The advent of nanotechnology, the branch of engineering that seeks to build objects molecule by molecule -- indeed, atom by atom -- has evoked futuristic images of self-replicating "nanobots" that perform surgery, or that convert the planet into a mass of "grey goo" as they consume everything in sight.
These two scenarios follow a familiar story line: technological progress, such as the development of nuclear power, genetically modified organisms, information technologies and synthetic organic chemistry, first promises salvation, but then threatens doom as the consequences, often environmental, become apparent. Even disinfecting water -- the single most important technological advance ever in prolonging human life -- turns out to produce carcinogenic byproducts. The cycle of fundamental discovery, technological development, revelation of undesirable consequences, and public aversion appears unbreakable.
Will nanotechnology be different? Along with the early euphoria and hype that typically surround the rollout of new technologies, nanotechnology has been the subject of projections concerning its possible environmental risks well before its wide-scale commercialization. Raising such questions when nanotechnology is still in its infancy may result in better, safer products and less long-term liability for industry.
ILLUSTRATION: MOUNTAIN PEOPLE
The rapidly developing nanomaterials industry is the nanotechnology that is most likely to affect our lives first. A 2003 estimate by the Nanobusiness Alliance identified nanomaterials as the largest single category of nanotech start-ups.
In the environmental technology industry alone, nanomaterials will enable new means of reducing the production of wastes, using resources more sparingly, cleaning up industrial contamination, providing potable water, and improving the efficiency of energy production and use.
Commercial applications of nanomaterials currently or soon to be available include nano-engineered titania particles for sunscreens and paints, carbon nanotube composites in tires, silica nanoparticles as solid lubricants, and protein-based nanomaterials in soaps, shampoos and detergents.
The production, use and disposal of nanomaterials will inevitably lead to their appearance in air, water, soils or organisms. Research is needed to ensure that nanomaterials, and the industry that produces them, evolve as environmental assets rather than liabilities.
Unfortunately, little is known about the potential environmental impacts of nanomaterials. Ironically, the properties of nanomaterials that may create concern, such as nanoparticle uptake by cells, are often precisely the properties desired for beneficial uses in medical applications.
For example, 10 years of studies of the possible health effects of a class of carbon-based nanomaterials known as fullerenes report that the soccer-ball-shaped fullerene molecules known as "buckyballs" are powerful anti-oxidants, comparable in strength to vitamin E. Other studies report that some types of buckyballs can be toxic to tumor cells.
Two recent studies concluded that buckyballs could impair brain functions in fish and were highly toxic to human-tissue cultures. But the conclusions from these studies are difficult to interpret, in part because the nanomaterials that they used were contaminated with an organic solvent added to mobilize the fullerenes in water.
A subsequent study of fullerene toxicity found no significant toxicity for buckyballs, but did observe a toxic response in cell cultures to a second group of fullerenes, called "single-wall nanotubes." At this point, the question of the possible toxicity of fullerene nanomaterials remains largely unanswered.
Determining whether a substance is "dangerous" involves determining not only the material's toxicity, but the degree to which it will ever come into contact with a living cell. Toxicity can be evaluated by putting buckyballs into a fish tank, but we must also find out whether buckyballs would ever actually arrive in a real world "fish tank"such as a lake or river.
We do know that when materials resist degradation, they may be present in the environment for long periods of time, and thus have a greater chance of interacting with the living environment. But processes that may lead to the breakdown of nanomaterials, including degradation by bacteria, are virtually unexplored.
Moreover, like toxicity and persistence, little is known about how nanoparticles are likely to move about in the environment. The most dangerous nanomaterials would be those that are both mobile and toxic. The fullerenes that have been the focus of early toxicity studies are among the least mobile of the nanomaterials we have studied to date.
Our initial work on nanomaterial mobility in formations resembling groundwater aquifers or sand filters has shown that while one type of nanomaterial may be very mobile, a second may stay put. Thus, each nanomaterial may behave differently.
Concerns over nanomaterials' possible effects on health and the environment have perhaps overshadowed the pressing need to ensure that their production is clean and environmentally benign. Indeed, many of the ingredients used to make nanomaterials are currently known to present risks to human health.
An encouraging trend is that the methods used to produce nanomaterials often become "greener" as they move from the laboratory to industrial production. Setting aside the issue of nanomaterials' toxicity, preliminary results suggest that fabricating nanomaterials entails risks that are less than or comparable to those associated with many current industrial activities.
It would be naive to imagine that nanotechnology will evolve without risks to our health and environment. While attempting to halt the development of nanomaterial-inspired technologies would be as irresponsible as it is unrealistic, responsible development of these technologies demands vigilance and social commitment.
Environmentally safe nanotechnology will come at a cost in time, money and political capital. But with foresight and care, nanotechnology can develop in a manner that will improve our wellbeing and that of our planet.
Mark Wiesner is director of the Environmental and Energy Systems Institute at Rice University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
It would be absurd to claim to see a silver lining behind every US President Donald Trump cloud. Those clouds are too many, too dark and too dangerous. All the same, viewed from a domestic political perspective, there is a clear emerging UK upside to Trump’s efforts at crashing the post-Cold War order. It might even get a boost from Thursday’s Washington visit by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. In July last year, when Starmer became prime minister, the Labour Party was rigidly on the defensive about Europe. Brexit was seen as an electorally unstable issue for a party whose priority
US President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling the network of multilateral institutions, organizations and agreements that have helped prevent a third world war for more than 70 years. Yet many governments are twisting themselves into knots trying to downplay his actions, insisting that things are not as they seem and that even if they are, confronting the menace in the White House simply is not an option. Disagreement must be carefully disguised to avoid provoking his wrath. For the British political establishment, the convenient excuse is the need to preserve the UK’s “special relationship” with the US. Following their White House
US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has brought renewed scrutiny to the Taiwan-US semiconductor relationship with his claim that Taiwan “stole” the US chip business and threats of 100 percent tariffs on foreign-made processors. For Taiwanese and industry leaders, understanding those developments in their full context is crucial while maintaining a clear vision of Taiwan’s role in the global technology ecosystem. The assertion that Taiwan “stole” the US’ semiconductor industry fundamentally misunderstands the evolution of global technology manufacturing. Over the past four decades, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), has grown through legitimate means
RSS