Nano consumer product warning - was:The validity of the environmental neurotoxic effects of toxigenic molds and mycotoxins

[Guest guest]

As always Carl does an excellent job at amending, and clarifying

my posted information (with my action). He is correct to do so.

And to be sure you all understand how strongly I feel on this

topic I have tracked for decades, I have re-iterated the key points.

While I have included it below, I will put a brief summary here:

Avoid consumer nano products, or be worse for it. Very strong action.

This is not to say, one day, a safe nano consumer product might be

created, or that one or more exists today. We just do not know, either way.

At 01:34 PM 9/2/2009, you wrote:

>Let's not go to extremes just yet.

I support the Precautionary Principle, and do not consider it 'extreme.'

The lack of using PP, I consider to be, fanatical adherence to the dangerous

methods of the past, before PP became common practice in the EU.

>I agree that nano is of grave

>concern but not all uses of nano is inherently dangerous,

I agree. Do note that I do not want nano for " consumers " until it

is proven safe. Other applications, where done by experts, who

know and handle the danger (industry), it can be fine there.

Consumers will 'never' be experts. And should not have to be

in order to know what they buy and use is 'safe.'

" Safe enough " products should have " warnings " on them, imho.

California Prop 65 mentality.

>I think the key is how Pete differentiates between nano in

>uncontrolled situations with unintended exposures and how he is

>fine using TiO2 in paint and ceramic glazes. He understands the

>differences and is no longer frightened with nano in those specific

>situations.

Oh, my bad, nano is not used in paint or glaze.

There the size of aggregate of molecules is not small enough.

>He also points out that many common molecules are by definition

>nano. A lot of the world is nano.

Semantic definitions aside, I'd word that many common molecules are

nano " like " ,

if you mean air molecules, and liquid. Nano tech today is for solids.

>Nano identifies a measurement. A very small measurement.

>Smaller sizes than the barrier between the blood and the brain.

>Which makes it dangerous.

Agreed.

>Unless the substance is oxygen and

>carbon dioxide and nutrients. These MUST get through to the

>brain - and they can because they are small enough (nano).

Hmm. Most all cell membrane tunneling methods are not due to

small enough, but due to shape and catalyst molecules that

id the target molecule. And this is where nano " bypasses "

the typical physiological methods, by being so small " now " ,

and not in the past.

In the past, the human body did not have to develop defenses to

that size nano molecule, as ****none existed in nature.****

Thus, Precautionary Principle dictates until absolute safety is determined

keep away from nano. Why?

Your body is " known " to have ***no defenses*** to nano.

>I have extremely grave concerns about much of the movement to

>using substances whose dimensions are measured in

>nanometers. But there are also developments in engineering and

>medicine which apprear to use the advantages of

>nanotechnology without the risks. So let's not condemn all nano

>just like we should not condemn all mold (cheese? composting,

>whether our own or in nature?) or all VOCs.

Just to be clear, my original posting was talking about consumer nano

products, not industrial.

My lead in paragraph is below, and was written for readers of this list, and

included not only information, but also action, and I would not say I

was weakening

the action, by saying I " recommend " this action. I'm saying do it,

or get worse.

As a consumer. To be clear.

>Nano tech is something to avoid, most definitely, whether you are

>ailing, or fully healthy, imho.

>It has no safety record. None. And what nano tech in the market

>today, it has all proven

>dangers, yet it continues to be made and marketed to

>consumers. Outrageous, imho.