It was really interesting going through the discussions on Nano-particles in drugs, cosmetics and things involved in day to day use.
I feel, one thing is badly missind in all the above discussions including like occasional bursting of Li-ion batteries used in mobile hand sets are:
Main points of concern is in its manufacturing process. Again not in the composite battery but in the production of LI-Fe-Phosphate, Li-Titanate or other new generation materials. People involved in the manf. process are daily exposed to toxic and hazardous working environment across the world includind developing countries.
Are the protective gears used against inhalation of the nano-particles can stop ingress of the nano-particle through conventional protective masks etc?

Turns out it’s not nano– talc particles are about a millionth of a meter big (not the billionth of a meter of nanostuff). However, apparently it’s not as safe as I thought; from the Wikipedia entry on Talc:

“Several studies have established preliminary links between talc and pulmonary issues, lung cancer, skin cancer and ovarian cancer. This is a major concern considering talc’s widespread commercial and household use. In 1993, a US National Toxicology Program report found that cosmetic grade talc caused tumours in animals, even though it contained no asbestos-like fibres. Scientists have been aware of the toxicity of talc since the late 1960s, and in 1971 researchers found particles of talc embedded in 75 percent of the ovarian tumors studied.[citation needed] However, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) considers non-asbestiform talc, that is talc which does not contain potentially carcinogenic asbestiform amphibole fibers, to be Generally recognized as safe (GRAS) for use in cosmetics.”

Whether this is evidence that we need to give more money to the FDA to test more stuff more thoroughly, evidence that the FDA is unduly influenced by the Talc lobby, or evidence that it is impossible for the FDA to proactively keep us safe from every possible harm depends on your point of view.

(google for “talc site:fda.gov” and I turn up no warnings. But it is approved as a coloring agent for drugs: http://tinyurl.com/5296qy …)

In this age of instant communication, 24 hour news, and Internet-enabled consumers I think companies are VERY sensitive to product safety. If Apple found out that some material that they used to produce the laptop upon which I’m typing this was dangerous, Apple would very quickly switch to another material and recall the defective part.

And actually, that’s a perfect example: the non-nano-tech lithium battery in my Mac swelled up and threatened to burst last year (it had been recalled, and I got the recall notice, but I was lazy and didn’t check my battery’s serial number and send it in); lithium batteries have a nasty habit of exploding if the electronics in them aren’t just right. I’m looking forward to nano-tech batteries that are smaller and better and safer.

From what I’ve been able to learn, the consensus among economists who have looked into this is that the costs outweigh the benefits, and we’d be better off with less drug testing. Please direct me to research that says otherwise!

Current nanotech (we’re not talking about self-replicating nano-robots… yet…) is nothing more than advanced materials science, and we seem to have done pretty darn well without much regulation of material scientists producing lots of things that aren’t found in nature.

In the case of nanotechnology we are talking about allowing particles that have been shown capable of crossing skin, cell membranes and the blood/brain barrier, that have the potential to behave similarly to asbestos (Poland et al. 2008), that we have very limited understanding of how to assess (let alone develop a testing framework as is used for pharma), and yet is being introduced into the marketplace in everything from water filters to food packaging at a rapid pace.

No company will invest in 20 years of testing to get a product approved, so if that’s the criteria, then you’re basically just saying NO to nanotech (well, NO here in the US– you’ll probably just end up moving the industry overseas).

Any why is nanotech any different than any other new product? There could be medicines on the market right now that have long-term health effects that we’re not aware of. We’ve got to weigh the potential costs (the small risk that Something Bad might turn up in 20 years times the cost of that Bad Thing) versus the benefits of having the new drug/technology/etc.

In addition, there’s the safety of those working in manufacturing operations handling these unregulated materials to make consumer products. Think about all the people of working age going home to their families (children) with nanoparticles on their clothing. It’s generally recognized that children, due to their smaller systems, are more susceptible to the harmful effects of chemicals than are adults. If there are no regulations and companies don’t act responsibly to prevent nanomaterials from leaving the workplace, workers could unknowingly wear this stuff home and expose their loved ones.

I’m a technological optimist, so I don’t think the worst-case scenario is all that bad– I believe that if some nanotech does have bad effects that we’ll be able to figure that out pretty quickly and react to it (witness the quick reaction of bottle manufacturers and retailers to the recent news about bisphenol-a). But I don’t have any data to support that view.

Is there any data to support the opposite view– that the benefits of more regulation are likely to outweigh the costs? A quick google search for ‘fda costs benefits’ doesn’t inspire confidence…