Posted on 06/23/2005 1:01:35 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Buckyballs, described by some scientists as "the perfect molecule" and a hallmark of Rice University research, may cause more havoc in the environment than researchers originally thought.
A team of researchers at Rice and Georgia Tech universities has found that the ultra-tiny, soccer-ball-shaped buckyballs, contrary to what they had thought, do in fact dissolve in water, a finding that suggests they could pose a risk for wildlife and water supplies.
The new results compound concerns raised by earlier studies that found buckyballs can cause brain damage in bass and harm human cells. Discovered nearly two decades ago at Rice, buckyballs are among a handful of new materials, far smaller than human cells or even DNA, driving the nanotechnology revolution.
"This doesn't mean that we should put a halt on nanotechnology," said Joseph Hughes, an environmental engineer at Georgia Tech and the study's lead author. "Quite the opposite."
No scientists or government regulators have called for stopping the research and commercialization of nanotechnology, a rapidly expanding field of specialized materials that encompasses everything from novel medical approaches to bulletproof vests. Nor are many likely to call for a ban now.
What the new findings should do, researchers say, is increase pressure on the federal government to further regulate the production and handling of buckyballs and potentially other nanotechnology materials, such as carbon nanotubes.
"I don't view this new research as something that's very scary," said Kristen Kulinowski, executive director of Rice's Center for Biological and Environmental Nanotechnology. "But it may highlight the need for caution."
Japan a big producer
The call to consider tighter regulations comes as nanotechnology is moving, with increasing rapidity, from academic labs to industry. A Mitsubishi Corp. subsidiary in Japan already can make 40 tons of buckyballs a year and has plans to expand its capacity to 1,500 tons annually within a few years.
Moreover, 40 countries, including the United States, have state-sponsored nanotechnology research and development programs to accelerate these transition efforts.
Meanwhile, some institutions have concluded that the environmental effects of nanotechnology must be better studied before its materials are too widely distributed in products.
In a nanotechnology report for the United Kingdom's government last year, The Royal Society concluded: "Until more is known about the environmental impacts of nanoparticles and nanotubes, we recommend that the release of manufactured nanoparticles and nanotubes into the environment be avoided as far as possible."
And the world's second-largest insurer, Swiss Reinsurance Co., recently issued a report saying there were many unknowns with nanotechnology and that the insurance industry should carefully consider how much they cover products that include nanomaterials.
The new findings could also stoke environmental groups to include nanotechnology as one of the chemical pollutants they seek to restrict.
In Europe, some environmentalists have been vocal about their concerns, but in the United States criticism has been limited to a handful of smaller groups.
That's not to say their criticism hasn't been provocative. Last month, in front of a Chicago Eddie Bauer store, which markets paints that include nanomaterials to prevent staining, a group called THONG protested the company's use of nanofibers.
The group wears only its namesake during protests.
"We're out here naked so people can see the problem," said Kiki Walters, a member of the group, in a news release. "Nanotech is such a radical and unpredictable new technology, like biotech, that it takes something highly visible, like a naked body, to get people to focus on the need to stop corporations from using humans as guinea pigs for new, untested and unstable new technologies."
The new study results were reported in this month's issue of the journal Environmental Science & Technology.
The research team found that buckyballs dissolve in water after they clump together, and persisted up to 15 weeks in fresh water.
The scientists also exposed buckyballs to two common types of soil bacteria, and found the particles inhibited both the growth and respiration of the bacteria at quite low concentrations of as little as 0.5 parts per million.
Concern over 'free radicals'
Researchers believe buckyballs can cause harm because their unique configuration acts as an efficient vacuum for sucking the electrons off nearby molecules. Once stripped of an electron, some of these molecules become so-called "free radicals," which can damage cell membranes or harm bacteria.
The National Science Foundation gave Rice a five-year, $12.4 million grant in 2001 to establish a center, in part, to research the safety of nanomaterials in the environment. Unlike the model for most new technologies, which are rolled out and environmental impacts determined after the fact, the government sought to take a proactive stance on the safety of nanotechnology, Kulinowski said.
Rice scientists have also developed a method for neutralizing the toxic effects of buckyballs, and they believe it will be possible to safely work with buckyballs and other nanomaterials in all manner of applications.
"It's much better, obviously, to investigate these questions in advance of commercialization," Kulinowski said. "Then we can devise strategies to deal with any problems so there's no surprises down the road."
Don't know about buckeyballs, but we should be making buildings and bridges out of carbonfiber and not out of steel.
I was wondering when the eco-nuts would start demonizing this technology and research.
The eco-nut who wrote this article has an agenda, that agenda is to destory and stop research into technology. In other words, this article is complete BS.
Senate Rejects Greenhouse Gas Limits***The Senate yesterday rejected a measure calling for mandatory limits on emissions linked to global warming, siding with the Bush administration's position that the restrictions would cost jobs, drive industry overseas and run up consumers' energy bills.
Voting 60 to 38, lawmakers rejected an amendment to a major energy bill that would have forced reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases to 2000 levels by 2010 and created an emissions trading program. Eleven Democrats joined Republicans in opposing the measure, and six Republicans voted with the Democrats to support it. Opponents said the legislation would be too costly for businesses and would force manufacturers to move operations and jobs overseas. Some also disputed the conclusions of most scientists who have linked greenhouse gas emissions with global warming.
"My first priority is protecting our families and workers," said Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.). The amendment, he added, "will hurt our families, hurt our nation's energy security, drive jobs overseas. I don't want to be imposing this pain when there is no assurance that it will make any significant difference."………..***
I am FLOORED. I thought they were strictly a micro-scale product.
Time marches on.
Somewhat off topic, but what is it about the left and naked demonstrators?
I guess it's the only way they'll get covered.
Uh, no. Although the article briefly mentions nanotubes at one point, it's actually about Buckeyballs, which are another thing entirely. The blurb at the end gives a good quick intro to them.
The eco-nut who wrote this article has an agenda, that agenda is to destory and stop research into technology. In other words, this article is complete BS.
Did you actually read it? You misunderstood what the subject of the article was, and you apparently failed to read the passages where it stated that the known problems have pretty much already been solved...
You complain about the author's supposed "agenda", but you seem to be acting on one more than the article itself does.
So knee-jerking aside, exactly what part of the article is actually "complete BS" -- that is, what parts are you alleging are actually inaccurate in some way?
Caution is appropriate, but some nanotech is actually fairly big. They start with molecular level things like bucky balls and go up from there. By starting small they keep it small, but not always nano. The next crop of TVs will be in that category, with nanotubes as the staring point for pixel creation.
'nanotechnology', 'nanotubes', 'nanoparticles', 'nanomaterials', 'nanofibers'.....Just think, after all this time, we finally realize Mork was talking about 'Buckyballs'.
Nano nano!
Yikes! Kurt Vonnegut's "Ice 9".
Buckyballs are relatively large so they aren't going to change the chemistry of the water, they would be similar to suspended silt. Also if you've ever lit a wax candle you've breathed in buckyballs.
Time to start shaking the money tree again.
Just imagine!
Thanks for the info. But I have to add: OH NO, WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!
I'm guessing the engineers at Ga. Tech know more about the water solubility of bucky balls than you do. I'm not sure why you consider them 'eco-nuts' for pointing this out and calling for caution in the consideration of disposal. Batteries are useful, but you don't want to dump them in the river when you're done with them.
There are a number of ways to write an article, this one was writen in way intending to attack this technology.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.