Buckyballs, the new flouride conspiracy?

I was just reading through some papers discussing the amazing characteristics of buckyballs (Buckminsterfullerene C60) and how it's improved everything from golf balls to stain resistant pants.

For those not in the know the Buckminsterfullerene C60 (or "fullerene") was produced in 1985 by Robert Curl, Harold Kroto and Richard Smalley. The name of the molecule was an homage to Richard Buckminster Fuller, an architect who made geodesic domes a popular design motive.

According to Wikipedia, a fullerene is "any molecule composed entirely of carbon, in the form of a hollow sphere, ellipsoid, or tube. Spherical fullerenes are also called buckyballs..."

While researching all the wonderful things these buckyballs now allow us to do, I found something rather ominous on scientistlive.com ...

"How buckyballs hurt cells"

A new study into the potential health hazards of the revolutionary nano-sized particles known as ‘buckyballs' predicts that the molecules are easily absorbed into animal cells, providing a possible explanation for how the molecules could be toxic to humans and other organisms.

Using computer simulations, University of Calgary biochemist Peter Tieleman, post-doctoral fellow Luca Monticelli and colleagues modelled the interaction between carbon-60 molecules and cell membranes and found that the particles are able to enter cells by permeating their membranes without causing mechanical damage. Their results are published in the current Advance Online Publication of Nature Nanotechnology, the world's leading nanotechnology journal.

Buckyballs are already being made on a commercial scale for use in coatings and materials but we have not determined their toxicity," said Tieleman, a Senior Scholar of the Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research who specialises in membrane biophysics and biocomputing. "There are studies showing that they can cross the blood-brain barrier and alter cell functions, which raises a lot of questions about their toxicity and what impact they may have if released into the environment."

This got me thinking, "Why are they being used in pants and cosmetics?!"

And apparently I'm not the only one questioning this all too quick adoption of untested technology. NPR ran a segment titled, "Safety of Nano-cosmetics questioned?"

... some cosmetics have more exotic nano-ingredients. Maynard holds up a $300 jar of Zelens Day Cream. "It's very interesting because it uses this material, buckyballs, which really do, in many people's minds, epitomize nanotechnology."

Buckyballs look like little soccer balls made of carbon atoms. They're only a billionth-of-a-meter wide. Their discovery won a Nobel Prize and helped launch the field of nanotech. Now, the skin-cream maker says buckyballs can prevent premature aging of the skin by acting as an anti-oxidant.

But some experts wonder about the safety of highly engineered nanostructures like these. That's because when particles get small, they tend to develop new chemical properties. That might mean unexpected risks. There hasn't been much research into the safety of novel nano-particles, such as whether they can penetrate the skin. "It is a question that is becoming more compelling," says Sally Tinkle, a researcher at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences in North Carolina.

Traditionally, scientists believed that the skin is pretty impervious to particles. But Tinkle's lab, along with some other labs, has found that at least some nano-particles can slip through the skin's tough outer layer. That means they could potentially interact with the immune system or get into the bloodstream. "We rely on our skin so much to be a protective barrier, that we have to be very rigorous in our thinking about it," says Tinkle

This all sounds tentative and not too worrisome, but then I found a press release from April 17, 2007 from the American Association for Cancer Research. Theresa Phillips from about.com summarized, in an article titled Are Nanoparticles safe, that the research report suggested,

... nanoparticles could cause cancer and should be thoroughly investigated and used with caution. Researchers at the University of Massachusetts studied two types of nanoparticles (silica and C60 fullerene), in MCF-7 and breast cancer cells, and found an increase in DNA damage (single and double-stranded breakages) with both dose- and time-dependent results. ...

Also mentioned in the article,

... When used for remediation, their release in the environment is also risky due to possible exposure to humans and other animal species. ...

There are different types of nanoparticles including the fullerenes (buckyballs) which are known to attract electrons and cause generation of damaging free radicals. Nanotubes are carbon-based tubes that can be used as carriers for drugs..."

So we have nano- enhanced golf-balls being hammered en masse in to bodies of water with fish, cosmetics we freely choose to apply to our own bodies, and clothing where these free roaming radicals might be doing harm to our well being.

Sounds like the NWO's found a new way to get rid of people!

Forewarned is forearmed!

This is my first thread. Go easy on me guys!

[edit on 6-4-2010 by TheMalefactor]

If the private sector are the only ones right now with an obligation to report buckyballs as unsafe, you know they won't do it. They'll wait until the things are ubiquitous - until we can't live without them. They'll need to guarantee a revenue stream before they admit they're harmful.

I like my pants made of cotton, and prefer my women au naturale, so I say just save the nanotubes for the space elevator.

reply to post by TheMalefactor


I think they will find out eventually if they are toxic or not, thanks to all of us who are their labrat eugenic experiemnts. Nobody cares about anyone anymore, its all about profit. Corporations are out of control.

Originally posted by DeltaChaos
If the private sector are the only ones right now with an obligation to report buckyballs as unsafe, you know they won't do it. They'll wait until the things are ubiquitous - until we can't live without them.

Once the FDA warnings start popping up I'm sure Buckyballs will get their own Joe Camel mascot to make 'em hip.

They'll need to guarantee a revenue stream before they admit they're harmful.

Business as usual. I love industry. Really, I do.

I like my pants made of cotton, and prefer my women au naturale, so I say just save the nanotubes for the space elevator.

We think alike. I just hope they keep the nano-tubes away from my jimmy hat.

Crap, looks like someone already had that bright idea ...

www.halfbakery.com...

Damn them all to hell.

reply to post by TheMalefactor


I'm kind of shocked to learn people are creating buckyball products. I was under the impression it was universally known these things were extremely toxic. I was following nanotech very closely for a while until the ordinary chemistry companies labeled their chemistry as "nanotech" to get funding and therefore spammed the nanotech news with a bunch of junk.

There is at least one company or university out there that is attempting to find safe versions of buckyballs by attaching molecules directly onto the buckyballs. Even the safest version they made had a questionable safety though they were making good progress. Maybe they hit on a formulation that is non-toxic and that is the version they are using. Of course I doubt it knowing the stupidity of corporations.
Link: www.newscientist.com...

Ever since genetically engineered foods turned out somewhat toxic, which most definitely went against logic since DNA is perfectly edible regardless of the arrangements of A,T, and C, I've been much more reluctant to support any new technology without very extensive testing on animals first. If people are being guinea pigs they have a right to know about it!

There is no required labeling for buckyball products but at the same time if they are using harmful versions they most definitely can be sued into oblivion.

Edit: Added link.

[edit on 6-4-2010 by truthquest]

Originally posted by (C2C)
reply to post by TheMalefactor

 

I think they will find out eventually if they are toxic or not, thanks to all of us who are their labrat eugenic experiemnts. Nobody cares about anyone anymore, its all about profit. Corporations are out of control.

By the time we're done ruining this planet it'll be worse than in WALL-E. There won't be toasters and rusted appliances lining the streets it'll be bodies.

That or after we're done screwing up our DNA we'll end up looking like deathclaws from Fallout.

that's why cure the cancer with alternative medicine(especially those that safer than chemoterapy, radiation, and surgery) is still better than cure the cancer with golden Nanoshells

Originally posted by truthquest
reply to post by TheMalefactor

 

There is at least one company or university out there that is attempting to find safe versions of buckyballs by attaching molecules directly onto the buckyballs.

Nice to know not everyone's unethical.

Even the safest version they made had a questionable safety though they were making good progress. Maybe they hit on a formulation that is non-toxic and that is the version they are using.

Any links you might've collected would be an awesome addition to the thread!

Of course I doubt it knowing the stupidity of corporations.

You can say that again.

Ever since genetically engineered foods turned out somewhat toxic, which most definitely went against logic since DNA is perfectly edible regardless of the arrangements of A,T, and C, I've been much more reluctant to support any new technology without very extensive testing on animals first. If people are being guinea pigs they have a right to know about it!

I'll tell ya my main goal posting this is to get the word out to women. Especially when I read this,

Cosmetics companies say they do rigorous studies before releasing products, which are regulated by the government. John Bailey, of the Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association, says that most cosmetics today aren't using highly engineered nanostructures, and that any future applications would be tested extensively for safety: "Certainly within the cosmetics law, there are sufficient checks and balances that will ensure that products and their ingredients are safe."

But the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) generally only investigates cosmetics if safety questions emerge after a product is on the market, because there is no pre-marketing approval process for cosmetics formulations. Linda Katz, director of the FDA's Office of Cosmetics and Colors, also says the agency has no nano-specific regulations -- cosmetics manufacturers aren't required to tell the agency if they're using nanotech. Katz says her agency has not heard of any cases of adverse effects due to nanotechnology in cosmetics, but the FDA is currently doing some studies on whether the zinc oxide nanoparticles now found in some sunscreens can penetrate the skin.

www.npr.org...

This is just a disaster waiting to happen.

There is no required labeling for buckyball products but at the same time if they are using harmful versions they most definitely can be sued into oblivion.

That's a ray of sunshine in a dark sky, but I'd rather people not have to die a gruesome cancerous death in the first place. This sort of bull#### should be transparent, right on the packaging, so consumers know there might be risk.

reply to post by TheMalefactor


I try to get most girls I know to stay away from makeup already. It blocks vitiman D production from the sun and now I also learn, has toxic bucyballs in it. One more thing to help me convince girls that makeup is bad!

Originally posted by (C2C)
reply to post by TheMalefactor

 

I try to get most girls I know to stay away from makeup already. It blocks vitiman D production from the sun and now I also learn, has toxic bucyballs in it. One more thing to help me convince girls that makeup is bad!

You know now that I think about it ... if they start using them in contraceptives that would be a good reason to tell the lady friends, "Ya know ... this just isn't good for me, ain't good for you, probably best to just do without!" LOL

OK, I read the title of the OP and all responses and the relevant research. Where does flouride come in here, except in the misleading title. Buckminster fullerene is pure carbon. No fluorine anywhere. The carbon=fluorine bond, being partially ionic in character, is one of the strongest bonds in organic chemistry, and is usually very non-reactive, such as in the case of tetrafluoromethane or carbon tetra fluorene. No free radicals there. Now, if you want some real science, investigate what would happen if you fully fluorinated a buckeyball. The result, C60F60 would be the slickest lubricant ever made. See ww.insite.com.br/rodrigo/bucky/buckyball.txt.

Originally posted by 4nsicphd
OK, I read the title of the OP and all responses and the relevant research. Where does flouride come in here, except in the misleading title.

It's called an idiom. Sort of a twist of the expression "the old new thing." For instance a person could say, "twitter, the new facebook." Since facebook is the old thing and they're both social networks.

Get it?

Originally posted by 4nsicphd
Now, if you want some real science, investigate what would happen if you fully fluorinated a buckeyball. The result, C60F60 would be the slickest lubricant ever made. See www.insite.com.br/rodrigo/bucky/buckyball.txt.

Now that's just awesome.

www.insite.com.br...

edit: ^-- link's clickable

[edit on 6-4-2010 by TheMalefactor]

I edited in the link to the article I remember reading:

The team, led by Vicki Colvin, looked at the effects of buckyballs on human cells. They found that even at quite low concentrations in water the buckyballs killed human skin cells. However, when they attached chemical groups such as hydroxyl groups to the buckyballs, their toxicity was greatly reduced.

The higher the number of groups that were attached, the less toxic the fullerenes became, so that a buckyball with 24 hydroxyl groups attached showed a toxicity seven orders of magnitude lower than the original buckyball.

www.newscientist.com...

Its great that I can type in a few keywords into the internet and find something I'd read six years earlier.

[edit on 6-4-2010 by truthquest]

Pretty interesting read. Reputable source I might add too!

Originally posted by truthquest
I edited in the link to the article I remember reading:

The team, led by Vicki Colvin, looked at the effects of buckyballs on human cells. They found that even at quite low concentrations in water the buckyballs killed human skin cells. However, when they attached chemical groups such as hydroxyl groups to the buckyballs, their toxicity was greatly reduced.

The higher the number of groups that were attached, the less toxic the fullerenes became, so that a buckyball with 24 hydroxyl groups attached showed a toxicity seven orders of magnitude lower than the original buckyball.

www.newscientist.com...

Nice to know companies are paying attention to the warnings:

c60golfball.com...

Here's an older article from back in 2004 discussing NDMX golf balls made by NanoDynamics,

It was an employee who came up with the idea for a more accurate flying projectile. Blakely, the chief executive, dismissed it at first — even though he's a self-described hacker whose own game could use some help.

"My first reaction was 'no, we're not in the sporting goods business,' " he said.

Far from it. The 50-person company makes esoteric things like engineered industrial powders. Nanoscale refers to materials one-thousandth the width of a human hair and smaller — the neighborhood of buckyballs, not golf balls. Among the projects in development at the waterfront site is a ceramic fuel cell that converts propane gas to electricity.

...

One project involves an improved process for making carbon nanotubes. The carbon lattice structures, related to buckminster fullerene or buckyballs, have potential uses in electronics, composite materials and drug delivery. But their adoption has been held back by the cost — $500 a pound and up, Blakely said. He thinks that techniques refined at ART could boost production yields and cut costs by 90 percent.
www.azonano.com...

edit: added link

[edit on 6-4-2010 by TheMalefactor]

This just keeps getting better and better,

The nascent nanotechnology industry collectively cringed last week after a study showed that fish exposed to nanoparticles suffered brain damage. Critics say the much-hyped multibillion-dollar nano industry has a dark side few want to talk about.

"How many more studies showing toxicity are needed before regulators step in?" asks Kathy Jo Wetter of the Winnipeg-based ETC Group. ETC and other environmental groups are calling for a moratorium on the commercial production of nanoparticles.

...

Stain-resistant nanopants and sunscreens and cosmetics using nanosized titanium dioxide particles are already on the market. And the Nanodesu bowling ball is one of the first consumer products that uses nanoparticles called fullerenes -- aka buckyballs -- which are extremely stable arrangements of carbon atoms that look like soccer balls.

To see what might happen if buckyballs got into the environment, Eva Oberdörster, an aquatic scientist at Southern Methodist University, put some into a fish tank at a concentration of 0.5 parts per million, along with nine largemouth bass. The buckyball-breathing fish experienced significant brain damage after 48 hours. Brain-cell membranes were disrupted, an affliction that has been linked to illnesses such as Alzheimer's disease in humans.

www.wired.com...

What would the world look like if we didn't invent plastics and used industrial hemp?

We wouldn't have a giant floating plastic island in the ocean, that's for sure!

I think plastics as a byproduct in the refinement of oil is a product that will keep ruining our planet, and I am convinced that there are no "safe plastics".

Even the so called bio degradable plastic is crap for nature, thanks DuPont.

and now with this, nano technology? makes my skin crawl because it easy gets under your skin.

So this topic doesn't surprise me at all to be honest, good work OP.

GM

Seems like a lot of people are making noise about this, which is good, but why the hell is it still in products ( www.nanotechproject.org... ) if we have all this research showing it to be as bad if not worse than asbestos?

In 2007 an article titled, "Safety of Cosmetics Containing Nanoparticles Questioned at BA Festival of Science,"

Fears were expressed about the safety of some cosmetics at the BA Festival of Science in York on Wednesday.

The products contain buckyballs – carbon molecules known as fullerenes – whose safety in cosmetics was questioned by chemistry professor Tony Ryan from the University of Sheffield.

Sircuit® Cosmeceuticals Inc's website advertises skin nutrient products containing fullerenes as being for sale throughout the United States. Zelens Fullerene C60 Day Cream, which is no longer on sale in the UK, is sold in Asia, where it will be replaced by another range of Zelens products early next year.

The Day Cream cost £135 for 30 ml.

Tony Ryan questioned the safety of carbon nanoparticles in cosmetics.

"I wouldn’t put buckyballs anywhere near my face," he said.

"We need to understand more about the toxicology. One of the potential dangers with carbon nanotubes is: are we creating a new asbestos? The asbestosis response is based on the shape of the particle. Part of the issue is in the shape of the molecule and how they're introduced. We just need to be careful about the risk versus the benefit," he said.

...

A report earlier this year from the prestigious Council for Science and Technology concluded that the government "had not provided sufficient support for research into the toxicology and health and environmental effects of nanomaterials."

According to the Medical Research Council, the problem is not lack of funds for the research, but that proposals have not been forthcoming. The MRC has issued a notice to toxicologists which, it says, "has already elicited interest".
www.azonano.com...