Toxicity of Nanotechnology

While nanotechnology certainly promises great opportunities on many fronts, it also begs for caution to be taken in its use. Methods which are currently in use to gauge toxicity of substances do not necessarily apply to nanomaterials, like measuring the mass of a toxin in a compound, for example. Because such a large part of nanotechnology is the way in which the materials can interact and build within our bodies could potentially be toxic to our cells and organs, although the material itself may not be toxic. An example of toxicity based on physical rather than chemical properties is the lethal interaction between asbestos fibers and human lungs. The long, slender fibers of the material are what can cause lung cancer, but ground into smaller, differently shaped pieces, the asbestos is not as toxic.
Within a specific area of nanomaterial production, such as extremely lightweight carbon-based nanotubes, there are millions of different tubes produced, and each could potentially have different properties, just like isotopes of elements can be harmful whereas another isotope is not. Obviously regulation and study of the industry will have to be extremely comprehensive and cautious, as little is known about this new branch of technology.

I thought that the comparison between asbestos fibers and nanotubes was very interesting. It seems strange that something which we hear so much about being horrible for you to breathe, even to the extent that removing it could be incredibly dangerous, is much more benign for our system if it is ground up, since it is the fiber that is the harmful part. It seems that things are mostly thought about as being chemically toxic, not physically toxic.

Reference: Natural Resources Defense Council, "Smaller is Weirder: Our Silver-Coated Future," OnEarth Magazine, Fall 2007.
http://www.nrdc.org/onearth/07fal/nano5.asp, Accessed November 28, 2007.

Anabolic Steroids in Teens

On the Office of National Drug Control Policy’s website on anabolic steroids they have some shocking statistics with regards to the use of anabolic steroids. It is reported that children as early as eighth grade have admitted to using steroids with 1.6% of those surveyed admitting to using the drugs. This figure goes up to 2.7% for twelfth graders which makes it appear that there is a fair amount of steroid use within high school. This was shocking to me and is not publicized much. It seems that the media is so focused on the high profile professional athletes and do not talk about high school athletes who are putting themselves at a large risk for injury. Anabolic steroids have a number of dangerous side effects including liver cancer, heart attacks, and higher cholesterol and can also stunt growth in teens (Drugs). These are not things to speak lightly about and are serious problems that teens are putting themselves unnecessarily at risk for. Another problem with anabolic steroids is that they are illegal, not only for sports but in 1991 it was made illegal to possess or sell anabolic steroids without a prescription (Drugs). This is another aspect that I don’t think get’s talked about enough. It should be enough of a deterrent that it is illegal to take anabolic steroids, but it is not, and it just goes to show how people are willing to do whatever it takes to get ahead.

Drug Facts. Office of National Drug Control Policy. 27 Nov. 2007 http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/drugfact/steroids/index.html#top

Could the New Breakthrough in Stem Cells Stifle Research?

In 2006, a Japanese scientist named Shinya Yamanaka developed a method for turning the skin cells of mice into stem cells [1]. It was an enormous breakthrough in the field of stem cell research, though it was unclear at the time whether or not the same procedure could be reproduced with human skin cells. In November of 2007, two teams of scientists (one led by Yamanaka and one led by James Thomson of the University of Wisconsin) caused human skin cells to be transformed into cells showing the properties of stem cells. [1]

Stem cells are enormously important in medical science because they show so much promise for treating a multitude of diseases. Illnesses such as Parkinson’s disease, Muscular Dystrophy, spinal cord illnesses and many, many more may be cured using stem cells. Stem cells come from a human embryo when it is in the blastocyte stage, meaning that it is a ball of about 50 to 150 cells floating in the fallopian tubes and uterus just after fertilization [1]. They are so useful because of their versatility; they may turn into any of the over 200 types of human cells. Stem cells transplanted into the heart will develop into whatever type of heart cells surround them (such as cardiac muscle), and the same will occur with any cell of the body. [1]

This development in stem cell is a huge step, but it is by no means a final step. A great deal of research still must be done one stem cell production before the disease treatment phase of research even begins. The “stem cells” produced from skin cells will likely have a great number of differences from the real stem cells that can only be harvested from embryos, and, because of the new development, funding for research into embryonic stem cells is even more difficult to come by [1]. Skin cells that are transformed into stem cells are dangerous to even use in medicine now because their production requires the disruption of skin cell DNA, often leading to mutations; most of the mice which had the procedure done developed cancer [1]. I can only hope that this new breakthrough will not be used as a political tool to completely stifle stem cell research. The White House is even claiming credit for the discovery because of their seven year ban on embryonic stem cell research [1]. Hopefully, the new development in stem cells will not stifle stem cell research.


Bibliography

[1] “Stem Cell Breakthrough Could Stifle Research” Livescience 27 Nov. 2007
<>.

Radiation detection an arduous task at ports

A rusty yellow truck triggered a radioactivity alert in Pier A in the Port of Long Beach. The truck was then directed to a secondary inspection station. This truck was originally suppose to carry window shutters from China. The truck was then asked to open the cargo so that further inspection of the shipment for radiation. The driver claims to have been setting off radiation alarms all across the port. Multiple trucks have been tested for radiation in the Long Beach Ports. By the time 2012 all cargo will be scanned and billions of dollars will be needed to do this. The possibility of nuclear weapons being shipped into the United States has been brought up with all the radiation that has been present in much of the investigation. On the other hand much of the cargo does put out gamma radiation.

No unknown terms

It is scary to believe there are so many types of trucks giving off radiation and we don’t have a real reason what is setting off the alarms. The thought of a terrorist attack is definitely a possibility. Also it is so easy to actually send something across the border because of the vast length. In some parts of Texas there are wooden posts to mark the border of the United States and Mexico. Also this article could also just be a way to scare Americans into believing that we need to spend money and that the government will do all they can to protect the nation.

Vartabedian, Ralph. Radiation detection an arduous task at ports. L.A. Times, Nov. 25, 2007.

Radon and your health

Back in 1994 three public health studies on the risk of radon to householders were published. These studies came from Sweden, Canada, and the United States. The Swedish report claimed that the rate of lung cancer in nonsmoking people as well as smokers was increased due to an increase in levels of radon in their homes. However the Canadian report found no link between lung cancer and radon levels. The United States study found small evidence of increasing lung cancer of nonsmoking women with increasing radon levels. In the United States the “radon problem” is given the most attention. There are programs that test the air for radon. If there is radon in the air, the home owner can change the air circulation to reduce the levels, resulting in reducing the risk of lung cancer. But people who do live in a house with high levels of radon will only be there for a few years and will mostly spend their life in a low radon house. This is true because only 7% of houses have high levels. The United States Research Council came up with the conclusion that out of about 22,000 lung cancer deaths per year only 14% of those were associated with the exposure to radon indoors. And 90% of these victims were smokers. This percentage is so high because radon and cigarette smoke are what cause the disease. In the end, the exposure to radon accounted for one quarter of the lung cancer deaths in nonsmokers.
I think everyone should have their household tested for radon. If it can prevent lung cancer, then why not have it done. These programs should be done especially if you live in a house where there are smokers or cigarette smoke. Even if you don’t end up with radon in the air, you are better off safe than sorry.

Baird, Colin. Chemistry in Your Life: Second Edition. “Is radon dangerous to our health?” W.H. Freeman and Company. New York. 2006. Page 631

Nuclear Waste; posted for Stacey Burke

Stacey Burke
November 26th 2007

Nuclear energy is a great source of energy and electricity. However, the problem is trying to dispose of the waste after it has been used. Spent fuel rods are stored above ground in swimming pool type places under cooled water. They are kept there for several years or even decades waiting until the level of radioactivity has decreased and the rods have been substantially cooled. After this occurs, the rods can be put into giant concrete containers but, if the rods are reprocessed to remove the plutonium, the remaining highly radioactive waste becomes resolidified. One possibility is to mix it with other radioactive waste until it turns into glass then burry it far underground in metal containers. Another possible solution is to convert it to plutonium dioxide and mix it with uranium oxide to make mixed oxide fuel and then use it in existing nuclear plants. An idea is to bury radioactive waste deep underground in metal containers that will last for hundreds of years before leaking and when they do, the radioactivity will not be very high at all. Some governments do not like the idea of permanent burial because they want to be able to dig it up to retrieve the plutonium if they ever need it for nuclear power.

Fuel rods- start as uranium based rods and are made into plutonium based rods then used subsequently in power reactors.

I have always heard a little bit about the nuclear waste situation but I really didn’t understand that it was a serious ongoing project. There is really no ay for anyone to get rid of or dispose of nuclear waste. If you put it in the ground in may contaminate the water supply or the biosphere. If it is above ground not being controlled, it even more dangerous contaminating the air. There is no solution, or at least any long time solutions for the disposal. I have never heard of anyone using the idea of mixing a little bit of radioactive waste with more of it to make it into glass in order to burry it deep in the ground in metal containers. I have also never heard of fuel rods or the fact that they are stored in a pool like area for years or even decades in order to reduce radioactivity and to cool them. This is a very interesting topic and truly an aspect of life to look at in hopes someone will find a way to dispose of the waste without harming society in the end.

Baird, Colin. Chemistry in Your Life. W.H. Freeman and Company: New York, 2006;
pg. 638-640

Radiation detection an arduous task at ports

Radiation monitoring equipment scans every container that enters the U.S for any traces of radioactivity. This process has been going on for about a year now, with about 500 alarms going off in one day at the Long Beach Port, many of which are false. A driver who was bringing a container in for inspection was the cause of the false alarm, because the scanners detected radiation that Francisco Villalpando (truck driver) had received ten days earlier. Detections are not one hundred percent reliable: Plutonium and highly enriched uranium have low levels of radiation, therefore shielding material, such as lead may mislead the scanners or be unable to be detected at all. Also, normal cargo, like granite counter tops and ceramic vases puts out gamma radiation. Many representatives also believe that this form of inspection is somewhat a distraction from many other problems that cross borders: "If we can't catch people and drugs coming across our border, I have no confidence that we can create a seamless security perimeter for nuclear weapons" (Holgate 1).
Although radiation monitoring is quite costly, it is obviously not completely reliable. I believe that having detectors at cross borders are crucial and necessary but at the same time it rises the question of whether or not we are concerned about smugglers that cross borders into America.

Vartabedian, Ralph. “Radiation detection an arduous task at ports.” Los Angeles Times: Science 25 Nov. 2007. 26 Nov. 2007
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-na-detectors25nov25,1,4533702.story?coll=la-news-science&ctrack=1&cset=true