Facing the Dangers of Nanotech 172
bethr writes "Technology Review has a Q&A with Andrew Maynard, the science advisor for the Woodrow Wilson International Center's nanotechnology project regarding the dangers of nanomaterials and why we have to act now." From the article: "Individual experiments have indicated that if you develop materials with a nanostructure, they do behave differently in the body and in the environment. We know from animal studies that very, very fine particles, particles with high surface area, lead to a greater inflammatory response than the same amount of larger particles. We also know that they can enter the lining of the lungs and get through to the blood and enter other organs. There is some evidence that nanoparticles can move into the brain along the olfactory nerve, so this is completely circumventing the blood-brain barrier."
IT'd be nice to see some actual nanotech ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Nanomaterial == molecules (Score:2, Insightful)
More idiots (Score:2, Insightful)
First, there is a problem with governmental idiots in charge of something they don't understand.
Two, I don't buy Wikipedia as an authoritative source. While it is source, it could be a start point, not an end point.
And of course this would not apply to marketing hyped products -- the nano-tech car wax and nano-tech hair shampoo; Right???
Nature is full of nanoparticles (Score:1, Insightful)
The facts in this case are that the natural environment is FULL of nanoparticles of all sizes --- we live in a sea of them. Nature doesn't have any personal preference for particles of any given size.
To say that something we manufacture could be dangerous is fine, but singling out nanoparticles is just plain silly. And yes, materials of all kinds change their properties depending on particle size. Again, singling out nanoparticles for this honour is more about alarmism than about objectivity.
You know what this means... (Score:4, Insightful)
what would be better than a bomb that goes off and you breathe in particles that can easily penetrate your organs
Re:Nanomaterial == molecules (Score:2, Insightful)
I think his point is that we are dealing with familiar materials in unfamiliar configurations. When dealing with anything unknown a certain amount of uncertainty, doubt, and yes, even fear or trepidation is called for.
Sure you can probably get away with treating that which is unknown in a cavalier fashion, making the assumption that it is perfectly safe until otherwise demonstrated to be unsafe. But of course when approaching that which is unknown in this fashion there are always going to be the cases where things that are unsafe are not recognized as such until something bad happens.
Maybe these things ring a bell: lead, radium, thalidomide.
Even things which are generally recognized as safe when handled or used properly can still be unsafe when misued. I won't bother listing examples of these. Your house and surrounding environment are packed with them.
Down with the Precautionary Principle! (Score:4, Insightful)
Two edged sword (Score:3, Insightful)
Scale matters (Score:5, Insightful)
Nature is replete with examples where scale matters. Insect-scale airfoils don't work particularly well. Jumbo jet-scale insects wouldn't fly, either. At the molecular level, flagella give great propulsion in fluids, but the same wouldn't hold at the macroscopic level.
The same is true in biology. I remember having read a study done at NASA on the effect of iron nanoparticles in lungs. (Alas, I can't seem to find the link anymore.) They concluded that at the nano scale, the iron particles could escape the normal protections and remain in the lungs (in the interstitium and cells themselves), where they could collect and have a toxic effect, including diminished lung function. (The test rats became lethargic, etc.) All this at exposure levels that wouldn't be considered toxic at other scales.
I've seen similar research on sunscreen. Zinc oxide particles are great protecting at UVA and UVB. However, at large scale, they're quite visible and hard to blend in. Make them smaller, and that problem goes away, but they get absorbed deeper into the skin. Make them smaller still, and it's quite possible that they'll be absorbed into the cells themselves, leading to new potential health effects. (e.g., does zinc oxide become carcinogenic when they remain in the cells for too long? Does the motion into the cells increase the likelihood of reactive oxygen species (free radicals) accumlating inside the cells, rather than outside?)
I'm not a biochemist or a biologist (I'm a biomathematician), so I don't have the answers to these questions. But it's clear that scale really does matter, and it needs to be considered. Is the danger overhyped? Possibly, or maybe not. That's why it needs to be studied. But it's going to be important to understand these effects when we move from the low levels that occur naturally to the high levels that will occur in human-made materials and products. -- Paul
Poor logic.. (Score:5, Insightful)
There exists some molecules that already enter the blood-brain barrier without problems. Therefor all molecules entering the blood-brain barrier have no problems. One could prove anything (including known falsehoods) using that kind of logic.
What I read in the article was that when we create very very fine particles out of substances they behave differently in biological organisms than they do when they aren't in very very small particles. We really have no information on how these very fine particles might behave in biological organisms, so we really should be more cautious in including them in food products, or anything else people might injest since they really haven't been tested yet.
Re:Nanomaterial == molecules (Score:5, Insightful)
However, I have to mention that the size might not be the problem, but rather the properties of these nanoparticles.
The most important thing to remember when talking about nanoparticles, is that a lot of these materials have a unique thing in common, quoth wikipedia, "vastly increased ratio of surface area to volume". Remember for example lunar dust [wikipedia.org] and the problems associated with it? Imagine that effect on a much worse level.
Re:Nanomaterial == molecules (Score:5, Insightful)
If I swallow a quarter,
See http://www.kemcointernational.com/NANOPHASEAPPLIC
Basic physics... (Score:3, Insightful)
Released, this nanite could theoretically convert the earth (see "grey goo") into a giant ball of itself.
There's this little problem with replication called "energy", and the laws of thermodynamics. Making order out of disorder requires energy to be expended. Exactly where is all the energy going to come from to turn everything into "grey goo"?
Re:Uh... that's f*cked up. (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is you'll probably find out that in order to keep up with rapidly mutating and adapting cancer cells, the nanites will *need* to mutate.
Re:Michael Crichton's Book (Score:4, Insightful)
I wouldn't take even Asimov novells as anything to be read if I would want to do science in a particular field. Fiction!=Science, no matter how good fiction it is.
"Nice?" (Score:4, Insightful)
Huh? ... another BigChicken (Score:3, Insightful)
If we are going to destroy our species, I wish would just get it done. Anything is better than accepting domination by fear-mongering idiots in charge (Neo-Nazi, Neoconservative, Neo/Pseudo-Christian/Moslem/Jew
Give me liberty, or give me death, from the all KnowWhatsBestForYou powerful of this world.
Re:Nanomaterial == molecules (Score:5, Insightful)
TFA simply advocates caution and diligent research into negative consequences of nanotech while the technology is being developed. TFA never urges abandoning anything. I agree with the author that we should keep close tabs on this stuff and watch it for long term effects.
Re:Scale matters, and so does hype (Score:5, Insightful)
Is the danger overhyped? Possibly, or maybe not. That's why it needs to be studied.
I'm old enough to remember something very similar to this back when gene splicing first became practical. Recombinant technology had a lot of hype around its promise, while at the same time there was an equal amount of hype about its dangers. Depending on which "expert" you were listening to, it was either going to solve all our problems or wipe humanity off the planet.
The compromise was to put stringent safeguards on it. Twenty years later, we can look back and see that a lot of them were unnecessary, and that much of the hype was overblown on both sides. I think we're going to see something similar arising from nanotechnology. Yes, there's a lot of promise, and yes, there are some dangers. Until we better understand the technology, it's better to put in some safeguards, with the idea in mind that we can always relax them or tighten them.
It's always instructive to look back, and to take some lessons from the past. Banning a technology outright because of fear doesn't work. Someone will eventually use it. At the same time, embracing a technology unreservedly also doesn't work. There are many examples of it blowing up in someone's face after-the-fact. It's not anti-technology to be aware of potential dangers and to take steps to mitigate them as you move forward. But neither should the dangers prevent you from moving forward.
Re:Basic physics... (Score:3, Insightful)
Plants and some other critters with chlorophyll use it to create carbohydrates out of thin air (think CO2) and water.
Exactly. And have said plants managed to convert the earth into "grey goo" yet? They've had quite a while to get really good at being efficient at using energy and matter to make themselves.
there's a big furnace burning below ground, enough to supply the activation energy for many chemical reactions
Ok, and once all the chemical reactions have taken place that were activated by the higher temperatures, where does the energy come from?
The point is that simply making alarming statements about "grey goo" and runaway reactions without understanding the limiting components is silly. Any organism requires the raw materials required to build it (which atoms do you need), and the energy required to do it. If you need a bunch of iron atoms, sodium atoms, or whatever and you run out, well the replication thing is going to die out.
Chemistry has always been dangerous. (Score:1, Insightful)
Exactly
Nanotech schmanotech. Chemistry is chemistry is chemistry. Engineers pretending to be chemists, bah!
Don't believe me? Stick your finger in a container of 50% sodium hydroxide to see what happens, never mind that it is dissolving the glass container it is in... (a Teflon container will hold it)
Or try ingesting 250-500 g (1-2 hits) of lysergic acid diethylamide and wait and see what happens when that gets to the brain... hehehe.
This is not news. Chemistry has always been a dangerous field. One must be very well educated and aware to avoid injury or illness.
"Nanotech" sounds cooler than chemistry so I guess it is news...
Re:I smell nanoparticles... (Score:4, Insightful)