cautionary notes on nanotechnology

An article on nanotechnology in the recent (june/july/07) professional boatbuilder magazine online might be of interest to some. http://www.proboat-digital.com/proboat/20070607/. if that link don’t work to to proboat.com and find the mag.

Will nanotechnology be a part of surfboard manufacturing someday?

Quote" Some conventional-epoxy manufacturers already claim an increase of 50% in flexural strength, and 50% to 100% for impact resistance. Three hundred percent - or more - improvement is expected in the very near future."

Hi Glenn -

Fascinating stuff. I think that the article’s main point being that in addition to adding potential strength and stiffness, the nanoparticles may have risks.

A May, 2006 case in Germany of a household cleaner introduced that within 72 hours put 97 people (some near death) in the hospital with lung edema is mentioned.

Editors note that a rep came knocking with a “nanotech” product but they passed in favor of the article to which you have provided the link. Pro Boatbuilder gets a thumbs up in my book for providing a balanced look at the risks and benefits of the new tech.

I was sold until I read the part about lung edema and skin being nothing more than a strainer for particles so tiny.

My “real” job, when I am not shaping, is researching the toxicity and transport of nanoparticles in biological systems. It is great that people are taking the initiative to raise awareness about the toxic potential of these particles in their industry. The article, while basic and somewhat off in the interpretation of some key nanotoxicology papers, highlights the fact that we simply don’t know what happens to these particles when they are released into an organism or the environment. And to make things more complicated each type of particle reacts differently, and the reactivity for a specific type of nanoparticle is dependent not only on its composition but also its size, shape and surface coating. Many of these particles are also composed of extremely toxic metals. For instance, I study CdSe quantum dots, which can be made “non-toxic” (at least according to some of their manufacturers) without certain surface coatings… but the particles DO breakdown (e.g. when exposed to certain common bacteria), and then you are left with Cd(II) ions… not exactly what you want in your body! Another problem is that materials that are inert at the macro scale are reactive at the nano scale. The article also points this out. Which ones are toxic and which ones aren’t… well, nobody really knows yet. There is a big push, however, to get many nano-based products on the market ASAP, without the appropriate testing. Anyways, this is an interesting topic and if anyone has questions about nanotoxicology I can at least point you in the right direction. I am posting at 3 am 'cause I just finished preparing my poster (on the fate and toxicity of CdSe quantum dots) for the NanoBio conference in SF next week. I need to sleep. Hopefully I can find some decent waves on my way up there and back!

Mans greatest fear seems to be rearing its head again, “The Unknown”.

That whole german saga appears to have been caused by the application of the film. Sprayed on in fine mist with a droplet size of 10 microns which caused them to be airborn for a prolonged period of time which meant they were able to penetrate deep into lungs of the poor sod who was spraying their bathroom. The company won’t say what exactly made up the film but what ever it’s “secret ingredient” was the idea of the product was to repel dust bacteria etc (meaning its more than likely some sort of flourocarbon) so no matter how this gets into your system it’ll mess you up. It wasn’t the technology just the application!

on a side note there wasn’t even any nanopartilces present. They just played off the buzz word!

Just what the surfboard building industry needs…more toxic shit.

Geez.

Quote:

Just what the surfboard building industry needs…more toxic shit.

Geez.

This is exactly the problem i have with the article. All of a sudden nanotechnology is toxic. i’m sure that is not what the author was trying to get across and that he was just trying to get across that people should approach with care which i do agree with but his examples are questionable. There are nanomaterials that are very helpfull to medicine too. For example CeO2 which can be used in chemo to selectively protect healthy cells around the cancer while leaving the cancer cells vunerable. This reduces the side effects which is caused by the chemos indiscriminative nature.

Suggesting that by chiping or sanding materials with nanoparticles in it means that all of a sudden you have “free” nanoparticles floating around i have a hard time understanding. Maybe Drakonis could put this right? From my experiance (currently studying a PhD in Nanoparticulate Cerium Dioxide) Nanoparticles are energetically unstable to be just floating around free! Granted they could be toxic if they get in your system but isn’t everything?

dude epoxy has 50% flex strength and 50-100% impact resistance as if epoxy wasn’t strong enough for boards.

what if they could make pu / pe stronger than today epoxy / EPS. You’d have all cool resin tints and colors and clark could make a comeback. Yay! But it would be nice, because many like pu / pe feel.

The benefits for this are limitless . . .

they even made a jet engine the size of a pencil tip out of nano parts, just spray some fuel and it goes . . lol

cancer patients touch a blob of nanites designed to nuke abnormal cancer cells, it goes through the skin and into the body does a number on the cancer and are programmed to shut down and be expelled as micro waste from the body.

Spiderman 3 venom suit? or lets take it to surfing. . . a nano equipped wetsuit more like skin suit. Bam its paper thick, fits to your skin flexible as you are . . . redefines its always summer inside.

Want to surf antarctica, go for it bro!

sunscreen? slap on the nano machines and it covers your skin, matches color and also forms shades for the sun, ear protection for cold water guys and gals.

Or how bout if you’re into big wave riding, you get dunked under water for a 32 wave hold down, a nano breathing bubble (like a H20 spider) forms and bam you can breath suka

Or a flexi leash w/ nano control. . . with wrist activated button to remove it

There’s a dark side to this . . . imagine tiny assassin robots to short circuit or do major number on you, coded specifically to you DNA, invisible . . .

Or some guy makes nano molecular cutter device and with a venom powersuit goes ninja then does a serial number axes a bunch of people before the hero of the movie defeats the opponent in a matrix like fight with molecular separator nano einhander . . .

Terrorists roll out with nano particles that when mixed with everyday materials into explosives. They fill up at the local hydrogen fusion station in the morning, go to Micky D’s 4 lunch, hit up the bank for some greenbacks, and stop at a local hardware store. At each stop new components received and checked. Hydro water, some fries grease, chems from the hardware store . . . That afternoon the worlds tallest building, the Parker MOrris building is racked by explosions and topples. But since it was saturday, losses are minimal. yet life is lost and many others are thrown into chaos . . .

But . . . everything comes a balance, or there’s a catch.

nano is toxic because we’re realizing it is!! Its new!!

As Roy Stewart and Jack Sparrow says, QED! Its non biodegradable and main components heavy metals!

As to ascertain HOW toxic, there isn’t much studying done, and since this is new the goverments going to take some time to come up with regulations .

In the meantime the govts are figuring it out . . . it also opens the door for abuse by non ethical companies.

Whats crazy we’re pushing out this new material, but no studies (according to the article ) have been done on environmental impacts. And few on living tissue interaction. And no long term studies on the effects of nano particles on the living.

As a surfer I know how important such studies are. So Cal, rain storm, hello? Now you have worry about something that can pass through your skin and toxic like an endlessly nagging lady or nuclear fallout?

This nano thing can be handled wrong, and the book Silent Spring comes to mind . . .

Its hard enough to keep things clean with visible trash, but now trash is invisible?

maybe get goggles with Nano vision?? Or nano particles that only bind with other nano particles …

Still though as humans develop something we can also develop a counter. As we develop nano tech, we figure out how properly implement it, how to heal the body if nano goes nuclear on the inside . . .

How mankind utilizes both the new set of tools and dangers

LOL…Nice one!

I especially liked the nanovision goggles!

i told you pete them nanobots are dodgy!!!

Hiro -

What do you eat for breakfast? I want some!

Quote:

Will nanotechnology be a part of surfboard manufacturing someday?

old news…

it’s already been done here

http://www.swaylocks.com/forum/gforum.cgi?post=274899

Yeah Onelua I read that and did not get much from it like this proboat article. I read the articles hailing nanotechnology in the other composites mags. The ProBoat article explained it to me in a way I could understand and pointed out hazards I’d not heard before. I just posted the epoxy stats so that it would be surfboard related.

John, my feelings exactly.

Quote:
Quote:

Just what the surfboard building industry needs…more toxic shit.

Geez.

There are nanomaterials that are very helpfull to medicine too. For example CeO2 which can be used in chemo to selectively protect healthy cells around the cancer while leaving the cancer cells vunerable. This reduces the side effects which is caused by the chemos indiscriminative nature.

I think I see what your saying, it would be good at fighting the cancers it might help create? :wink:

Yeah, its not as simple as that. Sanding or chipping paint/resin with nanoparticles won’t release nanoparticles. You’ll just have macro-scale dust with nanoparticles inside of it, and we all know that the dust itself is not the healthiest thing to breathe in. In general nano-scale “dust” causes more inflammation than macro-scale dust (with the same composition), but you aren’t going to get nanoparticles from a sander, so the conventional respirators will still work. If the nanoparticles were composed of toxic metals then the dust might be worse if you inhale it. Also, as you stated, most nanoparticles are not stable on their own, so by the time they are released they will no longer be nano-scale (from aggregation, e.g. TiO2) or have the same composition (from breakdown, e.g. CdSe). The difficult part is determining which state is going to be toxic, how stable it is, what it will bind to, how it will move in biological systems, etc…

As for the German case, there probably wasn’t anything “nano” involved. A lot of companies are marketing products as using nanotechnology, but in reality the particles in question are much larger. Like I said before, the author of that article probably misunderstood some of the toxicity papers, but overall raises some important points.

To put things in perspective… I work with very toxic nanoparticles every single day, and I also shape and/or glass every single day. I take at LEAST as many precautions building boards as I do working with quantum dots and bacteria. I would say that my exposure to resin and dust is more of a concern than the particles in my lab… something to think about.

those damn nanobots!!! Just like Transformers but this time we won’t even be able to see them! The end is nigh

In the end everything causes cancer in one way or another…

http://www.generalplastics.com/uploads/technology/Wood_as_Carcinogen.pdf