Group calls for environmental regulation of nanotech

Nanotechnology manufacturers need stricter regulations to avoid environmental problems and diseases such as cancer, according to a new report
  • (IDG News Service)
  • — 03 April, 2008 08:49

Nanotechnology manufacturers need stricter regulations to avoid environmental problems and diseases such as cancer, according to a report released by an environmental advocacy group.

The nanotechnology manufacturing process is largely unregulated for environmental issues, but could cause several problems, according to the report by the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition. The group called for regulation of nanotech manufacturing particularly in Silicon Valley, where nanotech has emerged as a major industry, with more than 110 nanotech companies and research facilities.

"Small particles are associated with well-known diseases such as asbestosis and silicosis, granulomas, and lung inflammation," the report says. "Based on this knowledge, we can expect that the inhalation of particles as small as engineered nanoparticles could be hazardous."

Members of the NanoBusiness Alliance, a nanotech trade group, have been working with environmental groups and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to address any concerns, and the group has called for more U.S. funding for research into the health and environmental effects of nanotech, said Sean Murdock, the alliance's executive director.

The toxics coalition uses "loaded language" and "abstract fear-mongering" discussions about cancer and other diseases in an attempt to raise concerns about nanomaterials, Murdock said. "There's nothing out there that suggests [nanomaterials] are intrinsically more dangerous" than other manufacturing materials, he said.

The toxics group seems to be calling on the nanotech industry to "prove a negative," to prove that no nanomaterial will ever be dangerous, he added. He instead called for a constructive dialogue about nanotech and possible environmental impacts.

Without stronger regulation, California and other areas with nanotech manufacturing could face toxic cleanup problems, similar to problems with toxic spills reported in Santa Clara County, California, by IBM and Fairchild Camera in 1981, the group said.

Lawmakers "just need to learn from our [past] lessons," executive director of the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, Sheila Davis, said. "There's no reason we should repeat them."

Some nanomaterials can cause brain damage in fish or be breathed deep into lungs, although many of the health effects are unknown, the group said. The material nanosilver could cause similar problems as silver in water environments, which has caused reproduction problems with some clams, the group said.

Most US environmental regulations cover companies that generate large amounts of materials, in some cases more than 10,000 gallons of a regulated material, Davis said. But nanotechnology plants won't generate that volume, with a diameter of a human hair about 75,000 nanometres. Nanoparticles generally are smaller than 100 nanometres in size.

"We're looking at a new technology, and we have a 40- or 50-year-old environmental policy framework," Davis said. "It's archaic. It's designed to regulate chemicals that were developed 100 years ago."

The US government's National Nanotechnology Initiative, which helps fund nanotech research, has a budget of $US1.44 billion in 2008, the group noted. But only 4 per cent of that budget is targeted at health and environmental implications, the report said. "It's really a lack of accountability on the federal government, because of the funding structure," Davis added.

The Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition called for new environmental regulations specifically focused on nanotech and labeling requirements on products containing nanotech. The group also suggested that local governments pass laws requiring nanotech companies to disclose what chemicals they use in their manufacturing processes.

Keep up with the latest tech news, reviews and previews by subscribing to the Good Gear Guide newsletter.

Grant Gross

IDG News Service
Comments are now closed.

Latest News Articles

Most Popular Articles

Follow Us

GGG Evaluation Team

Kathy Cassidy

STYLISTIC Q702

First impression on unpacking the Q702 test unit was the solid feel and clean, minimalist styling.

Anthony Grifoni

STYLISTIC Q572

For work use, Microsoft Word and Excel programs pre-installed on the device are adequate for preparing short documents.

Steph Mundell

LIFEBOOK UH574

The Fujitsu LifeBook UH574 allowed for great mobility without being obnoxiously heavy or clunky. Its twelve hours of battery life did not disappoint.

Andrew Mitsi

STYLISTIC Q702

The screen was particularly good. It is bright and visible from most angles, however heat is an issue, particularly around the Windows button on the front, and on the back where the battery housing is located.

Simon Harriott

STYLISTIC Q702

My first impression after unboxing the Q702 is that it is a nice looking unit. Styling is somewhat minimalist but very effective. The tablet part, once detached, has a nice weight, and no buttons or switches are located in awkward or intrusive positions.

Resources

Best Deals on GoodGearGuide

Compare & Save

Deals powered by WhistleOut
Use WhistleOut's technology to compare:
Mobile phone plans & deals
Mobile phone models
Mobile phone carriers
Broadband plans & deals
Broadband providers
Deals powered by WhistleOut
WhistleOut

Latest Jobs

Don’t have an account? Sign up here

Don't have an account? Sign up now

Forgot password?