Last week, we learned the latest new "hot" technology — carbon nanotubes — could be every bit as deadly as asbestos (a former "hot" technology). A few days before that, we learned cell phone use during pregnancy makes the fetus far more likely to grow up to have behavioral problems. Ho-hum. Yet more chapters in our American lives — and deaths — without the precautionary principle. So what’s new? Plenty. As the nano-news broke, four Democratic "leaders" in Congress called bullshit on the whole narrative: they called to end the megacorps’ power to force our babies to be their test subjects.
Here in the Land of Opportunity we Americans have all sorts of "opportunities" to test the safety of new technologies. After enough of us exercise our "right" to sicken and die from untested new technologies, non-profits and academics have the opportunity to begin the decades-long process of stopping yet another industrial "gift" from maiming or killing us. All the while, the toxic substance or technology enjoys the freedom to hang out and travel around the planet, even while facing accusations of mass murder.
Today I’m reading a good LA Times piece about a well-done study that followed children with brain damage from lead as they grew to be adults with brain damage from lead. The study found that the more lead one has as a kid, the greater the adult risk of violent crime leading to arrest.
"People will sometimes say, ‘This is in the past. We are cleaning up lead. We don’t have lead problems anymore,’ " said criminologist Deborah W. Denno of Fordham University in New York, who also was not involved in the study. "The Ohio study says this is still a big problem."
[snip]
Researchers have long known that lead exposure reduces IQ by damaging brain cells in children during their early years.
It is also known that lead increases children’s distractibility, impulsiveness and restlessness and shortens their attention span, all factors considered precursors of aggressive or violent behavior.
A landmark 1990 paper by Denno linked lead to increases in criminal behavior, but the children in the study were not tested for lead levels. The diagnoses were based on their physicians’ evaluation, Denno said.
So almost 20 years after published studies linking lead to actions that send us to jail, lead’s still free in the environment … and in us.
Of course, years ago even US regulators finally moved to ban lead from paint and fuel here in the US.
Why, we even stopped using it in fuel: in 1996.
Merely 73 years after lead additives in fuel were first known to cause severe brain damage:
Adding … a small quantity of tetraethyl lead (TEL) to gasoline prevented engine "knock." …. To sell the additive to gasoline refiners, a new company called the Ethyl Corporation was formed as a joint venture of General Motors, Du Pont, and Standard Oil of New Jersey, and gasoline with the additive was called "Ethyl."
In fact, within a year of the start of Ethyl production in 1923 a number of workers on the Ethyl production line went insane and died from acute lead poisoning, prompting a ban on the sale of TEL-based gasoline until an inquiry could be conducted.
Hey, what’s the rush, right? After all, it’s only our brains … and our kids’ brains. Who are you gonna protect: your baby, or GM-DuPont-Standard Oil? This is America: where are your priorities, you Communist-Anarchist-Terrorist lover?
As today’s lead story and the 1923 lead story demonstrate, we and our babies aren’t the priority. We’re dead (or at least poisoned) meat: America and her "regulators" protect industry, not us.
Over the next several decades nearly all the research on the effects of TEL was funded by the Ethyl Corporation. Not surprisingly, the researchers failed to find conclusive evidence that leaded gasoline posed a public health risk.
This increased our average lead exposure to 300 to 500 times that of "normal" (pre-TEL) levels. As many as 68 million young children are believed to have received toxic levels of lead between 1927 and 1987 and as many as 5,000 deaths per year may have been caused by lead-related heart disease before TEL use was phased out.
I wish I were able to say lead and other accused toxic substances were at least out on bail while they travel around for decades: but I can’t.
In the upside-down world of toxic substance "regulation", even molecules and technologies accused of hundreds of millions of deaths don’t have to make bail. Instead, the burden is on the victims (or their survivors) and the NGO’s who take up their issue to force "regulators" to protect us from the latest industrial killer on the loose.
Imagine. If the Tate and LaBiancha families had to hire their own investigators and then persuade the human "regulators" — the DA’s and judges — to go after the killers, the Manson family might still be out … killing new victims.
Fortunately, the serial killers in the Manson family were detained and denied bail after human regulators accused them of mass killings. As defendants, if they sought to be free on bail, they had to persuade the regulator of humans we refer to as "Judge" that — if free — they wouldn’t be a threat to the rest of us. And — fortunately — they weren’t granted bail.
Nothing could ever excuse the Manson "family" for what they did to even one victim, let alone their many victims.
Yet members of the American Chemical Association, the American Manufacturing Association, and the rest of the megacorp "family" pushed out toxic products and technologies that have killed and maimed millions. The chemicals and technologies that did the killing and maiming — and do the killing and maiming — don’t even have to make bail.
Unlike human serial killers and poisoners, chemicals and technology are free to keep on killing after for decades after they are accused. The burden of proof is on the victims — you and me — to convince the "regulators" to protect us.
Even before the Bushie Reich put industry’s little Eichmanns in key positions throughout the FDA, CDC, USDA, and the rest of our "regulators", the megacorps had already bought off many regulators…and many of the pols who controlled and appointed the regualtors.
Industry’s obedient servant Dan Quayle donned his "Naturale Philosophere" dunce cap to simply decree Frankenseeds and GMO’s are "substantially equivalent" to the food crops selected without recombinant DNA technology.
How could Lorde Quayle know that organisms that still were in the future when he made his decree really were equivalent? Did Bush the Elder have a time machine? I don’t think so (and Little Boots’ survival to destroy the Atlantic Alliance and the American Empire also suggests not).
Merely the same faith-based "regulatory" system the chemical and manufacturing industries have used for decades.
When the megacorps have faith a new molecule or technology will make them money, they tell the rest of us to take it on faith their new profit center won’t hurt us.
Hey — why worry about nanomaterials? After all, our very own regulators declared them substantially equvialent to the macromaterials they come from. What — our regulators would lie to us?
Well, yes. No need to take my word for it — the citation below is from three UCLA faculty members published in Science.
Nanomaterials are engineered structures with at least one dimension of 100 nanometers or less….. As a result, their properties differ substantially from those bulk materials of the same composition, allowing them to perform exceptional feats of conductivity, reactivity, and optical sensitivity. Possible undesirable results of these capabilities are harmful interactions with biological systems and the environment, with the potential to generate toxicity.
Lead, cell phone signals, Frankenfoods, Bisphenol A, nanotubes — all vast experiments for which we never gave consent. Experiments in which we and our families and children are unwitting involuntary subjects.
That’s why the news about the four Democratic Congresscritters — Sen. Lautenberg, Sen. Boxer, Rep. Solis, and Rep. Waxman — is so important. The legislation they’ve introduced is literally a revolution. Their bill lets us be free, and forces new chemicals to earn their freedom.
And a lot of people have been dying to see that.
Finally: good eco-news for a change.
Related posts:





Spotlight








Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

Gruntled.
Greetings, kirk.
You can Digg this post HERE
Gruntles to you, punaise. And greetings, neuro (may all your synapses be lead free).
Thanks. neuro.
Finally. Can we get a letter-writing campaign going to thank these four – and encourage the rest of them to co-sponsor and vote for this?
Don’t slip a dis.
Great idea, lokywoky!
Carbon nano tubes, committee hearings, should really confuse Ted Stevens.
AWESOME post, Dr. Murphy.
Thank you!
I wonder, in an off handed way, WHERE we would have ever heard of this had you not put some energy into POINTING IT OUT here at the Lake.
This place makes it hard for me to keep up with other sites. I’m BUSY in life, and try as I can to remain informed and on top of action moves, in the every constant effort to fight the Bu$h misAdministration and GET MY COUNTRY BACK.
But I end up just barely trying to keep up with FDL, and a few others, as I have to function in life which is going crazy due to the uproar and upset in MY COUNTRY today.
Thanks for listening (reading my rant).
and thank you for this post. think i’ll do some actual letter writing on this one.
heart!
Hey, ES… I’m envying you this weekend, what with the blues stuff all around. Wish I could pop over, but, alas, work & school & stuff. I expect a full report on my desk Monday morning.
;~P
Oh, and thanks Dr. Murphy… I’m bumbling through the post right now. Lotsa words and no pictures… makes it tough for an old bonger like myself. I’ll catch up in a while.
On McClellan, and Rove and the White House.
Nobody likes Rove. Except The Dean, who is so dumb it didn’t occur to him he was being cultivated for use, over that quail dinner at Karl’s ‘cabin’. What a schmuck. People fear him, many probably hate him. That’s life for a ratfucker.
Let’s look at Scotty, via Bag News
http://bagnewsnotes.typepad.co…..-thor.html
I have my eye on the Kings River this weekend.. Wont be long ’til the Folk Festival.
this is a great narative and we can actually get the “right to life” constituents to challenge which party hasa the greater evil in their eyes
nice piece here kirk
Thanks, siri!
ES, I can just imagine Stevens going for the carbon toobz depletion allowance.
Dr Bong, good luck with work and school.
If it helps, here’s a picture of nanotech: .
;)
thanks, perris: i’m hoping someone will take the narrative and make it pithy.
(in a frog-friendly sense, of course)
Solis: http://solis.house.gov/contact/email.shtml
Waxman: http://www.house.gov/waxman/contact.htm
Lautenberg: http://lautenberg.senate.gov/contact/
Boxer: https://boxer.senate.gov/contact/email/policy.cfm
There ya go — all say they accept emails from non-constituents but can only respond to constituents. Here’s how to start your campaign of thanks….
Dugg. Hi Kirk. Great work once again.
Uh, hey Doc… can you make that picture a tad bigger?
;~P
Let’s not… too little, too late, IMHO
Faustian deals are hard to re-negotiate, eh?
Monsanto’s sure have been.
So hard that every human being born on the planet contains some of Monsanto’s PCB’s
he’s got a ‘point’
“why do republicans hate the unborn, the yet born and how can anyone who cares about the unborn be a republican”
their heads will EXPLODE!
actually, for the googles search you might think about changing the title of the thread;
“republicans hate the unborn”
that will get some hits
Thanks Teddy… Via the pdf. thank you letter @ ewg link in Kirks post..
snip
Yep. No doubt. And if you live in a house built before the 1960s, you probably have ingested lead and asbestos too. My father was a huge fan of white lead in paint; he complained terribly when they took it off the market because it was such a great additive to oil paints in terms of giving them ‘good coverage’. And of course we won’t talk about asbestos tiles.
lots of asbestos insulation on ductwork in old houses. also in old flooring mastic (glue) and 60’s and 70’s “pop-corn” ceilings.
send in the guys in the bunny suits!
ES and Teddy, thank you both.
OMG – I had no idea about the popcorn ceilings.
Ack!
I am trying to share info asbestos I can.
Don’t how many of caught FDL’s Book Salon with Mark Schapiro. In his book “Exposed” he describes how the EU has already implemented the precautionary principle as the basis for toxic substance regualtion.
The pp places the burden on the manufacturer to show a new technology/chemical will not be harmful to us and our planet.
US megacorps in the export trade (whether based here or in the EU) often have two sets of standards:
the higher standard to meet EU regs
the lower standard to meet our weak laws.
It appears that the push for more Dirty Coal Power Plants will cause more autism in children. For our children, we should all oppose Coal Power and Nuclear Power. Once again, a Solar/Hydrogen economy is the only possible healthy and sustainable energy solution. CORPORATIONS KILL!
The Coal Pollution also kill grown ups, about 24,000 a year.
Yikes. In retrospect, tossing Frisbees along the ceiling to make “snow” was not the healthiest way in which UCSB students could have worked off exam stress.
Frank33, so glad you brought that up. Coal – the deadly gift that keeps on giving.
hopefully y’all didn’t snort it.
well, I didn’t, anyway…..
I don’t know WHAT you’re talking about! WHY would ever a company produce a toxic substance? Why, the FREE MARKET would ensure that that company went out of business, and its employees could not reproduce! But if you implement regulations, why, you’ll drive our poor little businesses like Exxon and ADM and Halliburton right into bankruptcy! Corporations WANT to be good corporate citizens, and anything that would harm the public is ANATHEMA to corporate interests, EVEN IF IT COSTS THEM A LITTLE MORE TO IMPLEMENT IT!
Ouch! Oh, damn, I bit my tongue with my molars again. That’ll teach me to imitate a free-market idealogue…
I snorted, but I didn’t inhale
quiet at the Lake tonight.
at least the ones who still have some teeth….
Perhaps I should have chosen a more enticing graphic…
signs of nuclear waste are not exactly inviting.
Some more good news:
1) Carbon nanotubes are apparently only potentially bad if a) they’re short and b) you’re handling them in dust form during the manufacturing process without proper protection:
2) A 16-year-old Canadian kid may have just saved the earth. Seriously. He’s figured out a way to speed up bacterial digestion of plastics. You know, the crap that’s creating dead zones in our oceans? Imagine these plastics broken down and then fed to algae which are then used for biofuels. Schweeeeeet! Of course, he has to be careful that the super-munchers don’t eat his laptop.
speaking of quiet, when looking at lead, asbestos, tobacco, PCB’s (the list goes on) there’s a long quiet period – or silent period – during which a few prople (and a few docs) have the info that substance is toxic: and they keep it quiet.
And from the WTF were they thinking? Iberdrola wants to buy Energy East corp. in NY and Maine. They already own fifty percent of a huge wind farm up near Lake Ontario. They have committed to investing one hundred million dollars in NYS for wind. They have agreed to divest themselves of the coal fired plant that RGE owns near Rochester, NY. But…the NYS PSC doesn’t LIKE them, so they are making it very disagreeable for the deal to go through. They are even telling Iberdrola that they want them to sell their interest in the wind farm, too. Iberdrola is now slowly backing away…and has said that if the state makes them give up their ownership, they will just walk away from the deal. No hundred million dollar investment in wind, no sale/decommissioning of the coal plant, no new jobs..no nuthin. They are aeady heavily invested in wind in PA. I’d like someone to explain to me the logic behind making it onerous for the largest wind power company in Europe to build in new York State? Even the independent power producers think it’s a good idea to have them here. and I’m sure the people in New York city and Long Island, long about July and august, would think extra power would be a good idea too.
the easiest way to deal with the “free market” idiologues is as follows;
“there is no such thing as a free market, the very concept of currency is a regulation, owner ship is a regulation
just about every regulation was put there BECAUSE the “free market” allowed corporations to get me and you to pay their bills
they want to be able to dump their crap in your kids air and their garbage in your wifes water and they want you to have to pay to clean their mess
well I don’t want to clean their mess I want them to do it, and THAT’S what “regulation” does, it forces them to pay THEIR bills
THEY created the issues that WE had to pay for because THEY REFUSED, and BING, a regulation
NEWS FLASH;
THE PEOPLE regulating industry through our legislators IS the “market” in case they didn’t know it
now STOP trying to get me to let them dump their CRAP in my kids water!”
something along those lines, works very nicely and it’s hard to argue against those points
Great post Kirk. This is the first info I’ve seen about the downside of the nanotubes.
On the EU standards:
One of my jobs is teaching audio production software from a leading audio hardware/software company. In our annual conference last January there was discussion of the EU manufacturing standards. This company has redesigned all their hardware products to be compliant with the European rules. So the result is that we get safer products here in the US because manufacturers who distribute worldwide need to follow standards set elsewhere.
What we know from the precautionary principle, PW – and what I discussed with you at length last week – is that blythe assurances a new technology “might not be harmful” are simply an expression of faith.
I wonder how many more millions will be sacrificed on the altar of a religious faith in new technology – and I am deeply skeptical of the motives who offer such blythe assuraces to this or any other community.
As for the manufacturer’s assurance – the guy from Unidym – that reads just like Monsanto’s assurances about PCB’s.
Why woud anything seek to spread manufacturers’ propaganda about the safety of a product without hard evidence the product has been shown to be free of risks?
Oh – I forgot – for the white coats and experts who go along with the PR, it can be very lucrative.
That is cool. You’ve heard of the work of Greenfuel Technologies? Very interesting. Very Promising.
Local teevee show has a bit called “The Rant” that lets you send in comments about a topic. Tonights topic is about Snotty McClellan’s new
Calling the mouthpiece of the Bush administration disgruntled for penning a “they-a culpa” is as dishonest as little Scotty trying to wipe his fingerprints from his decade long grip on the Bush propaganda machine.
Scotty’s new little book merely annoys those of us who have paid attention as another propaganda effort to place blame away from a co-conspirator of the Bush administration.
I am not buying it.
I’ll let you know if it shows up on teevee or not, they usually put my stuff on. Remember though, this is Oklahoma.
(the following is an essay I wrote last week – it begins with a quote from material to which I respond in the essay)
Oops, We Did It Again: Faith, Technology, and Nanoparticles
Thanks for letting me know about Thoreau and the family pencil business — I had no idea! Thanks also for the “famous person” anecdote illustrating the human costs resulting from ignorance of the precautionary principle. (I’m not blaming Thoreau’s peeps: they didn’t know of the pp.) I’ll cite that example when writing on the pp in the future.
Thanks also for the comment. With US regulators having essentially assumed that nanoparticles in cosmetics are the biological equivalent of macroparticles of the same substance, this helped me start another post…..
__________________________________
Carbon nanotubes and graphite are both comprised of carbon atoms: so are diamonds. Processed graphite can write on my skin; processed diamonds can lacerate my skin.
As each of the three forms of carbon has very different physical properties, the three forms all have different potential interactions with living matter. No need to take my word for it — the citation below is from three UCLA faculty members published in Science.
Simply put, any assumption that carbon nanotubes are equivalent in biological activity to the older and more familiar carbon-graphite products is inaccurate.
In the absence of data, assertions of nanoparticles’ biological equivalence are simply an expression of faith — not tested hypotheses.
If this assertion (apparently extended to carbon nanotubes) is not merely an assumption, where are the data?
Do we really know that all end-uses of nanotube materials (beyond the “powdery form“) cannot release any nanotubes causing harm — or is that merely an assumption?
Does it include kids chewing on broken stuff? Does it include partial combustion in incinerators? Illegal rubbish dumps that co-mingle solvents…and leach into groundwater? The fragments pulverized when a dropped racket goes out the car window and onto the freeway — and the windblown dispersal of the pulverized remnants?
Given the fact that nanomaterials’ properties “differ substantially from those bulk materials of the same composition” where are the long-term studies of human exposure (to a material that entered commercial use in the last several years) that allow us to conclude that nanotubes are not “inherently toxic when not in powdered form”?
And where is the time machine required to conduct those long-term studies of recently created materials?
[More importantly — when do we get to take it for a spin? I want to go back and change a few things in my twenties. And thirties. And….]
As the studies referenced below in “the weeds” section illustrate, carbon nanomaterials are already demonstrating multiple mechanisms for toxicity — and are also showing unexpected lethality and capacity for environmental dispersal and damage.
Where are the long term (multidecade) studies of carbon nanotube products’ toxicity looking at maternal/fetal/neonatal consequences of the substance — when the substance only entered widespread manufacturing in the last decade?
Where are the kids who were exposed in utero and have now grown to be healthy adults with intact brains, viscera, and reproductive systems?
If the data are already well-known — if the last several years have been sufficient to conduct prospective studies of risks in end-users (and their now-grown fetuses), then someone should tell poor Andrew Maynard — it will save him a lot of work.
Andrew Maynard, chief science adviser to the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, appears to be unaware that the new carbon nanotubes technology has been demonstrated (rather than assumed) to lack any potential for degradation or risk:
When he doesn’t know, how can any one of us be so certain?
Where are the data that support that certainty?
The money grafs I find most notable over the last century bury legitimate concerns about the health risks of new products beneath unsupported assurances of the safety of untested novel technologies.
All too often, these money grafs also buried the victims.
PCB’s are one of only many examples. Monsanto scientists said they were safe, right?
Oops. Sorry, Anniston (And polar bears. And Inuits. Oh — and mammals.)
Bisphenol A — no problem, moms. Theo Colburn got it wrong: the American Chemical Council knew we were safe all along, right?
Oops. Sorry, kids. (And breasts. And prostates. And brains.)
Cigarettes were safe for us, right? They had to be — the industry scientists (and their hired help in government and academia) said so.
Oops. Sorry, smokers. (And people who worked or lived around them. And their survivors.)
Cell phones — no worries, right? Industry scientists participated in designing studies that found their industry’s product was safe. Mirable dictu! Oh….but last week one of the same investigators who a few years ago thought cellular phones’ non-ionizing radiation posed no demonstrable risks joined in publishing a study showing that assurance was unwarranted.
Oops. Sorry, fetus.
The Roundup we were told is safe to use on playing fields is now known to be associated with lymphoma.
Oops. Sorry, farmers.
What is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?
I don’t get it: why — once again — simply assume a new technology is free of novel risks without evidence supporting the hypothesis?
And why should any of us continue to do so — or encourage others to do so — after a century littered with the victims of such assumptions (and the victims’ obits)?
I thought the difference between science and faith was that the former depends upon testable hypotheses.
In the absence of both data and sufficient elapsed time to test a hypothesis, what is the scientific basis for promoting a faith-based assertion to the status of a settled conclusion?
I just don’t get it.
Nor, it appears, does the EU — they seem to value the precautionary principle so much that it now forms the framework for their evaluation of toxins and (some) technologies.
Like any other religion, faith in novel technologies can be lovely to behold, and a great comfort for the believers.
As lovely as faith in novel technology may be, that’s still not an adequate reason for the rest of us to sacrifice our lives. Or anyone else’s.
_ _ _ – - – - – - _ _ _ _ _
In the weeds with carbon-based nanomaterials: mechanisms of toxicity.
[please note - I’ve abstracted indications of toxic mechanisms and indications of toxic effects. Many of the same papers also show a lack of toxicity in other areas. While that’s good news (hey, who wants a potentially valuable new tool to be a poison?) the apparent lack of toxicity in other areas doesn’t create magic pixie dust that obviates the observed toxic effects or pollution mechanisms described below.]
________
http://www.terressentials.com/nanotech.html
For Science, Nanotech Poses Big Unknowns
By Rick Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, February 1, 2004
Nanotechnology, the hot young science of making invisibly tiny machines and materials, is stirring public anxiety and nascent opposition inspired by best-selling thrillers that have demonized the science — and new studies suggesting that not everything in those novels is fantasy.
The technology, in which scientists manufacture things less than 1,000th the width of a human hair, promises smaller computers, stronger and lighter materials, even “nanobots” able to cruise through people’s blood vessels to treat diseases. Billions of dollars are being pumped into the field, and products with science-fiction-like properties have already begun to hit the market.
But studies have also shown that nanoparticles can act as poisons in the environment and accumulate in animal organs. And the first two studies of the health effects of engineered nanoparticles, published in January, have documented lung damage more severe and strangely different than that caused by conventional toxic dusts.
[snip]
Carbon nanotubules, the team concluded, “can be more toxic than quartz, which is considered a serious occupational health hazard in chronic inhalation exposures.”
The other study was led by David Warheit at DuPont Co.’s Haskell Laboratory near Newark, Del., and involved similar exposures in rats. Surprising the scientists, 15 percent of the animals getting the highest dose died from lung blockages within 24 hours — an outcome the group had never seen for any lung toxin. Warheit said in an interview he did not believe the deaths were indicative of any “inherent pulmonary toxicity” of nanotubes. But his other results were surprising, as well: All the surviving rats developed granulomas, yet without the inflammatory responses that usually accompany those lesions.
“The response in the body was quite unique,” said Vicki Colvin, director of the Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology, a federally funded research center at Rice University that also gets support from the university and industry. “They behaved differently than other carbon-based ultrafine particles.”
“This is a very unusual lesion,” Warheit agreed. “The question is, why did that happen?”
Inhaled particles do not always stop at the lungs. Experiments by University of Rochester toxicologist Gunter Oberdoerster showed that nanoparticles can make their way from a rat’s throat into its brain, apparently via the nasal cavities and olfactory bulb.
“Who knows how they interact with cells there?” Oberdoerster asked. “Maybe they do something bad and lead to brain diseases.”
Other scientists have wondered at recent meetings whether nanoparticles can cross the placenta and get into a developing fetus.
Scientists in France recently showed that carbon nanotubes — thousands of which could fit inside a cell — can easily penetrate living cells and even make their way into the nucleus, the inner sanctum where DNA resides.
The researchers hope to harness this capacity and use nanotubes as vehicles to deliver drugs into cells. But the approach could easily backfire, they conceded.
In many instances, for reasons that remain unclear, the nanotubes themselves killed the cells.
[snip]
_______
July 10, 2006
Understanding Potential Toxic Effects of Carbon-Based Nanomaterials
http://nano.cancer.gov/news_ce…..07-10d.asp
Writing in the journal Nano Letters, a team of researchers based at the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne in Switzerland report their studies on how shape, size and surface properties affect cellular toxicity. This team, led by Arnaud Magrez, Ph.D., added increasing concentrations of multi-walled carbon nanotubes, carbon nanofibers, or carbon nanoparticles to three different types of cultured human lung tumor cells and measured changes in cell proliferation and overall cellular health. The researchers found evidence of toxicity as soon as 24 hours after dosing with all three materials and in each cell line, though multi-walled carbon nanotubes were the least toxic in all assays.
The investigators noted that they were surprised that carbon nanoparticles proved to be the most toxic of the three materials they studied…
[snip]
To better understand how cells process one type of carbon nanomaterial, a team of investigators at the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom, used high-resolution three-dimensional electron microscopy to track where buckyballs, or C 60, travel to in cells. Using non-toxic doses of buckyballs, the investigators found that buckyballs concentrated in intracellular lysosomes, along the cell membrane, along the nuclear membrane, and within the nucleus. Finding significant numbers of the nanoparticles in these latter two locations was a surprise to the investigators. They noted that accumulation of buckyballs within the cell nucleus could lead to DNA damage.
_____
http://www.physorg.com/news128944984.html
Environmental fate of nanoparticles depends on properties of water carrying them
The fate of carbon-based nanoparticles spilled into groundwater – and the ability of municipal filtration systems to remove the nanoparticles from drinking water – depend on subtle differences in the solution properties of the water carrying the particles, a new study has found.
[snip]
“In some cases, the nanoparticles move very little and you would get complete retention in the soil,” said Kurt Pennell, a professor in the School of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology. “But in different solution conditions or in the presence of a stabilizing agent, they can travel just like water. The movement of these nanoparticles is very sensitive to the solution conditions.”
[snip]
Comparatively little research has been done on what happens to nanoparticles when they are released through accidental spills – or when products containing them are discarded. Researchers want to know more about the environmental fate of nanoparticles to avoid creating problems like those of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), in which the harmful effects of the compounds were discovered only after their use became widespread.
____
http://www.physorg.com/news128694288.html
Too much nanotechnology may be killing beneficial bacteria
Too much of a good thing could be harmful to the environment. For years, scientists have known about silver’s ability to kill harmful bacteria and, recently, have used this knowledge to create consumer products containing silver nanoparticles. Now, a University of Missouri researcher has found that silver nanoparticles also may destroy benign bacteria that are used to remove ammonia from wastewater treatment systems.
Several products containing silver nanoparticles already are on the market, including socks containing silver nanoparticles designed to inhibit odor-causing bacteria and high-tech, energy-efficient washing machines that disinfect clothes by generating the tiny particles. The positive effects of that technology may be overshadowed by the potential negative environmental impact.
“Because of the increasing use of silver nanoparticles in consumer products, the risk that this material will be released into sewage lines, wastewater treatment facilities, and, eventually, to rivers, streams and lakes is of concern,” said Zhiqiang Hu, assistant professor of civil and environmental engineering in MU’s College of Engineering.
“We found that silver nanoparticles are extremely toxic. The nanoparticles destroy the benign species of bacteria that are used for wastewater treatment. It basically halts the reproduction activity of the good bacteria.”
[snip]
Closed cycle power generation. Specially bred algae is nourished with CO2 contained in the stack gases from the power generation plant which is routed into green houses, the algae, which grows incredibly quickly, is harvested and dried, and then used for fuel, completing the cycle.
foxman, thanks for your comment and sharing the good news about the EU’s standards.
the folks at the etcgroup are a great resource for info about nanomaterials and other untested new technologies with the protential do us profound harm if used without our having fully explored the technologies potential risks.
OFG – so good to see you here! I hope you’ve been well and the new job is good to you.
Eli is upstairs!
Late Nite: People Who Loofah In Glass Houses Shouldn’t Throw Stones
Eli wants to talk about loofahs upstairs.
Betsy has the zed!
http://firedoglake.com/2008/05…..ow-stones/
Gee, I’ll be right up…
There’s a great new post from Eli upstairs, folks: People Who Loofah In Glass Houses Shouldn’t Throw Stones.
Thanks to all of you for coming and reading tonight – and if you have a chance, please give our Dem leaders an “attacritter” pat.
(a little Diggluuuv here is always appreciated, too)
Bon Appetit!
Great post as always Doc! Sorry to stray off topic, my apologies, as I am a habitual offender. I hasten to assure you no disrespect is intended, I get very excited when someone mentions something that I have been reading about. Or in all honesty I can joke about as I like to think of myself as quite the wag.
noplussed, no problem here – i was happy to read your good news! Now that we seem to be looking at Peak Oil, I’m happy to read about news ways to power us all. No worries!
“RoHS compliancy” is the term used in the discussions:
“The RoHS Directive prohibits the use of certain hazardous substances including lead, cadmium, mercury, and hexavalent chromium, in electrical and electronic equipment sold in European Union markets.”
Damn Doc, you are doing a tremendous public service.
Thanks.