Even though these may seem like semantic arguments, they are not – and I do worry that the confusion that is propagated as a result could harm attempts to prevent mesothelioma by making it seem that too many people are too ready to “cry wolf.”

Regarding mesothelioma, the key guiding principle here is what is known as the fiber paradigm – which is explained well in Ken Donaldson’s paper cited above. In a nutshell, this states that, for an inhaled material to be capable of causing mesothelioma, it must be long, thin, and biopersistent. Effectively, this describes fibers that are thin enough to penetrate to the deep lung and to the edge of the lungs if inhaled, that are too long for the scavenger cells – the macrophages – in the lungs to get rid of them, and that can persist in the lungs once there for years, without dissolving or otherwise being cleared.

If you apply this to long thin carbon nanotubes – as we did in the Poland et al. paper you cite – there is evidence that these follow the fiber paradigm. In the same paper, we showed that short fibers, and compact carbon-based particles, did not seem to follow this paradigm.

In fact, non-fibrous nanoparticles are cleared from the lungs by a range of mechanisms. They may still cause harm, depending on what they are made of – but there is no indication that they have what it takes to cause mesothelioma. This is an extremely important distinction.

Then you have micelles. If these are inhaled – and I’m not sure how easily a suspension of micelles could find their way into someone’s lungs – they enter an environment that is swarming with molecules similar to those making up the micelles. And as micelles are relatively weakly bound collections of molecules, it is likely that they will disperse reasonably fast. Then, their potential to cause harm (once they are in the body) is most likely going to be associated with the chemicals that they are made of – not their size.

And when it comes to comparing micelles with the fiber paradigm, they fail at every hurdle – they are not thin, they are not long, they are not biopersistent.

Although the differences between soft nanoparticles, hard nanoparticles and nano-fibers can appear trivial, this may be because they are not visible to the naked eye and so not easy to visualize – and of course, the rather loose language of nanoparticles that people are apt to use doesn’t help. Perhaps a helpful analogy is the similarities between a grape, a baseball and a spear. Each can cause harm – you can choke on a grape, a baseball can concuss if it hits you on the head, and you can be impaled by a spear. But to ban grapes because people get killed by spears might seem a little odd.

Of course, it’s hard to imagine anyone following such a suspect line of reasoning with objects that we can see and touch. But just because we cannot see and touch nanomaterials without the aid of sophisticated instruments, doesn’t mean that we are free to abandon reason.

The lack of regulation for nanotechnology increases the chance of hysteria, I think, and in my mind the hysteria is a good thing if it can motivate some action. My concern with nanotechnology arose in 2006 when I noticed the the study which found that when mice inhaled silver nanoparticles, the particles went to the brain (http://www.urmc.rochester.edu/news/story/index.cfm?id=1191). The persistency of nanoparticles is another concern – out of curiosity,Dr. Maynard, do you have a general impression on when these nanoparticles tend to become regular particles?

Ignoring the semantic argument over whether a nanomicelle is a nanoparticle or not, I would agree that nanomicelles by themselves would not be much of a concern as they would not be persistent. I wouldn’t expect this product to have more than micelles but I don’t know much about dispersants and I guess it is trade secret.

Dr. Harbut may or may not have information with such a link as he describes, I’m not in a position to decide.

What I can do is notice that he has chosen the equivalent of cheap political methods to defend his scientific position. Why provide data when he can attack your credentials? Of course, if he’d bothered to type your name into a search engine he could have found quite a bit of information about you.

One hopes his research into medical issues is more thorough.

This is disappointing, to say the least.

Does his silence mean that, despite his comments, he has no information linking nanoparticles in general to mesothelioma?

In cases like this, far more transparency and far less hubris on the part of industry would be helpful in getting products out that work without causing unnecessary harm.

(getg.com – GET Answers – What is the Technology Behind GET?)
—–
What is nano technology?

Simple, doing more with less: Our patent pending manufacturing process and materials, generally 5 nanometers in diameter, are compared to competitor’s micron size (see below) and generates 1,000 times increase in surface area and millions of time increase in the number of particles. The reason Green Earth Technologies’ products perform so well and are able to be sold at a competitive price is due in part to the precious chemicals added into the product that are performance packed. If you are interested in learning more about nanotechnology, check out our HOW WE DO IT!
—–

—–
Nano Technology – Doing More with Less

Our patent pending manufacturing process and materials, generally 5 nanometers in diameter, are compared to competitor’s one micron size and generates 1,000 times increase in surface area and millions of times increase in the number of particles.

The reason G.E.T. products perform so well and are able to be sold at a competitive price is due in part to the precious chemicals added into the product that are performance Packed.
—–

There doesn’t seem to be any “more” to be learned about their “precious chemicals”, and what they do say strikes me as somewhere between marketing hype and an effort to hide the reality behind their products. If they really are afraid to give a more satisfying explanation of their trade secrets, they should avoid mentioning both “nano” and “chemicals”.

From other sources I’ve read about the micelles, which sound relatively natural and short-lived. Yet GET implies that, like nano-scale ball bearings, they provide superior lubrication under the harsh conditions inside an automobile or even two-stroke snowmobile engine.

—–
G1 Racing Oil’s unique proprietary ingredient called NANO GEODESIC BEARINGS are tiny spherical shaped particles that are postulated to spin at unimaginable high speeds to support adjacent oil molecules to squeeze more precious horsepower out of the engine.
—–

Well, maybe the motor oils contain “hard” nano particles in addition to the micelles, but how are we to know? And that is exactly the point of groups like Friends of the Earth – the nanotechnology industry is conducting an experiment on the general public without their informed consent.

After hours of web searching, I still have no idea if I should actually use the bottle of G.E.T. Bar and Chain oil I bought at the local hardware store. Do I want nano micelles or maybe “hard” nano particles slung all over my body, lungs, and firewood?

Loren

He also looks like a doctor who has a vested interest in creating fear about substances…. maybe because it’s good for business…

Sorry, in my book, every day in which the good doctor remains silent is another day demonstrating his bias and ignorance.

AMDG

For those who want to test out the oil spill clean up or use it, try the website above. I have ordered oil through them as well as other products and they have all worked great. No reason to think that the spill clean up wouldn’t…

“Nano” means “really, REALLY small” – 1/billionth. So let’s get over this fear mongering over the word “nano”. I’m not a scientist, but I know how GETG’s entire corporate focus really IS to make entirely bio-degradable, environmentally-safe alternatives to hydro-carbon based products. It’s motor oil is the ONLY green substitute for petroleum based oil that has been certified by the API and EPA as such. Its creation of this and other of its products ARE entirely green and the management is committed to truly green solutions – and having them verified so reassure the public.

What an irony that the ONLY company that has products that CAN clean up the oil slick in an environmentally friendly way is being held up by environmentalists themselves because of an irrational fear simple because of the word “nano”! In the meantime, BP is spraying the entire Gulf with dispersants that do NOTHING to break up oil cobblants and whose toxicity is KNOWN to be HIGHLY damaging!

So a much better solution to the toxic dispersant now being used is being held up because GETG’s product hasn’t been tested up the wazoo – and would take years to mitigate all of these irrational claims before being put to use. This is like Christian Scientists with appendecitis – wishing away the oil in the Gulf won’t work, anymore than the use of the toxic dispersant BP is now using is working. GETG’s product is composed of ingredients that ARE on EPA’s NON-toxic list, and has been so certified. Let them use it at least in a part of the Gulf and let’s see if it works. We know that oil eventually gets broken down into smaller and smaller micelles overtime and absorbed into the environment – this takes years to do naturally. GETG’s product accelerates this naturally process by using natural, biodegradable products. I thought THAT’s what we NEED!

Only people with nano-brains should worry about the word “nano”. In the meantime the Gulf is getting worse with both oil and toxic dispersant that DOESN’T work! Even if you think GETG’s product might not be “green enough”, the FACT remains it is a far better and greenER dispersant that what’s being used!

Patric Hale

I would be happy to do this. My current funding comes entirely through the University of Michigan – some of it is associated with a gift given to the University of Michigan Risk Science Center by Charles Gelman. In my previous work at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington DC, I was funded through the Pew Charitable Trusts.

I do not believe I dispense any medical advice in the piece above, and I must apologise if it appears that I did. What I did do however is comment on the accuracy of statements made in the AOL Online piece, and voice my concerns over the dangers of making statements that do not appear to be supported by evidence.

I do believe my credentials to make such an assessment are reasonable. For many years, I have been an active researcher and advisor on the responsible development of nanotechnologies. I helped establish the research program into potential health impacts – and how to avoid them – at the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. I have published extensively in the area in the peer review literature – and was a co-author on the paper by Poland et al. indicating that some forms of carbon nanotubes have the potential to cause mesothelioma. And I have provided extensive expert advice in this field, from congressional testimony, to serving on National Academies panels, to advising the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. For five years I was the Chief Science Advisor to the Project on Emerging Technologies at the Woodrow Wilson Center. I currently direct the Risk Science Center at the University of Michigan School of Public Health.

From my research and my understanding, there is no evidence associating nanoparticles in general with mesothelioma. Morever, there is no evidence to my knowledge that soft nanoparticles – including nanoscale micelles – will show identical biological behavior to hard nanoparticles. In fact, the transient nature of micelles makes it extremely unlikely that they would be linked to a disease associated with biopersistent fibers.

In my comments, I was careful to comment on the AOL story, not your quote specifically – realizing that there was every chance that your comments had been taken out of context. It seems though that, from your comments above, you are comfortable with what was reported.

Having provided you with the information you requested, I wonder if you could be so good as to do something for me. Could you provide me with refeernces to the work you refer to showing nanoparticles cause mesothelioma?

Thank you

Additionally, would you be kind enough to disclose any credential or license which allows you to dispense medical advice.

However, I do think it is avoidable, but of course now companies will now be sure to avoid using or mentioning nano at all in any of their communications materials, making it even more difficult to track usage.

But the lack of clear definition and clarity about the various nanotechnologies means we can’t make a real judgement on potential risk even if they did communicate better. But this crass promo strategy would probably be counterproductive whatever the technology, greentech companies need to be aware of over hyping their products just like anyone else.

But also this lack of understanding and at least expert consultation from the ngos may prevent us from using a viable clean up technology in a time of dire need, simply because of poor quality scientific knowledge and lack of real consultation. This is a key responsibility issue for them.

It is in companies own interests to share information about the testing and safety of their products and to undertake or commission appropriate safety testing. It is the responsibility of ngos to ensure the appropriate scientific basis for their opinions, particularly in such as situation as this. In addition, in the long term, they lose credibility and authority and will be increasingly exposed because of it I feel.

Lots of food for thought however for our business working group!