Regulating Nanotechnology In Cleansers 65
An anonymous reader writes to mention a Washington Post article about new EPA regulations on nanotech in cleaners. Nanoparticles are now used to do everything from waterproofing pants to making faster-burning rocket fuel, but one of the most common new applications is their use in household cleaners. The EPA is handing down new regulations saying that these silver-coated nanoparticles have to be safe for the environment. Their concerns stem from the fact that a large majority of cleansers, eventually, end up in large bodies of water. From the article: "Silver can kill microbes even in bulk form but is more efficient as nanoparticles. Nanosilver also can be easily incorporated into a variety of products, such as food containers and shoe liners. That characteristic has made it the most common type of nanomaterial marketed to consumers, according to a database of about 350 nanoproducts maintained by the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. Nanosilver has also been added to bandages to speed healing. That use and others in which the particles are applied to the body are regulated not by the EPA but by the Food and Drug Administration, which is currently considering whether it needs new rules for nanoproducts."
Silver keyboards and mice (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Prediction of the future (Score:1, Insightful)
Glad you're here to clear that up. There I was expecting some dreadful scientific inquiry, with experiments and all that gobbledygook, but thankfully your assertion has obviated such a necessity. Kohath proclaims: "these products are useful and help people."
"Some publicity-seeking scientist will figure out a way to kill an animal with these materials in some unrealistically large dose or something like that. There will be press reports about the "hidden danger" of these products lurking in your home. The Sierra Club will issue a press release about these products."
Someone else's prediction:
Lab tests will prove beyond doubt that some of the materials are safe and some cause cancer in humans.
Industry will launch a well-funded publicity and lobbying campaign, convincing everyone that the cost of avoiding the carcinogenic ones would destroy our economy, turn the Earth into a Hell of vicious man-eating pine trees, and deprive us of such vital technology as antibacterial synthetic beach sand.
Cancer rates will slightly increase, fish yields will slightly decrease, and laws will be passed to outlaw labelling your product as "non-carcinogenic" because it might discourage consumers from buying the carcinogenic competition.
NEW Technology? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Silver is good (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been using it for quite a while, known as colloidal or ionic silver.
Cuts heal faster with less scaring.
Is this your professional recommendation, doctor? Yes, silver is toxic - which is why it's an antiseptic. Beware, however - there is no mechanism for the human body to get rid of excess silver. If you continue to intoxicate yourself you will suffer the consequences. I invite you to look into the potentially fatal medical condition called "Argyria" before you continue to use colloidal silver.
- A concerned physician
I feel the same way about macro-particles. (Score:3, Insightful)
We need the EPA to OK the use of nanoparticles in cleaning agents, and yet, diesel engines spew out metric tons of organic nanoparticles on a daily basis.
I'm with ya brother. These bastards at EPA have been doing the same thing for YEARS with macro-particles. Lead is all regulated up the ass.. You can't put it in paint, it's been taken out of gasoline, etc. And yet every winter the city is allowed to just dump sand around the streets!
I mean, all macro-particles are equal right? We all know that when two things are the same in one way, they're the same in every single other way.
Up with bacteria! (Score:4, Insightful)
-b.
Since when... (Score:3, Insightful)
I suppose my dog no longer leaves puppy bombs in the back yard... they're just massive piles of millions of "nanopoop".