Fear-mongering. That's my immediate reaction to today's Green Diary here on DailyKos, and the Emagazine article it quotes at length.
I care deeply about the environment. I also happen to be a scientist. And that's why it annoys me deeply when I see people take an unscientific or even anti-scientific posture over things like Global Warming, based on little more than irrational emotions.
But it annoys me even more when people do it in the name of the environment. It discredits the rest of us. It's far too common that people simply make stuff up when it comes to environmental concerns. If you don't like something, it's probably bad for the environment - and then you go looking for a reason why you think that's the case. That's an unscientific posture, and even an anti-scientific one. And it's one that DailyKos has now given voice to by promoting this article.. The 'why' is under the fold.
The article and diary entry starts off with sunscreen. So let's start with sunscreen. Yes, it contains 'nanoparticles' of titanum dioxide. It always has, as long as titanium dioxide (and zinc oxide) has been used for sunscreen.
Titanium dioxide is not toxic in skin contact. It is not absorbed into the skin, not even as molecules. It doesn't dissolve in water or all but the strongest acids. It's a mineral called rutile; which is the form in which it occurs in nature, often in small particles (rutile sand). That includes 'nanoparticles'. Suntan lotion is a suspension of TiO2 particles - in effect tiny sand grains in water, with some skin moisturizer and other things. But from the standpoint of the titanium, suntan lotion is nothing but very expensive and purified mud. The 'nanoparticle' suntan lotions of today contain the exact same stuff they contained years ago.
Anyway, after the suntan lotion, the real fear-mongering of the article starts:
The problem is not just that you, the consumer, don’t know what’s in the products you use. The much bigger problem is that at the nanoscale, common substances behave in uncommon ways.
Well, I agree that consumers should know what's in the stuff they use, but the implication seems to be that there's some nefarious motive behind it, which I actually doubt.
The second part is what really bothers me. It's a half-truth. The truth here is that "nano" anything is a buzzword. While there's indeed a lot of new ground being broken in nanotech, most of the stuff labeled 'nano-anything' now is just the same old chemistry that was being done years ago under a different, less exciting name. A scientist working with nano-anything has an easier time getting grants.
Marketers too, have latched onto the phrase. Which is why we now have 'nanoparticle' suntan lotions that contain the same stuff they always did.
It's quite true that at the nano scale, things behave quite differently than at the big, everyday ('macroscopic') scale of matter, and one of the great allures of nanotech is the harnessing these properties.
However, this is where it gets bad: The author implies that since things behave 'uncommonly' that we don't know how they behave. That's wrong. We know very well how things behave at the nano-scale! The forces that govern things at that scale are different. For instance, gravity and mass become less important, and what we call intermolecular forces become more significant.
The intermolecular forces that govern the behavior of nanoparticles are well known. They were all discovered by chemists and physicists over a century ago. Today, our knowledge of how they work is very, very detailed. So implying that we don't know is just wrong. 'Uncommon' does not mean 'unknown'.
Then comes a purely anti-science remark:
And nobody—not even the world’s leading nanoscientists—knows what nanoparticles do inside the body or in the environment.
Saying this not only ignores the wealth of knowledge we've got about chemistry and physics. It's directly hostile to science, because it implies that science has no predictive power. That no matter how detailed our knowledge is, no matter what our wealth of experience, we cannot 'know' what something will do unless there's empirical evidence.
That's just wrong. And it's not how science works. We don't know if something is dangerous if we have no empirical evidence and we have a plausible theory to believe why it would be. Saying that we don't know because we have no evidence, without providing a good reason, is pure fear-mongering.
You "don't know" that you won't be hit by an asteroid on your porch. But I think you do know, based on prior experience, whether or not that's likely to happen.
Anyway, the fearmongering continues:
Nanomaterials are not new. Some exist naturally, and others result from combustion—like the ultrafine particles in diesel exhaust that have been linked to respiratory and heart diseases.
'Some exist naturally' is an understatement. Practically every substance in nature exists or can exist in nanoparticle form. It's just a size. Do you really think dust ceases exist once it's too small to be seen? Just about everything exists on the continuum from big bulky matter down to individual molecules.
Some things that are safe in bulk are naturally dangerous as small particles (especially to the respiratory system). Nothing is new about that. Sometimes it's the opposite (water can drown you but a nanoparticle of ice cannot harm you in any way). Some things are dangerous in solution. Some things are dangerous when in powder form, or gas form, or whichever.
Bottom line: There are no general lessons to be had from studying different substances at the same scale, be it nano or other. Whether or not a particular substance is dangerous in the form of nanoparticles has to be determined on a case-by-case basis depending on the substance and form. It makes no more sense to assume all nanoparticle are the same than it would be to assume all substances are the same.
The article then briefly review some of the promises of nanotech. Contradicting itself, suddenly science is able to make predictions again.
But, there's a caveat:
Asbestos—now synonymous with bankrutpcy-inducing lawsuits and slow, painful death—was once seen as a miraculous fireproofing agent that would save millions of lives.
That's what you call guilt-by-association. The industrialized use of asbestos started in the 19th century. Toxicology simply did not exist then, or any other forms of environmental/health testing. Health considerations were generally low. Comparing today's materials to 19th century technology is ridiculous and unfair.
Consider that not one common new material out of the thousands developed in the last century have come anywhere close to asbestos in terms of health hazards.
Father down:
Of $1.5 billion in federal nano spending each year, only between 1% and 2.5% goes toward studying environmental, health and safety risks. Worse, there’s no national strategy for deciding what questions need to be answered, or what to do with those answers as they arrive.
Taking this unsourced figure at face value, I actually think it's a fair amount of money. But what's more important is that this number is completely irrelevant! As I said above, the fact is that whether or not environmental and health questions need to be studied is something that can only be determined on a case-by-case basis. There's nothing useful to be said about nanoparticles as a whole, so there's no way we can determine whether that number is appropriate.
The same goes for a 'national strategy'. Why would a national strategy be needed? Why do nanoparticles as a whole require more study? I don't believe they do. The fact is, we've got legislation and regulation that covers researcher/worker exposure, and how to investigate toxicity when it comes to new substances. Chemists synthesize entirely new chemicals every day (and have for centuries), the hazards of which are completely unknown. There are routines, regulations and procedures in place.
I welcome debate and discussion on that (among people who know what they're talking about). But suggesting that some radical new approach is required because nanoparticles are 'unknown' is just fear-mongering. Literally: Fear of the unknown. It ignores that thousands of scientists already work safely with 'unknown' substances every day. (knock on wood)
Nor am I saying that the risks of nanoparticulate substances shouldn't be studied. Obviously, they should be studied. Just the same as any other new chemical.
What I am saying is that this article does nothing to help the debate, the discussion, or provide any insight into regulatory challenges. Quite the opposite. It buys into our own 'nano-bullshit' by using a buzzword that actually means rather little in terms of the science. Nano-stuff can't be lumped into a single category, nor can the risks involved. Doing so leads to this kind of unscientific fear mongering.
Size is a factor in toxicity. That's not news. But you can't generalize the danger. Just to take a real example, a study of the toxicity of nanoparticles of metal oxides found that cupric oxide (CuO) was more dangerous as a nanoparticle than as a micrometer particle, but titanium dioxide (TiO2) was less dangerous in nanoparticle form.
Breathing metal nanoparticles is dangerous. Injecting carbon nanotubes into your blood is dangerous (duh!). What does this tell me about TiO2 sunscreen? Absolutely nothing.
Finally, an aside: Nanoparticles should not really be equated with nanotech in general, they're one part of the broader field, in which most of the research at this point in time is purely experimental/theoretical anyway.