Nanotechnology is a branch of science that deals with particles 1-100 nanometers in size. Experts believe possible dangers of nanotechnology lie in how these tiny particles might interact with the environment, and more importantly, with the human body. Billions of dollars are being spent to incorporate nanoparticles into products that are already being marketed to the public; when this investment is compared to the the comparatively scant research into nanotech health issues, some scientists become concerned.
Experts say the issue is that elements encountered at the nanoscale behave differently than their larger counterparts. As an example, graphite's properties are well known and it holds specific position in toxicology guidelines. Nobel winning physicist Richard Smalley of Rice University discovered carbon nanotubes and fullerenes (buckyballs) — nanoparticles of carbon — which are legally categorized as graphite, yet they behave in ways unlike graphite making the classification a potentially dangerous one.
Case in point: in March 2004 tests conducted by environmental toxicologist Eva Oberdörster, Ph.D., with Southern Methodist University in Texas found extensive brain damage to fish exposed to fullerenes for a period of just 48 hours at a relatively moderate dose of 0.5 parts per million (commiserate with levels of other kinds of pollution found in bays). The fish also exhibited changed gene markers in their livers, indicating their entire physiology was affected. In a concurrent test, the fullerenes killed water fleas, an important link in the marine food chain.
Oberdörster could not say whether fullerenes would also cause brain damage in humans but cautioned that more studies are necessary and that the accumulation of fullerenes over time could be a concern, particularly if they were allowed to enter the food chain. Earlier studies in 2002 by CBEN (Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology) indicated nanoparticles accumulated in the bodies of lab animals, and still other studies showed fullerenes travel freely through soil and could be absorbed by earthworms. This is a potential link up the food chain to humans and presents one of the possible dangers of nanotechnology.
Other nanoparticles have also been shown to have adverse effects. Research from University of California in San Diego in early 2002 revealed cadmium selenide nanoparticles, also called quantum dots, can cause cadmium poisoning in humans. In 2004 British scientist Vyvyan Howard published initial findings that indicated gold nanoparticles might move through a mother's placenta to the fetus; and as far back as 1997 scientists at Oxford discovered nanoparticles used in sunscreen created free radicals that damaged DNA.
Complicating the dangers of nanotechnology, size and shape of nanoparticles affect the level of toxicity, preempting the ease of uniform categories even when considering a single element. In general, experts report smaller particles are more bioactive and toxic. Their ability to interact with other living systems increases because they can easily cross the skin, lung, and in some cases the blood/brain barriers. Once inside the body, there may be further biochemical reactions like the creation of free radicals that damage cells.
While the body has built-in defenses for natural particles it encounters, the danger of nanotechnology is that it is introducing entirely new type of particles. Particles some experts say the body is likely to find toxic.
Highest at risk are workers employed by manufacturers producing products that contain nanoparticles. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) reports over 2 million Americans are exposed to high levels of nanoparticles and they believe this figure will rise to 4 million in the near future. NIOSH publishes safety guidelines and other information for those employed in the nanoindustry.
There is no doubt that nanoparticles have interesting and useful properties. That said, many groups propose a moratorium on marketing and urge research to precede manufacturing rather than proceed it. Strong economic drives and competition in the marketplace may be taking precedence over methodical scientific prudence when it comes to public health and possible dangers of nanotechnology.
Some have compared the situation to that of asbestos dust -- another material that was assumed safe until it was learned that it can cause cancer from accumulation in the body. Today 3,000 deaths per year are still attributed to asbestos from decades-old use. Those concerned with possible dangers of nanotechnology wish to avoid a similar or even worse scenario down the road, especially considering the growing market for nanoparticles in such diverse products as car paint, tennis rackets, and make-up.
Nanotechnology should not be confused with molecular nanotechnology (MNT) a still theoretical science dedicated to manufacturing products from the atom up through use of nanoscale machines. MNT is spearheaded by physicist Dr. Eric Drexler, who coined the term, "nanotechnology" and later, "molecular nanotechnology."
|
anon111765
Post 22 |
can't we just the live the way we are bloody living already? Ain't it good enough? if everyone had this attitude, we'd be safe. and we can use all the millions of dollars spent on nanotechnology to strengthen existing food technologies and carry out even more research to make it even more safe. the key factor is safety. |
|
anon89047
Post 21 |
if nanotechnology is going to be used in the future u would really prefer if the world knew more about it! after learning lots about nanoparticles from my 15 year old child's chemistry books i wished i knew about it sooner. nanobots are overrated at the moment as it is something we will face in the future, good or bad. all the faf about whether it will cause brain damage to humans as well as fish is probably right but we need to face it because it will come with benefits. It will not be the end of mankind. It may lead to diseases but not the end. if you can, please tell me why I'm wrong. i would like to hear it. |
|
anon80936
Post 20 |
anon9263 you have pretty good knowledge about the dangers caused by nanotechnology.I wish to know more about the darker side of nanotechnology. If you could provide me with some suitable sources and advices it would help me a lot.
|
| Related Topics | |
|
anon78793
Post 19 |
What about the vitamin drink with nanotechnology in it? won't that method give nanoparticles a clear, concise pathway to the brain through interaction with the cells directly? what kind of effects can this have long term? |
|
anon75905
Post 18 |
My personal opinion is that every new technology can be useful and serve the mankind as long as we use it correctly and get the goods out of it. "Tune the nanoworld to serve the macroworld." |
|
anon67898
Post 17 |
There was a time when doctors were extolling the benefits of cigarettes. Now, we know they cause cancer, but think about how many people had to suffer and die, how many cover-ups were created to hide the truth, and how many whistleblowers were fired, blacklisted and ridiculed before people finally saw the truth. Nanotechnology, and possibly also GMOs are thought to cause Magellons and other diseases. It could be decades before we know the truth, and, like the story of Big Tobacco, there will be many denials and cover-ups in the interim. For my part, I do believe theses technologies are harming human health, and I will do my best to avoid them. |
| Related Topics | |
|
anon58787
Post 15 |
I say better safe than sorry. It is just common sense to be prepared for the worst in case it happens, and if this technology is as dangerous as some believe, there may not be time for Plan B once the genie is out of the bottle. Let's research it more before adding this to food and sunscreens and the rest. Even if it is just an environmental concern, the environment does impact the quality of human life. |
|
anon55914
Post 13 |
i understand that technology goes ahead and we have to accept it but it brings advantages and disadvantages. Unfortunately companies use it in the worst way to max their profits. i would definitely not want to have nano in my food or drink, or in medicine and cream, but since there is no regulation, it's already there and we even don't know. so i consider it's inhumane and against our rights, but corporations that support research have no soul. |
|
anon44216
Post 11 |
Would this be plausible?
The DNA of every human being has a unique signature. Nanobots will be able to tell the difference between you and me by querying the DNA in our blood cells. Two sets of programming could be embedded in the darthbots. One program will be to fix and maintain biological systems and the other one will shut down biological systems by masquerading as a disease. The darthbots "Action A you live forever" or "Action B you die" will be based on the host's DNA signature. |
| Related Topics | |
|
anon35112
Post 10 |
The problem is not enough funding is given to research related to human health and safety regarding newly developed science |
|
anon18988
Post 8 |
People laugh and make jokes, but this is a serious issue. At least the questions we ask about nanotechnology and human health are very serious. If we cannot but be cynical when discussing potential destruction of human health, what kind of intelligence do we have. Why must we presume that all technology must be upheld at the expense of human life, even if all of the scientific facts are not "in"? what does that mean anyway??? The atomic bomb was "progressive technology." Life forms are already showing damage after interacting with nanoparticles, Observation and a little hypothesizing would bring one to the same conclusions given the structure and size of these particles, and the nature of human physiology and anatomy. We are self-destructive by default based on unending greed. |
|
anon17170
Post 7 |
Maybe we can hide under a rock or something, after all, nano zombies are afraid of the dark... |
| Related Topics | |
|
anon16222
Post 6 |
We must stop the nano zombies!!! |
|
anon14841
Post 5 |
Nanotechnolgy. The benefits for manufacturing and medical use could be endless but I guarantee you, the biggest budget nanoscience will get will be for military use. |
|
manisomani
Post 4 |
I have bought BIODISC. I want to know is it safe to use BIODISC?? Does BIODISC helps in relieving pain and give energy?
|
| Related Topics | |
|
anon9586
Post 3 |
Your comments are, quite frankly, farcical. In what scientific or peer-reviewed literature have you found evidence of your proposed 'zombie state'? As yet, no experimental evidence has been found to implicate that nanoparticles have a) entered the systemic circulation in a substantial amount to travel to the brain, and b) crossed the blood-brain barrier to accumulate and cause cytotoxic effects. It is well documented that nanoparticles generated as a result of the burning of fossil fuels (combustion-derived nanoparticles) can have some cytotoxic effects especially in the pulmonary system, but until more detailed knowledge is generated your claims are laughable at best. |
|
anon9263
Post 2 |
I am interested in the dangers that nanotechnology can cause. Do to some of the things that I have read up on, nanotechnology can and will cause more than just cancer. What about the brain damage that it can cause. I read that nanotechnology can cause what I like to call a zombie outbreak. It takes over the mind and uses the human body like a host. Once the body can no longer be used it tries to take over another body leading to a kind of zombie like state. Even though it might sound far fetched it must also be taken into consideration because of some of the information that I have gathered, it can very possibly resort to the end of mankind. |