The Perils of Nanotechnology

August 19th, 2009

Views: 339

Posted by ChrisG at 9:58 am

Or perhaps, the perils of talking carelessly about “nanotechnology”. Andrew Maynard points to a new study (link not yet live at time of writing) which suggests that exposure of Chinese workers to nanoscale particles used in manufacturing paints may have led to several cases of pulmonary fibrosis (with two being fatal).

Meanwhile, the first wave of reporting is, on the surface, relatively restrained. Nonetheless, the way the accounts published by the Telegraph and the Daily Express identify sources of risk here is both inaccurate and potentially inflammatory. In the Express, the article leads with

Fears about a technology in everyday use were raised yesterday after the first evidence it can kill.

In the Telegraph, we have

Nanoparticles, which measure one billionth of a metre, are found in tennis racquets, special non-sweat socks, medicines, sunscreen and paints.

In both cases, the reader is invited to make a link between the exposure of workers to nanoparticles and the exposure of consumers – a cardinal error here, as obviously the degrees of risk are going to be different in either instance. This mistake is then compounded by others: the Express refers to “nanotechnology” (presumably understood as a set of applications of nanoscale science united by – what? Size?) and gives the usual laundry list of applications, while the Telegraph refers to “nanoparticles” as a class of manufactured products (and then causes eyebrows to be raised by stating that all nanoparticles “measure one billionth of a metre”) before trotting out the standard list.

So, we have an implicit conflation of exposure scenarios, accompanied by a tendency to frame nanotech/the use of nanoparticles as some kind of unified technological phenomenon which is present in everything from socks to medical diagnostics (and, by implication, some kind of unified threat, which presents the same characteristic hazards wherever it pops up). Sure, the media haven’t as yet gone berzerk on this one – but assumptions which could light a fire under any impending nano-scare are already operating.

And at this stage, there remain a lot of questions to be asked, as Maynard points out, before we can start talking about either “the next asbestos” or “the next MagicNano“. For example, assuming that there is some causal link here between the health effects and 30nm particles, are the particles actually deliberately manufactured through some application of nanoscale technology, or are they some kind of by-product of another chemical process? And what exposure minimisation measures were undertaken to protect workers? Nature introduces an appropriate level of scepticism into its reporting of the story:

The study says that the symptoms were caused by inhaling fumes produced when the workers heated polystyrene boards to 75–100 °C. The boards had previously been sprayed with a ‘paste material’ made from a plastic identified as a polyacrylate ester. The workroom, of around 70 square metres, had one door and no windows. The ventilation unit had broken down five months before symptoms started to manifest, and the door had been kept closed to keep the room warm. The workers wore cotton gauze masks only on an “occasional basis”.

UPDATE:More analysis from ICON’s Kristen Kulinowski, together with six responses to the paper (including comments from Vicki Stone, Gunther Oberdorster and Ken Donaldson) obtained by Maynard.