Nanotechnology in the News

EPA to regulate form of nanotechnology

Consumer products using extremely small particles of silver to kill germs will need Environmental Protection Agency approval, part of the government's first move to regulate the burgeoning nanotechnology industry.

The EPA said Wednesday it was changing federal policy to require that manufacturers provide scientific evidence that their use of nanosilver won't harm waterways or public health.

Environmentalists and others are concerned that after the material is discarded and enters the environment, it may be killing helpful bacteria and aquatic organisms or even pose a risk to humans.

Nanosilver is used to kill germs in shoe liners, food-storage containers, air fresheners, washing machines and other products.

Silver is among the most common type of nanomaterials marketed to consumers, of which more than 200 now exist, according to the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies... But the EPA doesn't plan to oversee most nanomaterials, which can be as small as one-millionth the width of a head of a pin...

A recent article in "Nature" - (it sounds like these scientists are reluctant to say that there could be problems)

Safe handling of nanotechnology

When the physicist and Nobel laureate Richard Feynman challenged the science community to think small in his 1959 lecture 'There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom', he planted the seeds of a new era in science and technology. Nanotechnology, which is about controlling matter at near-atomic scales to produce unique or enhanced materials, products and devices, is now maturing rapidly with more than 300 claimed nanotechnology products already on the market. Yet concerns have been raised that the very properties of nanostructured materials that make them so attractive could potentially lead to unforeseen health or environmental hazards....

As research leaders in our respective fields, we recognize that systematic risk research is needed if emerging nano-industries are to thrive. We cannot set the international research agenda on our own, but we can inspire the scientific community — including government, industry, academia and other stakeholders — to move in the right direction...

Fears over the possible dangers of some nanotechnologies may be exaggerated, but they are not necessarily unfounded. Recent studies examining the toxicity of engineered nanomaterials in cell cultures and animals have shown that size, surface area, surface chemistry, solubility and possibly shape all play a role in determining the potential for engineered nanomaterials to cause harm. This is not surprising: we have known for many years that inhaled dusts cause disease, and that their harmfulness depends on both what they are made of and their physical nature. For instance, small particles of inhaled quartz lead to lung damage and the potential development of progressive lung disease, yet the same particles with a thin coating of clay are less harmful. Asbestos presents a far more dramatic example: thin, long fibres of the material can lead to lung disease if inhaled, but grind the fibres down to shorter particles with the same chemical make-up and the harmfulness is significantly reduced.

It is generally accepted that, in principle, some nanomaterials may have the potential to cause harm to people and the environment. But the way science is done is often ill-equipped to address novel risks associated with emerging technologies. Research into understanding and preventing risk often has a low priority in the competitive worlds of intellectual property, research funding and technology development. And yet there is much at stake in how potential nano-specific risks are understood and managed. Without strategic and targeted risk research, people producing and using nanomaterials could develop unanticipated illness arising from their exposure; public confidence in nanotechnologies could be reduced through real or perceived dangers; and fears of litigation may make nanotechnologies less attractive to investors and the insurance industry....

Their suggestions:

1. Develop instruments to assess exposure to engineered nanomaterials in air and water, within the next 3–10 years.

2. Develop and validate methods to evaluate the toxicity of engineered nanomaterials, within the next 5–15 years.

3. Develop models for predicting the potential impact of engineered nanomaterials on the environment and human health, within the next 10 years.

4. Develop robust systems for evaluating the health and environmental impact of engineered nanomaterials over their entire life, within the next 5 years.

5. Develop strategic programmes that enable relevant risk-focused research, within the next 12 months.
_________

It seems pretty obvious to me that none of these technologies should make it out of the laboratories without being thoroughly tested for safety. The time to test and regulate is NOT after the things have become integrated into the marketplace - but before.