Cal Baier-Anderson, Ph.D., is a Health Scientist.
The proliferation of nanoscale materials in consumer products is impressive: nano titanium dioxide and zinc oxide in sunscreen, buckyballs in face creams, and nanosilver in socks are but a few examples of what is currently available for purchase. But they make me wonder: what happens when the nanomaterials in or released from these products are washed down the drain? Read More
Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.
[Links to posts in this series: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5]
In my last post, I decried EPA’s shortsighted decision to declare nano forms of chemicals listed on the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Inventory to be “existing” rather than “new” chemicals. But I noted that EPA did not rule that all nanomaterials are existing chemicals. EPA says it will consider buckyballs, carbon nanotubes, or anything else that has no counterpart – a substance with the same chemical structure – already on the TSCA Inventory to be “new.” So can we rest assured that, at least for these nanomaterials, EPA has sufficient authority under TSCA to effectively identify and address their potential risks? Would it were so. Read More
John Balbus, M.D., M.P.H., is Chief Health Scientist.
A new study published today in Nature Nanotechnology finds that multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) cause inflammatory changes in mice that closely resemble those caused by asbestos. This is the second study in a few months to make this finding. (I posted on the first, Takagi et al., a few weeks ago.) So is the case closed on multi-walled carbon nanotubes? Or is too early to draw conclusions? Read More
John Balbus, M.D., M.P.H., is Chief Health Scientist.
The history of health and environmental impacts of fuel additives is not a pretty one. From tetra-ethyl lead to methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE), we’ve learned the hard way that what goes in the tank ends up in our bodies and the environment sooner or later. Getting a thorough understanding of the potential risks of a new fuel additive at an early stage is essential to avoid a lot of harm, suffering, and economic costs down the line.
A new study by Park et al. has assessed the potential respiratory risks of a fuel additive called Envirox (nanoparticulate cerium oxide), giving it a clean bill of health based only on in vitro tests. Is this the vision of the future of risk assessment? Should we feel safe? Read More
Cal Baier-Anderson, Ph.D., is a Health Scientist.
A recent article posted on scienceline includes a claim that bacteria cannot develop resistance to silver, which is widely used as an antimicrobial. That assertion is not only false, but also dangerous. Read More
Richard Denison, Ph.D., is a Senior Scientist.
[Links to posts in this series: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5]
In this and my next two posts, I want to explore the question of whether EPA has sufficient authority under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to effectively oversee nanotechnology. EPA (as well as the White House) maintains that the agency has ample statutory authority to do what’s needed to identify and address any potential risks nanomaterials may pose to consumers, the general public and the environment. I beg to differ. Read More
