Dangers of nano technology

[byosys]

Over the past few months, I've read several articles about the future of nanotechnology. Some of thoes articles argued that nano technology will pose huge risks to the environment as well as our collective health, while some said that the environmental and health risks were minimal. I don't trust articles that only argue one side of a point as said articles are usually written with an agenda to push which is why I'm turning to the Highly Technical fourm.

What are the real world risks associated with the short to mid term nanotechnology research and deployment? Are we going to destroy the environment (even more) in the next 5 years if nanotech takes off? Are we going to suffocate all of us? Or are these claims made up to spread fear, as modern media is so fond of doing? Is it simply too early to tell with any certainty? Help me get some perspective about the real dangers of nanotechnology.

 

[BrownTown]

"nanotechnology" is a term for enginerring on the nanometere scale, so the term is much to big to try to have such a broad generalization. I'm sure there are some things which could be dangerous and sometihngs which are completely harmless. But to say that "nanotechnology is dangerous" is kinda like saying "wood is dangerous", yeah maybe wooden spikes are dangerous, but wooden houses are pretty sae, etc... IT is like all things, it can be used for good, or for ill. You can make new drug deliver mechanisms that save lives, but you could just as easily create new posion delivery systems for chemical weapons. So, your question doesn't exactly apply since this is such a large field and has so many possible applications, both safe and deadly...

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
"nanotechnology" is a term for enginerring on the nanometere scale, so the term is much to big to try to have such a broad generalization. I'm sure there are some things which could be dangerous and sometihngs which are completely harmless. But to say that "nanotechnology is dangerous" is kinda like saying "wood is dangerous", yeah maybe wooden spikes are dangerous, but wooden houses are pretty sae, etc... IT is like all things, it can be used for good, or for ill. You can make new drug deliver mechanisms that save lives, but you could just as easily create new posion delivery systems for chemical weapons. So, your question doesn't exactly apply since this is such a large field and has so many possible applications, both safe and deadly...

:thumbsup:

This is exactly why I hate words like 'nanotechnology' and 'biotechnology.' They have little intrinsic meaning and act as umbrella buzzwords. Thus, the layman will try to lump all nano-scale devices together, when they really have absolutely nothing in common but their size. For example, if I synthesize a nanoparticle for drug delivery, I can select a polymer that is naturally degradable or one that will never degrade. It's fairly obvious that the degradable one is preferable for environmental reasons, but there may be other reasons why the latter is preferable (e.g. it has better diffusion properties, allowing more appropriate time-release profiles of the drug in question).

 

[byosys]

OK, since it seems like my orginal post was a little misguided, let me rephrase the question.

Are you afraid of where advancements in the various areas of nanotechnology will take us?

 

[phisrow]

The "grey goo" school of nanotech horrors seems pretty unlikely at this point. Biotechnological advances that make custom pathogens easy and cheap might well get messy; but little self replicating nanomachines are still seriously sci-fi.

More worrisome, though, is that the toxicology of nanostructures is tricky, unintuitive, and largely unknown. The most notable case that I can think of is the study on buckminsterfullerene. Ordinary forms of carbon are known to be pretty much harmless(sure huffing carbon black isn't a great idea; but inhaling dust never is). Good ole' C60, though, dissolved in water at quite low concentrations, appears to cause brain damage in bass.

This doesn't mean that all engineered nanoparticles are death on a stick, or even that many are(some compounds might actually become safer, hard to say). It does indicate, though, that the toxicology of bulk compounds is not terribly predictive of the toxicology of engineered nanomaterials containing the same atoms. This isn't a fundamental problem(we have to do studies for toxicity in new compounds all the time); but it does mean that we should probably do a fair bit of research, and it isn't clear exactly who will be doing that, before we start bulk production of stuff on the "the bulk form is fine, so the nanomaterial must be too" argument.

 

[wwswimming]

one thing that comes to mind is the ultra-capacitors that are made using plates (for lack of a better term) covered with nanotubes that are covered with filaments (to increase their surface area).

the ability to store charge - and energy - is a very convenient tool for a design engineer to have.

personally i'm more concerned about GMO's.

 

[f95toli]

Originally posted by: byosys
OK, since it seems like my orginal post was a little misguided, let me rephrase the question.

Are you afraid of where advancements in the various areas of nanotechnology will take us?

As Browntown has already stated: What do you mean by "nanotechnology"?
The term covers everything from carbon nanotubes to biotechnology AND most modern microelectronics (which is not "micro" anymore, it is nano). 10 years ago the terms "microtechnology", "microbiology" or why not just "chemistry" would have been used instead.
However, "nanotechnology" is a nice buzzword and is therefore used a lot in applications (if you want money you should make sure you find some way to get the word: nanotechnology,biotechnology and preferably "the environment" into you text).

I currently work with superconducting aluminium circuits. It is definitly nanotechnology (which is also what we write in our applications) because some of the devices are only 50-100 nm and we see mesoscopic effects. However, they are just sitting there on a silicon waffer so I can't see why they would be more dangerous than e.g. 50-100 micrometer circuits.

 

[patentman]

As nanotubes become more and more commonplace I think the biggest danger they will pose will be as a respiratory hazard. Its not hard to imagine carbon nanotubes as roughly analogous to asbestos....

As for defining nanotechnology, the above posters have made some good points. There is an initiative going on right now that is is trying to come up with a more specific definition of the term, as well as to come up with standardized terminology for properties found at the nanometer scale.

See http://es.epa.gov/ncer/nano/lectures/shull_06_27_05_presentation.pdf for a good read

 

[dkozloski]

It would seem to me that the biggest hazard about these tiny gadgets is that if you drop one on the kitchen floor it is going to be damn hard to find.

 

[ajf3]

No no no... the danger is from when the nanites think you are drowning in a swimming pool and rearrange your DNA so that you have working gills. Didn't you see the movie?

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: patentman
As nanotubes become more and more commonplace I think the biggest danger they will pose will be as a respiratory hazard. Its not hard to imagine carbon nanotubes as roughly analogous to asbestos....

or Diatomaceous Earth (DE - I think I spelled it write and refuse to look it up at the moment ) Tiny stuff scratching the lungs is dangerous. Don't breath the plume from where lava goes into the sea either (H2SO4 and micro glass particles.)

The biggest danger of nanotech is the frigging over and misuse of the word. But that is another paradigm.

 

[patentman]

diotomaceous earth (aka ground up sea shells) has got to be some of the oldest "nanotechnology" if you can call it that. Its the scrubbing ingredient in most toothpastes...