backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 25 comment(s) - last by Polynikes.. on May 28 at 10:20 AM


Long carbon nanotubes bear an uncanny resemblance to asbestos fibers. More studies will be necessary to determine if they act similarly as a carcinogen.  (Source: Courtesy of Department of Materials Science and Metallurgy, University of Cambridge.)
Is there a something sinister lurking beneath the promise of nanotechnology? Another study suggests carbon nanotubes may be an unfriendly passenger.

The lauded carbon nanotube (CNT) has been making a name for itself in medical research. With the potential to act as a drug delivery agent, poisonous radiation sink, or any number of other intriguing roles, the plucky fullerene has seen its share of optimism, almost as if it could be a new panacea for complicated medical problems.

DailyTech has covered some of the dangers that may be lurking in the tiny particle. There are many people in various fields that feel that nanotechnology, including CNTs, buckyballs, nanodots and others, does not have enough regulation or research tied to it. It is not well understood what effects these marvels of the modern world may have on the human body. In addition, the past debacle with another substance that didn't garner enough research before its widespread use, asbestos, has put up warning flags for many that are interested in the welfare of people in the world of modern science.

A new set of data, covered recently by BBC News, on the effects of CNTs on human tissues has found that the tubes, when of certain length, have an effect similar to that of the well-known carcinogen, asbestos. The results of the new study, which has been published in the journal Nature Nanotechnology, are alarming to some, but experts remain cautious. Very few studies on the interaction of nanotechnology with the body produce matching results and so more research is encouraged to produce a verifiable consensus.

In this most recent group of tests, researchers injected CNTs of varying lengths and wall configurations into the abdomens of laboratory mice. Along with the nanotubes, they injected another group with flat sheets of carbon and a third with asbestos fibers.

The study produced mixed results for the CNTs. While shorter nanotubes produced little to no effect at all, longer, more needle-like tubes produced results exceptionally like that of the asbestos group's. The scientists attribute the reaction to the inability of phagocytes, cells within the lung that handle invasive foreign particles, to deal with long, straight particles -- such as asbestos. At about 20 microns in length, the cells, rather than capturing the particles, seem to freeze, falling into a hyperactive state and causing inflammation, which leads to scar tissue and possibly ultimately cancer.

Another test, similarly using lab mice, but dealing with inhaled CNTs showed that the particles similarly caused inflammation in the lungs. Between one and two months, however, the mice had fully recovered.

As of yet there is still no direct correlation between inhaled, blood-borne or otherwise ingested CNTs and cancer. Tests have not had the allowance of time that similar research with asbestos has.

Many experts caution that much more research is needed on all nanotechnology in general. With very little regulation on nano-production technology, waste management, and occupational hazards, many feel that a time bomb lies under the stunningly rapid advancement of this incredible technology. Some have proposed laws to encourage research and regulate the nanotech industry, though others fear such laws may serve to stifle important research in that avenue.

Regardless of widespread and differing opinions on nanotechnology, one fact is that there are still many things we simply do not understand about the amazing world of nanoparticles.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

asbestos
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 5/22/2008 9:22:09 AM , Rating: 4
Yes but asbestos is not the super evil thing the media likes to make it out to be. Asbestos when used properly is just fine.




RE: asbestos
By ZimZum on 5/22/2008 9:33:28 AM , Rating: 2
QFT

You know what else gets a bad rap? Agent Orange, nothing beats it for getting rid of crab grass and dandelions.


RE: asbestos
By donjuancarlos on 5/22/2008 9:46:00 AM , Rating: 2
Totally agree with the poster above.

I do, however, acquiesce to the fact that there could be special issues with these nanotubes because people want to shove them in their bodies to cure cancer and whatnot...


RE: asbestos
By Integral9 on 5/23/2008 8:56:18 AM , Rating: 1
What what? In your butt?


RE: asbestos
By Polynikes on 5/28/2008 10:20:10 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, it's not like we were putting asbestos in our bodies. The issue was not how safe it was when handled properly, the issue was with how toxic it was once it got into your system.


RE: asbestos
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 5/22/2008 10:54:25 AM , Rating: 3
And trees, bushes, normal grass, any kind of weed, rabbits.... the list goes on and on.
My Grandfather was pissed off when the made it illegal to buy. He had a big bag of it till he ran out somewhere in the late 80's. He was an old time farmer, so you talk about someone's day being ruined.


RE: asbestos
By StevoLincolnite on 5/22/2008 9:37:37 AM , Rating: 2
And all you need is your child to accidentally ride there bike into an asbestos panel on the house, and they could be in trouble, I have worked with asbestos here locally removing it from old buildings and what not, and even while raining you can still get Asbestosis if you are around it enough, thus precaution measures like gas masks etc are required.

However, Carbon Nano Technology has to have a downside, but then again you can't believe everything a report says these days, for instance on the news about 6 months back it was reported that Tomatoes could bring on heart disease, while 6 months prior to that yet again, it was believed to prevent heart disease, who do you believe?


RE: asbestos
By masher2 (blog) on 5/22/2008 9:48:31 AM , Rating: 2
> "all you need is your child to accidentally ride there bike into an asbestos panel on the house, and they could be in trouble"

I suppose you don't realize that in many areas of the world (some California counties especially) natural levels of asbestos in the air and water are far higher than what one could possible expect to receive from a building panel....and yet no elevated lung cancer rates are seen in such areas.

Even in asbestos miners who lived and breathed fiber levels many hundreds of thousands of times higher still -- day in and out, 8+ hours a day, for decades on end, while many did indeed develop asbestiosis, the average lifespan of such miners was still above the national average.

There's nothing magical about absestos...too much of nearly anything will eventually cause cancer. The risk, however, has been extraordinarily overstated. This is due not only to the environmental lobby, but to tort attorneys who have mad literally hundreds of billions of dollars from settlements....the largest windfill by far in the history of the entire profession.


RE: asbestos
By RogueSpear on 5/22/2008 10:06:02 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
I suppose you don't realize that in many areas of the world (some California counties especially) natural levels of asbestos in the air and water are far higher than what one could possible expect to receive from a building panel....and yet no elevated lung cancer rates are seen in such areas.

A 2006 study (Science News July 8th, 2006 Vol.170 #2) indicates that there was a correlation between mesotheliomas and how far one lived from areas of natural deposits.


RE: asbestos
By masher2 (blog) on 5/22/2008 10:21:14 AM , Rating: 1
> "A 2006 study (Science News July 8th, 2006 Vol.170 #2) indicates that there was a correlation "

I pulled up that particular volume of Science News (which isn't a peer-reviewed journal by the way, but merely an aggregator) and I couldn't find any such study referenced. Many studies as to lung loading from natural fiber exposures are quoted, but I didn't see any that detail a statistical correlation to increased mesothelioma rates. To which study do you refer?

http://63.240.200.111/articles/20060708/bob9ref.as...


RE: asbestos
By amanojaku on 5/22/2008 10:45:55 AM , Rating: 3
I think RogueSpear is referring to this article from that link:

Pan, X-l. . . . and M.B. Schenker. 2005. Residential proximity to naturally occurring asbestos and mesothelioma risk in California. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 172(Oct. 15):1019-1025. Abstract available at http://ajrccm.atsjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract...

Here's the full article:

http://ajrccm.atsjournals.org/cgi/content/full/172...

There's one thing that's clear: you can find a study to confirm or refute anything.


RE: asbestos
By RogueSpear on 5/22/2008 11:16:11 AM , Rating: 2
I didn't want to imply that I feel the study should be taken as the final authority. I was simply illustrating that perhaps the jury is out on natural deposits being harmful or not.


RE: asbestos
By amanojaku on 5/22/2008 11:28:29 AM , Rating: 2
No offense meant to you. I was pointing out that masher2 missed the study supporting your claim linking naturally occurring asbestos and mesotheliomas.

quote:

I pulled up that particular volume of Science News (which isn't a peer-reviewed journal by the way, but merely an aggregator) and I couldn't find any such study referenced. Many studies as to lung loading from natural fiber exposures are quoted, but I didn't see any that detail a statistical correlation to increased mesothelioma rates. To which study do you refer?


I was also pointing out the fact that I posted articles supporting and refuting that link. You are correct in that the jury is out.


RE: asbestos
By masher2 (blog) on 5/22/2008 10:33:42 AM , Rating: 2
In any case, I don't want to suggest the risk is zero. Nothing at all in life is 100% risk-free. But in the case of normal asbestos use in building materials, the risk is so small as to be negligible.

In fact, since asbestos was replaced with alternatives that were less resistant to fire, your chance of coming to harm in an office or apartment building is actually greater than had it retained the asbestos.


RE: asbestos
By StevoLincolnite on 5/22/2008 12:51:58 PM , Rating: 1
Still, if you think the risks are negligible, by all means go jump in the stuff, however there are two types of Asbestos with varying degrees of dangers, first being Amphibole asbestos, often contains more iron and resists acid and extremely high temperatures. Because of this, it has been heavily used in industrial furnaces and heating systems. However when inhaled, amphibole fibres stay much longer in the lungs than chrysotile fibres and they are more likely to inflict damage and cause disease, including cancer.

The other is Chrysotile, is the only serpentine asbestos that is found in almost all asbestos-based products available today and is the main form of asbestos still mined. Chrysotile is different from the amphiboles both structurally and chemically. It is generally accepted that chrysotile asbestos is less potent and does less damage to the lungs than the amphiboles.

I was referring to the latter in my previous post, and it does indeed have some real dangers, it's mainly older buildings that have the older Asbestos, but the dangers are real, one of the main problems with asbestos came from sprayed or "friable" (easily broken up) amphibole asbestos used in buildings until the 1970s.
Most of our knowledge of the health effects of asbestos exposure results from studies of workers. Workers in asbestos mines, factories that produced products with asbestos, shipyard workers where asbestos was used as insulating material and in other industrial situations had levels of exposure far greater than a building occupant might experience. Over a prolonged period of time, once asbestos fibers enter the lung, two major types of health problems occur. The lung may react to the fibers by forming fibrous or "scar" tissue around each microscopic fiber, and, over time, this scar tissue may lead to breathing problems. Fibers also may cause changes in the body that may eventually lead to cancerous growth.
The major diseases caused by exposure to friable asbestos are asbestosis, lung cancer, and mesothelioma. In all of these diseases, symptoms generally do not typically appear until many years after exposure.

quote:
The surge in asbestos use in the developing world will result in several
million cancer deaths over the next 30 years, predicts Julian Peto, chief
of epidemiology at the Institute of Cancer Research in London and a leading
expert on asbestos mortality.


http://www.chem.unep.ch/pops/POPs_Inc/press_releas...


RE: asbestos
By root mean sq on 5/22/2008 9:40:54 AM , Rating: 1
but asbestos when not used properly isn't fine and that's where problems arise.


RE: asbestos
By MrBlastman on 5/22/2008 9:47:37 AM , Rating: 2
I can see it now, the next fad...

Nanotube Huffing. :-\

Watch out, you might get your fix but you might be gasping for air afterwards. :(

Does this mean if I use a nanotube straw I might get sick? What about Kitten Huffing? If I huff those pleasurable furries with my nanotube straw does that mean my kitten allergies will be amplified? The world needs to know!

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Kitten_Huffing


RE: asbestos
By gospastic on 5/22/2008 11:20:49 AM , Rating: 2
What the hell are you talking about.


RE: asbestos
By Alexvrb on 5/23/2008 7:18:03 PM , Rating: 2
Don't mind him. He's cheesed out of his mind.


RE: asbestos
By Eris23007 on 5/22/2008 12:09:41 PM , Rating: 2
Mmmmmm let's go get cheesed.

*Boobs everywhere!*


RE: asbestos
By amanojaku on 5/22/2008 9:51:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes but asbestos is not the super evil thing the media likes to make it out to be. Asbestos when used properly is just fine.


There may be some truth to what you say, if you can believe government studies.

quote:
How much asbestos causes illness?

Most people do not become ill from the asbestos they are exposed to. Asbestos exposure becomes a health concern when high concentrations of asbestos fibers are inhaled over a long time period. People who become ill from asbestos are almost always those who are exposed on a day-to-day basis in a job where they work directly with the material. As a person's exposure to fibers increases, either by breathing more fibers or by breathing fibers for a longer time, that person's risk of disease also increases. It can take anywhere from 10 to 40 years for someone to develop an asbestos-related illness after their exposure. Disease is very unlikely to result from a single, high-level exposure, or from a short period of exposure to lower levels.


http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2001pres/20010916a.h...
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts61.html


RE: asbestos
By killer robot on 5/22/2008 10:16:56 AM , Rating: 2
You are right about asbestos. Same goes for fullerenes. Some people just like to poison the well I guess.


RE: asbestos
By LyCannon on 5/22/2008 12:21:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes but asbestos is not the super evil thing the media likes to make it out to be. Asbestos when used properly is just fine.


Every hazardous material, when handled properly , is safe.

It is very frustrating when news organizations release the 'latest scoop' without proper research, espically with headlines like "XXX causes cancer", "research show's this kills you", when in fact, after some more research is done, it turns out that it was a scare. Here is where the problems happen. When the news kicks up the fear of a product, and it turns out to be BS, why do they not do a new article informing the public that the previous article was proven incorrect?

Does everyone remember how many articles came from "Cancer causing cellphones"? Current research shows that it makes no difference. Why did the media not do mass coverage on this fact? (*I understand that it was covered to some extent, but not nearly the same as when it was causing cancer).

The moral of the story is that the public really can't trust our own news agencies anymore, as they are there for the profit, and fear sells. It's in their best interest to spread unproven theories, or theories based on little evidence or research. As such, please keep an open mind when reading stories on such things!


RE: asbestos
By glenn8 on 5/22/2008 12:42:12 PM , Rating: 2
I don't see this as different from the risk of cancer from cigarette smoke. To me if we don't really need asbestos, then why use it even if the risk of harm is small.


RE: asbestos
By bldckstark on 5/22/2008 12:59:17 PM , Rating: 2
No reasonable replacement for asbestos has been marketed. Asbestos is a very useful component in high heat applications. The asbestos substitutes used today suck horribly in comparison.


"If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion." -- Scientology founder L. Ron. Hubbard














botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki