Nanotechnology sparks fears for the future
Lewis Smith, Environment Reporter

Nanomaterials are likely to kill people in the future just as asbestos did unless extensive safety checks are put in place, a Royal Commission report has said. The team of experts assessing the likely impacts of the emerging technology are worried that when nanomaterials escape into the environment they will damage people and wildlife but that it will be years before the effects are seen. Past generations have brought into general usage materials such as asbestos, leaded petrol, CFCs and cigarettes without adequately considering the potential damage and the commission fears nanomaterials will prove similarly dangerous.

Scientists call for stricter safeguards on nanotechnology Only by introducing rigorous safety systems, including widespread monitoring and intensive research, can threats posed by nanomaterials be identified and countered, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution concluded. Nanomaterials are already used in a variety of products on the market including a range of clothes in Japan that have dispensed with dye because refracting nanomaterials provide the colours. A nanomaterial placed on the surface of the glass in the roof at St Pancras Station has been designed to keep it clean. It reacts with sunlight to break down dirt without the need for window cleaners to clamber up on the roof. Many sun creams contain titanium dioxide particles, a nanomaterial which has been in use for years.

There are about 600 different products using nanomaterials around the world and around 1,500 have been patented. Professor Sir John Lawton, chairman of the commission, accepted that no evidence has yet been found to show damage has been caused to human health or the environment by nanomaterials. But he said that while the technology had the potential to offer many benefits to society there is also the possibility it will cause harm. “The rate of innovation in this sector far outstrips our capacity to respond to the risks,” he said. “There is an urgent need for more research and testing of nanomaterials.” So little is understood about nanomaterials in the environment that scientists have yet even to work out ways of finding them. Nanomaterials manufactured for use in products were considered by the Commission to be those that measure one to 100 nanometres long. A grain of sand is about a million nanometres wide. Professor Susan Owens, of the University of Cambridge, said: “If we don’t do anything and we leave it, then things manifest themselves in 10 to 15 years’ time. By then the technology is so embedded in society it’s very difficult to deal with it.” Backing calls for research and monitoring she said that problems caused by CFCs, asbestos and other products, were only detected when they started damaging human health and the environment. Experts on the Commission estimated Britain and the rest of the world has about a decade to carry out research on the safety of nanotechnology before the use of nanomaterials, ranging from the diameter of a DNA strand to that of a virus, become too widely-used for any damage to be halted. The commission’s report, Novel Materials in the Environment: the case of nanotechnology, rejected an outright ban on the technology because of the huge potential benefits. A spokesman for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) said: “As the Commission states, it has found no evidence of harm to health or the environment from nanomaterials, but the Government remains committed to researching their health and environmental impact. “In particular, ministers are pushing in Europe to ensure that effective regulation is in place. EU and UK reviews of existing legislation have concluded that the existing regulatory framework can be changed to extend to nanomaterials.” * Have your say Nanotechnology does indeed pose serious concerns. The problem is largely how the body attempts to deal with these tiny particles which are insoluble, if they become ingested or inhaled. If inhaled they can accumulate in target organs such as the liver and the brain - so yes the concerns are real. Phil Jinks, Loughborough, UK We were involved in a dispute with a UK company who claimed to be a leading player in Nanotechnology. We asked them to disclose under secrecy the composition of the product they were selling. The said that they couldn't give us the information beacause they didn't know the composition themselves!! Ronen Hazarika, Singapore, Singapore There is no rational basis to conclude that nanotechnology, in and of itself, poses any greater risk to human health or the environment than any other field of human endeavour. It is wholly improper to treat it distinctly. James E. Petts, Burnham, England what is wrong with these people? nano technology has the potential to be one of the greatest causes for good in the history of the world.nano bots for example will eventually be able to programmed to work alongside and supplement our white blood cells to fight disease our white cells cant. optimism! will , grimsby, uk Looks like a blatant attempt to obtain grant money to me. I've worked with numerous ceramic nanoparticles, including TiO2, for fifty years with out ill effects. The four ones which produce ill effects: BeO, SiO2, UO2 and ThO2, do so because of their composition not the size of their particles. Ross, Chicago, IL, USA Are they really reporting this as recent news??? I did a report ok this subject 3 years ago citing the same issues. A lot of work is done to try and test the effects of new products as much as possible & given how long nanoparticles have been in use I'm not concerned. This is just scaremongering! Lauren King, London, * Read all 6 comments o Have your say Have your say 300 characters left * Name * Email * Town Country * Required Remember me * Terms and conditions