With nanosilver on the ropes with EPA regulations, we're going to see more of this ...
"Sanitized Silver is NOT Nanotechnology: Sanitized Silver is neither nanotechnology nor nanosilver." More here
Backgrounder
EPA decides to regulate what it already regulates
The Times of London asks whether a hair-repair product from Nanomax is "Trick or Treatment?" The verdict from a trichologist: Trick.
The Times explains:
What is it? A permanent hair repair treatment that uses nanotechnology - the science of manipulating matter on a molecular level. Healthy hair is made up of 90 per cent keratin and 10 per cent moisture, but environmental or cosmetic damage can leave it split, with craters or minute cracks. Nanomax claims to penetrate the hair, duplicating its natural structure, helping to heal, repair, strengthen, protect and shine....
Trichologist's verdict: "It is not possible to 'heal' or 'repair' a broken hair, although remoisturising it is beneficial. ... There are more effective ways to remoisturise and condition your hair that don't blind you with (pseudo) science,” says Philip Kingsley, a trichologist. More here
The newspaper used a human "guinea-pig" for its nanotech experiments, by the way. I am proud to say that NanoBot and Small Times (back when I was news editor) bravely pioneered this method of using human test subjects.
Backgrounder
... and I am a trivial boy
Don't hate me because I'm nano-beautiful
Nerd American Idol
Beauty and the Nano Beat
This is why you should never post anything on a blog at 3:31 a.m., no matter how much sense you think you make at the time ...
So, government bans are bad, yet drive innovation, so they are good. A scientific opinion is fact if enough of the culture believes it to be so ... until the belief falls out of fashion or is dropped out of sheer boredom ... A police state is peace, British Petroleum is green, left and right each support fascism (left in Iraq, right in the U.S.), the environment can be cleaned up through bumper stickers and rock concerts, and we all lived with Fred Flintstone and Dino just a few thousand years ago, sunscreen is dangerous nanotech while molecular manufacturing is impossible, therefore safe ...I mean, you just can't make this shit up. Stranger than fiction. Welcome to the future, my friends. More here
I love my responsible friends at the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology. And friends don't let friends contemplate their own belly buttons for too long.
The truth is, most science fiction -- even in the "golden age" (a time period usually defined by whenever the reader was a lonely teenager with no friends holed up in his room reading SciFi to escape real life) becomes caricature over time, since the future is never really "one thing."
"Predictions" of early 21st century life from the vantage of the last century all appear to me to be cartoonish, since it is ridiculous that we should become "a society of ..." fill in the blank. Instead, life goes on much the same, as our toys become more sophisticated. Almost all pictured either a new fascism arising out of those who control the new technology, or some kind of dull "Star Trekkian" egalitarian society somehow free of bigotry, superstition, hate and humanness.
Even the oft-cited "1984" in the end seems cartoonish to me today, despite the fact that any form of government control or monitoring of anything at all turns "Orwellian" in the exaggerated pen of lazy writers who feel they can just use the catch-all "Big Brother" epithet to end all debate.
I would find the whole lament over lack of decent science fiction pretty funny, except there's a slight edge of truth to the claim that SciFi influences the direction the future will take. I'd go a step further and say that it influences the present, since all one has to do is bring up the specter of an exaggerated, imagined dystopia to get some segments of the public all riled up against any technology.
"And the technology could potentially further affect our lives – from crippling our security and privacy with the creation of never-before-seen weapons and surveillance systems to altering the fabric of the clothes we wear and creating batteries from viruses constructed at the nano-scale. ..."
Heeelllpp!!! Run for the hills!!!! The nano-virus batteries in our suntan lotion and stain-free nanopants are altering my DNA and turning me into a DARPA robot!!!!
I love escapist science fiction. But. Nahh. We really don't need any more SciFi influencing current debates. Like I wrote at 3:31 a.m. to my friends at CRN. Just take a look at the bizarre events swirling around technology in real life.
Backgrounder
Irresponsible NanoHype
Bourne and Bourne
appears on the shelves. In this one,
our favorite amnesiac gets some mind-altering nano ... um ... things
implanted in his brain in the hopes it might shake his memories loose.
Of course, something goes wrong. Horribly, Horribly wrong, with the
nanobots in Bourne's brain.
Now, this new Bourne book is not to be confused with the other Bourne nano book scheduled to be shipped Aug. 18. In this action-packed thriller, nanotech analyst Marlene Bourne discusses the very real nanotech embedded into everyday products.
And, while I have been accused of writing fiction in the past, I can tell you with absolute authority that Marlene Bourne's “A Consumer’s Guide to MEMS and Nanotechnology” is nothing but the facts. I helped her review the manuscript as she was writing it.
So, nanotech fiction today, nanotech fact Aug. 18. Now, that's worth remembering.
Nanoarchitecture.net continues a line of questioning I've been hammering away at for a while, and that is the Wilson Center's list of more than 450 nanotech-enabled "products."
They really should change it to "nanotech-claimed" products, since the center apparently simply reads the labels and takes nanotech claims at face value. The 450-500 products number is increasingly being cited by the mainstream media as absolute fact.
I'm not certain why the Wilson Center continues its unquestioning nanocount. But it is important to remember that its Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies exists as a self-appointed watchdog for environmental and health risks. The more nanotech products it can claim, the higher the public alarm. The higher the alarm, the more the media and citizens are going to come to the Wilson Center for "answers."
This is especially true if the center reinforces "the unknowns" about the health and environmental impacts of nanoparticles. When it comes to public perception, it doesn't even matter if you take whatever unknown percentage of the Wilson Center list that actually does contain nanoparticles and check to see whether they have, in fact, been studied.
The point is to not confuse the public with facts, but to lead it toward the "obvious" conclusions based on the limited information contained within the loaded question.
In my mind, the exaggerated claims by the Wilson Center are no different than the manipulation of information put out by some green organizations or get-rich-quick investment gurus.
Backgrounder
QuoteBot: Nano 'snake-oil'
Dear Boston Globe: A 'mashup' is not a survey
Ex-FDA official concludes FDA needs more dough
Nanotech hocus group
Indigestible nanotech claim
Guaranteeeeed, Jen - U - Wiiiiine Nano!
The nanotech "industry" is again the victim of its own hype. It adopted a broad definition of nanotech to attract more investment. If it appears that nanotech is already big business and already incorporated into hundreds of products, then the illusion is created that it's not such a risky investment. Come on in, fellas, and bring your checkbooks.
As time goes on, though, we'll see the "industry" move to a less broad definition. But the damage has been done. It made the mistake of believing its own press releases. What's worse, anti-nanotech activists believed the hype, as well. If nanosize ingredients -- even in stink-free socks -- are something special and different, then they need to be treated as such, and tested.
There's an internal logic of its own here, yet I cannot help but ponder whether all the stink over nanosized ingredients in cleaning products will ultimately be good for real nanotechnology. After all, the custodians working at the labs where scientists are creating engineered molecules to cure diseases, make drinking water safe and end poverty need to clean the clean rooms and laboratory bathrooms with safe material. And all those scientists working late hours without changing their socks need some protective footwear for the sake of their coworkers.
Backgrounder
How low can nano go?
'Super thick non-digestible' nano
'Crain's-ing' my neck to see the hype
Bethany and Alex Maynard: The Woodward and Bernstein of the nanotech age? Watch (.mov 20.1MB) how they grill their dad, Andrew Maynard, chief scientist with the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
The confusion continues over nanoparticles in cosmetics. This uncertainty over safety is one of many reasons why nanobio researchers wish the Beauty Industrial Complex would find a different marketing term and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration would get more aggressive in sorting out safely engineered nanoparticles from untested, nanosized zinc oxide.
The FDA does not have as much authority over cosmetics as it does over, well, food and drugs. An argument can be made, however, that the more-sophisticated cosmetics out there -- L’Oreal's nanosomes, for example -- could qualify as drug delivery devices.
Update: Shopping for answers: Nanotechnology: Another concern for cosmetics users? (By Leigh Grogan, Sacramento Bee)
Backgrounder
Straight-up info on nanotech regulation
Friends of the Earth releases nanotox report
FDA tries to get a virtual grip on nano
Nerd American Idol
Can a Lifewave patch increase energy and stamina by 40% using nanotechnology? (Google Answers)
I am the webmaster and publisher of the WorldWide Scam Network, a
non-profit consumer advocate watchdog web site. We are currently
investigating a company called "Lifewave" which is marketing a patch
that claims to increase energy, stamina and endurance by up to 40%
within 10 minutes of application.
This patch is non-transdermal - no chemicals or substances are transferred while wearing this patch. They claim to use nanotechnology and nanoantennas that communicate with your body "like a cell phone" telling it to create "more energy, please." This is their description as to how the patches work: More here
Do Nanotech Products Live Up to the Hype? (NPR)
Nanotechnology is the science of designing materials, atom by atom. It promises revolutionary applications for everything from the military to sports. NPR's David Kestenbaum investigates whether nanotech products already on the market are all they're cracked up to be. More hereNanoBot Backgrounder
Nanotennis anyone? Tiny, sporty materials have their day on court
French firm hopes to get PR bounce out of nanotubes in tennis rackets
You ain't seen nano yet
Nerd American Idol
Nanotroubles
Big questions about tiny particles
They're already proving useful but are the new, tiny miracle molecules
safe? In the rush to commercialize there are unanswered questions,
reports Rachel Ross (Toronto
Star)
Despite the uncertainty, a handful of
products that contain engineered nanoparticles are already on store
shelves.
Inside every bottle of Oil Of Olay Complete UV Protection moisturizer is a little bit of nanotech. The Procter & Gamble product is one of many sunscreens that contain a nanoparticle known as microfine zinc oxide. Zinc has long been used as a sunscreen in larger form. It's effective, but certainly not for the vain: it stays white on skin. Make those particles nano-size and there's no more risk of embarrassing white marks.
But some researchers worry that the nanoparticle intended to protect the skin might actually damage DNA.
A July 2004 report commissioned by the British government cited studies that found microfine zinc oxide damaged cells in vitro.
Whether the nanoparticles are toxic to cells in a living body is still unknown. The report, written by the British Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering, said more research was needed before the particle could be considered safe for use in cosmetics.
Procter & Gamble declined to answer questions about the product's safety.
Health Canada said it has not yet studied the issue. More here
NanoBot Backgrounder
WSJ
is down with nano
Britain
balances science, economics, perception
NPR
can't tell Crichton from cosmetics
The product, according to the package, contains "nano-size silver particles" that prevent "bacteria and fungus causing itchiness and odour."
Great. I'm there. As a former athlete's foot sufferer (you now officially know too much about me) and proud poster boy for nanopants, I'd love to find out whether playing footsie with a nice pair of nanosocks would complete me.
The picture above was taken at about 11 p.m. Sept. 28, 2004. I'm going to keep them on for a while now and give this product a run for its money. See what I do for you, dear NanoBot reader? It costs you nothing, and you're spared the full sensory experience. Question is, how long do you think I should keep them on to see whether they're truly worth their weight in nanosilver?
NanoBot Backgrounder
NanoVelvet Revolution
The people want the pants
Is this "nanotechnology?
The NanoBreeze Car Air Purifier from NanoTwin Technologies uses
photocatalytic nanotechnology to clean and purify the air inside the
passenger compartment of any motor vehicle.
Reuters quoted me in a story running in today's news cycle: Cutting-edge science creates stain-free pants. Yeah, I know, again with the pants! You'd think it was an obsession of mine. As a bonus, I also managed to weave in a "Star Trek" reference, just to really let my geek flag fly.
Andy Sullivan's report is a decent outline of some of the nanotech products currently available. No, they're not self-assembling particles that will create the fabled Big Bright Green Pleasure Machine (act now, operators are standing by), but the sunscreen, tennis balls and pants do represent the bridge between the old macro economy and the new, more-efficient, accurate and tailored small tech economy. The much-publicized nanopants, for example, is successful because it fills an existing need and fits seamlessly into existing products and markets.
As these small tech products sneak into the macro world, they will lead to increased consumer expectations of quality, accuracy and personalization, pushing more small tech products into the marketplace. So, that's how you get from today's sunscreen and nanopants to tomorrow's products that we can barely even imagine now.
It isn't nanobots in the bloodstream, but the fantastic voyage needs to start somewhere, and right now, the "nano inside" is just in a lot of "stuff.”
Oh, and speaking of green, today's top story on smalltimes.com, Nanoparticles prove irresistible for cleanup of industrial waste, is another illustration of how the environmental movement and nanoscience could walk arm-in-arm into the future. Greenpeace and ETC Group would still be skeptical, though. The question remains: What is the long-term impact this "stuff" (in this case, iron oxide nanoparticles developed by the Institute for New Materials in Saarbrucken, Germany) is going to have on the environment? Excellent question, and I'll have more on this soon.
Yes, that was meant to be a teaser …
Last year at about this time, my wife called me at work and told me a robot climbed out of a hovercraft and dropped a pair of Eddie Bauer Nano-Care Plain-Front Chinos on our doorstep. In my excitement, I chose to ignore her droll sarcasm. The pants! The pants! The Nanopants were here!
Whenever I'd talk about nanotechnology to friends and family, I'd always mention the pants. In fact, every news story written in the mainstream media about nanotech in the past two years has brought up sunscreen … and THE PANTS! (Never mind that even those who sell them apparently don't know what they are, as we can see from Popular Science's Little Robots In Your Pants.
Not only was Nano-Tex LLC almost single-handedly bringing nanotechnology to the people, it was also one of the few assets that kept its ailing parent company, Burlington Industries, afloat, as you can see in this story: Ailing Burlington textile company pins its hopes on nanotech.
I put it to good use immediately. I glopped yogurt on my pants at work, and wiped it off to avoid embarrassing stains. I slopped cantaloupe on my white shirt. Damn! No nanoshirt … yet (although one is apparently available in India, and a stink-free shirt is on the drawing board). But I brushed the coffee stains right off my pants. A few months later, I accidentally wrote on my pants with a red marker. I made a mental note to send a strongly worded letter to Nano-Tex about Nano-Whiskers meeting their match with Sharpies. Orange juice, luckily, beaded up and fell harmlessly to the floor.
So, I went ahead and ordered about five more, in all different colors. After a year, my original khakis wore out. I guess mowing the lawn was too much for my nanopants. Also, the little nanobots (I'll call them that because I just like to think of my pants as alive) opt for early retirement after about 30 washings. Still, though, a good deal.
What's next for Nano-Tex? First, it needs to lose Burlington. What a drag on its image. Take a look at today's news: Shareholder seeks probe into Burlington's role in Nano-Tex. More to come on that.
Meanwhile, the true engines of creation are in my pants.
Today's Wall Street Journal report on self-healing materials is a rare example of hype-free nanotech reporting. It leads with a reference to the "Terminator" movies, but that's just to get the average reader hooked. Then it quickly loses the sci-fi analogy and goes into real research.
Here's my favorite part: "NASA scientists pursuing this research are spending much of their time on the golf course. Instead of playing 18 holes, they are studying the outer-coating of golf balls -- a plastic called surlyn. Surlyn is found in everything from bowling pins to dog-chew toys because of its ability to take a beating. Surlyn … has the ability to heal itself at the nano-level when damaged. For reasons still being studied, surlyn's molecules unite once they are separated."
I can't wait to tell my puppy, Thurston, about this! Self-healing chewy toys! We need to get a couch and all our shoes made out of this material right away.
But, there's always a catch. The article then goes on to say, "NASA doesn't believe surlyn is the answer for its program because it likely won't be able to handle the ravages of outer space -- including massive radiation … Still, researchers are studying it because they believe any self-healing material they develop will have many of the same properties as surlyn."
Here's a link to the WSJ article, but you'll need a subscription to access it. Sorry, I wish all content were free and all journalists highly paid, but I have to respect the rights of publications that want to charge for their online content. But if you want to learn more about self-healing nanomaterials, take a look at these articles.
Researchers working to employ nanotechnology in self-healing coatings
Will nanotechnology define the next material world?
Nanotech is literally coming alive through use of biomaterials
Discuss
Today's press release from The Freedonia Group, "U.S. Nanomaterials Demand to Reach $35 Billion in 2020" comes from the "You're Soaking In It" school of nanotechnology, and I've found that it only angers people.
Talk about how everyday items like sunscreen and scratch-free surfaces are examples of nanotech products on the market, and the party conversation or chat with your barber always turns from amazement to uncomfortable silence and boredom. Try to keep your audience interested by talking about how these mundane nanoscale products are small stepping stones to the "Star Trek" stuff that their great-grandkids may or may not enjoy, and you're back to discussing the day's temperature fluctuations.
Maybe, if you're a naturally charming person, you'll get them back with news like this breakthrough reported in the July 11Glasgow Herald, "Paint changes color in tiny world of molecular robot."
But, yes, for the most part, nanotech products on the market today sound a lot like glorified chemistry recast as nanotech. In fact, that's what a Wired reporter asked me about a couple of months ago. His story, apparently written before he even began his research, started with the premise that chemical companies are simply renaming their "stuff" nanotechnology, so they can cash in on government grants. Yesterday's story in The Scientist, "Where the funds are," would seem to confirm this.
My answer is, "Of course. That's the idea." Calling nanotechnology an "industry" is very misleading. Much of nanotechnology today IS chemistry, so the chemists are the ones who are going to push it forward right now. We're not even in the "Model-T" phase of nanotech development yet. We're still grunting by firelight, chiseling wheels out of rocks. If chemists decide to crawl, beakers in hand, to the government trough in order to fund research into how materials behave on the nanoscale, the discoveries that result will be added to the long link between nanotube tennis rackets and the "Star Trek" replicator.
Want to really bore your friends? Here are a few more nano products that are around today.
Nanophase Technologies Corp. provides nanomaterials to BASF, which uses them in sunscreen.
L'Oreal's Plenitude line of cosmetics contains nanocapsules, which help active ingredients get to the skin's deeper layers.
Wilson Double Core tennis balls use a nanoclay developed by InMat LLC.
Nanogate supplies nanomaterials for Cerax Nanowax -- a ski wax
Hansa Metallwerke, a kitchen and bathroom fixtures company based in Stuttgart, Germany, uses a nanomaterial for scratchproof coatings.
And, of course, I'm protected from coffee spills as we speak by nanomaterials from Nano-Tex covering my Eddie Bauer pants. If I'm soaking in it, it's just beading up and falling to the floor.
