It\u2019s been\na while since nanotechnology safety was featured in this blog. This blog has previously mentioned the\nlawsuit against Johnson & Johnson (J&J) regarding the talc in their\ntalcum powder. The contention was that\nthere was asbestos in the talc employed by J&J which caused the women\u2019s\nillness. There is one source identified\nthat definitely has asbestos material. The\nfirst award in that case was made despite the J&J claimed that they had not\nused talc from that source and the fact that the woman could not remember if\nshe ever used the J&J product. \nRecently, Bayer AG lost a case with a $2B award to two claimants who\ndeveloped cancer that was caused by Bayer\u2019s glyphosate-based Roundup weed\nkiller. (Ref. 1) This award was despite the fact that the U.S. Environmental\nProtection Agency has concluded that there are no risks to public health from\nthe current registered uses of glyphosate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
So what\ndoes this have to do with Nano-Safety? \nThere are so many unknowns with nanomaterials, that the long-term\neffects are not fully comprehended. As\ndiagnostic science improves, there will be more potential issues found. Add to the litigation increases and the vast\nunknowns, there are a number of reports where \u201cscientific mischief\u201d\noccurs. (This phenomenon has been\ncovered in previous blogs.) The only\npractical method to attempt to mitigate negative consequences of working with\nnanomaterials is to implement a comprehensive program of nanotechnology safety.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Given the\nfact that the understanding of Nano-Safety requires a complete knowledge of\nmaterial properties, particle behavior, toxicity, impact on the environment,\nproper handling and protection, etc., the ability to meet all these conditions\ndoes not exist. Therefore, it becomes\nnecessary to develop an approach to ensure that proper procedures are\nestablished and maintained, worker safety is provided and routinely checked,\nequipment is appropriate for the task and monitored, etc., which requires a\nplanned approach. The initial White Paper\non Nano-Safety (Ref. 2) characterized four areas to be addresses: 1) Material\nProperties; 2) Impact on People and the Environment; 3) Handling of\nNanomaterials; and 4) Business Focus. A\nsynopsis of the key thoughts in the White Paper is in the next few paragraphs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Understanding\nMaterial Properties<\/em> requires knowledge of what properties need to\nbe investigated. That is a challenge\nsince the properties are unknown. A\nrecent report indicated that a twisted layer of graphene demonstrated some\nmagnetic storage potential. So where\ndoes one start? The need is to begin\nwith the obvious challenges, like size or shape, that are similar to know\nissues and the continually explore research \nto obtain knowledge of new properties.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The key\nobjective is evaluating the Impact on People and the Environment<\/em>. The is non-trivial and will not be accurately\nunderstood in the new future. That is\nwhy the next section becomes critical. The\nevaluation of workers before, during, and after leaving their nanotechnology\nefforts is accomplished to provide long term learning of potential\neffects. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Proper Handling\nof Nanomaterials<\/em> is the only means to work with materials with unknown\nproperties. Procedures need to be\nestablished and followed. Monitoring of\nstorage, usage, and disposal of nanomaterials needs to be treated as if\neverything unknown is potentially hazardous. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Business\nFocus<\/em> is important. The\norganization needs to protect its personnel. \nTypically, this is done by instituting established guidelines. While there are some guidelines, in general,\nthe guidelines can not cover all unknowns. \nThis requires continual monitoring and record keeping. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Even doing\neverything possible does not guarantee that everyone and everything will be\nsafe. It does provide a basis for\nprotecting people and the environment. \nWith continual updates to procedures, this process will minimize\npotential risks. An Attitude of\nNano-Safety is required. <\/p>\n\n\n\n References:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n It\u2019s been a while since nanotechnology safety was featured in this blog. This blog has previously mentioned the lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson (J&J) regarding the talc in [..]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-342","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-nanotechnology-safety"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.nano-blog.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/342","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.nano-blog.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.nano-blog.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.nano-blog.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.nano-blog.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=342"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/www.nano-blog.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/342\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":343,"href":"http:\/\/www.nano-blog.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/342\/revisions\/343"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.nano-blog.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=342"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.nano-blog.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=342"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.nano-blog.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=342"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}