Although many experts may believe that nanotechnology can be the answer to many of our environmental problems, particles released from the production of nanodevices could prove to be harmful to the atmosphere and human health. Nanopollution refers to the waste generated by nanodevices or the nanomaterials used during the manufacturing process of the nanodevices. It is necessary for experts to take further steps in understanding the effects of nanopollution so that the government may be able to legislate the waste produced by nanotechnology.
Why are nanopollutants so harmful? Because of their size, nano-particles can penetrate deep into a human’s lungs and can more easily access the bloodstream through capillaries within the lungs. Once in the bloodstream, these nano-particles are believed to produce oxygen radicals that are the main contributor to lung and cardiovascular problems. Studies by some doctors support an opinion that nanopollutants foster the onset of cancer.
It may prove difficult to effectively regulate nanopollution because the particles are so small and very hard to monitor. Anticipating more adept detection methods in the future the regulation of nanopollution may be realistic. Most experts view the growth of nanopollution as an air quality issue. This belief may prove useful for future legislators and provide insight into how nanopollution may be best regulated. The NAAQS do not specifically regulate nanopollution at the moment and these air quality standards should include the particles produced from nanodevices.
This is an interesting article. It seems that we always hear either a positive or negative side about new technologies, innovations, or ideas but hardly ever are told the whole story. I think its important to recognize that nano-particles may lead to breakthrough discoveries in some areas, but also may pose nefarious as you've pointed out.
ReplyDeleteI think ideally, nano-particles would be used exclusively in the lab where they could develop possible health breakthroughs but would be isolated from daily human interaction.
This topic is very interesting and rarely touched on. What I find most disturbing about nanopollution is that inhaled nanoscopic particles could travel to the brain.
ReplyDeleteClearly, as with any other sort of new and unexplored technology, the side effects are not completely known. However, the alarming information already known about how harmful nanopollution can be to both animals and humans should put off scientists from using it. I agree with your point that it would also be difficult to regulate this type of pollution. In the end, it is simply not worth the risk.
Alarm is important to be raised, but I can't shake the feeling that the nanotech industry is still so young that its impossibly unfair for us to give it grief. We have industries with worse waste records that are (importantly) industries we no longer need. Coal trade, dirty energy production, etc are obviously just as serious a competitor to air quality as nanotech, but coal is on the way out. Nanotechnology really does have the promise and ability to change the way we interact with the world. I'm too uncomfortable preventing the growth of a technology like nanotech simply because at its earliest forms we haven't learned everything about its waste or other implications. Like the group that spoke about energy policy between Texas and California: sometimes it really may be better to just live and let be some technologies, otherwise we may have to wait too long to see their fruits.
ReplyDeleteI found this topic very interesting. I for one had never even heard of nanopollutants before, so reading this gave me some new insight. I find it very interesting that with new technology almost always comes both positive and negative outcomes. Many times it is easy to prove that the pros and cons almost offset each other, but in some cases one may outweigh the other and in the case of nanopollution, there are many cons to take into account.
ReplyDeleteI strongly think that nanopollutants should be regulated and efforts should be made in the improvement of technology in order to regulate and monitor these harmful pollutants.
I would have to agree that new technologies in nanoscience need to be approached with caution. Unfortunately, more often than not, the breakthrough is what gets the press, and not the potentially negative effects. For example, chlorofluorocarbons were viewed as great replacements for toxic compounds used previously as refrigerants after their discovery in the 1920s. Now, of course, we know that their high level of stability causes CFCs to accumulate in the atmosphere and deplete the ozone. It took almost 50 years for CFC regulations to begin. Although nanotechnology has great potential to solve even environmental problems (like water purification), the risks associated need to be studied further.
ReplyDelete