Nanoparticles - something else not to panic about?

Antaletriangle · 11-14-2008, 10:38 AM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ear...nic-about.html
Every week for the past five years an email has dropped into my mailbox raising awful fears about “nanotechnology”, which means engineering with small particles or, in other words, dust.
By Charles Clover
Last Updated: 8:40AM GMT 14 Nov 2008

I have learnt to delete the email every time without reading it. Now I discover that I was right to do so, thanks to the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution’s commonsensical report, Novel Materials in the Environment: the Case of Nanotechnology.

As the people who earn money by getting us to worry about it know, calling something nanotechnology makes us far more likely to worry than if it were called dust.

Just like other supposedly new trends that people want us to be alarmed about, such as globalisation, working with vanishingly small particles is not so novel either. It has been going on since ancient times.

The Lycurgus cup, shown on the cover of the Royal Commission’s report, is thought to have been made in 4th-century AD Rome.

It is the only complete example of a special kind of glass, known as dichroic, which changes colour from opaque green to translucent red when held up to the light.

This property is caused by tiny amounts of colloidal gold and silver contained in the glass.

So far, so unalarming. The Royal Commission makes the sane point that there is nothing inherently alarming about nanoparticles because of their scale, only because of what some of them have been engineered to do.

We already know alarming things about dust. For example, prolonged exposure to coal dust causes lung diseases and some forms of asbestos cause cancer.

But is the world about to be dissolved into grey goo because of some new agent attacking cell walls? The Royal Commission would appear to think not.

They do point out that a growing number of nanoparticles, called carbon nanotubes, are used in tyres and as anti-static agents in fuels, and things called Buckmasterfullerenes, or Buckyballs, are manufactured in increasing quantities.

Sir John Lawton, chairman of the commission, says he would not wear sportswear coated with minute silver particles, which fight smell and grime, because they might behave in the same malign way as asbestos dust - though they might not. We simply don’t know.

So, as the Royal Commission says, it makes sense to research what particles do when they are ingested or discharged willy-nilly into the environment. It also makes sense to amend regulations, so companies have to report any adverse effect on health or the environment.

On the other hand, potential uses of nanotechnology are likely to benefit mankind considerably - for example in water treatment, in fuel cells, batteries and in energy‑efficient materials. So it would be mad to write off whole technologies without further research.

All this sounds like profound common sense - the kind that has sadly often not been listened to when the commission has offered advice before, for example, on reducing the emissions from aircraft into the stratosphere.

You wonder why we can’t look at GM technology in the same measured way.

• We have no chance now of meeting the target the Government has, perhaps foolishly, imposed on itself of halting the loss of Britain’s species and habitats by 2010, a Commons select committee reported this week.

MPs say the problem is simply that government fails to consider the consequences of its own policies, for example those on biofuels, planning, housebuilding – or the removal of set-aside.

• Something funny goes on, though, when accounting for the loss of species.

My friend Guy Smith, Essex farmer and barn owl lover, points out that the government’s Farmland Bird Index, one of its indicators of sustainability, is based on an absurdly small number of species, 19 in fact, when a more reasonable number for the birds inhabiting farmland would be in the 40s.

The index excludes sparrowhawks, buzzards, magpies – all of which have increased. It even leaves out barn owls, which have doubled in numbers in the past 10 years.

Could it be that the decline of smaller birds, such as the skylark and starling, has to do not only with changes in farming, as environmentalists are fond of pointing out, but also with an increase in predatory species? Interesting thought.
But keep in mind that for every good use of any technology there is an inevitability there will be a malign one also, for example,in most wartime conditions this is where most technologies thrive and evolve into better,more efficient killing apparatus-We are aware of the RFID chip and there are probably more sophisticated nano-devices now available that could be used in innoculation procedures? Never be too complacent that the nano-revolution is all about saving you and your dog! Just a thought.

11-14-2008, 10:38 AM	#1
Antaletriangle Avalon Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: U.K. Posts: 3,380	Nanoparticles - something else not to panic about? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ear...nic-about.html Every week for the past five years an email has dropped into my mailbox raising awful fears about “nanotechnology”, which means engineering with small particles or, in other words, dust. By Charles Clover Last Updated: 8:40AM GMT 14 Nov 2008 I have learnt to delete the email every time without reading it. Now I discover that I was right to do so, thanks to the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution’s commonsensical report, Novel Materials in the Environment: the Case of Nanotechnology. As the people who earn money by getting us to worry about it know, calling something nanotechnology makes us far more likely to worry than if it were called dust. Just like other supposedly new trends that people want us to be alarmed about, such as globalisation, working with vanishingly small particles is not so novel either. It has been going on since ancient times. The Lycurgus cup, shown on the cover of the Royal Commission’s report, is thought to have been made in 4th-century AD Rome. It is the only complete example of a special kind of glass, known as dichroic, which changes colour from opaque green to translucent red when held up to the light. This property is caused by tiny amounts of colloidal gold and silver contained in the glass. So far, so unalarming. The Royal Commission makes the sane point that there is nothing inherently alarming about nanoparticles because of their scale, only because of what some of them have been engineered to do. We already know alarming things about dust. For example, prolonged exposure to coal dust causes lung diseases and some forms of asbestos cause cancer. But is the world about to be dissolved into grey goo because of some new agent attacking cell walls? The Royal Commission would appear to think not. They do point out that a growing number of nanoparticles, called carbon nanotubes, are used in tyres and as anti-static agents in fuels, and things called Buckmasterfullerenes, or Buckyballs, are manufactured in increasing quantities. Sir John Lawton, chairman of the commission, says he would not wear sportswear coated with minute silver particles, which fight smell and grime, because they might behave in the same malign way as asbestos dust - though they might not. We simply don’t know. So, as the Royal Commission says, it makes sense to research what particles do when they are ingested or discharged willy-nilly into the environment. It also makes sense to amend regulations, so companies have to report any adverse effect on health or the environment. On the other hand, potential uses of nanotechnology are likely to benefit mankind considerably - for example in water treatment, in fuel cells, batteries and in energy‑efficient materials. So it would be mad to write off whole technologies without further research. All this sounds like profound common sense - the kind that has sadly often not been listened to when the commission has offered advice before, for example, on reducing the emissions from aircraft into the stratosphere. You wonder why we can’t look at GM technology in the same measured way. • We have no chance now of meeting the target the Government has, perhaps foolishly, imposed on itself of halting the loss of Britain’s species and habitats by 2010, a Commons select committee reported this week. MPs say the problem is simply that government fails to consider the consequences of its own policies, for example those on biofuels, planning, housebuilding – or the removal of set-aside. • Something funny goes on, though, when accounting for the loss of species. My friend Guy Smith, Essex farmer and barn owl lover, points out that the government’s Farmland Bird Index, one of its indicators of sustainability, is based on an absurdly small number of species, 19 in fact, when a more reasonable number for the birds inhabiting farmland would be in the 40s. The index excludes sparrowhawks, buzzards, magpies – all of which have increased. It even leaves out barn owls, which have doubled in numbers in the past 10 years. Could it be that the decline of smaller birds, such as the skylark and starling, has to do not only with changes in farming, as environmentalists are fond of pointing out, but also with an increase in predatory species? Interesting thought. But keep in mind that for every good use of any technology there is an inevitability there will be a malign one also, for example,in most wartime conditions this is where most technologies thrive and evolve into better,more efficient killing apparatus-We are aware of the RFID chip and there are probably more sophisticated nano-devices now available that could be used in innoculation procedures? Never be too complacent that the nano-revolution is all about saving you and your dog! Just a thought.