<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE rss [<!ENTITY % HTMLlat1 PUBLIC "-//W3C//ENTITIES Latin 1 for XHTML//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml-lat1.ent">]>
<rss version="2.0" xml:base="http://nano.foe.org.au">
<channel>
 <title>FoE Australia&#039;s blog</title>
 <link>http://nano.foe.org.au/blog/8</link>
 <description></description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>Nanoparticles in suncream can stress brain cells</title>
 <link>http://nano.foe.org.au/node/119</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;A new study &lt;span class=&quot;articletext&quot;&gt;by researchers at the US Environmental Protection Agency&#039;s research laboratories in North Carolina has found that na&lt;/span&gt;no particles used in some sun creams have the potential to cause neurological damage.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <pubDate>Wed, 21 Jun 2006 12:34:32 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
 <title>No nano in recalled &#039;Magic Nano&#039;</title>
 <link>http://nano.foe.org.au/node/110</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;Go figure? It turns out that ‘Magic Nano,’ the protective glass and bathroom sealant that was recalled in late March in Germany after causing severe breathing problems for some consumers, did not contain any nanoparticles. That’s according to Rene Zimmer of the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) in Berlin, quoted in an article in &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.smalltimes.com/document_display.cfm?document_id=11586&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;small times .&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <pubDate>Tue, 30 May 2006 05:51:41 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Size matters, public opinion doesn&#039;t</title>
 <link>http://nano.foe.org.au/node/97</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;Canberra Times, 8th May 2006, by John Hepburn&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The release last month of a Federal Government discussion paper on the development of a national nanotechnology strategy created ‘nano ripples’ throughout the community – so small as to be imperceptible to the human eye. &lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <pubDate>Mon, 08 May 2006 06:54:57 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
 <title>Self regulation of synthetic biology?</title>
 <link>http://nano.foe.org.au/node/96</link>
 <description>&lt;p&gt;The Synthetic Biology&amp;nbsp;Biology 2.0 conference on the 21st May in Berkeley, USA has released &lt;a title=&quot;Synthetic Biology 2.0 declaration&quot; href=&quot;http://syntheticbiology.org/SB2Declaration.html&quot;&gt;a public statement in support of self-governance of the emerging nanobiotechnology industry&lt;/a&gt;. In the lead up to the conference 35 civil society groups, including Friends of the Earth International, signed an &lt;a title=&quot;Open letter on synthetic biology 21 May 2006&quot; href=&quot;node/117&quot;&gt;open letter outlining urgent concerns surrounding&amp;nbsp;synthetic biology&lt;/a&gt;. However the declaration by the synthetic biologists&amp;nbsp;failed to address key concerns, including the ethical problems of nanobiotechnology, broader environmental risks and the socio-economic and human rights implications of its use. &lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <pubDate>Thu, 04 May 2006 10:28:32 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
 <title>First ever nano product recall</title>
 <link>http://nano.foe.org.au/node/88</link>
 <description>
&lt;p&gt;Early this year saw the first ever reported case of a nano product recall as a result of health problems. In Germany, there were&amp;nbsp;97 reported cases of serious respiratory problems and six people were hospitalized in late March after using the nanotech bathroom cleaner &amp;quot;Magic Nano&amp;quot;. &lt;/p&gt;
</description>
 <pubDate>Mon, 01 May 2006 21:22:00 +0000</pubDate>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
