DailyTech - U.S. and EU Join Forces for Nanotechnology Awareness

Submit News

Science U.S. and EU Join Forces for Nanotechnology Awareness
Leona Scanlan - May 30, 2007 5:03 PM

E-mail

del.icio.us

21 comment(s) - last by Amiga500.. on May 31 at 5:10 PM

Report advocates international cooperation and data-sharing to better understand potential risks from nanomaterials

The European Commission (EC) and the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies in cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency published a report on the need to assess the impact of nanomaterials and nanoproducts on the environment and on human health. The report is the result of a workshop held in October 2006, in which 25 nanotechnology and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) experts from around the world discussed ways to identify risks, and rewards, that may arise from the use of nanotechnology.

Nanomaterials are materials that are less than a micrometer in size, usually one to 100 nanometers. These materials are widely distributed; according to David Rejeski, director for the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, nanotechnology can already be found in industries from medicine to textiles to electronics. This technology, Rejeski believes, has potential to reach further than revolutionary technologies of the past. However, not a lot is known about how nanomaterials affect human health or the environment, and Rejeski emphasizes, “understanding potential risks … is critical.”

The joint venture resulted in a set of guidelines for governments, academia, industry and consumers to follow, and advocates Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) as the tool of choice to assess the impact of nanomaterials. LCA systemically evaluates a material or product’s effect on human health and the environment, from production to disposal. This technique is used throughout academia and industry to assess the impact of various materials and chemicals.

Since little data on nanomaterials or on nanopollution currently exists, some of the LCA analyses may not be perfect. However, with increased research and data collection, and both international cooperation and cooperation between competing industries, future LCA comparisons will improve.

According to Renzo Tomellini, Head of Unit at Nano- and Converging Science and Techologies in Europe, the EC previously adopted publications that advocate “a safe, integrated and responsible strategy” towards assessing nanotechnology from research and development through to the disposal stage. “The EC has also highlighted international cooperation as a key asset to advance R&D and to pave the way for a level playing field in the global marker,” said Tomellini.

The Project on Emerging Nanotechnology is funded by both the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and The Pew Charitable Trusts. The entire report, Nanotechnology and Life Cycle Assessment: A Systems Approach to Nanotechnology and the Environment can be found here (PDF).

Comments

Threshold

Username
Password
remember me

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

Weapons

By AnnihilatorX on 5/30/2007 6:22:21 PM , Rating: 2

One great field of interest in nanotechnology is it's potential benefits in medicines. E.g. chemicals can be wrapped in nanocapsules that targets specific parts of the body to create more effective medicines.

Of course if you can heal with nanotechnology you can also kill with it.

RE: Weapons

By icemansims on 5/30/2007 6:58:44 PM , Rating: 2

Sure, but why go to THAT much trouble. If you're going to do that, why not just use something just a lethal but not so technologically dependant. Nerve toxins come to mind immediately as compatible. Yes I know they are banned by treaty, but don't you think these kind of weapons would be banned even faster?

Parent

RE: Weapons

By AnnihilatorX on 5/30/2007 8:33:44 PM , Rating: 2

Good point.

But nano-weapons have potential to be versatile in regard that it can be engineered to target a selected individual only base on DNA, etc; i.e. Assassination

It may be also possible to leave no trace behind, e.g. to make the death looks natral like aging etc.

Parent

RE: Weapons

By Ringold on 5/30/2007 10:57:40 PM , Rating: 2

Something tells me Russia will be all over such tech. Then again, blatantly poisoning people with radioactive material sends quite a stronger message, so maybe not..

Parent

RE: Weapons

By nuoHep on 5/31/2007 2:11:31 AM , Rating: 2

Something tells me USA will be all over such tech. Then again, blatantly striking countries for some shitty reasons sends quite a stronger message, so maybe not...

Parent

RE: Weapons

By Amiga500 on 5/31/07, Rating: 0

RE: Weapons

By Moishe on 5/31/2007 7:45:37 AM , Rating: 5

don't be such a bigot. Someone who disagrees with him - or you - isn't automatically a redneck. Comments like this make you look like a fool and don't do anything to help whichever side you happen to agree with.

Have some basic courtesy.

Parent

RE: Weapons

By Seemonkeyscanfly on 5/31/2007 9:37:55 AM , Rating: 2

Actually I saw the guy who voted him down...He had multiple red colored necks. Big guy at that.... :P sorry had to say that....

Parent

RE: Weapons

By Amiga500 on 5/31/2007 5:10:12 PM , Rating: 2

So its ok to have pot shots at Russia?

Yet you dare not mention America (who is engaged in combat operations in foreign countries at the moment - unlike Russia).

Hmm, gotta love them double standards.

Parent

RE: Weapons

By Clienthes on 5/31/2007 12:48:41 PM , Rating: 2

I hope you aren't an American. People like you are hurting our country, again. I suppose history does repeat itself.

Parent

RE: Weapons

By Clienthes on 5/31/2007 1:03:22 PM , Rating: 3

I know bashing the US is the "in" thing with you kids today, but do you think we could get through one article that mentions the US without some ignoramous bringing up the war? I understand that most readers of DT have a degree in international affairs, and want everyone to know how enlightened you are, but do you think you could possibly take it to a politically themed forum?

I recently started frequenting a woodworking forum. Everyone is so polite, helpful and on topic I almost thought, just for a second, that the anonymity of the internet wasn't going to bring about the end of western civilization. Then I went back to the tech forums. We're doomed.

Parent

RE: Weapons

By SiliconAddict on 5/31/2007 2:07:28 AM , Rating: 3

Read Diamond Age. Its and interesting take on nanotech.

Parent

RE: Weapons

By Sebec on 5/30/2007 8:06:05 PM , Rating: 2

Yeah, if we can find safe ways of using nanotechnology in humans, your example would be a great potential breakthrough for medicine.

The side effects of drugs many times stem from them being distrubuted throughout the body and affecting multiple organ systems. Better targetting could possibly eliminate or reduce the side effect profiles of many drugs. It could decrease the dosages necessary to achieve a therapeutic effect (because the drug is concentrated to one area and not the whole body). Also, it could increase the dosages that could safely be used (again by reducing side effects/toxicity to other organ systems).

Parent

RE: Weapons

By AnnihilatorX on 5/30/2007 8:31:48 PM , Rating: 2

It's already been researched into and there are quite a few successes in this regard

Parent

Nano

By Acanthus on 5/31/2007 6:23:35 AM , Rating: 2

Nanotechnology is still an emerging field, hell look at all the potential uses of just carbon nanotubes, let alone the hundreds of thousands of nanomaterials that we will come up with over the next few decades.

Paint that can block cellphone signals, paint that kills ALL bacteria with a 100% success rate and no chance of a resistance buildup, new flame retardants, huge leaps in medicine, cybernetics, robotics, even semiconductors, and even things as simple as heatsinks.

The possible list of benefits is so huge that only our imaginations can limit it.

RE: Nano

By dsx724 on 5/31/2007 9:17:11 AM , Rating: 2

nanotech's been around since the egyptians so i don't think it's an emerging field exactly. carbon nanotubes has way too much hype. why not make an affordable ceramic material process that can build engines? that would bring automotive efficiency to 80% from the current 20%. now that would be a breakthrough in material science. as for all the new benefits of nanomaterials, some of that material doesn't degenerate over time and are toxic to most animals. heck, even silica, that stuff when inhaled in powdered form causes massive irritation with lungs.
the detriments exceed the benefits if we only look at benefits.

Parent

RE: Nano

By Acanthus on 5/31/2007 10:58:11 AM , Rating: 2

Please educate me on how the egyptians microengineered anything.

Parent

government awareness

By GlassHouse69 on 5/30/2007 7:16:36 PM , Rating: 2

They are becomming aware that they can get a lot of graft in the order of millions in order to overlook real problems and dangers and to investigate fabricated lies that are dog bones to the public.

yay.

I feel so protected.

yay.

RE: government awareness

By Clienthes on 5/31/2007 12:54:04 PM , Rating: 2

I'm almost afraid to ask.

What real dangers are you refering to?

I don't think the public cares much about this one. Go to a mall and stop someone, and ask them if they think nanotechnology poses health risks. I'll mail you a dollar if you can find someone who cares.

Parent

Let the universities do this

By crystal clear on 5/31/2007 7:24:32 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
The European Commission (EC) and the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies in cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency published a report on the need to assess the impact of nanomaterials and nanoproducts on the environment and on human health.

Let the universities do this,they are capable in undertaking such research projects.
All they need is FINANCE,so give them the money & leave the rest to them.

Water

By ted61 on 5/31/2007 10:08:43 AM , Rating: 2

How do we filter this nano-stuff out of the drinking water.

We already have fish on Viagra. What is next?

"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer