Health & Safety

The Enforced Idleness of Nanoparticle Toxicologists

On March 5, 2010, in Health & Safety, Nanotech, by Tim

My esteemed (and allegedly cute) colleague Dexter Johnson comments on a number of recent nanoparticle toxicity projects and wonders what is the point of them. I’ve often asked the same question (and been asked to leave the room as a result), but there does seem to be a weird academic bias towards reviews and public consultation and I think I know why.

On several occasions when I’ve been in a bar with eminent toxicologists they have admitted that there is absolutely no way that we could ever understand the toxicology of every kind of nanoparticle, and there is no point in trying. What you can do is draw broad conclusions, so that if we have a high aspect ratio structure such as a long carbon nanotube we know that it won’t be cleared by an alveolar macrophage etc, and then we usually get into a discussion about whether anyone is ever likely to inhale enough of the stuff to have a problem, given that we treat most nanomaterials with rather more caution than we did asbestos.

So for most toxicologists the choice is clear. Get paid to do some science or sit about for a bit?

When toxicologists ask for a global well funded long term study to allow the modelling of the interaction of various categories of nanomaterials with the environment, the funding agencies can only manage rustle up a few hundred thousand euros for a two or three year project. That gets you nowhere in understanding a new and rapidly emerging class of materials, so we just end up paying great scientists to sit on their backsides and browse the web for a few years.

Tagged with: Health & Safety • nanotechnologies • toxicity

Nanotech and Turkey Twizzlers – Really?

On January 18, 2010, in Health & Safety, Nanotech, Sustainability, by Tim

Nanotechnology - According to the Soil Association

The UK’s well known and respected science magazine The Daily Mail has an article by Peter Melchet, Policy Director of the Soil Association who seems to need his head examined for equating nanotechnology with “Turkey Twizzlers,” but I suppose you have to do these things if you write for the tabloids.

It’s the usual Daily Mail journalism, take a few bits of fact and then extrapolate them into a nightmarish vision of scientists turning cats inside out for fun and then relaxing by forcing toxic substances down babies throats for profit.

Now I know the Soil Association is committed to organic farming, and that’s fine, but prancing around attempting to ban things that no one is planning to use seems a bit silly to me. If people want to eat food that is brewed in vats using biotech that’s fine, even organic beer and wine is brewed in vats and the waste products are then turned into a quintessentially British food, Marmite!

A "nightmare food" - brewed in vats

Here are a few of the choice bits of (dis)information from the article for you to enjoy:

Of the £5.5billion invested in nanotechnology globally each year, much goes into the development of cosmetics and health products.

Five years ago, when top scientists advised in the strongest possible terms to avoid the use of nanoparticles, the Government acknowledged the risk but took no action.

Nanotech food was part of a nightmarish vision for the future of global farming and food. Some thought that GM and nanotechnology were the keys to overcoming the multiple problems of falling yields from artificial fertiliser and pesticide-laden crops, continuing hunger and starvation, obesity and an increasing scarcity of the raw materials, such as oil, on which nonorganic food depends.

Food would be brewed in vast vats using GM ingredients, with added nanotech nutrients and vitamins. Scientists believed that the world could continue dramatic increases in dairy and meat consumption, even if the milk and steaks of the future actually came from laboratories, not cows.

Hydroxyethyl cellulose dimethyl diallylammonium chloride copolymer (nano) – Because I’m Worth It

On November 27, 2009, in Europe, Health & Safety, Nanotech, Products, by Tim

The European Union is to make the labelling of nanomaterials in cosmetics mandatory according to Chemistry World.

The cosmetic regulation states that all ingredients present in the product in the form of nanomaterials should be clearly indicated in the list of ingredients, by inserting the word ‘nano’ in brackets after the ingredient listing. The ruling defines nanomaterial as ‘an insoluble or biopersistant and intentionally manufactured material with one or more external dimensions, or an internal structure, on the scale from 1 to 100 nm’.

As always, the devil is in the details and the detail in question is the definition. While one of the advantages of nanotechnology is that it allows you to control very tightly the size range of the particles that you are creating, top down technologies such as milling and grinding tend to produce particles with a wide range of different sizes, and while the mean size may be above 100nm, that does not mean that there will not be any sub 100 nm particles present. I suppose the definition of ‘intentionally manufactured’ is also open to question.

I have seen a number of ads recently for ‘chemical free’ cosmetics – which once again depends on whether you class tea tree oil and water as chemicals or not, and nanoparticle free cosmetics are a similar oxymoron. Depending on the production method used, the mean particle size could have to be as large as gravel in order to be even 99% nanoparticle free.

Germany has adopted the EU proposals with the caveat that

the general mention on labels of nano-scale materials in cosmetic products using the term “nano” might be misunderstood by consumers as a warning.’

While labelling may assuage some of the regulatory concerns, will the average consumer would be any more concerned with labelling the nanoparticle containing ingredients than they are with currently permissible constituents. Grabbing a bottle at random from my wife’s dresser I find a long list of ingredients such as Methyl Glucech-20, PEG-12 Dimethicone, and Polyquaternium-4, and I can’t really see that putting Hydroxyethyl cellulose dimethyl diallylammonium chloride copolymer (nano), or (C₈H₁₆N)_x^.xCl^.(C₂H₆O₂)_x (nano) would make much difference compared with the power of the cosmetic company’s marketing machine.

And that’s before I get into another debate with a polymer chemist about whether or not polymers are nanotech!

Tagged with: cosmetics • Health & Safety • regulation

Selective Use of The Precautionary Principle

On October 21, 2009, in Health & Safety, Nanotech, Products, Publications, by Tim

I almost found myself agreeing with our neighbours (across the road from Foxbat) at the Ecologist, which gave me a bit of a shock.

The article in questio n concerned antimicrobials, and nanosilver in particular, and I have to admit that I’m more likely to be encouraging my kids to eat earthworms than to spraying them with antibacterial agents. As the old adage goes, you have to eat a peck of dirt before you die, and with good reason.

But we also have to ask, yet again: why have we become so frightened of ‘germs’ that we feel the need to go to ever more extreme measures to vanquish them? Are there really people out there so terrified of their washing machine becoming a festering mass of life threatening germs that they feel the need to invest in a nanosilver coated machine? And if there are, wouldn’t an investment in cognitive behavioral therapy be money better spent?

Well said, but then the article is spoiled at the last by the usual mindless invocation of the precautionary principle – which for some reason applies to nanotechnology but doesn’t apply to more obviously foolhardy and downright suicidal activities such as cycling to work in Spitalfields.

Nanotechnology and Breasts – Why The Connection?

On October 17, 2009, in Health & Safety, Nanotech, Products, Unmitigated Hype, by Tim

Nanotech Breasts

Unlikely bedfellows they they may be, there seems to be a connection in some minds, and it keeps cropping up. Apparently, this is part of a full-page ad in the Singapore Straits Times of Thursday, Oct 15, 2009.

UPDATE from our correspondent in Singapore….

Hi Tim,

I’m in Singapore for a few days and there’s a full page ad in the Straits Times just like you said.

It says they use a Nano Serum with ” nanosized particles 2000 times smaller than the skin pores around the breasts. When coupled with the unique gentle massage of our therapists, these particles penetrate deeply…. to achieve enhancement, firming and contouring.”

So there’s a dream job for you!

Nanotech Powered Glass – Poisoning The Well

On June 29, 2009, in Africa, Health & Safety, Nanotech, Unmitigated Hype, by Tim

An article in Uganda’s Sunday Monitor illustrates the difficulties of policing nanotechnology claims, with the arrival of a new nanotechnology powered kind of glass…

There is frenzy in Kampala, especially among the middle class, of a new type of small glass, with near magical powers, claimed to enhance body mood and replenish water and other beverages with lost essential minerals. The glass is believed to have been developed at high altitude.

It costs between Shs500,000- 1,000,000. The glass, whose brand name is withheld, claims to make sick people get nutrients from its use. One pours water and drinks. It is also claimed that carrying it in one’s pocket makes them healthier.

It is one of the numerous products imported into the country based on a new era of advanced research based on nanotechnology, a science that manipulates matter at the scale of atoms and molecules.

The claims are total rubbish of course, and people have been complaining that it doesn’t work, but in much of the developing world there are no real enforceable standards on anything, from baby milk to drugs, or at least nothing that slipping a wad of notes to the right person won’t get around. I’ve seen similar materials, often claiming to be glass or ceramic based which can help with everything from better sleep to sexual stamina.

A major worry is, of course, that any fake or dangerous products making claims to contain nanotechnology tend to pollute genuine products, as we saw a few years ago with Magic Nano, which caused some respiratory problems but didn’t actually contain any ‘nanotech’. Despite that, it was cited as an example of the dangers of nanotech as recently as this month. Unfortunately, fake nanoproducts have the same potential to trigger knee jerk responses as genuine ones.

While we develop all kinds of detailed regulations and testing procedures for nanomaterials, it’s worth considering what the rest of the world has to put up with!

CNT Regulations – A Total Mess?

On June 23, 2009, in Europe, Health & Safety, Nanotech, by Tim

SafeNano has a nice piece on the difficulties of regulating nanomaterials such as carbon nanotubes because no one can agree on what they are, at least from a regulatory point of view.

The European Commission then further muddies the waters by claiming that despite there being a threshold of the production or export of 1 tonne of material before companies have to apply with the REACH legislation, this ”will not necessarily allow companies to avoid providing safety data on nanomaterials under Reach or related legislation.”

It’s a bit of a mess then, as no one knows how to classify nanotubes, no one knows what the relevant regulations are, and many materials may not end up being registered until 2018.

“Traditional” Chemicals Can Be Dangerous Too

On June 17, 2009, in Health & Safety, Nanotech, by Tim

_45935727_skyfire2226

With all the worries about the safety of nanomaterials it is worth remembering that ‘traditional’ chemicals can also be dangerous.

A fire near Leominster in the UK is causing concern over the isocyanate stored there. Isocyante was of course the chemical which killed 8-10,000 people in the Bhopal chemical plant explosion in 1984.

While there have been concerns over the use of nanomaterials, by the time they reach the consumer their bioavailablity should be close to zero – even if by some feat I managed to swallow my nanotube containing badminton racket, the chances of any nanotubes being liberated inside me are exceedingly small.

Of far more concern is what happens when there is a problem at some intermediate stage. Like most nanomaterials, isocyanate isn’t something that most people would come into contact with – it’s an intermediate stage in the production of other materials – unless there is a fire, explosion or other unintentional release.

While a lot of the discussion of safety of nanomaterials have focussed on consumers, perhaps as a result of employing the same tactics as with GMOs, the potential for human exposure is far greater from a disaster at a manufacturing or storage facility.

If You Don’t Understand a Technology Don’t Lobby Against It!

On June 16, 2009, in Europe, Events, Health & Safety, Nanotech, by Tim

Euractiv reports that Robert Madelin, director-general at the European Commission’s health and consumer affairs directorate “has hit out at lobby groups who stoke fear of nanotechnology” and said it was “irresponsible” to use panic in order to attract attention.

It is an interesting step forward, as anti nano lobby groups in Brussels have been very vocal in calling for all manner of moratoria and bans, and have previously had a larger influence on the debate than scientists and toxicologists.

Here is a selection of the reported anti-nano viewpoints

Dr Jennifer Sass, senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defence Council, said she does not subscribe to the definition of nanotechnology which limits its scope to substances smaller than 100 nanometres.

Hmmm, let’s just chuck any definitions out of the window and see if that moves the debate along?

Caroline Cairns, programme leader for product safety at the Consumers Union in the US said there are lessons to be drawn for nanotechnology regulation from the financial services meltdown of 2008.

Referring to the complex financial products being sold by banks and insurers, Cairns said “if you don’t understand a product, don’t invest in it”.

You could also argue that if you don’t understand a technology don’t lobby against it!