Nanomaterials are not inherently dangerous because they are nanomaterials. Just like any other chemical some are dangerous and some aren't. The only really difference is that some materials that are safe in the bulk are not safe as nanoparticles. The whole point of nanosizing is that properties change, new effects emerge. For instance gold is reasonably unreactive in the bulk, but can become extremely reactive as a cluster, and furthermore the size of the cluster can strongly affect the reactivity.Just like any other product for public consumption nanomaterials need to be tested for safety, rather than assuming safety based on previous non-nanosized properties. For the record I have been in daily contact with nanomaterials in my research lab for 11 years and still seem to be okay!
In Neal Stephenson's "Diamond Age", the widespread deployment of nano-machines as, essentially, smart and purposeful aerosols caused a significant public health problem. If I recall, the brother of the heroine was an asthmatic invalid as the result of a lifetime exposure to air turned to smog by such devices.
"but it's not the size of the particle that makes them deadly, but their composition."Meaning what?A big chunk of Uranium is more toxic than an atom of it.Buckytubes and buckyballs are made only of carbon, yet are much more toxic than, say, graphite, which is also composed entirely of carbon.
It seems to me that since nanotechnology is so new, and the particles are SO small, that few if any people on the planet actually know what the dangers are, or could be. The rest of us lay-people can guess at how dangerous or safe they are, but how could we really know?We may be sorry in another decade or two if NT becomes the next tobacco public-health issue.
apr400May 20, 2006
Nanomaterials are not inherently dangerous because they are nanomaterials. Just like any other chemical some are dangerous and some aren't. The only really difference is that some materials that are safe in the bulk are not safe as nanoparticles. The whole point of nanosizing is that properties change, new effects emerge. For instance gold is reasonably unreactive in the bulk, but can become extremely reactive as a cluster, and furthermore the size of the cluster can strongly affect the reactivity.Just like any other product for public consumption nanomaterials need to be tested for safety, rather than assuming safety based on previous non-nanosized properties. For the record I have been in daily contact with nanomaterials in my research lab for 11 years and still seem to be okay!
rblumbergMay 20, 2006
In Neal Stephenson's "Diamond Age", the widespread deployment of nano-machines as, essentially, smart and purposeful aerosols caused a significant public health problem. If I recall, the brother of the heroine was an asthmatic invalid as the result of a lifetime exposure to air turned to smog by such devices.
deepsubMay 20, 2006
"but it's not the size of the particle that makes them deadly, but their composition."Meaning what?A big chunk of Uranium is more toxic than an atom of it.Buckytubes and buckyballs are made only of carbon, yet are much more toxic than, say, graphite, which is also composed entirely of carbon.
hiflyerMay 20, 2006
It seems to me that since nanotechnology is so new, and the particles are SO small, that few if any people on the planet actually know what the dangers are, or could be. The rest of us lay-people can guess at how dangerous or safe they are, but how could we really know?We may be sorry in another decade or two if NT becomes the next tobacco public-health issue.
modsoulMay 20, 2006
i was just about to go to waterloo for nanotech engineering. should i change my plans ?
osjprMay 21, 2006
Buckyballs are the frankenstein of nanotech. Huge, solid, indestructible mega-particles that bust up cells they come into contact with.