SCI/TECH: Buckyballs Could Deform Human DNA

page: 2
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 02:42 PM
link   
sardion - discussion here - and the references - seem to use buckyballs and buckminsterfullerenes as synonymous. You directed our attention to the commercial use of nanoparticles.

Earlier, you said:


sardion
raw Buckballs have already been found to damage grey matter in fish, and a couple of years later the same team came up with a doping agent to make the buckyballs completely biocompatible(eg they did no damage and bound to the nearest silica deposit once it passed through the fishs digestive tract))


Grady provided a link:


Tiny Trouble: Nanoscale materials damage fish brains

Biologists have found that a type of nanomaterial called buckyballs can damage brain cells in fish. ...their small size could also permit them to interact with living cells in unanticipated, potentially hazardous ways.

Since buckyballs are currently being manufactured in large quantities, she and her colleagues looked for potential environmental effects of these soccer ball-shape carbon molecules.

To determine the molecules' toxicity, Oberdörster first tested the buckyballs on water fleas. The researchers added buckyballs to water tanks containing the small crustaceans. Over 48 hours, the team observed rising mortality with increased concentrations. They then calculated that at 800 parts per billion, 50 percent of the water fleas would die.

...exposed fish showed 17 times as much damage to brain-cell membranes as did fish not exposed to buckyballs.

...buckyball-exposed bass had switched on some immune-response genes that the unexposed fish hadn't turned on



...and another one:



To see whether the same effect occurs in human cells, a group of researchers led by Rice University chemist Vicki Colvin exposed lab-grown human liver and skin cells for 48 hours to solutions containing varying concentrations of buckyballs. The team found that a dilute solution—20 parts per billion—could kill half the cells.

"This study really validates our findings," says Eva Oberdörster at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, who conducted the buckyball-toxicity studies in fish.

...The Rice team plans to test the potential toxicity of other nanoscale materials, such as the titanium dioxide nanoparticles that are used in cosmetics and sunscreens, and to investigate whether their toxicity is affected by size and shape.



So the reports say:

1. Buckyballs are really bad, and appear to act directly on DNA;

2. The technology exists to fix the bad, at least as far as buckyballs affect brain cells;

3. Buckyballs are currently being manufactured in large quantities.

...So some questions are: Is the same mechanism responsible for buckyballs effects on brain cells and DNA? Is the fix being used? If not, why not? Do we need to talk regulation?


.





[edit on 6-12-2005 by soficrow]




posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Well! I must be gettin' old but what the heck are buckyballs? If it's anything like I imagine, the simple solution would be to just keep Bucky out of the lab!



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Richard of Danbury
Well! I must be gettin' old but what the heck are buckyballs?


There are plenty of links posted that explain what buckyballs are. Check them out.



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 04:54 PM
link   


The human body is what, about 90% water?

Not quite, the human body is 70% water.

Don't really have anything else to add.



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 06:22 PM
link   
People realized that buckyballs can be dangerous a while ago (see www.newscientist.com... ). They have been experimenting with different ways of making safer buck balls. The new simulation just provides a better understanding of the ways bucky balls are dangerous.

Bucky balls are hardly the only dangerous compound. I wouldn't suggest putting gasoline on your skin, either. Not all poisons are man-made either. Try snake poison. The important thing is that new compounds are carefully tested for safety issues before they are widely used. Various groups appear to be doing this for bucky balls.

The problems with asbestos arose, because early tests of their safety weren't done, or were covered up. So, safety issues could not be taken into consideraiton. However, good toxicology can and are done. For instance, every major drug goes through toxicology trials before any human trials are conducted.



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by crontab
People realized that buckyballs can be dangerous a while ago....

The problems with asbestos arose, because early tests of their safety weren't done, or were covered up. So, safety issues could not be taken into consideraiton. However, good toxicology can and are done. For instance, every major drug goes through toxicology trials before any human trials are conducted.


It was the connection between mesothelioma and asbestos, and the connection between teflon and birth defects that raised a red flag for me on this topic. We only find out years later that the thing that is going to help us the most, is going to be our demise.
I think you could test the blood of any human on planet earth, and you would find traces of PTFE. And after all these years, we still don't know the effects that this will have over multiple generations.
It may not only kill your canary, it may be killing your progeny far down the timeline.

I like what MacMerdin posted;




Perhaps the truth is out there, and it's the future that's come back to haunt us???




[edit on 6/12/2005 by anxietydisorder]



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by crontab

every major drug goes through toxicology trials before any human trials are conducted.



Major drug toxicology trials are a joke. Now, they're getting even funnier. Not.

New EPA Rule Allows Testing on Orphans and Mentally Handicapped Children





posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 04:28 AM
link   
Buckyballs = super strong
DNA = stuff that makes us what we are

Mix and you have super strong us'es!!!!

Ok, so that's prolly not how it works, can't blame me for dreaming



posted on Dec, 7 2005 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrjones
Buckyballs = super strong
DNA = stuff that makes us what we are

Mix and you have super strong us'es!!!!

Ok, so that's prolly not how it works, can't blame me for dreaming




Me2. My latest dream is that we adapt, evolve, and don't go extinct.



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 10:42 AM
link   
I wonder about the Military applications..

BuckeyBall Bomb? (Sounds kinda cheesy)

Instead of explosions, fire, chemicals, radiation.. Nano Warfare will float in on the wind.. invisable.. lethal.



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 11:43 AM
link   
I heard it rumoured a few years ago, that Febreeze utilizes buckyballs to trap flaoting particles (odor) and weigh them down so they don't drift into the air. I can't find any documentation, but it wouldn't really surprise me if Febreeze is found to alter DNA.



posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 12:43 PM
link   
I've been trying to substantiate the post above but there is very little information about the ingredients.

Proctor & Gambles web site says....

Febreze Fabric Refresher is a water-based product whose primary active ingredient is a modified starch derived from corn, specially designed to eliminate a wide range of odors. The product also contains minute amounts of alcohol and perfume.


Environmental Health also had a reference.......


LABEL: “Ingredients: Contains odor neutralizers, quality control agents, perfume and water.” USE ONLY AS INTENDED. AVOID ACCIDENTS. KEEP OUT OF THE REACH OF CHILDREN. Do not spray directly toward face. If eye contact occurs, rinse well with water.” ________________________________________________________________________

Comment: Now: what is in it? If Febreze is so safe, why these warnings in capital letters? On the Proctor and Gamble web site about Febreze the manufacturer writes, and I quote, exactly from the print-out dated 11/17/99, “Like any household cleaning product, Febreze should be kept out of the reach of children and pets. When using the product, be careful to spray away from your face, other people and pets.” According to numerous web sites, Febreze contained Zinc Chloride. According to the Consumer’s Dictionary Zinc Chloride is “a zinc salt used as an anti-septic and astringent in shaving creams, dentifrice, and mouthwashes. Also used in fireproofing, soldering fluxes, burnishing and polishing compounds for steel, and for electroplating, mercerizing and sizing: in adhesives, dental cements, glass etching, parchment, embalming anti-static products, and as a denaturant for alcohol. Odorless and water absorbing, it is employed as a deodorant and disinfectant, Can cause contact dermatitis, is mildly irritating to the skin, and can be absorbed through it.” Several web sites claim that Febreze caused the death of birds and dogs and sickness in other pets. Procter & Gamble on their web site states that these reports could not be substantiated. Procter & Gamble also states on their own web site febreze.com... that zinc chloride WAS in Febreze, but was taken out in December 1998.

www.environmentalhealth.com...

But so far I haven't been able to find a lead on any nano tech involved unless it has something to do with the modified starch derived from corn???



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Missletow
I heard it rumoured a few years ago, that Febreeze utilizes buckyballs to trap flaoting particles (odor) and weigh them down so they don't drift into the air. I can't find any documentation, but it wouldn't really surprise me if Febreeze is found to alter DNA.


Major Yikes! Apparently nanoparticles are already being used in a lot of every day products we are already exposed to? Am I reading this article correctly? We haven't got a clue what the implications are?

Someone tell me I am brain dead and they aren't saying what I think they are saying.

start.earthlink.net.../439bb250_3ca6_1552620051211-602235141


More Research Urged on Nanoparticle Risk

PROVIDENCE, R.I. - Those stain-resistant khakis you just picked up at the mall, the tennis ball that holds its bounce longer and sunscreen that's clear instead of white have something in common - nanotechnology.

Scientists manipulating matter at the molecular level have improved on hundreds of everyday products in recent years and are promising dramatic breakthroughs in medicine and other industries as billions of dollars a year are pumped into the nascent sector.

But relatively little is known about the potential health and environmental effects of the tiny particles - just atoms wide and small enough to easily penetrate cells in lungs, brains and other organs.



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Relentless

nanoparticles are already being used in a lot of every day products we are already exposed to? Am I reading this article correctly? We haven't got a clue what the implications are?



You're reading it right. But we do have a few clues - ie., brain damaged fish etc.





Someone tell me I am brain dead and they aren't saying what I think they are saying.


More Research Urged on Nanoparticle Risk

But relatively little is known about the potential health and environmental effects of the tiny particles - just atoms wide and small enough to easily penetrate cells in lungs, brains and other organs.




You are not braindead. They ARE saying what you think they're saying.





posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Found that article entitled Rice finds 'on-off switch' for buckyball toxicity




The research will appear in an upcoming issue of the journal Nano Letters, published by the American Chemical Society, the world's largest scientific society. One of the first toxicological studies of buckyballs, the research was published online by the journal on Sept. 11.

/snip

"There are many cases where toxicity is desirable," said Vicki Colvin, CBEN director, professor of chemistry and chemical engineering, and the principal investigator for the research. "For example, we might want particles that kill cancer cells or harmful bacteria. In other cases -- like applications where particles may make their way into the environment -- toxicity is undesirable."

/snip

In general, the greater the degree of surface modification, the lower the toxicity. For example, the undecorated buckyballs showed the highest toxicity -- about 20 parts per billion-- while the least toxic proved to be buckyballs decorated with the largest number of hydroxyl side-groups. To achieve the equivalent level of toxicity as that of bare buckyballs, the researchers had to increase the concentration of these modified buckyballs by 10 million times to more than 5 million parts per billion.


[edit on 11-12-2005 by sardion2000]



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 04:24 AM
link   
Oh that's just great.

I think I bought nanoparticle clothing for some poor kid at Church to put under the Christmas giving tree yesterday.


I feel sick now.



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 03:36 PM
link   
A bit more info from Wired News:


How Safe Are Nanoparticles?

...relatively little is known about the potential health and environmental effects of the tiny particles -- just atoms wide and small enough to easily penetrate cells in lungs, brains and other organs.

While governments and businesses have begun pumping millions of dollars into researching such effects, scientists and others say nowhere near enough is being spent to determine whether nanomaterials pose a danger to human health.

Michael Crichton's bestselling book Prey paints a doomsday scenario in which a swarm of tiny nanomachines escapes the lab and threatens to overwhelm humanity. Scientists believe the potential threat from nanomaterials is more everyday than a sci-fi thriller, but no less serious.

Studies have shown that some of the most promising carbon nanoparticles -- including long, hollow nanotubes and sphere-shaped buckyballs -- can be toxic to animal cells. There are fears that exposure can cause breathing problems, as occurs with some other ultrafine particles, that nanoparticles could be inhaled through the nose, wreaking unknown havoc on brain cells, or that nanotubes placed on the skin could damage DNA.

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health is developing guidelines for working with nanomaterials, saying the tiny particles may raise health concerns and the risk to those who work with them is unknown.

Also unknown is the risk to consumers and the environment.

"No one knows, and that's the problem," said Pat Roy Mooney, executive director of the ETC Group, an Ottawa nonprofit that studies the impact of technology on people and the environment. "People are rubbing them on our skin as sunscreens and as cosmetics."

Mooney's group is calling for products, such as sunscreen, that are directly absorbed into the body to be taken off the shelf until there is more study. "Frankly, I don't think that skin creams or stain resistant pants or food additives are a good reason to sacrifice someone's health," he said.



...Knowing what I do about environmental nucleic acids, protein creation and protein misfolding - I definitely think we need more info on this technology before it's used in consumer products or released into the environment.

Uh oh. It's already out there you say? And there is no agency responsible for oversight? But the industry is successfully monitoring itself in order to avoid lawsuits under the now-defunct Class Action legislation?

.



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Oh really? They are immune to class-action suits worldwide are they? News to me


As for agency oversight oh yeah we really need another FDA
Havn't you been lambasted them regularly? We need Citizen oversight not buerocratic oversight. People like you and me and relentless to make sure the risks are known far and wide but also the remiedation methods as well as I've posted above.



The asbestos industry, which doled out staggering sums of money for liability lawsuits after material used for insulation was shown to cause cancer and other ailments, paid the price for a failure to fully understand the product's dangers before putting it on the market, Kane said. "This is one of the few areas that I've been in that there has been a discussion at the beginning," she said.


And that is a good thing!

[edit on 12-12-2005 by sardion2000]

[edit on 12-12-2005 by sardion2000]



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000
Oh really? They are immune to class-action suits worldwide are they? News to me



Aw c'mon. You know I have a bee up my b... about the US Class Action laws.




As for agency oversight oh yeah we really need another FDA
Havn't you been lambasted them regularly?


I know I know.



We need Citizen oversight not buerocratic oversight. People like you and me and relentless to make sure the risks are known far and wide but also the remiedation methods as well as I've posted above.


I'm braindead. What remediation methods??? ...and we need monitoring - not trying to fix problems after they're already out of control.






The asbestos industry, which doled out staggering sums of money for liability lawsuits after material used for insulation was shown to cause cancer and other ailments, paid the price for a failure to fully understand the product's dangers before putting it on the market, Kane said. "This is one of the few areas that I've been in that there has been a discussion at the beginning," she said.


And that is a good thing!




I KNEW you'd catch that.

I'm glad the discussion is happening - but I don't think it's good enough. Buckyballs and nanoparticles already are used a lot in consumer products, like cosmetics !!!

So what other options are there? Quick please - my daughter keeps buying nano-products against my advice - she won't listen - just thinks I'm nuts for worrying.



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 04:13 PM
link   
Can you please hi-light actual products confirmed to have Buckyballs in them. I know the products that use the Tube form of the molecule and they are few and far between, I have yet to hear of any C60 molecules in products you can buy at Wally World or Best Buy(and frankely I would like the ticker symbols too
). Buckyballs don't necessarily have to be made of Carbon. Statements like "They are being mass pruduced" are way to foggy for me, I need actual product names etc.

Cosmetics is another issue alltogether IMO and there is problems within the industry itself with secrecy etc. I believe the root of that issue is the lack of IP protections as I believe allot of cosmetics are not patentable or some such.

All we can do is hi-light the risks and remediation methods.

www.physorg.com...

Here is the follow-up study of the fish + brain buckyball study by the same researchers non-theless. Nano-toxicity is a rapidly growing field which is also a benefit to medicine as some things in medicine require toxic particles to kill cancer cells for instance. Buckyballs have been the darling of the Cancer community due to its tunable toxicity and ability to home in on specific targets, a Cancer Smart Bomb if you will.





new topics
top topics
 
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join