Comments on: ETC nanotech policy would ban most processed food http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=1968 examining transformative technology Wed, 03 Apr 2013 18:23:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 By: http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=1968#comment-828762 Tue, 31 Mar 2009 17:58:55 +0000 http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=1968#comment-828762 Well, I am thankfully I decided to try some of this discount Sildenafil, if I had not bought this discount Sildenafil I would still have my erectile dysfunction problem and I would not have the kind of sex life that I am leading right now. Well, I am thankfully I decided to try some of this discount Sildenafil, if I had not bought this discount Sildenafil I would still have my erectile dysfunction problem and I would not have the kind of sex life that I am leading right now.

]]> By: Brock Hinzmann http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=1968#comment-5325 Brock Hinzmann Thu, 30 Jun 2005 07:18:49 +0000 http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=1968#comment-5325 I think Jim's outline of the discussion is a good one. As nanoparticles enter the marketplace, we do not know what effects they will have on people. Ironically, we actually hope that the effective, commercializable properties of materials will change as the size dimensions get smaller. We can expect the health effects might change as well. We also cannot be certain that a material that we considered safe previously, because it is not in use in large volumes, might not have new health effects as we begin to use it in larger volumes, because of some new benefit found at the nanoscale. Many allergies appear in people only after long periods of exposure. I recall a liquid polymer with several additives that was introduced into the prototyping industry that had no effects for a couple of years and then, suddenly, some percentage of people working with it developed skin rashes. People working in nanotechnology should begin every day with a thought about safety procedures. New material data safety sheets should be different, according to particle size, as Jim suggests, and probably need to be verified by some standards body, like NIST. I think Jim’s outline of the discussion is a good one. As nanoparticles enter the marketplace, we do not know what effects they will have on people. Ironically, we actually hope that the effective, commercializable properties of materials will change as the size dimensions get smaller. We can expect the health effects might change as well. We also cannot be certain that a material that we considered safe previously, because it is not in use in large volumes, might not have new health effects as we begin to use it in larger volumes, because of some new benefit found at the nanoscale. Many allergies appear in people only after long periods of exposure. I recall a liquid polymer with several additives that was introduced into the prototyping industry that had no effects for a couple of years and then, suddenly, some percentage of people working with it developed skin rashes. People working in nanotechnology should begin every day with a thought about safety procedures. New material data safety sheets should be different, according to particle size, as Jim suggests, and probably need to be verified by some standards body, like NIST.

]]> By: Christine Peterson http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=1968#comment-5308 Christine Peterson Fri, 24 Jun 2005 15:59:35 +0000 http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=1968#comment-5308 Useful comments, Jim, thanks. And I believe you are correct about the MSDS being based on larger particles in most cases (or all cases, for all I know). Fortunately, quite a few standards organizations are taking this issue seriously now, and I expect to see progress eventually. These things take time, evidently. --CP Useful comments, Jim, thanks. And I believe you are correct about the MSDS being based on larger particles in most cases (or all cases, for all I know). Fortunately, quite a few standards organizations are taking this issue seriously now, and I expect to see progress eventually. These things take time, evidently. –CP

]]> By: jim moore http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=1968#comment-5306 jim moore Fri, 24 Jun 2005 05:12:47 +0000 http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=1968#comment-5306 opps that should have been: We can work with very dangerous materials if we know what the danger is, and accurate MSDS’s are our first line of protection, opps
that should have been:
We can work with very dangerous materials if we know what the danger is, and accurate MSDS’s are our first line of protection,

]]> By: jim moore http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=1968#comment-5305 jim moore Fri, 24 Jun 2005 05:07:57 +0000 http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=1968#comment-5305 "About your first sentence: I wasn’t poking fun at ETC for being concerned about safety, but for their sloppy public policy recommendation in this case. We all have a responsibility to be careful on these important issues. Thanks for taking the time to comment. –CP" Christine, I guess that I have a different take on safety concerns than most people, you see I work at a chemical company and we try very hard to encourage everyone to be concerned about safety. And when you do that, you have to spend a lot of time listening to peoples concerns with an open mind. And one cardinal rule is never make fun of anyone's safety concerns (especially if you think that they are wrong to be so concerned). We get many suggestions on how to improve safety that are wrong headed (I have made a few myself). Ideally we analyze the danger and think through how the suggestion to improve safety would actually work. Most of the time the initial proposal to improve safety is modified or abandoned before it is implemented. But every one at the plant knows we all take safety seriously and continually strive to make the workplace and our products safer. I agree with you that the ETC proposal is too broad and would have many unintended consequences but, we should try to work with them (and industry groups) to prioritize the dangers associated with nano-particles. First on my list is to make sure the information on the MSDS (Material Data Safety Sheet) that accompanies every raw material is based on the best science available. And I know for a fact that many of companies that sell nano-particles base their MSDS not on experiments done on the nano-particles of the substance but on tests of larger (conventional) particles of the same substance. I don't ever want to be in the position were someone I work with has become sick because I brought in and used a raw material who's danger we did not understand. (We can work with very dangerous materials but know what the danger is, and accurate MSDS's are our first line of protection,) “About your first sentence: I wasn’t poking fun at ETC for being concerned about safety, but for their sloppy public policy recommendation in this case. We all have a responsibility to be careful on these important issues. Thanks for taking the time to comment. –CP”

Christine,
I guess that I have a different take on safety concerns than most people, you see I work at a chemical company and we try very hard to encourage everyone to be concerned about safety. And when you do that, you have to spend a lot of time listening to peoples concerns with an open mind. And one cardinal rule is never make fun of anyone’s safety concerns (especially if you think that they are wrong to be so concerned). We get many suggestions on how to improve safety that are wrong headed (I have made a few myself). Ideally we analyze the danger and think through how the suggestion to improve safety would actually work. Most of the time the initial proposal to improve safety is modified or abandoned before it is implemented. But every one at the plant knows we all take safety seriously and continually strive to make the workplace and our products safer.

I agree with you that the ETC proposal is too broad and would have many unintended consequences but, we should try to work with them (and industry groups) to prioritize the dangers associated with nano-particles. First on my list is to make sure the information on the MSDS (Material Data Safety Sheet) that accompanies every raw material is based on the best science available. And I know for a fact that many of companies that sell nano-particles base their MSDS not on experiments done on the nano-particles of the substance but on tests of larger (conventional) particles of the same substance. I don’t ever want to be in the position were someone I work with has become sick because I brought in and used a raw material who’s danger we did not understand. (We can work with very dangerous materials but know what the danger is, and accurate MSDS’s are our first line of protection,)

]]> By: Christine Peterson http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=1968#comment-5304 Christine Peterson Thu, 23 Jun 2005 02:24:45 +0000 http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=1968#comment-5304 Hi Jim -- I'm not competent to judge your specific proposal above, but agree that we do need some kind of rules regarding when safety tests on a material need to be re-done based on new particle size. About your first sentence: I wasn't poking fun at ETC for being concerned about safety, but for their sloppy public policy recommendation in this case. We all have a responsibility to be careful on these important issues. Thanks for taking the time to comment. --CP Hi Jim — I’m not competent to judge your specific proposal above, but agree that we do need some kind of rules regarding when safety tests on a material need to be re-done based on new particle size. About your first sentence: I wasn’t poking fun at ETC for being concerned about safety, but for their sloppy public policy recommendation in this case. We all have a responsibility to be careful on these important issues. Thanks for taking the time to comment. –CP

]]> By: jim moore http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=1968#comment-5299 jim moore Wed, 22 Jun 2005 03:35:38 +0000 http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=1968#comment-5299 Christine, Lets not poke fun at people for being concerned about safety. Maybe we should try and help everyone find what the most important risks are and how we can handle them. Take sunscreens for example, its possible to use TiO2 nano-particles that are transparent to visible light but block UV light. Sounds just right for a sunscreen, doesn't it? But, aren't TiO2 nano-particles also used in self-cleaning windows? In these windows when sunlight falls on the windows the surface of the TiO2 nano-particle you generate peroxides that dissolve away the grit on the windows. Now, I don't know about you, but I sure as hell don't want some kinds of TiO2 nano-particles sitting inside of my skin cells. Did you notice that I said "some kinds if TiO2 nano-particles". The way that TiO2 can generate peroxides when exposed to sunlight depends on a lot: the crystalline structure (anatase or rutile), the presents of water, the total amount of surface area (a micro gram of 100 nm TiO2 is different than an equal amount of 2 nm TiO2 ), a surface treatment with some inorganic molecules can interfere with the reaction, and probably several other things can make a difference. (Also you have to factor in, that how the nano-particles are dispersed in the lotion potentially changes the nano-particles ability to cross the cell wall.) As a first suggestion, let me purpose when manufacturers of inorganic particles reduce the the size of their particles by a factor of ~10 the must rerun a set of tests that study the medical and ecological effects of the smaller particles. In other words when I get TiO2 from DuPont I want the MSDS (material data safety sheet) for ~30 nm TiO2 to be based on studies of ~30 nm TiO2 not studies of ~300 nm TiO2. Is that too much to ask? Christine,
Lets not poke fun at people for being concerned about safety. Maybe we should try and help everyone find what the most important risks are and how we can handle them.

Take sunscreens for example, its possible to use TiO2 nano-particles that are transparent to visible light but block UV light. Sounds just right for a sunscreen, doesn’t it? But, aren’t TiO2 nano-particles also used in self-cleaning windows? In these windows when sunlight falls on the windows the surface of the TiO2 nano-particle you generate peroxides that dissolve away the grit on the windows. Now, I don’t know about you, but I sure as hell don’t want some kinds of TiO2 nano-particles sitting inside of my skin cells.

Did you notice that I said “some kinds if TiO2 nano-particles”. The way that TiO2 can generate peroxides when exposed to sunlight depends on a lot:
the crystalline structure (anatase or rutile),
the presents of water,
the total amount of surface area (a micro gram of 100 nm TiO2 is different than an equal amount of 2 nm TiO2 ),
a surface treatment with some inorganic molecules can interfere with the reaction,
and probably several other things can make a difference.
(Also you have to factor in, that how the nano-particles are dispersed in the lotion potentially changes the nano-particles ability to cross the cell wall.)

As a first suggestion, let me purpose when manufacturers of inorganic particles reduce the the size of their particles by a factor of ~10 the must rerun a set of tests that study the medical and ecological effects of the smaller particles. In other words when I get TiO2 from DuPont I want the MSDS (material data safety sheet) for ~30 nm TiO2 to be based on studies of ~30 nm TiO2 not studies of ~300 nm TiO2. Is that too much to ask?

]]>