Study raises concerns over buckyballs (possibly toxic) | Houston Chronicle

[Ediacara]

Study raises concerns over buckyballs
Brain damage found in fish exposed to nanotechnology

By ERIC BERGER
Copyright 2004 Houston Chronicle Medical Writer

New research suggesting that buckyballs -- the super tiny, soccer ball-shaped form of carbon that helped start a revolution in materials science -- may be toxic is likely to raise environmental alarms in the burgeoning, much-hyped field of nanotechnology.

In the first work of its kind with animals, a study announced Sunday found that buckyballs, discovered two decades ago by a Rice University scientist, cause brain damage in fish. The Dallas researchers tested the nanotechnology particles in nine juvenile largemouth bass. None died after being exposed, but there was a breakdown of some fatty tissues in their brains after 48 hours.

This brain damage in the exposed fish was 17 times higher than in nine unexposed bass. There were no outward behavioral changes in the damaged fish, although such illness is often not readily visible in wildlife, the researchers say.

More at the Houston Chronicle

[LastDemocratInSC]

1. This is a serious issue ...

Buckyballs are significant because they can contain other substances within their spaces. It is believed that naturally occuring buckyballs in space might contain ancient compounds formed billions of years ago. There have been hopes that buckyballs might be employed in the precise delivery of drugs to sites within the human body.

Many scientists think that buckyballs are the most elegant formation of carbon atoms, and while I understand their point, I think that the most elegant, and perfect, expression of carbon atoms are those 18 year old cheerleaders at my grandson's football games. Now, they are carbon done right, if you ask me!

[khashka]

2. Uhhh

I'm not a fish... I'm a mammal. And I didn't have a huge desire to guzzle any buckyballs soon.

I'd like to see some mammal studies before I get too worked up about it. Meanwhile let's exempt fish from any further studies on buckyballs. Fair enough?

Khash.

(Still and all... the research is interesting....)

[Ediacara]

3. well you do have a brain, and you probably will end up ingesting them

So it is rather important. There's nothing really special about a mammalian brain that would prevent buckyballs from entrance.

Although at the same time, I can't imagine how they would be damaging to any nervous tissue...

[khashka]

4. Elucidate

1) Whether or not I have a brain or not is open to serious debate :)

2) Ingestion. Why, how, and where will I end up ingesting them?

3) Having severe nervous tissue damage myself... you'd be surprised what can damage it.

4) I still maintain that studies on fish, while intriguing and definitely worthy of follow up, do not necessarily (important word, that) indicate the same for mammalian species. It requires further research. I'm not dismissing it, just suggesting we can't draw sweeping conclusions from it.

Khash.

[Ediacara]

6. I never said you didn't have a brain :-)

1) I never said it was :-)

2) I'd imagine that buckyballs have contaminated water sources, even if in miniscule amounts. Also, there are supposedly medical uses for them, so ingestion is a real possibility.

3) I agree, lots of things can damage nerve tissue, but I would be surprised, based on the molecular structure of buckyballs, that they could actually do anything, as they appear to be rather inert.

4) Like I said, there are no fundimental differences in function between the nervous tissue in fish and in mammals, although I agree that further studies are absolutely necissary.

[w4rma]

5. That bites. Buckyballs will be a very widely used material one day. (nt)

[CHIMO]

7. Another

Reference.

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2001/02/22/sci-tech/comet_two010222

What they found, was a layer of little carbon molecules, called buckminsterfullerenes, or Buckyballs. Inside these soccerball-shaped spheres were helium and argon gases.


Let it all hang out.

[treepig]

8. i've said it before, and i'll say it (at least) one more time

nanotechnology is evil and a threat to our very existence

what alot of people don't seem to realize is that there are some areas of research we ought not to pursue, because the consequences might be so dire:

The nightmare is that combined with genetic materials and thereby self-replicating, nanobots would be able to multiply themselves into a “gray goo” that could outperform photosynthesis and usurp the entire biosphere, including all edible plants and animals.



adapted from the new york times, 19 august 2002

Opposition to Nanotechnology
By BARNABY J. FEDER

The great Gray Goo debate is beginning to matter.

The controversy involves the potential perils of making molecular-size objects and devices, a field known as nanotechnology.

From its earliest days, nanotechnology has had its fear-mongers, warning of novel and terrifying risks.

Who can be sure how products so small that they would be invisible to the human eye will behave, particularly when the nanoworld's basic design elements — atoms and small molecules — are governed by the surreal laws of quantum mechanics rather than the more familiar Newtonian physics of large objects?

The ultimate nightmare is so-called Gray Goo catastrophe, in which self-replicating microscopic robots the size of bacteria fill the world and wipe out humanity.

. . . Monsanto and others are interested in the technology . . .


editorial comment by me: is there no end to the evil ways of monsanto??


more from http://www.etcgroup.org/text/txt_article.asp?newsid=399

Suddenly the nanotech industry and its friends are scrambling to pretend nanotech problems that have raised royal concerns exist far in the future or only in the pages of science fiction. Everything is under control, they tell us, and there is no need to fear. The truth is that one mistake has already been committed - the mishandling of regulation and safety consideration of nanoparticles. Now, in the emerging field of nanobiotech, there may be more problems brewing. A second mistake may prove unforgivable. Grey Goo (the result of self-replicating nanomachines run amok) may sound like science fiction, but when biotech muscles in on the nano-act, Green Goo consequences are real cause for concern. This ETC Group Communiqué is a short overview of the Grey Goo / Green Goo debate and a warning that if techno-politicians overeagerly dismiss the Goo brouhaha, they do so at all our peril.

Nanotech bills itself as a "green" technology - one that can clean up the environment, improve health worldwide, and even end hunger. Mindful of another technology - biotechnology - that made many of the same promises and ran afoul of public concerns, the industry repeats the mantra that it will not make, and is not making, the same mistakes. So far, they are mistaken.

STRIKING MISTAKES: First, despite a quarter-century of lab work on nanoparticles, scientists failed to establish a common laboratory protocol to ensure the safety of workers exposed to particles. Then government allowed nanoparticles into consumer products in the absence of regulatory mechanisms. Particles that had been approved for consumer products at the micro- or macro- scale were not tested again when introduced into the same products at the nanoscale. Indeed, nano companies pooh-poohed the notion that nanoparticles need to be evaluated for their health and environmental impacts, despite that the impetus for their development stemmed from the radical changes that can happen when a substance is reduced to the nanoscale. Because quantum mechanics takes over at the nanoscale, there may be changes to a substance's conductivity, elasticity, reactivity, strength, color, and tolerance to temperature and pressure. Some nanoparticles can slip past immune systems and even cross through the blood-brain barrier undetected - great news for drug delivery, really bad news if the particles given carte blanche turn out to be toxic.

. . . more at the above-listed link.

WAKE UP PEOPLE, THE END OF THE WORLD IS AT HAND!!

[NashVegas]

9. I Don't Know If It's Evil, But

When it comes to a point where Nanotech is pushed by the economic community that invests in it and wants a return, and it's just tough shit that it could be highly dangerous, we're there.


Washington Post had an article, as well, yesterday:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31403-2004Mar28.html

Other animal studies have already suggested that a related class of nanoparticles cause lung injuries when inhaled, raising concerns about worker safety in the small but growing number of nanoparticle factories.

Looks a little bit like cancer for the cure.