British prof warns nanotech products are potentially dangerous

While we're eagerly awaiting the day that we can lounge around while armies of nanobots perform their magical alchemy on our garbage and turn it into hot cellphones and delicious Big Macs, one British scientist is warning that the medical implications of nanotechnology have yet to be properly explored, despite numerous products already finding their way to market. Specifically, Edinburgh University Professor and environmental health expert Anthony Seaton argues that almost nothing is known about the potential effect of inhaling nanoparticles, likening the situation to the dangerous particle-emitting asbestos that was installed in buildings prior to 1970 without a second thought. According to some estimates, there are already 200 products containing nanoparticles available to consumers, with hundreds more expected to hit shelves this year -- but Seaton claims that so far, recommended nano testing "simply hasn't happened." Damn, way to ruin our nanobot fantasies, Professor Letdown.

[prickly pete @ May 3rd 2006 5:35PM]

I always have this dream that a mad scientist with a ray gun shrinks me down in size, along with selma hayek and injects us into the body of a politician who is suffering from a brain tumor.

Selma Hayek is really hot, and nude and we do it all night long.

[DC @ May 3rd 2006 5:54PM]

There go my dreams of microscopic medical-grade nanobots scouring my clogged arteries, thus enabling me to eat even more Big Macs and french fries.

[glacia00 @ May 3rd 2006 5:58PM]

Since we're already inhaling enormous quantities of particles of literally millions of substances daily it is likely that this too shall pass.

This as well as the fear of genetically modified food will likely in the future be looked back on the same way we now look back on claims that train travel above 20mph will cause riders to suffocate.

[Razib Ahmed @ May 3rd 2006 5:59PM]

"Edinburgh University Professor and environmental health expert Anthony Seaton argues that almost nothing is known about the potential effect of inhaling nanoparticles,"
This is a very serious matter and the concern of the professor should be taken seriously. No product should be allowed to come to the market without proper tests.

[Jason @ May 3rd 2006 6:00PM]

At least I now know that I'm not the only person in the world that has reservations about this field of technology.

[John @ May 3rd 2006 6:06PM]

Look what happened to Mork from 'Mork and Mindy' after he inhaled nano particles! "Nano nano"

[Billy @ May 3rd 2006 6:30PM]

My dealer has been selling me nano particles for the past 3 weeks, and I have been snorting them with abandon.

Who new that getting so high coud be potentially dangerous, oh well, back to heroin. It is cheaper in the end anyways.

[TC @ May 3rd 2006 6:36PM]

Those breasts with octopus legs in the picture are bound to turn up on a pervy Manga site soon.

[Pfft @ May 3rd 2006 6:49PM]

What, was I the ONLY person who saw that episode of Next Generation when Wesley let out the nanobites who formed an advance society and almost took over the ENTERPRISE? Geez!

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Evolution_%28episode%29

[Al Scagnetti @ May 3rd 2006 6:49PM]

Why would anyone inhale a Nano?

[Hairy Jew @ May 3rd 2006 7:04PM]

Whether or not nanotechnology is potentially dangerous has been explored at far greater length and far earlier than Dr. Seaton. Read Nano, or anything about Eric Drexler. If you believe what some have to say, there's a very good possibility that unchecked production of nanotechnology may lead to the literal destruction of the universe as we know it. Try googloing "grey goo theory".

[tasteslikechicken @ May 3rd 2006 7:42PM]

The idea of nano as small robots is still probably at least 15 years away. What we'll see in the next 5 or 10 years is better chip design and much better material science. Even with this "simple" nanotech we'll be capable of doing things we can't imagine now. There are machines in the lab that can create stips of incredibly strong, light carbon nanotubes. If you were to use that material instead of the graphite used for carbon fiber now you would have something orders of magnitude stronger (the epoxy binding would be the weak link). Thin film solar cells are likely to become very very cheap and as efficient as anything we have today, making the promise of solar power an economic neccesity. We might have lithium batteries that allow us to drive battery electric cars hundreds of miles.
The reward to danger ratio of nanotech is fantastic, it doesn't mean we shouldn't look at the dangers but it does mean we should do our best to not slow down it's growth.
The risk of gray goo is very unlikely except as a weapon. Before we're technologically capable of that it's very likely that we'll have AI that is smarter than we are designing our nanomachines (if those nanomachines can be built at all for use at room temperature which is in doubt). Read up folks, the future looks great.

[MSM @ May 3rd 2006 8:21PM]

I prefer to stick with the "grey goose theory" wherein potentially lethal problem just don't seem to cause much concern.

Cheers!

[Oddmanout @ May 3rd 2006 8:38PM]

Serano Genomix unavailable for comment...

[Mantrid @ May 3rd 2006 10:35PM]

Nanotech potentially dangerous. In other news, fire is potentially hot.

I can see how this would be an issue if you just released nanobots without any sort of tests, but I don't think safety would be that hard to implement. If the bots are designed to build things or tear things down, just make them shut down if they detect temperatures and humidity levels that would occur inside a human body. If they aren't needed as a permanent fixture, don't give them any way to "recharge". Make them shut down if they detect a certain radio frequency. Whatever.

[Prester John @ May 3rd 2006 11:22PM]

I, for one, welcome our tiny new overlords.

[oo7ev @ May 3rd 2006 11:29PM]

Wow, I would think this sight would be more versed in technology, instead of fantasizing of doomsday nanorobots that take over the world (although that was a pretty good episode of Outer Limits)

I was at an Nanoparticle Seminar as part of my grad school recently, and the topic covered the human health and environmental effects of nanoparticles. Since the new nanoparticles being developed now are much smaller, they exhibit vastly different properties from bulk material, meaning inhaling titanium dioxide dust isn't the same as inhaling titanium diozide nanoparticles, and research from simulations and experiments must be done in order to determine these effects in long term and health and what we can do to change it.

Carbon nanotubes-already being made but need to be greatly reduced in cost in order to start replacing more common materials.

Then we can finally start building that space elevator.

[Zach C. @ May 4th 2006 12:40AM]

If anyone here has played Deus Ex II, remember the characters with "nano" or "nanolung", where their internal organs had been clogged and partially crystallised by unfiltered nanotech?

Interesting that a computer game visualised this guy's fears even though nanotech appeared in film and television long before. Of course, Deus Ex has a dystopian cyberpunk setting, not the utopian Star Trek setting.

[DacmonJ @ May 4th 2006 1:46AM]

I love all the people laughing off the dangers of this technology.

It would be quite possible for some idiot grad student or greedy company (or government) to create a nanobot that could be used as a self-replicating weapon.

Imagine a nano-tech robot that self-replicates using carbon. With no limits on the replication procedure it could grow exponentially and destroy the entire planet.

Laugh it up chuckleheads, but advanced biotechnology and nanotechnology are going to make the fears over nukes and chemical weapons look like a walk in the park.

[RainerK @ May 4th 2006 4:01AM]

"The Diamond Age" by Neal Stephenson anyone?

[Logviewer @ May 4th 2006 2:36PM]

http://www.engadget.com/2006/05/03/british-prof-warns-nanotech-products-are-potentially-dangerous/#comments
**********************
This article states that �nothing is known about the potential effect of inhaling nanoparticles�. We used to inhale a lot of particles back in the 80�s, and I saw plenty of negative effects.
-----------------
Logview.net: http://www.logview.net
Logviewer.net: http://www.logviewer.net
-----------------

[tasteslikechicken @ May 4th 2006 4:24PM]

Carbon nanotubes-already being made but need to be greatly reduced in cost in order to start replacing more common materials.

Then we can finally start building that space elevator.

As of 2003, nanotubes cost from 20 euro per gram to 1000 euro per gram, depending on purity, composition (single-wall, double-wall, multi-wall) and other characteristics.


June 03, 2005
Cheap Tubes' CNTs can be used for a wide variety of commercial applications, including manufacture of CNT-polymeric composite materials, industrial grade MWNTs up to >95% purity are available in metric ton quantities (one million grams) for $0.40 per gram). Other, 80%-90% MWNTs can be purchased in metric ton quantities for $0.25 per gram. Metric ton quantities have a 90 day lead time.

within the last 3 years cost has dropped by about 100 times. If that continues for 3 more years the cost will be $40 kg in 2009 and by 2012 they'll be cheaper than steel. I don't think this will happen smoothly, it'll happen in big steps, but even at the $4-40 kg range we can build the space elevator (not really since you really want single strands of nanotube running from tera to space for maximum strength and AFAIK the length of a given nanotube is still well under a meter, but that's getting better at nearly the same rate). The point to me is that a space elevator is not crazy science fiction it's looking like a plausable engineering feat in the next 20 years. Nasa should be funding this, not more trips to space with a 40 year old bucket of bolts. We've already got private companies almost ready to put people into space.

[Archibaldq @ May 4th 2006 4:31PM]

umm... first of all, Seaton's an ignorant sensationalist, and this really isn't news to anyone who knows anything about the so-called field of nanotech.

Second, calling nanotech a singular field is like lumping all science together, no matter what specialty. Nanotech only describes the size of the stuff, not the purpose or discipline. The term "nano" has been so bastardized as to be effectively useless for anything but propaganda and shady marketing.

Third, and more specifically to people worried about nanobots and grey goo - ("It would be quite possible for some idiot grad student or greedy company (or government) to create a nanobot that could be used as a self-replicating weapon.") - while the realization of this completely fictional idea would, indeed, warrant a great deal of scrutiny, regulation, and perhaps even a healthy amount of fear, the reality is that even the simplest types of Drexlerian nanobots are so far from reality that most of us will be extremely lucky (or unlucky) to see them in our lifetime. The stuff I'm working on is cutting edge, but so far from the popularist idea of a nanobot that it's just laughable. So yes, maybe in fifty years it will be "quite possible" for some idiot grad student to make a nanobot, but for right now, this idiot grad student has been working with their precursors for 4 years and the reality is much different than most people think - if most people actually think at all, instead of regurgitate stale, unoriginal ideas.

[Frankenstein Black @ May 4th 2006 5:37PM]

AND SO IT BEGINS!
(The Pitch) - �Those wonderful little, intelligent, self-replicating, microscopic robots. They will perform such miracles and change the way we humans live�.

Things like (listed in chronological pitch);
1. Stronger materials (rubber, wood, steel, glass, plastic, cars, houses, etc.)
2. Revolutionary forms of communication (Bluetooth? Pif, Nano implants baby).
3. Better health (swallow or inject this fluid and it will, repair/clean your body - arteries, lungs intestines, colon).
4. Plastic Surgery from the inside out (Knit - Bigger boobs, Bigger, um package, new hair for bald types).

Should I keep going? I can fill this whole page.

AND SO IT WILL END!
1. Will they be able to use microscopic matter to create visible material? (probably).
2. Will they be preprogrammed? If so, by whom?
3. Can they be controlled via Wifi? If so, by whom?
4. Can they be preprogrammed to a particular individuals DNA? (probably).
5. Small is small. You mean that cloud of dust wasn�t pollen but nanobots?
6. Can they self-replicate and pass on their instruction set or programming? (probably).

Should I keep going? I can fill this whole page.

Folks what we have here (if unchecked) are Robotic, Uber germs, controlled by corporations and if today is any example. Yea, you know where I�m going next. Resistance is Futile

FOLKS WHAT WE HAVE HERE (IF UNCHECKED) ARE ROBOTIC, UBER GERMS, CONTROLED BY CORPORATIONS AND IF TODAY IS ANY EXAMPLY. YEA, YOU KNOW WHERE I�M GOING NEXT... RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!!

-----------------------------------
READ, STAY EDUCATED AND QUESTION EVERYTHING!!!!
http://www.foresight.org/EOC/

[flatlander @ May 5th 2006 3:31AM]

In re #18, "Imagine a nano-tech robot that self-replicates using carbon. With no limits on the replication procedure it could grow exponentially and destroy the entire planet." Done. Apparently Earth has had carbon-based thingies replicating without limits for a billion years and yet we are amazingly grey-goo-free. :)

I'm not sure anybody really knows why asbstesos causes cancer but some are theorizing that it is just because asbestos can break into very short fibers (nano short) and slip right through cell walls and damage them... arg, I'm kind of regretting that asbestos removal job I took back in the 80's to help pay for college right now :( Anyway, I fail to see how it follows that items made with nano-tech would break down into extremely short fibers like asbestos (doesn't seem likely) but the manufacturing environment certainly should have negative air flow and air filtration.

[brian dunbar @ May 5th 2006 5:31PM]

"not really since you really want single strands of nanotube running from tera to space for maximum strength"

A braided ribbon might be enough


" The point to me is that a space elevator is not crazy science fiction it's looking like a plausable engineering feat in the next 20 years. Nasa should be funding this, not more trips to space with a 40 year old bucket of bolts. We've already got private companies almost ready to put people into space."

NASA is funding the Centenial Prize, which provides competition for various bits of SE tech.

I'd like to see more funding but I'd be disapointed if NASA started putting serious money in space elevators and ditched rockets. We don't even know an SE can be built, or can be built for less than existing rocket - based solutions. There are many many problems with space elevators - some of which could be show-stoppers.