Nanophobia or toxic nanotech

[Guest guest]

New Products Bring Side Effect: Nanophobia

By NATASHA SINGER

<http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/04/fashion/04skin.html>http://www.nytimes.com/20\

08/12/04/fashion/04skin.html

IT sounds like a plot straight out of a

science-fiction novel by Crichton.

Toiletry companies formulate new cutting-edge

creams and lotions that contain tiny components

designed to work more effectively. But those

minuscule building blocks have an unexpected

drawback: the ability to penetrate the skin,

swarm through the body and overwhelm organs like the liver.

Humans have long lived in dread of such nightmare

scenarios in which swarms of creatures attack.

Alfred Hitchcock envisioned menacing flocks in

“The Birds.” In the 1990 film “Arachnophobia” a

killer spider arrives in the United States, where it attacks and multiplies.

And now comes nanophobia, the fear that tiny

components engineered on the nanoscale ­ that is,

100 nanometers or less ­ could run amok inside

the body. A human hair, for example, is 50,000 to

100,000 nanometers in diameter. A nanoparticle of

titanium dioxide in a sunscreen could be as small

as 15 nanometers. (One nanometer equals a billionth of a meter.)

“The smaller a particle, the further it can

travel through tissue, along airways or in blood

vessels,” said Dr. Adnan Nasir, a clinical

assistant professor of dermatology at the

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

“Especially if the nanoparticles are

indestructible and accumulate and are not

metabolized, if you accumulate them in the organs, the organs could fail.”

Indeed, some doctors, scientists and consumer

advocates are concerned that many industries are

adopting nanotechnology ahead of studies that

would establish whether regular ingestion,

inhalation or dermal penetration of these

particles constitute a health or environmental

hazard. Personal care products are simply the lowest hanging fruit.

But people are already exposed to nanoparticles.

Stoves and toaster ovens emit ultrafine particles

of 2 to 30 nanometers, according to the National

Institute of Standards and Technology; the

researchers reported last month that long-term

contact with such appliances could constitute a

large exposure to the smallest of nanoparticles.

Several products already use nano-engineered

materials. There are “nano pants,”

stain-resistant chinos and jeans whose fabric

contain nano-sized whiskers that repel oil and

dirt, and nanocycles made from carbon nanotubes

that are stronger and lighter than standard steel

bicycles. And in lotions and creams, the use of

nanocomponents may create a more cosmetically

elegant effect ­ like uniformity or spreadability.

Some ingredients may behave differently as

nanoparticles than they do in larger forms.

Nano-sized silver, for example, can act as an

antibacterial agent on the skin. Larger particles

of zinc oxide and titanium dioxide result in

white pasty sunscreens; but as nanoparticles, they appear more transparent.

When it comes to beauty products, however, some

consumer advocates are concerned that dynamic

nanoparticles could pose risks to the skin or, if

they penetrate the skin, to other parts of the

body. Mineral sunscreens have attracted the most attention.

“Substances that are perfectly benign could be

toxic at the nano scale,” said Hansen, a

senior scientist at Consumers Union, the company

behind Consumer Reports. “Because they are so

small, they could go places in the body that could not be done before.”

This month, the magazine published a study it had

commissioned that found mineral nanoparticles in

five sunscreens, even though four of the

companies had denied using them. In October, Dr.

Hansen sent a letter to the Food and Drug

Administration commissioner, asking the agency to

require cosmetics and sunscreen manufacturers to

run safety tests on nano scale ingredients. In

the letter, he cited a few studies published in

scientific journals that reported that exposure

to nanoparticles of titanium dioxide caused

damage to the organs of laboratory animals and human cell cultures.

But cosmetics industry representatives said there

was no evidence that personal care products that

contain nano-size components constitute a health

hazard. Furthermore, no rigorous clinical trials

have been published showing that cosmetics with

nanocomponents caused health problems. A review

of the potential risks of nanomaterials, carried

out for the European Center for Toxicology in

2006, concluded that sunscreens with metal

nanoparticles were unlikely to penetrate healthy

skin, but it did raise the question of whether

safety studies should examine if such materials may penetrate damaged skin.

“It’s very difficult to get anything through the

skin,” said , the executive vice

president for science of the Personal Care

Products Council, an industry trade group in

Washington. “The skin is a very effective barrier.”

Indeed, some nanotechnology researchers said it

was illogical to assume that a nano-size

component inherently carries greater risk than a

larger component. Furthermore, some say cosmetics

may contain molecules like a silicone fluid

called cyclopentasiloxane that are even smaller than nanomaterials.

“I think it’s a double standard because

nanoparticles are less likely to go through the

skin than solutions where you are using single

molecules,” said S. Langer, a chemical

engineering professor at the Massachusetts

Institute of Technology in Cambridge. He is

developing nanoparticles for the targeted

delivery of cancer medications, and is a founder

of Living Proof, a cosmetics company that makes

hair products. “The molecules in a cream are

certainly going to be smaller than a nanoparticle.”

The Food and Drug Administration does not require

manufacturers to list the format of ingredients

on labels. The agency does require cosmetics

manufacturers to ensure that their products are

safe for use; in 2006, the agency created its own

task force to investigate the safety of engineered nanomaterials.

Ken Marenus, the senior vice president of

regulatory affairs worldwide at the Estée Lauder

companies, said nanomaterials had to undergo the

same kind of assessment for exposure, risk and

dosage levels as any other cosmetic component.

“The same toxicological standards for every

chemical will apply to nano,” he said.

Dr. of the Personal Care Products Council

estimated that several thousand sunscreens and

cosmetics currently use some kind of nanoscale component.

Cor soap, for example, uses 50-nanometer

particles of silver combined with silica that are

smaller than the size of a skin pore. The

material is designed to enter the pores and kill bacteria.

“The silver suffocates the bacteria and then you

rinse it off with water,” said McKinley,

the chief executive of Cor. Although a study has

shown that nanosilver can permeate broken skin,

Ms. McKinley said the soap was safe because it

contains only a limited amount of nanosilver and

the particles do not remain on the skin.

Indeed, using nanoderivatives of precious metals

is becoming a trend. Last year, Chantecaille

introduced Nano Gold Energizing Cream, a $420

face cream that contains 5-nanometer particles of

24-carat gold encapsulated in silk fibers. Sylvie

Chantecaille, the chief executive of the company,

said the capsules delivered the gold particles,

which work as an antioxidant, into the surface

layers of the skin. “It’s a very effective way to

transport beneficial ingredients,” she said.

But many beauty companies are shying away from

discussing minuscule particles in their

cosmetics. And that kind of avoidance may itself

stoke nanophobia. For example, when La Prairie

introduced its Cellular Cream Platinum Rare

earlier this year, the company sent out press

materials promoting “nano-sized Hesperidin Smart

Crystals to protect DNA” in the formula. But, in

a phone interview, Sven Gohla, the company’s vice

president for research and development, distanced

the brand from nanotechnology. Just because the

particles of hesperidin, a flavonoid, in the

formula are small does not mean they are manufactured nanotechnology, he said.

Last month, a consumer group in London called

Which? published a survey it had conducted of 67

cosmetics companies on the prevalence and safety

testing of nanomaterials in personal care

products. Only 17 companies responded, of which

eight acknowledged using nanomaterials.

“When nanotechnology was hot, everybody wanted to

talk about ‘nano this, nano that.’ Look at the

iPod nano,” said Dr. Hansen of Consumers Union.

“But now that the concerns have come out, people

are not so sure the word nano is a good thing to be touted.”

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/12/04/fashion/04skin-1

..

--------------------------------------------------------

Sheri Nakken, former R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath

Vaccination Information & Choice Network, Nevada City CA & Wales UK

Vaccines -

http://www.wellwithin1.com/vaccine.htm Vaccine

Dangers & Childhood Disease & Homeopathy Email classes start in December 2008