The country cannot afford a repeat of this farce—and not just because of the public health concerns. With so many nanomaterials already on the market and such little public awareness of nanotechnology, one safety scare might convince consumers that all nanotechnology is dangerous. (Witness Europe’s attitude toward genetic modification for an example of how a culture can turn against an entire class of innovation.) In addition, without clear scientific and regulatory guidance, many companies are hesitant to invest in nanotechnology R&D, fearing the exposure to legal action that could result if one day a technology is deemed dangerous. Procter & Gamble, for example, is not pursuing nanotechnology because of the long-term risk of litigation.
This uncertainty is putting people’s health at risk and choking innovation. And with all the threats the planet faces, we need all the little bits of innovation we can get.
This article was originally published with the title Big Need for a Little Testing.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
6 Comments
Add CommentIt is pretty sad when fear of litigation is the only protection people have against new untested potentially hazardous products....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe EPA really needs to step up its game!
To the extent that the envisioned problems are real (so difficult to assess), the U.S. EPA has absolutely no control over the rest of the world, even if it could manage to control U.S. production of harmful nanotech, which seems highly unlikely.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe EPA is responsible for massive production of Carbon nanomaterials. Since 1979 palladium catalytic converters have produced carbon nanomaterials and expelled them directly into the air from every new spark ignition car sold in the United States because of EPA mandated installation of palladium catalytic converters in these vehicles. Palladium catalytic produced carbon nano-particles and carbon combustion residue particle nano-shards (CCRPNS) are produced by the catalytic cracking of larger engine exhaust fuel cenosphere particulate matter PM10 to PM2.5 into 100 times more PM0.99 to PM0.005 particles of carbon nanomaterials.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCatalytic converters are the means used to produce the new high-tech carbon nanomaterials like the carbon nanotubes and buckyballs used to make the question mark for this article.
I suffer from atherosclerosis , Lymphatic-sarcoid disease, and lung sarcoidosis triggered by the pollution product of palladium catalytic converters.
I fear that Official Messengers have already delivered us the wormwood of the palladium catalyst but they were from the Government, the EPA, not from God.
Now, The fox is in charge of the hen house!
where is the evidence for such an argument?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJournal of Aerosol Science
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdoi:10.1016/S0021-8502(97)10037-4
Engines and nanoparticles: a review
Measuring Fine, Ultrafine, and Nanoparticle Emissions from Engines
Engine and Emissions Research Department at Southwest Research Institute (SwRI)
Combustion and Flame
doi:10.1016/j.combustflame.2009.01.022
Study of carbonaceous nanoparticles in premixed C2H4–air flames and behind a spark ignition engine
Measurement of Engine Exhaust Particle Size
David B. Kittelson (this is from presentation on the 1st citation in case you are not a member or do not want to pay)
Center for Diesel Research University of Minnesota
presented at University of California, Davis 17 February 2000
Concentration and Size Distribution of Ultrafine Particles
Near a Major Highway
Yifang Zhu and William C. Hinds
Department of Environmental Health Sciences, University of California, Los Angeles
Seongheon Kim and Constantinos Sioutas
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles
Environmental Aerosol Physics
dr. Lidia Morawska
Queensland University of Technology
Brisbane, Australia
EPA and CAARB should be the ones who have to provide the evidence that they "first do no harm".
yea typical government inaction on a viatal issue,whit regards to your article on titanium as a possible caracergen i would just like to piont out any one thinking of tattoos should bear in mind that the white pigment is titaniumand may be present in other coulours too i used to mix some white in most of my coulour as it made them stand out more consult your tattooist if you have any doubts,better safe than sorry.regards the motorcycle messiah,leader of the junkies against crime
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this