It’s a repeat of the techniques used by anti technology lobbies and is  a very effective strategy that goes something like this:

1. Find some evidence that something is dangerous – note that it doesn’t matter if 99.99% of research shows no dangers, parliamentarians are not scientists and it’s unlikely that they will ever check
2. Find a few more scientific papers and deliberately misinterpret them in order to back up your agenda
3. Use this ‘scientific evidence’ to ‘prove’ that the technology is dangerous – if it turns out you were wrong just ignore any evidence to the contrary and stick to your story
4. Once you have sown the idea that a technology is dangerous, call for labelling in an attempt to use public ignorance of science to keep products off the market.

The flaw in this argument is that it only works for things that people might eat or drink, so sticking a “contains nanotech” label on a mobile phone or solar panel won’t have any impact. I sometimes wonder whether groups who try to confuse nanotechnology with GMOs are deliberately trying to confuse the issues to spread fear, or whether they are simply too stupid to tell the difference between various bits of science and spend all day trying to connect their washing machines to the Internet while trying to make phone calls with a plastic chair.

Warning! Contents May Dissapoint

The “International Risk Governance Council,” a Geneva based organisation “whose purpose is to help the understanding and management of global risks that impact on human health and safety, the environment, the economy and society at large” sent me their latest deep thoughts on Risk Governance of Nanotechnology Applications in Food and Cosmetics today, and it proved a rather interesting read.

Anyone following the various debates about the safety of nanotechnologies will be aware that since the seminal Royal Society report in 2004, all other reports have concluded that we either don’t know enough about the science/toxicology/applications/exposure routes yet to make an informed decision, or said to hell with rational science called for an outright ban on the use of nanotechnologies in food/water/industry/fun.

I took a look at the IRGC report and blow me if it wasn’t just as vapid and inconclusive as all the rest.I passed it to one of my colleagues in case I’d missed something and she commented “the report says the same as all the other “risk” reports since the first royal society one.  Seems like there is nothing else to say!”

What is particularly staggering is that in an area as important as health and safety no one seems able to commission any real research, and most of the information in the report seems to have come from a couple of weeks of googling, with the consequent lack of gravitas associated with any publication that merely collates other public domain data. Rather than actually doing any work, the IRGC report simply makes comments along the lines of “In the absence of reliable data, the Nanowerk internet portal provides an overview of current or future fields of applications in agriculture, food processing, food packaging and food supplements. Now Nanowerk is an excellent content aggregator, but it’s hardly Nature now is it? The next thing you know we’ll have people quoting TNTlog as an authoritative source!

Anyway to spare you wading through 42 pages of summarising what has already been summarised by other people let’s cut straight to the conclusion:

The food and cosmetics “industries should make a concerted effort to reflect on critical comments and use them constructively, as an incentive to assure the responsible production and use of nanomaterials.

Is that it?

According to the IRGC, the final recommendations will be published in an IRGC Policy Brief in spring 2009, we can hardly wait, and we hope they come up with a bit more insight in the meantime.

Nanotech Breast Improvement - apparently

“The ideal breasts are the ones that are round, laid high on the chest wall, large and firm. If the breasts are not meeting such criteria, this makes not only the women feeling down but her social value also gets tarnished since she feels ‘not so happening’ in any public places such as parties or some sort of get-together. Breasts, being out of the body frame are obvious to get targeted by the gravitational force and over the times, they droop or sag.”

Not my personal opinion of course, but this comes from the marketing for an allegedly nanoparticle based “instant way to Breast Enhancement & Firmness” which the Daily Mail would no doubt classify as “Toxic ‘grey goo’ by stealth.”

The web site video may have caused apoplectic fits or aneurysms for some of the Mail’s readership, though perhaps others would be more than willing to pay $90 for the experience.  Despite intense scrutiny, no one in our office can see any difference in the before and after photos.