Death Wardrobe - Slowly Dying in Your Toxic-Nanoparticle Laden Shirt

Revealed: The toxic nanoparticles with asbestos-like properties found in everyday goodsBy Arthur Martin
Last updated at 9:57 AM on 12th November 2008

This is rather unsettling. Does anyone know of the regulations concerning nanoparticles that may be dangerous to us? Is there a list? Hmmm, some diggin to be done as this is my first real foray into this. Just when I thought Melamine was my biggest issue, here come my killer pants!

The commission is concerned by the lack of research into many of the particles.

A particular worry is the use of carbon nanoparticles in items including clothing, car tyres and tennis racquets. Laboratory tests found that they exhibited similar properties to asbestos fibres.
Concerns were also raised over nano silver, used in sports clothing to kill the bacteria which produce odours. Tests found that this substance, which is released into the environment when clothes are washed, is more toxic than bleach.
Commission chairman Sir John Lawton admitted he would not let his family wear clothing containing these particles.

Hmm. Any thoughts?

www.dailymail.co.uk...

ColoradoJens

reply to post by ColoradoJens


I just had a friend of mine over for dinner and he proudly displayed his new threads of nano-technology. I didn't want him sitting on my sofa. What can be said about it? If someone needs their suite to controle their body order we're in trouble as an itelligent race.

What the heck is nano tech clothing?

Looks like this may hold water.

I bet thier are many items such as the above mentioned items. One I can think of his the slag that is sold for gravel by many Steel Companies...that stuff is downright poisen. It may have asbestos as well as arsenic.

reply to post by whiteraven


I believe they spray athletic clothing with silver nanoparticles to help keep them dry - maybe an idea like aluminum in anti-persperants? - the particles burn off when heated by the body and are relaesed onto/into the body and air. Why is this a necessity to spray on to things like tires and trainers?

ColoradoJens

I wear only cotton clothing.

A lot of them I make myself.

I live in a hot and humid climate, can't stand to wear anything synthetic.

It's called a bath and deoderant... you don't need nanosilver particles..

This is utter bovine shiznit.

Silver is toxic?

Prior to antibiotics, silver was used to keep infections down. Try it in a petri dish.

For those allergic to antibiotics, silver delivers a safe, non-toxic source of anti-microbial treatment.

It is this natural anti-microbial character that enhances odor control in clothing. And you can wash silver until the sun goes down, and no toxicity, no flash of light, no extinctions.

One other natural mineral type nanograde technology is titanium dioxide. We developed a process that enables us to provide a pristine indoor air environment using this mineral which is non-toxic and has fantastic characteristics.

Originally posted by dooper
This is utter bovine shiznit.

Silver is toxic?

Prior to antibiotics, silver was used to keep infections down. Try it in a petri dish.

For those allergic to antibiotics, silver delivers a safe, non-toxic source of anti-microbial treatment.

It is this natural anti-microbial character that enhances odor control in clothing. And you can wash silver until the sun goes down, and no toxicity, no flash of light, no extinctions.

One other natural mineral type nanograde technology is titanium dioxide. We developed a process that enables us to provide a pristine indoor air environment using this mineral which is non-toxic and has fantastic characteristics.

apparently they have not found silver nanoparticles to be harmful to humans but it has the potential to harm other organisms in our environment.

Nanoparticles scrutinized for health effects

We know silver itself is very toxic to plants in the aquatic environment and to invertebrates like clams, oysters and snails," Luoma said. "Silver is especially toxic to phytoplankton, the base of many food webs." Like "normal" silver, nano-size silver will continuously release silver ions, causing adverse effects to water-living organisms. But it's possible the nanoparticles are additionally toxic due to the small size. "We know extremely little about silver in the nanoparticle form," Luoma said. It also is unknown how nanosilver affects humans. Normally, silver accumulates in various organs, but do no harm. "Right now, there is an explosion of these products, but we cannot assess the risk in a rational way," Luoma said. "The simplest thing the government could do is to require information on how much silver is used in each product." The EPA considers certain use of silver nanoparticles a pesticide, and they therefore need to be registered according to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. But so far, the agency has received no such applications.

Nano silver.

A micron is one millionth of one meter. Really small, and our engineering measurements when dealing with close machined tolerances is measured in microns. The fine measuring instruments are micrometers.

Now, a nanometer is one-one-thousandth of one micron. Really, really small.

Now just how much silver, in the form of nanometers can one get in a garment?

This is just another example of the workings of professional fear mongers. They can out fear, out-terrorize, and out-fret any sane, rational prudent person tripping on acid.

They find fear in a glass of water. A breath of air.

I have garments of this nano-silver, and others that have sub-micron particles of bamboo. Every day I work, I cover myself in nano titanium dioxide.

Oh. Yes. I never get sick. No colds. No flu. No sore throats. No coughs.

Just pure luck?

Originally posted by dooper
Nano silver...

A micron is one millionth of one meter......

..... a nanometer is one-one-thousandth of one micron. Really, really small...

...Now just how much silver, in the form of nanometers can one get in a garment?

Isn't this what they say about fluoride?

"There is such a small amount in the solution, it is harmless to humans"

The point is that not all nano silver is going to wash out the first wash. If you gathered up all the nano silver in a garment, you still wouldn't be able to see it.

The amount is negligible, and thus any threat to the environment, which by the way contains silver naturally, is nil.

Even seawater has silver. Clay has silver. Most farmland has minute quantities of silver.

I don't see the ecological threat. And did anyone ever think of where the nano silver came from - that's going to be returned to the environment?

I promise you - they didn't reach around and pull it out their butts!

reply to post by dooper


Thanks for the input - it sounds as if you have some personal experiece with silver nanparticles. The article raised their primary concern regarding carbon nanoparticles - they also said they were concerend with silver nanoparticles as the eventual buildup in the water supply may be harmful. It seemed to me the tenor of the article was that more research needed to be done as the effects were just now being studied and questions of regulations are beginning to become more clear.

The commission is concerned by the lack of research into many of the particles.

A particular worry is the use of carbon nanoparticles in items including clothing, car tyres and tennis racquets. Laboratory tests found that they exhibited similar properties to asbestos fibres.
Concerns were also raised over nano silver, used in sports clothing to kill the bacteria which produce odours. Tests found that this substance, which is released into the environment when clothes are washed, is more toxic than bleach.
Commission chairman Sir John Lawton admitted he would not let his family wear clothing containing these particles.

The commission rejects an outright ban on the technology but calls for much closer supervision.

CJ

Originally posted by ColoradoJens

Revealed: The toxic nanoparticles with asbestos-like properties found in everyday goodsBy Arthur Martin
Last updated at 9:57 AM on 12th November 2008

This is rather unsettling. Does anyone know of the regulations concerning nanoparticles that may be dangerous to us? Is there a list? Hmmm, some diggin to be done as this is my first real foray into this. Just when I thought Melamine was my biggest issue, here come my killer pants!

The commission is concerned by the lack of research into many of the particles.

A particular worry is the use of carbon nanoparticles in items including clothing, car tyres and tennis racquets. Laboratory tests found that they exhibited similar properties to asbestos fibres.
Concerns were also raised over nano silver, used in sports clothing to kill the bacteria which produce odours. Tests found that this substance, which is released into the environment when clothes are washed, is more toxic than bleach.
Commission chairman Sir John Lawton admitted he would not let his family wear clothing containing these particles.

Hmm. Any thoughts?

www.dailymail.co.uk...

ColoradoJens

if the gov tells you sodium fluouride and mercury is good for you...

are you going to believe them when they tell you that antibiotic silver is bad for you?

just sayin.

you take to heart when they deny things that are obviously true..
but you gobble it up when they "warn" against things that are obviously beneficial.

odd situation you find yourself in when i point this out eh?

-

reply to post by prevenge


Hi! Thanks for the post. I am curious as to your comments though. You state:

if the gov tells you sodium fluouride and mercury is good for you...

are you going to believe them when they tell you that antibiotic silver is bad for you?

just sayin.

you take to heart when they deny things that are obviously true..
but you gobble it up when they "warn" against things that are obviously beneficial.

odd situation you find yourself in when i point this out eh?

Perhaps you didn't read either my posts or the story itself.
Your analogy regarding the goverment telling "me" flouride and mercury are good(?) thus what they say about silver nanoparticles is a lie and then following it up by saying "you take to heart when they deny things that are obviously true...but you gobble it up when they "warn" against things that are obviously beneficial." is baffling, to say the least. Do I know you? Why are you personally attacking me over posting a story that says more reasearch needs to be done on this? Are you anti-reasearch? How DO YOU know any aboslutes? What REASEARCH did you BASE your ASSUMPTIONS off? Or did you do none? Exactly what am I GOBBLING UP? Are you supposing what I know about mercury and flouride? If not, how do you know what I feel about these? Who are you? Where is anything definative written about these effects within my posts? Please point one out. The only odd situation I'm in is wondering who you think you are to speak to me as such and if you work for the silver nanoparticle industry.

ColoradoJens

[edit on 14-11-2008 by ColoradoJens]

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
reply to post by prevenge

 

Hi! Thanks for the post. I am curious as to your comments though. You state:

if the gov tells you sodium fluouride and mercury is good for you...

are you going to believe them when they tell you that antibiotic silver is bad for you?

just sayin.

you take to heart when they deny things that are obviously true..
but you gobble it up when they "warn" against things that are obviously beneficial.

odd situation you find yourself in when i point this out eh?

Perhaps you didn't read either my posts or the story itself.
Your analogy regarding the goverment telling "me" flouride and mercury are good(?) thus what they say about silver nanoparticles is a lie and then following it up by saying "you take to heart when they deny things that are obviously true...but you gobble it up when they "warn" against things that are obviously beneficial." is baffling, to say the least. Do I know you? Why are you personally attacking me over posting a story that says more reasearch needs to be done on this? Are you anti-reasearch? How DO YOU know any aboslutes? What REASEARCH did you BASE your ASSUMPTIONS off? Or did you do none? Exactly what am I GOBBLING UP? Are you supposing what I know about mercury and flouride? If not, how do you know what I feel about these? Who are you? Where is anything definative written about these effects within my posts? Please point one out. The only odd situation I'm in is wondering who you think you are to speak to me as such and if you work for the silver nanoparticle industry.

ColoradoJens

[edit on 14-11-2008 by ColoradoJens]

I'll rephrase my post, more into the tone I meant, and less accusatory sounding, to the OP.

here we go...


if the gov tells us sodium fluouride and mercury is good for us...

are we going to believe them when they tell us that antibiotic silver is bad for us?

just sayin.

we take to heart when they deny things that are obviously true..
but we gobble it up when they "warn" against things that are obviously beneficial.

odd situation we find ourselves in when we point this out eh?

a bit of research, and you're golden!..

nano silver-
www.americanbiotechlabs.com...

fluoride-
books.google.com... X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result#PPR8,M1

mercury-
en.wikipedia.org...(element)


-

reply to post by prevenge


Still baffled. Why are you linking mercury and floride sites? Who is gobbling up anything? What does this have to do with carbon nanoparticles? There are many things governments tells us that are lies. Why are you picking these two? Where did I say anything other than more reasearch should be done? Bizzarre.

CJ