so well, you have to go and say something stupid like this: "What you're getting worked up about is nanoparticles, which are not being used for applications where humans would exposed to them."
First of all, Andy is simply reporting news items. Without him commenting, I cannot see how you've determined he's "getting all worked up".
While you are correct in mentioning the school and its associated businesses are perfecting nanolithograpy, that is only one technology they are working on. Do you really believe all 250 businesses afilliated with the campus are engaged in this one technology?
Perhaps you are not getting yourself worked up
about the health dangers posed by nanotechnology, because you under under a wrong impression of what these technologies are actually developing in addition to the electrical engineering known as nanolithography. But it seems some scientists and environmentals are.
Nanotechnology does indeed incorporate the use of nanoparticles.
"Nanotechnology is the science of managing and manipulating matter at the atomic level. "Nano" refers to nanometer, or one billionth of a meter, the length scale used to depict atomic dimensions."
A Nanometer is a billionth of a meter or (10 exponent -9) and is one thousand times smaller than a Micrometer which is a millionth of a meter (10 exponent -6). Nm 0.000000001; Mm 0.000001
The reason I mention these dimensions will become obvious after reading the article below.
"The behavior of materials at the nanoscale is often very different from when they are in a larger form. Nanomaterials can be stronger, lighter," ... "and are often able to conduct heat or electricity in a different way. They can even change color."
"These special attributes are already being used in a number of ways, such as in semiconductors, scratch-free paint, wrinkle and stain-resistant fabrics, sunscreen lotions, skis and photographic paper." (Emphasis added)
http://cnse.albany.edu/
It is also apparent that you didn't even read the full text at the wiki link you provided, for had you, you might have noted there this:
"Safety Issues
Nanoparticles present possible dangers, both medically and environmentally. Most of these are due to the high surface to volume ratio, which can make the particles very reactive or catalytic. They are also able to pass through cell membranes in organisms, and their interactions with biological systems are relatively unknown. However, free nanoparticles in the environment quickly tend to agglomerate and thus leave the nano-regime, and nature itself presents many nanoparticles to which organisms on earth may have evolved immunity (such as salt particulates from ocean aerosols, terpenes from plants, or dust from volcanic eruptions). A fuller analysis is provided in the article on nanotechnology.
According to the San Francisco Chronicle, "Animal studies have shown that some nanoparticles can penetrate cells and tissues, move through the body and brain and cause biochemical damage. But whether cosmetics and sunscreens containing nanomaterials pose health risks remains largely unknown, pending completion of long-range studies recently begun by the FDA and other agencies." Diesel nanoparticles have been found to damage the cardiovascular system in a mouse model."
But then, I suppose you might not have because you misunderstood the technology or only understood one aspect of it. Nanoparticles are both naturally occuring and man-made.
The dangers posed by nanoscience have been being researched since the early 1990s. This field of research has been dubbed Nanotoxicology.
"Nanoparticle seem to have some different properties from larger particles that are known to have pathogenic effects , like asbestos or quartz. These differences seem to be a result of their size. They have a larger surface area per unit mass and this means that in some cases they may have more pro-inflammatory effects in, e.g. the lungs. In addition, some seem to be able to translocate from their site of deposition to distant sites such as the blood and the brain. This has resulted in a sea-change in how particle toxicology is viewed- instead of being confined to the lungs, nanoparticle toxicologists study the brain, blood, liver, skin and gut. Nanotoxicology has revolutionised particle toxicology and rejuvenated it."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanotoxicology
The article I referred to earlier was published by Newsday in 2006. It speaks to particulate matter up to 2.5 thousand times greater in size than a nanometer.
Particles a big problem
Heart, lung patients who inhale fragments of pollutants face a greater risk of hospital stay, research shows
BLOOMBERG NEWS
March 8, 2006
Older heart- and lung-disease patients exposed to pollution particles smaller than a strand of hair for a few days face more admissions to the hospital, according to a study published today.
The fine particles, a 30th the diameter of a hair or smaller, have a greater chance of penetrating into a person's airways, increasing the risk of disease, said researcher Francesca Dominici, associate professor of biostatistics at Johns Hopkins University's Bloomberg School of Public Health.
The study of admission rates for 11.5 million patients 65 and older looked at particles measuring 2.5 micrometers (0.0000025 meters) or less.
When they invade the lung, the particles "may promote inflammation and thereby exacerbate underlying lung disease and reduce the efficacy of lung-defense mechanisms," the researchers said.
"I was surprised by the consistency and magnitude of the risk," Dominici said in an interview before the study's publication in the Journal of the American Medical Association today.
Previous research showed larger particles increased hospital admissions. The patients, enrolled in the federally run Medicare plan, were admitted for cardiovascular or respiratory diseases or injuries. The injury category wasn't affected by the pollution particles, she said.
The patients studied from 1999 through 2002 showed the biggest association between pollution exposure and heart failure, which increased 1.28 percent for every 10 micrograms per cubic meter gain in small particles, according to the study.
Heart disease may come from the particles' impact on nerve tissue or inflammatory processes.
The annual hospital admissions for heart-failure patients would have dropped 1.3 percent to 243,442 in 2002 if the pollution particles had been reduced by 10 micrograms per cubic meter a day, Dominici said.
The study of patients from 204 U.S. urban counties with populations more than 200,000 showed cardiovascular risks were higher in the Northeast, Dominici said.
Pollution there comes from coal-burning power plants, automobiles, factories, agriculture activities and sunlight and water vapor reacting with gases, she said.
"The next step is to find out what sources are more toxic," Dominici said."
