<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Lessons from the asbestos crisis should guide the response to nanotechnology, but will they?]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by Gar Lipow http://www.grist.org/article/nanotubes-the-next-asbestos/ Wed, 21 May 2008 06:31:09 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/nanotubes-the-next-asbestos/1 Or as I said some year ago

From my book "Cooling It! No Hair Shirts Solutions to Global Warming": http://www.nohairshirts.com


One field we are already putting a great deal into is nanotech  - and we should. We have every reason to expect this field to produce low cost solar cells, low cost environmentally sound electronics, low cost electrolyzers for hydrogen and possibly low cost fuel cells. However there is one aspect of nanotech we are not putting enough effort into - how dangerous the waste is and what needs to be done about it. The current and near future versions of nanotech, unlike  portrayals  in some of my favorite science fiction, mainly focuses  not on bacteria and virus sized machines, but on how materials act when processed into very tiny fibers, crystals, tubes and other nanostructures. Carbon, silicon, glass and metals (just to name a few examples) behave in very different and often useful ways when formed into such structures, compared to their normal forms.

Now any manufacturing process produces some waste; nanotechnology usually results in scrap nanomaterial. We are talking about scrap carbon, glass, metal or silicon - all pretty harmless sounding stuff. And maybe it is just as harmless as it sounds. But just as common materials behave differently in useful ways, when formed into nanostructures, they may behave differently in harmful ways as well. The point is, we don't know.  Nanotech has so much potential; we do not want this infant industry to make the same mistake other high tech industries have, and smugly assume their waste products are harmless or that the problem of waste disposal will be solved without effort on their part.  Test your material now; find out how harmless it really is; if it is not harmless find out how to turn into something that is.  Apply the old business cliché and be proactive.

Is this a real concern? Well bear in mind we see many harmless materials turn dangerous even at the macro level when formed into ordinary small fibers.  Cellulose and glass are among the least toxic non-food substances known. But when turned into cellulose fiber for insulation, and fiberglass for many purposes, you do not want to breathe them. Cellulose and fiberglass insulation are always sealed off from building air when properly installed. Workers who install the stuff wear masks and protect themselves in other ways, or they do if their employer cares about their health, or if they have the leverage to force their employer to care. Note that we have not stopped using either material. As a society we investigated what the dangers are, and know how to take appropriate precautions.

That I'm sure is all we need to do with nanotech   - find out what the problems are. In some cases there probably won't be any. In others only simple fixes will be required. Some substances may require elaborate precautions or complex post processing. And isn't it better to know that in time not to kill a lot of people and ruin the reputation of an industry that could save us all? Spend the effort now to find out what problems it might create and how to solve them.


]]> Or as I said some year ago

From my book "Cooling It! No Hair Shirts Solutions to Global Warming": http://www.nohairshirts.com


One field we are already putting a great deal into is nanotech  - and we should. We have every reason to expect this field to produce low cost solar cells, low cost environmentally sound electronics, low cost electrolyzers for hydrogen and possibly low cost fuel cells. However there is one aspect of nanotech we are not putting enough effort into - how dangerous the waste is and what needs to be done about it. The current and near future versions of nanotech, unlike  portrayals  in some of my favorite science fiction, mainly focuses  not on bacteria and virus sized machines, but on how materials act when processed into very tiny fibers, crystals, tubes and other nanostructures. Carbon, silicon, glass and metals (just to name a few examples) behave in very different and often useful ways when formed into such structures, compared to their normal forms.

Now any manufacturing process produces some waste; nanotechnology usually results in scrap nanomaterial. We are talking about scrap carbon, glass, metal or silicon - all pretty harmless sounding stuff. And maybe it is just as harmless as it sounds. But just as common materials behave differently in useful ways, when formed into nanostructures, they may behave differently in harmful ways as well. The point is, we don't know.  Nanotech has so much potential; we do not want this infant industry to make the same mistake other high tech industries have, and smugly assume their waste products are harmless or that the problem of waste disposal will be solved without effort on their part.  Test your material now; find out how harmless it really is; if it is not harmless find out how to turn into something that is.  Apply the old business cliché and be proactive.

Is this a real concern? Well bear in mind we see many harmless materials turn dangerous even at the macro level when formed into ordinary small fibers.  Cellulose and glass are among the least toxic non-food substances known. But when turned into cellulose fiber for insulation, and fiberglass for many purposes, you do not want to breathe them. Cellulose and fiberglass insulation are always sealed off from building air when properly installed. Workers who install the stuff wear masks and protect themselves in other ways, or they do if their employer cares about their health, or if they have the leverage to force their employer to care. Note that we have not stopped using either material. As a society we investigated what the dangers are, and know how to take appropriate precautions.

That I'm sure is all we need to do with nanotech   - find out what the problems are. In some cases there probably won't be any. In others only simple fixes will be required. Some substances may require elaborate precautions or complex post processing. And isn't it better to know that in time not to kill a lot of people and ruin the reputation of an industry that could save us all? Spend the effort now to find out what problems it might create and how to solve them.


]]> Comment #2 by Liz Borkowski http://www.grist.org/article/nanotubes-the-next-asbestos/ Wed, 21 May 2008 08:16:50 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/nanotubes-the-next-asbestos/2 promising applications

Exactly - and in addition to promising energy applications, nanotechnology might offer a big leap forward for treating cancer and other diseases. But there seems to be a lot more emphasis on figuring out new applications than there is on determining what the risks are to workers, users, and the environment, and how to control them.

]]> promising applications

Exactly - and in addition to promising energy applications, nanotechnology might offer a big leap forward for treating cancer and other diseases. But there seems to be a lot more emphasis on figuring out new applications than there is on determining what the risks are to workers, users, and the environment, and how to control them.

]]> Comment #3 by johnbalbus http://www.grist.org/article/nanotubes-the-next-asbestos/ Wed, 21 May 2008 09:20:40 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/nanotubes-the-next-asbestos/3 Avoiding an asbestos rerun

I want to echo your sentiments, and point out that research and regulations won't provide the answers in the short run.  As you note, company controls and behaviors are uneven at best, but this is the first line of the battle for protecting health. Guidance is available, including our Nanorisk Framework (http://www.nanoriskframework.com), but without greater public awareness of the potential downsides (and upsides) of nanotech, it will be hard to make great inroads in either corporate behavior or government regulation. More stories like the ones you've cited, and more blogging like the one you've posted here are all needed.

I've blogged on the Nature Nanotechnology study and the Takagi et al study that preceded it at http://environmentaldefenseblogs.org/nanotechnology/2008/ ...
for readers who want to learn more.

keep up the good work!
John Balbus, MD, MPH


]]> Avoiding an asbestos rerun

I want to echo your sentiments, and point out that research and regulations won't provide the answers in the short run.  As you note, company controls and behaviors are uneven at best, but this is the first line of the battle for protecting health. Guidance is available, including our Nanorisk Framework (http://www.nanoriskframework.com), but without greater public awareness of the potential downsides (and upsides) of nanotech, it will be hard to make great inroads in either corporate behavior or government regulation. More stories like the ones you've cited, and more blogging like the one you've posted here are all needed.

I've blogged on the Nature Nanotechnology study and the Takagi et al study that preceded it at http://environmentaldefenseblogs.org/nanotechnology/2008/ ...
for readers who want to learn more.

keep up the good work!
John Balbus, MD, MPH


]]> Comment #4 by rwkenn http://www.grist.org/article/nanotubes-the-next-asbestos/ Wed, 21 May 2008 19:48:28 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/nanotubes-the-next-asbestos/4 Nanoparticles

While this article is quite interesting I think we should also have great concern for the nanoparticles which are being released into the air by, among other things, incinerators, which are generally located close to cities.

Two Italian scientists, Antonietta Gatti and Stefano Montanari, have been studying the health effects of nanoparticles since 1999 and the results are, at the least, alarming.  In fact Dr. Montanari has been spearheading attempts to inform the public of these effects and has been traveling all over Italy denouncing same.  Despite this the political cast in Italy sees incinerators as a solution to the growing problem of refuse (see naples) and are pushing for their construction all over the country, claiming that the energy produced from incinerating trash is a form of renewable energy.  The real reason behind this push for more incinerators is high profits and kickbacks.

It would appear to me that the research these scientists have done could also assist in understanding the effects of nanotubes on workers??????

]]> Nanoparticles

While this article is quite interesting I think we should also have great concern for the nanoparticles which are being released into the air by, among other things, incinerators, which are generally located close to cities.

Two Italian scientists, Antonietta Gatti and Stefano Montanari, have been studying the health effects of nanoparticles since 1999 and the results are, at the least, alarming.  In fact Dr. Montanari has been spearheading attempts to inform the public of these effects and has been traveling all over Italy denouncing same.  Despite this the political cast in Italy sees incinerators as a solution to the growing problem of refuse (see naples) and are pushing for their construction all over the country, claiming that the energy produced from incinerating trash is a form of renewable energy.  The real reason behind this push for more incinerators is high profits and kickbacks.

It would appear to me that the research these scientists have done could also assist in understanding the effects of nanotubes on workers??????

]]> Comment #5 by Biodiversivist http://www.grist.org/article/nanotubes-the-next-asbestos/ Thu, 22 May 2008 00:12:59 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/nanotubes-the-next-asbestos/5 Nanofibers won't follow the asbestos trajectory

because we are now aware of the dangers and are actively studying the problem. Asbestos is everywhere. It's mixed in with some old plaster, wrapped in insulation around old pipes and on and on. I swept asbestos insulation off aircraft hangar floors. It killed my neighbor who worked in ship yards and may eventually send me to heaven as well.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

]]> Nanofibers won't follow the asbestos trajectory

because we are now aware of the dangers and are actively studying the problem. Asbestos is everywhere. It's mixed in with some old plaster, wrapped in insulation around old pipes and on and on. I swept asbestos insulation off aircraft hangar floors. It killed my neighbor who worked in ship yards and may eventually send me to heaven as well.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

]]> Comment #6 by chellios http://www.grist.org/article/nanotubes-the-next-asbestos/ Wed, 28 May 2008 04:39:35 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/nanotubes-the-next-asbestos/6 Nanotechnology

  Nanoparticles by their very nature are extremely dangerous and they can be very beneficial. There are no regulations for the use or release of nanoparticles and this puts workers, consumers,and the environment at risk.
  Today's society wants the next new and exciting product without regard to the consequences or true costs. Manufacturers make a product without regard to the product after it is sold.  Life cycle analysis is a joke as it is left up to someone else to take responsibility for the recovery of the scrap and recycling of end of life products. Extended Producer Responsibility is either not mentioned or rephrased as "Life Cycle Analysis". The future is bleak unless nano products are properly researched and regulated!
 QUESTIONS: If nano-particles conglomerate with other nano-particles and are not yet 100 nm in size, what are the effects of these new compounds? Will they continue to conglomerate into new reactive particles and what effect will they have on people and the environment?

]]> Nanotechnology

  Nanoparticles by their very nature are extremely dangerous and they can be very beneficial. There are no regulations for the use or release of nanoparticles and this puts workers, consumers,and the environment at risk.
  Today's society wants the next new and exciting product without regard to the consequences or true costs. Manufacturers make a product without regard to the product after it is sold.  Life cycle analysis is a joke as it is left up to someone else to take responsibility for the recovery of the scrap and recycling of end of life products. Extended Producer Responsibility is either not mentioned or rephrased as "Life Cycle Analysis". The future is bleak unless nano products are properly researched and regulated!
 QUESTIONS: If nano-particles conglomerate with other nano-particles and are not yet 100 nm in size, what are the effects of these new compounds? Will they continue to conglomerate into new reactive particles and what effect will they have on people and the environment?

]]>