question - nanotechnology

Shaun Barrett · 2003-11-21 06:49:46

Everyone seems to be worried about the possibility that carbon nanotubes etc. might cause respiratory problems.
Well one of my pet hates is diesel fumes and Australia appears to be using some of the dirtiest diesel fuel available in the world at the moment. Following buses, trucks and diesel utility vehicles here is a nightmare, with truly disgusting clouds of dark smoke belching from their tail pipes .. especially when they're going uphill.
I read a statistic a year or two back which stated that 10,000 Americans die each year from lung disease directly attributable to diesel particulate pollution. And that's in a country where Australia's grade of diesel fuel would be illegal because it's too dirty!!

God knows what percentage of Aussies succumb to lung cancer every year from the appalling levels of diesel pollution we're subjected to here! Many European diesel-powered cars cannot be sold here in unmodified form because the fuel is too dirty for the engines to function properly. And nobody seems to care much about it. The last I heard, there were vague plans to raise our standards as regards diesel fuel some time in 2006. In the meantime, it's impossible to drive most places in downtown Cairns with your car windows open without gagging on the smoke. I have the air-conditioning on recirculate ... permanently!

I suspect that carbon nanotubes could hardly be any worse from a health standpoint than the microscopic carbon particles lodging in our lungs every day from diesel-powered vehicle emissions!
:angry:

[When I attain absolute power, the people here in otherwise beautiful Australia who have been responsible for this disgraceful state of affairs will be hung, drawn, and quartered and their heads stuck on pikes on Sydney Opera House, while their entrails are fed to the sharks at the local aquarium for the amusement of the crowds!
... Sometimes I get quite annoyed about things.]

Free Spirit · 2003-11-22 20:04:15

Shaun, I don't get your reasoning, you seem to be saying that cnts will be ok because they can't be as bad as diesel fumes which you describe as horrendous and rightfully so. Like Byron hinted at, we need to stop brushing our problems under the carpet and confront them. I believe in the precautionary principle, we need to fully analyze technologies for their environmental and health affects before they are unleashed on the world. Corporations and even governments might not like it, but it's a sane policy, especially when dealing with nanotech. There is good news though about diesel fuel improvements, many countries now are requiring bio-diesel to be mixed in with regular diesel, which makes it more eco-friendly. France and the USA are requiring these fuels to be blended together and in the future we might be able to go to 100% pure bio-diesel if the manufacturing costs keep falling.

Byron · 2003-11-23 08:53:28

I think what Shaun was saying that diesel fumes are a problem that needs to be rectified ASAP. It is only logical to focus on current problems than "could be" problems of the future...lol. It's simply a matter of priorities.

As for CNT's, yes, I think there will have to be plenty of research to ensure that these things don't cause long-term health problems. It's like what the government is doing with cell phones today...with 80% of the population using those things, it's best to be certain that you won't have 20% of those people developing brain cancer after 20 or 30 years. That's why I would gladly support a constitutional amendment mandating that the federal government dedicate something like 10% of its budget purely for science and research purposes. There is simply so much out there that we need to know, but don't, and we certainly can't rely on the private sector to provide us with this information. Believe me, that 10% would pay for itself many times over in reduced health costs, a more productive economy, higher standard of living, etc. But try telling that to greedy politicians...

B

Shaun Barrett · 2003-11-24 02:36:40

My apologies, Free Spirit, for not making myself very clear. And thank you, Byron, for helping to clarify my meaning.

Another aspect of what I was trying to say (probably very incoherently, I'm afraid) is that new things tend to raise sometimes irrational fears.
In this case, it's not really quite as new as it's made out to be. Carbon nanotubes are close relatives of buckminsterfullerenes, or 'buckyballs'. Buckyballs are spheres made of a lattice of carbon atoms and they come in various sizes and patterns depending on the total number of carbon atoms in the sphere.
Although they were only discovered in 1985 and hit the headlines as a new and exotic form of pure carbon molecule, they are actually far more mundane than that. In fact, the smoke from ordinary candles contains millions of the little critters! Humans have been breathing them into their lungs for centuries.

I understand that the health argument today involves carbon nanotubes (cnts) but I brought up the above discussion just to demonstrate that we've all been in contact with microscopic molecules made of carbon, in one form or another, ever since we discovered fire.
The statistic concerning the 10,000 Americans who die from diesel particulate inhalation each year, serves to highlight the dangers of these particles. And of course, I haven't even touched on the enormous numbers of people who must have met their end as a direct result of breathing the air down dusty coalmines, or breathing in soot (and radioactive particles) from coal-fired power stations. I don't deny that, by the same token, cnts could very well be a carcinogenic irritant in the human lung.
But I submit that it's unlikely to be any worse than other forms of carbon particle pollution from different sources.

The argument has been raised that cnts will be like asbestos fibres and cause a high rate of fatal lung disease, rather like asbestosis. But asbestos is a crystalline mineral, rich in metals, and is particularly difficult for the lung to expel, especially the more rigid and brittle blue asbestos, which forms sharp needle-like structures.
Carbon, even in tubular form, is at least just carbon! Our bodies are largely made of the stuff and bacteria can digest it. This is why smoke is nowhere near as lethal as asbestos, though I hasten to add I don't really want to breathe in either one!

What I do suggest, though, is that the same people who shun technological progress for political or other reasons, are making more of the potential dangers of cnts than is realistically warranted.
It's almost like the more promising the new technology, the more the Luddites feel obliged to vilify it and create scare campaigns around it. We mustn't allow ourselves to be spooked by well-orchestrated attempts on the part of unscrupulous and self-serving groups to utilise our intrinsic fear of the unknown against us. We need to be careful with anything new, of course, but we mustn't be turned away from a better future by individuals who want us all back in caves!

Rxke · 2003-11-24 03:23:19

I agree with Shaun ... Also, it's not because these nanotubes will be used, they'll end up massively in the environment, at least not intentionally... See them as building blocks, that will be *contained* in the nfactories, and assembled into macrostuff... Loose particles= loss of material, so manufacturers will do anything possible to minimize that loss...

Take, for instance laser-printer and Xerox toner, minuscule particles, harmfull, but they are contained in closed cannisters, and fused onto paper... Maybe in copy-centres there's elevated concentrations of the stuff, but it's not like they're pouring the stuff all over the place. Not intentionally, at least....

Also right by Shaun: it's the Xtal structure that's so damaging in asbestos, our lungs have the ability to expell foreign matter, and most of the dust particles get cleaned out of our lungs (if that were not the case, we'd be literally full of dust within months.) The asbestos Xtals damage the lungs, by 'cutting' them up and creating scar tissue, rendering the lungs increasingly ineffective.

I'm not saying there's no reason to concern, far from, but there's a lot of specultion going on about nanostuf (both pos and neg) that cloud the picture...

flashgordon · 2003-11-25 02:37:54

I contacted the highlift guys about carbon nanotubes and asbestoes, and they said they don't know what I was talking about; they said they tested them and found them to not be like asbestoes.

Wim · 2003-11-25 14:31:25

Did you ask any other questions about how much it has evolved since ... since when actually ?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2003-11-21 06:49:46

Re: question - nanotechnology

#27 2003-11-22 20:04:15

Re: question - nanotechnology

#28 2003-11-23 08:53:28

Re: question - nanotechnology

#29 2003-11-24 02:36:40

Re: question - nanotechnology

#30 2003-11-24 03:23:19

Re: question - nanotechnology

#31 2003-11-25 02:37:54

Re: question - nanotechnology

#32 2003-11-25 14:31:25

Re: question - nanotechnology

Board footer