I tend to agree that almost all the major problems we face today- global warming, world poverty and hunger, and so on- can be solved pretty inexpensively with technology we already have or very nearly have, and that the issue is mainly one of politics and a lack of awareness of or belief in the solutions. As I intend to be a scientist, this is disheartening; it means that even when someone finds a fantastic solution to an important problem, other people who have no idea what the science means may decide to leave the problem unsolved anyway.
But there are always other problems, and better ways of solving problems, and finding these requires new technology. Once the big issues are solved, issues that used to be small by comparison start calling out for solutions.
Suppose we succeed in getting the world to use all renewable energy. In a few decades, when the time comes, wouldn't it be nice to replace all that worn out 20% efficient PV with 50% efficient PV, and all those 200 foot tall wind turbines with 600 foot tall ones, so we can greatly increase the energy supply? All of these changes require new and better materials, and more complex ways of assembling them.
Want our computers to keep getting faster for another few decades? We're going to need some very new materials with very different properties than silicon to make that happen.
Do we need to make sure technology is safe? Yes, undoubtedly. But what we really need to ask is, are any dangers associated with a piece of technology greater than or less than the dangers associated with the problem it solves? Making things safe is a process, and we must seek continuous improvement with each new generation of technology; but if we performed intergenerational studies on the safety of every product before it came to market we might have just about begun marketing penicillin now.
Nanotechnology may indeed have important societal benefits, but one of the problems is that advances in the uses of chemicals in general, including nanomaterials, tend to get ahead of the environmental and human health testing. It is all well and good to say "of course, safety testing must be done", but this testing should be completed before the product containing the new chemical goes to market, not after.
Nanoscale titanium dioxide and zinc oxide in sunscreens are a perfect example of market first, test later. Effects of long term usage are largely unknown. I recently blogged about this on our website: http://environmentaldefenseblogs.org/nanotechnology/