TR : Once we know the dangers, who's going to regulate nanotech? Do you think the existing federal regulatory agencies, like the EPA, can do it? AM: I don't know, and I'm not prepared to commit myself at this stage, because we are at such an early stage in the debate. The thing that concerns me is, there is very much a mind-set that is based on the conventional understanding of chemicals. But nanomaterials are not chemicals. They have a structural component there as well as a chemical component. TR : You say we're still at an early stage, but aren't you also arguing for the need to get going, to do something now before something bad happens? AM: That's where you come down to talking about "oversight" rather than regulations. If you're looking at developing best practices for handling nanomaterials, you can be far faster than you can with new legislation leading to regulation. So there are ways of dealing with challenges in the near future that don't necessarily mean resorting to regulation. TR : You've made the point that nanotech is moving too fast to keep up with, and you've proposed some interesting new technologies that could help. AM: It's very clear that we are moving into a new era in many ways. It's very clear that conventional ways of doing things and thinking just aren't going to be up to the job of dealing with some of these new technologies and products. TR : You talked about developing smart sensors that measure not only the number of particles in the air that a worker might inhale, but also harmful effects. AM: That's right. You could imagine 10 to 20 years from now. You're developing a new nanotechnology material. You have absolutely no idea whether it's going to be safe or harmful. What if you had a little sensor that you could put on your body that began to flash if there was a possibility of having a hazardous exposure? That would mean not only measuring the amount of stuff you're exposed to but actually that property of the stuff that is likely to lead to harm in the body, such as oxidative stress, which from what we can tell right now is a major indicator of potential hazard. It would be an indicator to say, "Hold on a minute, there may be a problem here."
|
Audio »
Share »
Digg this
Add to del.icio.us
Add to Reddit
Add to Facebook
Slashdot It!
Stumble It!
Add to Newsvine
Add to Connotea
Add to CiteUlike
Add to Furl
Googlize this
Add to Rojo
Add to MyWeb
Favorite
Print
E-mail
From the Labs: Nanotechnology
08/19/2008
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Comments
sman on 03/28/2007 at 5:01 AM
11
The reason for the arguments and discussions going on all over the world about the risks of nanotechnology in consumer products like medicine, food and cosmetics etc that there is no proper test proof published to the market that this technology does not harm. Actually this should happen before using any technology, as such, in any product. Often companies do marketing of their product using the term ‘nanotechnology’ and it is not clear to the consumer that for what this technology has been applied in the product. How dangerous their product is to human health? Because many time the companies are concerned with the use of new technology and labeling the product with it before the technology impact is studied substantially.
Some regulations should come for researching on impacts and publishing it with proof prior to applying it to the human consumer products. At least it should happen for the technologies like totally innovative and ground-breaking ones.
www.browsetoknow.blogspot.com