Re: Re: Nano consumer product warning

[Guest guest]

Armour makes some good points, in agreement with my previous

postings, about nano

outside of direct use inside consumer products. My posting was very

specific to consumer

products that directly use nano particles and do *nothing* to contain

them in the product.

's post provides good clarification. I elaborate on his points,

reinforcing it, and revisit

my point, and reinforce that as well. The topic is complex, and I

give examples you likely

are familiar with. It lengthens the post, but I feel at the end of

this post, you will be better

informed, in breathe, and in places an overview of the depth and

involved issues.

At 07:03 AM 9/4/2009, you wrote:

>Some of the discussion of nano-tech is misinformed or misunderstood.

>It is definitely very generalized and bias against the term,

>apparently based on fear of toxic effects.

He does introduce a new topic " nano tech " that has not been discussed

on this list.

's point, do not 'fear' nano should *not* be overgeneralized to

include everything nano,

I completely agree with.

No where in 's post does he negate that consumer " nano

particles " that get released

and contact the human body, or any animal, or plant, that the nano

particle is not safe.

Briefly, fear of " nano particles " is fully justified, as none have

any proof of safety.

Even as used within industry, by experts, they prefer no exposure to

the particles.

His information is accurate about manufacturing processes that use

nano " tech " to

create consumer products, where any 'leftover' nano sized particles

are encapsulated

into the product substance, and are not released rapidly or, perhaps

even slowly, over

time. Slowly has lots of variation in definition, and I use to mean

over the " useful "

lifetime of the consumer product. After this period is past, as the

substance ages,

it might begin a rapid release of the encapsulated nano

particles. Might. Some

products certainly well. And those will be dangerous. Some products will be

dangerous even when brand new. There are no rules, regulations,

laws, or agencies

attempting to protect the public from such " abuses. "

This situation has been going on since the use of petroleum products

by industry

back in the 1800's. And even before, with lead glasses used to drink

wine in Rome.

Before they knew lead particles made people stupid. Lead is used in medical

radiation centers to protect key body parts from excessive xray exposure.

So, lead is fear in some aspects, likely bodily contact to particles, but not

bodily contact to sheets of it. Size is a factor. Molecular shape is the key

here. When the shape is huge, it will have little impact on the body. When

the shape is in the range of the body's molecular processes, inhaling,

digestion, etc, there is not just a likelihood of dangerous interaction,

there is a clear and present danger. Why? The body has never developed

defenses through the millions of years of evolutionary development.

Formaldehyde is an example that goes totally towards fearing it in

any consumer product.

Fluoride I would add to that. Even in medicine. Chlorine, related

to fluoride, is much less

dangerous than fluoride, yet poses threat to those not fully healthy,

or too young or old.

Look at teflon cookware, a chemical used in it's manufacture has

never been in any

consumer product, and yet industry has allowed every animal to have

it their blood.

Point is, there is a broad range of industrial chemicals, similar to

'nano tech', which

has a broad range of impacts upon consumers. The unpredictability of 'nano' is

a hazard. Even more so is the human unpredictability for ensure safe

manufacturing.

To talk further on these points would be off topic for this list, imo.

To summarize, there are now two entirely separate topics dealing with nano.

The first is nano " particles " in consumer products that are

*dangerous*, brand new and as

it ages. The other is nano " tech " used in making products, or as I

put it, in " industry "

by " experts " who know how to keep the employees safe, or safe enough (which

given the Precautionary Principle would mean, it's not safe, imho, to

employees,

and/or to the consumer.

" Nano Tech " in manufacturing is producing some wonderful products, which will

be revolutionizing segments of both industry and consumer, mostly industry.

Most of the applications I know are within industry, never to be seen

by a consumer.

Computers designed not with 55, or 50, 30 or 10 microns thick

electrical " wires "

or pathways, but bucky tunnels, just 4-5 atoms wide. Enough computer power

in your wristwatch to match the entire total of all supercomputers in

existence today.

Sensor technology for mold, toxins, of unheard of concentrations,

down below parts

per billion, non clogging, ever lasting safety monitoring. DNA

analysis of entire

animals or plants within a few seconds by a hand held device. Delivery of

medicine directly into an organ, or cancer cluster. Truly amazing future.

You may say my examples are all things you want, but I maintain you will not

see them as consumers. Computers that powerful are military weapons, and

you will not have them. Sensors that keep you so safe, are not good for your

immune system, and like accurate CO digital readouts with adequate alarm

levels, will be prevented from entering the consumer marketplace. DNA analysis

is so abused today, in understanding what valid conclusions can be made from

it, that such devices will be available to only trained license holders.

So, 's point, do not 'fear' nano should *not* be overgeneralized

to include

everything nano, I completely agree with.

[Guest guest]

,

Brief comment on your response to . BTW, the two of you

are having a good discussion.

My comment has to do with the casual use of the word " fear. "

Why, if we don't like something or are uncertain, are we afraid?

Why not cautious and then check it out more closely? Some of

my efforts in the past which I initially " feared " were actually a

tremendous help to me. Some, like Vitamin C, made me very ill

except for one specific brand. It was my lifeline while very ill. But I

would have never found it if my fear kept me away from all

Vitamin C.

Let's not automatically assume the unknown is to be feared.

Some discretion and research may be needed before a decision

is made. Which this group is usually very good at, and is the

reason it exists. Find out more before the hysteria. What helps

me may harm others. And, conversely, what harms me may help

others. That's the conundrum or our affliction.

Carl Grimes

Healthy Habitats LLC

-----

Armour makes some good points, in agreement with my previous

postings, about nano

outside of direct use inside consumer products. My posting was very

specific to consumer

products that directly use nano particles and do *nothing* to contain

them in the product.

's post provides good clarification. I elaborate on his points,

reinforcing it, and revisit

my point, and reinforce that as well. The topic is complex, and I

give examples you likely

are familiar with. It lengthens the post, but I feel at the end of

this post, you will be better

informed, in breathe, and in places an overview of the depth and

involved issues.

At 07:03 AM 9/4/2009, you wrote:

>Some of the discussion of nano-tech is misinformed or misunderstood.

>It is definitely very generalized and bias against the term,

>apparently based on fear of toxic effects.

He does introduce a new topic " nano tech " that has not been discussed

on this list.

's point, do not 'fear' nano should *not* be overgeneralized to

include everything nano,

I completely agree with.

No where in 's post does he negate that consumer " nano

particles " that get released

and contact the human body, or any animal, or plant, that the nano

particle is not safe.

Briefly, fear of " nano particles " is fully justified, as none have

any proof of safety.

Even as used within industry, by experts, they prefer no exposure to

the particles.

His information is accurate about manufacturing processes that use

nano " tech " to

create consumer products, where any 'leftover' nano sized particles

are encapsulated

into the product substance, and are not released rapidly or, perhaps

even slowly, over

time. Slowly has lots of variation in definition, and I use to mean

over the " useful "

lifetime of the consumer product. After this period is past, as the

substance ages,

it might begin a rapid release of the encapsulated nano

particles. Might. Some

products certainly well. And those will be dangerous. Some products will

be

dangerous even when brand new. There are no rules, regulations,

laws, or agencies

attempting to protect the public from such " abuses. "

This situation has been going on since the use of petroleum products

by industry

back in the 1800's. And even before, with lead glasses used to drink

wine in Rome.

Before they knew lead particles made people stupid. Lead is used in

medical

radiation centers to protect key body parts from excessive xray exposure.

So, lead is fear in some aspects, likely bodily contact to particles, but not

bodily contact to sheets of it. Size is a factor. Molecular shape is the key

here. When the shape is huge, it will have little impact on the body.

When

the shape is in the range of the body's molecular processes, inhaling,

digestion, etc, there is not just a likelihood of dangerous interaction,

there is a clear and present danger. Why? The body has never developed

defenses through the millions of years of evolutionary development.

Formaldehyde is an example that goes totally towards fearing it in

any consumer product.

Fluoride I would add to that. Even in medicine. Chlorine, related

to fluoride, is much less

dangerous than fluoride, yet poses threat to those not fully healthy,

or too young or old.

Look at teflon cookware, a chemical used in it's manufacture has

never been in any

consumer product, and yet industry has allowed every animal to have

it their blood.

Point is, there is a broad range of industrial chemicals, similar to

'nano tech', which

has a broad range of impacts upon consumers. The unpredictability of

'nano' is

a hazard. Even more so is the human unpredictability for ensure safe

manufacturing.

To talk further on these points would be off topic for this list, imo.

To summarize, there are now two entirely separate topics dealing with

nano.

The first is nano " particles " in consumer products that are

*dangerous*, brand new and as

it ages. The other is nano " tech " used in making products, or as I

put it, in " industry "

by " experts " who know how to keep the employees safe, or safe enough

(which

given the Precautionary Principle would mean, it's not safe, imho, to

employees,

and/or to the consumer.

" Nano Tech " in manufacturing is producing some wonderful products,

which will

be revolutionizing segments of both industry and consumer, mostly

industry.

Most of the applications I know are within industry, never to be seen

by a consumer.

Computers designed not with 55, or 50, 30 or 10 microns thick

electrical " wires "

or pathways, but bucky tunnels, just 4-5 atoms wide. Enough computer

power

in your wristwatch to match the entire total of all supercomputers in

existence today.

Sensor technology for mold, toxins, of unheard of concentrations,

down below parts

per billion, non clogging, ever lasting safety monitoring. DNA

analysis of entire

animals or plants within a few seconds by a hand held device. Delivery of

medicine directly into an organ, or cancer cluster. Truly amazing future.

You may say my examples are all things you want, but I maintain you

will not

see them as consumers. Computers that powerful are military weapons,

and

you will not have them. Sensors that keep you so safe, are not good for

your

immune system, and like accurate CO digital readouts with adequate

alarm

levels, will be prevented from entering the consumer marketplace. DNA

analysis

is so abused today, in understanding what valid conclusions can be made

from

it, that such devices will be available to only trained license holders.

So, 's point, do not 'fear' nano should *not* be overgeneralized

to include

everything nano, I completely agree with.

----------

The following section of this message contains a file attachment

prepared for transmission using the Internet MIME message format.

If you are using Pegasus Mail, or any other MIME-compliant system,

you should be able to save it or view it from within your mailer.

If you cannot, please ask your system administrator for assistance.

---- File information -----------

File: DEFAULT.BMP

Date: 16 Jun 2009, 0:10

Size: 358 bytes.

Type: Unknown