FoE Nano News September 2005
NANO NEWS 16.09.05
1. Senate inquiry into workplace exposure to toxic dust and nanoparticles
2. Nanoparticles used in sunscreens toxic to human colon cells
3. Carry out your own sunscreen survey
4. Environmental release of nanoparticles to clean up Hurricane Katrina oil spills
5. Public sceptical about the US government’s management of nano risk
6. Tell our government you’re sceptical about its management of nano risk
7. "Living in a Nano World" conference in Melbourne 26-28 September
8. Smart computers to personalize shopping centre advertisements
===============================================================
1. Senate inquiry into workplace exposure to toxic dust and nanoparticles
The current senate inquiry into workplace exposure to toxic dust and nanoparticles has resulted in a new focus on nano risks to health and safety. Nanoparticles are more reactive, more mobile, and more toxic than larger particles – presenting new threats to health in the workplace.
Tens of thousands of Australian workers may be exposed to nanoparticles at work. Additional to lab workers and support staff in companies that produce nanomaterials, many more workers are exposed through their use or handling of products that contain nanoparticles, including paints, dyes, fabrics, sunscreens, cosmetics, glass and bottle coatings, industrial catalysts and specialist materials for the automotive and aerospace industries.
In its submission to the inquiry, Friends of the Earth called for a moratorium on the research, development and production of nanoproducts while regulations are developed to protect the health and safety of workers, the public and the environment from the harmful impacts of nanotechnology.
The Friends of the Earth submission is available at http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/clac_ctte/toxic_dust/submissions/sub10.pdf
Unions including the ACTU, AMWU and CFMEU also raised concerns about the potential health impacts of nano-exposure in the workplace. In an interview with ABC online, the ACTU said that it would consider bans on workers using products containing nanoparticles if research showed that was the only way to eliminate workplace risk.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1451929.htm
The inquiry was still accepting submissions last week. Please contact them to see if you can still make your views known. Details for how to make a submission can be found at:
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/clac_ctte/toxic_dust/index.htm
Aural hearings for the inquiry will be held in the next two weeks.
===============================================================
2. Nanoparticles used in sunscreens toxic to human colon cells
A new in vitro study by US nanoscientists has found that nanoparticle titanium dioxide – a material used in sunscreens – is toxic to human colon cells. The researchers suggest that this may mean that nanoparticles in drinking water may be dangerous to humans. They also note that the breakdown of the body’s epithelial cells (surface cells that line our skin, body cavities and organs) would allow toxic nanoparticles into the body’s organ systems. They don’t mention the ongoing scientific controversy about whether nanoparticles may actually penetrate undamaged epithelial cells. Another obvious question is whether the small amounts of sunscreen that may be ingested while swimming, exercising, or by simple hand to mouth action, pose a health hazard. The results of this study bolster calls for full safety testing of nanoparticles before their inclusion in commercially available products. The safety of nanoparticles should not be assumed based on the known safety of larger sized particles of the same substance – as has happened with titanium dioxide in both the US and EU.
http://www.physorg.com/news6222.html
===============================================================
3. Carry out your own sunscreen survey
Australian sunscreen manufacturers are increasingly using nanoparticle zinc oxide and titanium dioxide for its transparent properties (larger particles of these metal oxides are white and opaque).
Friends of the Earth will soon be carrying out a survey of Australian sunscreen manufacturers to ask them whether their products contain nanoparticles and what safety testing they have carried out.
In the meantime, why not call the manufacturer of your sunscreen and ask them directly whether they are taking risks with nanoparticles? Here are some for you to try
UV Triple Guard (Boots the Chemist) Ph: (03) 9272 2222
Sunscreen Plus (Cancer Council Australia) Ph: (02) 9036 3100
UV Natural (Bio Natural) Ph: 1300555386
SunSense (EgoPharma) Ph: 03-9587 1088
Hamilton (Hamilton) Ph: (08) 82232957
===============================================================
4. Use of nanoparticles to clean up Hurricane Katrina oil spills
Last year the Royal Society and Academy of Engineering explicitly argued that the use of nanomaterials for bioremediation should be prohibited given the significant and poorly understood risks associated with the deliberate release of nanoparticles into the environment (see Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties Section 5.4 paragraph 44 http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/). However in the wake of oil spills associated with Hurricane Katrina, US companies are renewing calls for permission to drill for oil in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge, and US company Interface Science Corporation has announced that it will bring forward the launch of its nano-based oil remediation and recovery application.
http://www.physorg.com/news6358.html
===============================================================
5. Public sceptical about the US government’s management of nano risk
Following on from earlier research that found low levels of trust in the US government’s ability to manage nanotechnology’s risks, a new study has just been released called “Informed public perceptions of nanotechnology and trust in government”. Unsurprisingly, the study found that public trust of nanotechnology would increase if government and industry increased the amount of safety testing before products went to market. More than 70 percent of participants called for more testing of products before they were released commercially, more information about the products themselves and proof that regulations protected workers and the environment. Given that no government has yet introduced a comprehensive regulatory regime to deal with nano, safety testing of new nano-sized materials is not required, and product labelling is non-existent, the nanotechnology industry may still have some time to wait before developing public trust.
http://www.smalltimes.com/document_display.cfm?document_id=9933
===============================================================
6. Tell our government that you’re sceptical about its management of nano risk
In its 2002 70 page report Smaller, Cleaner, Cheaper, Faster, Smarter: Nanotechnology Applications and Opportunities for Australia, the Australian government answered the big question “Are there any special nanotechnology related regulatory issues” in one paragraph that began with an unqualified “no” (p8, available at
http://www.quantum-pi.com/articles_cd/EY-nanoreport-AU.pdf .
Since then there has been a grudging acceptance that some regulation of nanotechnology will be required – if only to help convince the public that the government is managing nano risk effectively. In March this year the Prime Minister’s Science, Engineering and Innovation Council argued: “The early introduction and explanation of regulation reduces the risk that public concern will prevent acceptance of nanotechnology” (p38
http://www.dest.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/1E1B501A-727A-4153-85EF-134B2DAF0925/4112/nanotechnology_pmseic110305.pdf .
But while the government’s rhetoric is all about “early” introduction of nano-regulation, it is yet to introduce any new nano regulation, while hundreds of products containing nanomaterials are already on the market. Products include Bondall outdoor furniture varnishes; Dulux “Wash and Wear” paints; cosmetics by Revlon, Avon and L’Oreal; industrial catalysts used by BHP and Rio Tinto; self-cleaning glass and building materials; stain, static, odour and wrinkle resistant fabrics by Gap, Nike and Levi…
Why not contact the Minister for Education, Science and Training Dr Brendan Nelson and ask him why there are unregulated, unlabelled products containing nanoparticles on the market, and when the government plans to introduce laws to protect human and environmental health and safety from nano risk?
Canberra: Ph: (02) 6277 7460
Electorate office: Ph: (02) 9465 3950
Email: B.Nelson.MP@aph.gov.au
===============================================================
7. "Living in a Nano World"
If you have a spare $550, you may be interested in attending Materials Australia's 2nd National Nanotechnology Conference in Melbourne 26-28 September 2005.
http://www.mateng.asn.au/Nano2005
===============================================================
8. Smart computers to personalize shopping centre advertisements
Just in case you were hoping that the multi billion dollar investment in nanotechnology was going to help the advertising industry to target you more effectively… “A shopping mall where advertisements address you by name. A car that suggests you stop when you're passing a venue where your favourite band is about to go on stage. A house that anticipates your homecoming, even though you are blocks away. Sounds like science fiction, right? Wrong.”
http://www.physorg.com/news6445.html
===============================================================
For more information on any of the above, to be removed from this list, or to add friends or colleagues please contact: Georgia Miller georgia.miller@foe.org.au or 0437 979 402
