Nanotechnology and the Environment

The BBC has a poorly written article about nanotechnology and the environment, which in my opinion is simplistic and needlessly alarmist.

I definitely agree with the stand that nanoparticles need to be investigated for their toxicity. A good example are quantum dots, which are nanoparticles (2-10 nm) of highly toxic heavy metals like cadmium. There is also a lot unknown about the toxic behaviours of most nanoparticles.

But I am particularly appalled by this statement in the article, which is very typical of alarmist news articles written by reporters with no concept of magnitude, and obviously no aptitude for interpreting numbers:

A recent paper in the journal Nano Letters reported that experiments done to assess the risk of inhaling carbon nantotubes, a common manufactured nanoparticle, sometimes showed strong toxic effects and sometimes did not depending on which methods were used.

Considering that nanotubes are in essence carbon soot, formed at high temperatures, I find this statement a bit ridiculous. You would no more intentionally inhale carbon nanotubes as you would stick your nose into a car exhaust pipe or a chimney flue. Of COURSE there is going to be a toxic effect upon inhalation, if the material in question is in essence soot. Tell us something we don't know, like in comparison with soot, is it more toxic? Or less? Give us the quantitative justification, instead of just saying strongly toxic! I am actually willing to bet good money that the authors of the actual Nano Letters paper did put in numbers and figures discussing the toxicity, but the BBC journalist decided to remove those figures because they are "trivial and unimportant".

It is also ridiculous because there almost does not exist a single commercial application of carbon nanotubes (single-walled or multi-walled) in its "free" form, floating around in the air to enter the lungs of the common people. So this toxic study deals with the toxicity of nanotubes in a form which is least likely to be encountered by the common folks, but is more relevant to carbon nanotube researchers. Mind you, the paper was originally addressed to nanotechnology researchers who do encounter nanotubes in powder form, so the rationale for the paper within this context is totally understandable: what is NOT understandable is for the BBC to take this message out of its original context, and hype it up in an alarmist article, with no sensible rationale other than to scare people without any reasonable justification. This reminds me of the warning signs you see on American hairdryers ("Warning: Use of hairdryer in shower or bath may result in death!"), and makes about as much sense.

I'm not saying we don't need further studies: we do. But we also need to tamper the sensationalist alarmist press that nanotechnology gets, which is not helped by the general misunderstanding of what nanotechnology really is.

Which reminds me: for those alarmists who believe the bullshit about nanotechnology that Michael Crichton published in his fictional account, and are worrying about nanotubes, carbon nanotubes are not intelligent, and they will not form an "intelligent swarm". They are about as smart as the next molecule. Nanotechnology is a very far cry from that state of affairs, and arguably it won't reach that level of sophistication, not within the next 50 years. People let their imaginations run wild, but the fact is that at the quantum level, you get extremely different behaviour: normal mechanics as we know it ceases to exist. We might get some form of nano-machines (the Tour Group at Rice has created the world's first nanocar, made from molecules), but not as envisioned by Crichton or Drexler.