Dangers with Nanoparticles Must Be Monitored

ACOEM Issues Guidance Document for Occupational Exposure to Nanomaterials

July 5, 2011


Little is known about the effects of nanoparticles on the human body. That, coupled with the growing research data indicating adverse health effects on animals, has prompted the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine to offer recommendations on exposure monitoring, controls, and medical surveillance.


Research on animals indicates nanoparticles can cause adverse pulmonary effects, including pulmonary inflammation and fibrosis, as well as cardiovascular problems. There are also studies demonstrating movement of nanoparticles from the nasal cavity to the brain via the olfactory nerve tract.


"Prevention or reduction of exposure, using the hierarchy of controls seems prudent," according to the guidance document. "Engineering controls, such as source enclosure, local exhaust ventilation and HEPA filtration should substantially reduce or completely eliminate exposures."

The organization also recommends employee training in safe work practices as well as the use of respirators certified by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health for workers potentially exposed to nanoparticles. "NIOSH also indicates that it is prudent to consider the use of protective clothing and gloves to minimize dermal exposure, although there are no scientific data from which to select the most effective protective equipment," the document notes.

In terms of assessing workers' exposure to nanoparticles, ACOEM says there is no clear metric yet. The document says some authors advocate a control banding, which is an instrument that uses categories or bands of health hazards which are combined with exposure potentials or exposure scenarios to determine desired levels of control.

NIOSH recommends a program of hazard surveillance that includes identifying the nature of nanoparticles used, types of exposure assessment, measures to control exposures, characterizing the potentially exposed workers by job title, tasks and area, and documenting this information including changes over time.

ACOEM endorses NIOSH's recommendation for medical surveillance of workers potentially exposed to nanoparticles. It notes that there is insufficient scientific and medical evidence to recommend specific medical screening. However, it notes that if the nanoparticles are composed of a chemical or bulk material for which medical screening recommendations exist, those screening techniques should be used for workers exposed to engineered nanoparticles.

ACOEM says it supports the proper labeling of products containing nanomaterials, as well as the use of voluntary exposure registries by companies, especially when there is an indication that controls are insufficient to prevent all exposure. The organization also says more research is needed.

"Needed information is lacking regarding the appropriate exposure metric, regarding exposure data from workplace settings, and regarding toxicity data, including dose-response information and information regarding absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion," ACOEM says. "There is also a need for techniques and equipment to permit practical and appropriate exposure monitoring in workplaces."

http://www.riskandinsurance.com/story.jsp?storyId=533339679

A Lack of Public Safety in Nanotechnology

Researcher Proves that Nanoparticles Bioaccumulate in Organisms

Public health and safety implications are implicated in the new nanotech field. In a new research study, it has been documented that nanoparticles that are released in the environment can be subsequently ingested by other organisms (worms) and bioaccumulate into the tissues.


This causes serious concern for the health and wellbeing of the public. Bioaccumulation of nanoparticles could be the cause of new illness, disease and cancer. Some believe that Morgellon’s sufferers have acquired their horrible illness from some nano-experiment gone wrong which was released in environment.

Scientists working with advanced technologies such as genetic engineering, embryonic stem cell technologies, nanotechnology and synthetic biology have unfettered regulatory freedom to research on these dangerous technologies without any adequate oversight or proper biocontainment constraints to protect the public.

A lack of freedom of speech and protections for scientists who speak out on these public health and safety issues, enhance the problem in keeping the public safe.

Referrences:
1. http://www.kentucky.com/2011/03/07/1660801/uk-researchers-findings-raise.html
2. http://www.blip.tv/file/4712025
3. http://watchdogonscience.blogspot.com/2010/07/morgellonsnew-emerging-diseasebut-how.html

Mysteriously Acquired Lung Illness

At Least 36 Attending Lung Association Event at Iowa Governor's Mansion Get Rare Lung Disease

Published by Associated Press on Monday, March 31, 2008

DES MOINES, Iowa — After months of investigating, state health officials are confident a mysterious outbreak of a rare lung disease has its roots at the governor's mansion.


But they still don't have proof and other questions remain about how people were exposed to the disease at Terrace Hill.

State Epidemiologist Patricia Quinlisk says health officials are still awaiting test results to pin down the source of the histoplasmosis, an unusual but treatable lung disease.

The outbreak emerged more than four months ago when doctors began reporting cases. Eventually, there would be 36 confirmed cases and 12 probable ones.

Hundreds of pages of e-mails, correspondence and other documents obtained by The Associated Press under Iowa's freedom of information law, as well as interviews with health officials, show a methodical inquiry into the outbreak. The investigation led to the 139-year-old governor's mansion just west of downtown Des Moines.

Polk County doctors began reporting the disease, caused by an airborne fungi from bird or bat droppings, soon after the New Year's holiday.

Health officials worked to narrow the potential locations and connecting factors to the outbreak and determined many of those affected had attended an American Lung Association event at Terrace Hill on November 29th.

Officials say there was some construction at Terrace Hill around the time of the event and that might have been enough of a disturbance to put the offending spores in the air.

Governor Chet Culver and his wife, Mari Culver, were tested and do not have the illness.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,343508,00.html

Becky McClain Speaks on Biotechnology and Public Health and Safety

On July 17, 2010 in San Francisco, Pfizer injured biotech molecular biologist Becky McClain discussed her firing for making OSHA complaints and also the potential and real dangers of unregulated development of products in the biotech and nanotech industry without proper oversight. The first US conference on biotechnology and health and safety was sponsored by the California Coalition For Workers Memorial Day www.workersmemorialday.org Additional presentations at the conference are Biotech, CA Osha & Health And Safety Presentation With Dr. Larry Rose http://blip.tv/file/3916683 The Toxic Environment, Public Health, ACOEM And Pfizer:Presentation By Dr. Jack Thrasher http://blip.tv/file/3921769 Conflict of Interest By Judge Says Sandi Trend, Mother of Injured Agraquest Biotech Worker Bell http://blip.tv/file/3924484 Dina Padilla Speaks At Biotech & Health And Safety Conference http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_-_XEnaiNg It was also endorsed by Council For Responsible Genetics www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org For additional information go to http://www.cpab.info/

http://www.blip.tv/file/3960030

Pfizer Injured Biotech Molecular Biologist Becky McClain Speaks on Public Health and Safety

On July 17, 2010 in San Francisco, Pfizer injured biotech molecular biologist Becky McClain discussed her firing for making OSHA complaints and also the potential and real dangers of unregulated and development of products in the biotech and nanotech industry without proper oversight. The first US conference on biotechnology and health and safety was sponsored by the California Coalition For Workers Memorial Day http://www.workersmemorialday.org/

See McClain's talk at:  http://blip.tv/file/3960030

Nanotechnology Professor Found Dead in the Laboratory

A prominent professor of nanotechnology and synthetic biology, Dr. Franco Cerrina, was found dead in his Boston University laboratory early in the morning of July 12, 2010. Dr. Cerrina’s work focused on nanotechnology, synthetic biology, lithography and biotechnology. Was his work dangerous? You bet it was.

What is nanotechnology? Why is it dangerous? Let’s review a bit….

Nanotechnology is still in its infancy. It is a science where scientists intend to build molecular structures one molecule at a time…from the bottom up…so to speak. It is an interdisciplinary science of the physical sciences, life sciences, computer informatics and engineering sciences. Nanotechnology is also part of synthetic biology where scientists intend to create synthetic life forms by designing and creating nano-biological machines and components and placing them inside cells.

Nanotechnology engages in building molecular structures and creating new materials at the nanometer level.

That size is very small. Building structures that are nanometers in size is comparable to 1 million times smaller than the head of a pin or about 2500 times smaller than a red blood cell. The size of a nanometer is about the size of the diameter of a DNA molecule.

The smallness of these nanoparticles makes them both beneficial and dangerous. Their potential benefit is in the ability to use this technology for medical and health sciences with potential to diagnose and cure disease. Nanotechnology also can be used in consumer goods making materials stronger and lighter or having other useful properties. They are already being used in clothing, paint, makeup and sunscreen. They are also being used in semi-conductor research with hopes of making electronics and computers better and faster.

The dangers of nanotechnology lie in the fact that nanoparticles can also unpredictably react with human life, other life and the environment causing harm…serious harm.

Nano- materials behave differently because they are so small compared to a larger or macro scale. They are under the influence of different physical forces…more toward quantum mechanics than gravity. This gives nano-particles different chemical and physical properties. Therefore, nanomaterials are more reactive and more bioactive. They can be toxic and cause cancer. They could be passed from mother to fetus. Nano-particles can exhibit other properties too. For example, copper loses its opaqueness and becomes transparent when produced on a nanoscale. Aluminum, stable at the macro level, becomes combustible when produced as a nano-particle.

Nanoparticles cause risk to humans since their size allows them to more easily cross the skin, lung or blood brain barrier.

Despite these obvious threats, scant research is being invested into nanotech health issues. The little research done has caused alarm. Fish exposed to nanoparticles have been found to have extensive brain damage. Nanoparticles have been found to accumulate in the bodies of lab animals which makes a link to possible food chain accumulation if nanoparticles are released into the environment. Nanoparticles called quantum dots can cause cadium poisoning in humans. Nano-particles have been found in the brain and lung tissues of rats exposed to nano-particles and subsequently caused inflammation and biochemical stress responses.

More concerning is that nanoparticles, because of their small size, could enter into the environment or life forms without detection.

Nanotechnology is big business. The government is funding it at $1.5 Billion per year and industry is adding another $8 Billion per year. There are about 1650 nanotechnology companies world wide with the majority located within the U.S.

Powerful economic forces and competition in the marketplace are taking precedence over safeguards when it comes to protecting workers and the public against the possible dangers of nanotechnology. This is causing some scientists and public to become concerned.

Dr. Franco Cerrina found dead within the laboratory raises questions regarding the cause of his death. Was it due to a work-related illness? It is very possible…but we most likely will never find out.

WATCHDOG ON SYTHETIC BIOLOGY

With the advent of our advanced biological-scientific age, there has never before in history been such a potential for both benefit and risk to humanity.

Many advanced biological endeavors such as nanotechnology, embryonic stem cell technologies, gene therapy and genetically engineered foods have moved into our lives with benefits promised but still to be discovered. Nevertheless, with the push to advance these technologies for discovery and profit and to endear them to the public, little research and money is given to understand the risks and threats that are inherent in developing these technologies. This is bad news for the public.

The dangers that these advanced technologies pose can impact our health, society and culture. Some of the health related threats to name a few are chronic illness, cancer and new emerging disease in humans and other species of life.

Within the past few years another new scientific advancement has been slowly emerging: Synthetic Biology.

Synthetic Biology is the science of creating new life, new biological systems and new biochemical pathways that are not found in nature. It can even create new pathogens.

Synthetic Biology employs a variety of interdisciplinary skills using microbiology, recombinant DNA technologies, bioinformatics, nanotechnology, biochemistry and cell biology.

As with other advanced technologies, synthetic biology is an open research field with little regulatory oversight to protect the public. It is another technology that the public needs to be concerned about as new advanced technologies are developed, patented and used on the public without appropriate risk management and public education.

STUDIES SHOW NANOTECHNOLOGY IS DANGEROUS

By Andrew Schneider

March 20, 2009

New government study on possible health hazards from nanoparticles shows much more research is needed and quickly.
Those who care about public health and fear that our government isn’t paying enough attention to the potential hazards spawned by the massive explosion of nano technology have something to cheer. But also something that shows that a lot more research is needed into the new technology — and quickly.
The comfort should come from the knowledge that scientists at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health have completed the agency’s second study into the health effects of nanomaterial. The concern lies in the fact the research shows that the material moved easily from inside the lungs of test animals into the pleura, which is the tissue that surrounds the lungs.
The findings are the first to demonstrate that carbon nanotubes aspirated by laboratory mice can actually migrate from the tiny structures in the lung called alveoli, which are critical for gas exchange, through the lungs to the pleura.
“This is important because the pleura is the tissue that can develop a form of cancer, malignant mesothelioma, after asbestos exposure, and multi-walled carbon nanotubes are durable fiber-like particles that share many features with asbestos fibers,” Dr. Ann Hubbs, one of the four scientists on the project told me today.
Research into commercial applications of nanoparticles is being pushed at an intensity never seen with any other technology, but examination of the health and safety implications to workers and the public has lagged significantly, especially in the U.S.
What worries many who have studied the new technology is that because of their infinitesimal size, nanoparticles can and do pass through the body’s traditional barriers and defense mechanisms. They are easily transported through the bloodstream, respiratory and gastrointestinal pathways into all organs, the brain and even individual cells.
Add to this the fact that nanoparticles are often more toxic than traditional products of the same chemical composition that have been used for decades.
There are thousands of unique nanostructures being developed by industry today. The material that the NIOSH team investigated is called multi-walled carbon nanotubes, or MWCNTs. These structures, according to NIOSH, show promise for various applications ranging from creating stronger, more durable building materials to improving cancer therapies.
However, as with other types of engineered nanomaterials, the potential occupational health implications of MWNCTs are not well understood.
In the testing at NIOSH’s Morgantown, W.Va. Laboratory, mice inhaled a small drop of liquid containing the nanotubes in a manner that closely resembles inhalation of the same material suspended in the air, such as an exposure that a worker might encounter.
Other investigators, overseas, have reported inflammation and mesothelioma of the abdominal lining after nanomaterial was injected into the lining of the abdominal cavity.
All of these studies reinforce the need to adopt a rigorous approach to controlling occupational exposures among workers during the production and use of the nanomaterial, NIOSH says.
NIOSH’s pioneering research was presented before the Society of Toxicology this week because of the importance of its findings, but the authors’ stress that the preliminary scientific findings demand that more work be done.
As the only government agency tasked with research on workplace illness and injury, NIOSH is leading the way in health studies on nanotech material.
In addition to Hubbs, who is a veterinary pathologist, the research was conducted by Drs. Vincent Castranova, chief of the Pathology and Physiology Research Branch in the Health Effects Laboratory Division; Hubbs; Dale Porter, a pulmonary toxicologist; and Robert Mercer, a bio-engineer.
For more information, here is a link to a NIOSH document Approaches to Safe Nanotechnology.

NIH GUIDELINES FOR HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH WILL NOT PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY

Now that President Obama has mandated tax payers to fund human embryonic stem cell research, he has concomitantly ordered the NIH to establish guidelines for responsible and safe research within human embryonic stem cell research. The NIH is mandated to post these guidelines for public review within 120 days. But President Obama’s order for NIH “guidelines” leaves many of us considerably concerned. “Guidelines” lack essential and enforceable edicts and will not protect public health and safety or biotech worker’s rights.

Unfortunately, the NIH has not established a good track record when it comes to promoting and protecting public health and safety through such guidelines.
In fact the NIH guidelines for “recombinant DNA research” have had several serious problems with protecting public health and safety, including worker’s right. Most disturbingly, the NIH has been involved in denying biotech workers the right to obtain biological exposure records by supporting the position that “trade secrets supersede a worker’s right to this information”. This has left scientists little rights to full disclosure to the characteristics of the biological agents to which they were exposed and which, consequently, inhibits their ability to seek directed medical care. As a result, injured biotech workers have been left ill with no possible medical avenue, while the scientific community remains legally free of any fault or responsibility and the public remains ignorant of the dangers.

NIH guidelines are just that…guidelines and not laws.
Guidelines are not laws. Guidelines are difficult to enforce and will provide legal loop holes in attempting to direct safe and responsible use of human embryonic stem cell research.
1. Guidelines adhere to “self policing policies” with no effective oversight, no mandated transparency and leave little incentive for the violators to report violations.
2. Guidelines are written to protect vested interest within the scientific community and not to prioritize the protection of worker’s health or safety rights or public health and safety.
3. Guidelines provide no whistleblower protections for workers who raise public health and safety issues and who subsequently are shown retaliation.

NIH guidelines only apply to federally funded labs.
The public should be aware that NIH guidelines will only apply to federally funded research laboratories, and not private commercial or pharmaceutical labs employing dangerous embryonic stem cell technologies. Private industry, engaging in human embryonic stem cell research, is wildly unregulated. Many of these labs develop genetically-engineered human infectious agents to make embryonic stem cells “sick” for drug discovery purposes. Nevertheless, these companies work with no legal and enforceable regulations in an environment which obviously poses serious public health and safety concerns.

Laws Needed
Although, President Obama has mandated the NIH to provide “guidelines” for federally funded human embryonic stem cell research, the past has shown that guidelines do not work to protect public health and safety or to ensure rights to biotech workers. We need new laws that are enforceable, that promote transparency and are current to modern day biotechnology. These laws should ensure biotech worker’s rights to a safe workplace and to biological exposure records. These new laws should also provide jurisdiction within both federally-funded and private laboratories throughout the United States where dangerous human embryonic stem cell technologies are being developed. It is especially essential to enact strong whistleblower laws to protect scientists and physicians. This is key to effective regulation in this industry. It is a fact that without free speech and whistleblower protection, public health and safety cannot be protected under any circumstances.

A watchful eye should be cast on the NIH when they propose guidelines for human embryonic stem cell research within 120 days and call for public comment. The public should understand that these “guidelines” are helpful to establish baseline practices within the scientific community. But guidelines are not laws. NIH guidelines do not have the legal power or jurisdiction to provide adequate transparency or protection for public health and safety against the dangers of embryonic stem cell research. We desperately need effective laws and not just NIH “guidelines to regulate human embryonic stem cell technologies. The public has every right to demand that effective laws and regulations be placed upon the embryonic stem cell community immediately since NIH guidelines currently are not and assuredly will not be adequate in the future to protect both worker and public health and safety.


For more on stem cell guidelines see link.

Gulf War Illness is Real

Gulf war illness is real, new federal report says“An extensive federal report released Monday concludes that roughly one in four of the 697,000 U.S. veterans of the 1990-91 Gulf war suffer from Gulf war illness. That illness is a condition now identified as the likely consequence of exposure to toxic chemicals, including pesticides and a drug administered to protect troops against nerve gas. […] The report, titled ‘Gulf War Illness and the Health of Gulf war Veterans,’ was officially presented Monday to Secretary of Veterans Affairs James Peak. […] The report identifies two Gulf War ‘neurotoxic’ exposures that ‘are causally associated with Gulf war illness.’ The first is the ingestion of pyridostigmine bromide (PB) pills, given to protect troops from effects of nerve agents. The second is exposure to dangerous pesticides used during the conflict.” (CNN; 17Nov08; Alan Silverlieb) http://edition.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/11/17/gulf.war.illness.study/

Dangers but no regulations in biotechnology and nanotechnology

The public remains oblivious to the public health and safety dangers in biotechnology. And the scientific community intends to keep it that way to avoid responsibility and regulation.

And now, as with biotechnology, nanotechnology with serious inherent dangers to worker safety and dangers to the public health in contaminating our air and water remains unregulated.

We continue to move forward developing 21st century state of the art technologies at the public’s expense, both in terms of public funding and at serious risks to their health. And at the same time new emerging disease and idiopathic illnesses increase, but are persistently being ignored. The public remains ignorant, abandoned and left in the dark.

Science is out of control regarding public health and safety.