﻿<rss version="2.0" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:trackback="http://madskills.com/public/xml/rss/module/trackback/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <atom:link href="http://www.safenano.org/KnowledgeBase/CurrentAwareness/Blogs/tabid/249/rssid/1/Default.aspx" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <title>SAFENANO Blogs</title>
    <link>http://www.safenano.org/KnowledgeBase/CurrentAwareness/Blogs/tabid/249/blogid/1/Default.aspx</link>
    <description>Blogs from the SAFENANO Team </description>
    <ttl>60</ttl>
    <language>en-GB</language>
    <generator>SunBlogNuke RSS Generator Version 4.7.2.0</generator>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2012 12:06:05 GMT</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 May 2012 12:06:05 GMT</lastBuildDate>
    <item>
      <title>Ten things everyone should know about nanotechnology safety</title>
      <category domain="http://www.safenano.org/knowledgebase/currentawareness/blogs/tabid/249/categoryid/6/default.aspx">Toxicology</category>
      <category domain="http://www.safenano.org/knowledgebase/currentawareness/blogs/tabid/249/categoryid/9/default.aspx">Society and Ethics</category>
      <category domain="http://www.safenano.org/knowledgebase/currentawareness/blogs/tabid/249/categoryid/10/default.aspx">Exposure</category>
      <link>http://www.safenano.org/KnowledgeBase/CurrentAwareness/Blogs/tabid/249/entryid/110/Default.aspx</link>
      <description><![CDATA[[2020Science]: Asked to conclude the Fourth International Conference on Nanotechnology, Occupational and Environmental Health in Helsinki this year, I rather rashly came up with the above title for my talk - thinking that I would find inspiration in the multitude of new research on nanotech safety being presented at the meeting.
As it turns out, events conspired against me and I ended up unavoidably missing most of the conference!
Faced with the tricky task of wrapping up a meeting that I had been embarrassingly absent from, I decided to share a rather more personal perspective on nanotechnology safety - my own reflections on things I think people should know.
This list is far from complete, and is heavily biased towards workplace safety. And given that it was prepared for a crowd of conference attendees who were most likely maxed out on nano and more interested in where the nearest bar was, it’s a little light on detail.
Nevertheless, it is hopefully interesting and informative, and causes at least ...]]></description>
      <dc:creator>Andrew Maynard</dc:creator>
      <comments>http://www.safenano.org/KnowledgeBase/CurrentAwareness/Blogs/tabid/249/entryid/110/Default.aspx#Comments</comments>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.safenano.org/KnowledgeBase/CurrentAwareness/Blogs/tabid/249/entryid/110/Default.aspx</guid>
      <pubDate>Mon, 31 Aug 2009 10:07:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
      <trackback:ping>http://www.safenano.org/DesktopModules/SunBlog/Views/Handlers/Trackback.aspx?id=110</trackback:ping>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Was the nano to blame? Further thoughts on chemicals used by workers who fell ill following occupational exposure to nanoparticles (amongst other things!)</title>
      <category domain="http://www.safenano.org/knowledgebase/currentawareness/blogs/tabid/249/categoryid/6/default.aspx">Toxicology</category>
      <category domain="http://www.safenano.org/knowledgebase/currentawareness/blogs/tabid/249/categoryid/8/default.aspx">Industry</category>
      <category domain="http://www.safenano.org/knowledgebase/currentawareness/blogs/tabid/249/categoryid/10/default.aspx">Exposure</category>
      <link>http://www.safenano.org/KnowledgeBase/CurrentAwareness/Blogs/tabid/249/entryid/108/Default.aspx</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Following the widely publicised release of Song et. al.'s study into lung disease in Chinese workers expoed to nanoparticles in the workplace (accessible here), there was of course much discussion within both the nano and wider community as to the paper's implications and its issues. SAFENANO published a special feature on the paper, outlining the paper's main findings and issues, and in association with Andrew Maynard of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, three fascinating blogs discssing various aspects of the paper and providing opinion from some of the world's most respected nanotechnologists on the matter were published. SAFENANO's attempts to help the wider science community form their own informed opinion on the paper's findings were well covered by the 'nano-specific' press, and as ever we hope that the materials we provided served a useful purpose! In amongst all of this this, i had some interesting correspondance with Alastair Robertson, an expert in occupational exposure to chemi ...]]></description>
      <dc:creator>Bryony Ross</dc:creator>
      <comments>http://www.safenano.org/KnowledgeBase/CurrentAwareness/Blogs/tabid/249/entryid/108/Default.aspx#Comments</comments>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.safenano.org/KnowledgeBase/CurrentAwareness/Blogs/tabid/249/entryid/108/Default.aspx</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Aug 2009 10:06:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
      <trackback:ping>http://www.safenano.org/DesktopModules/SunBlog/Views/Handlers/Trackback.aspx?id=108</trackback:ping>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Sunscreens and Alzheimer's - solid science or scare-mongering speculation?</title>
      <category domain="http://www.safenano.org/knowledgebase/currentawareness/blogs/tabid/249/categoryid/8/default.aspx">Industry</category>
      <category domain="http://www.safenano.org/knowledgebase/currentawareness/blogs/tabid/249/categoryid/9/default.aspx">Society and Ethics</category>
      <category domain="http://www.safenano.org/knowledgebase/currentawareness/blogs/tabid/249/categoryid/10/default.aspx">Exposure</category>
      <link>http://www.safenano.org/KnowledgeBase/CurrentAwareness/Blogs/tabid/249/entryid/109/Default.aspx</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Originally posted on 2020 Science, 25/8/09:
Could using sunscreen lead to Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, or other neurodegenerative diseases? The association seems far-fetched - given the amount of sunscreens, creams and lotions used every day, surely someone would noticed a link by now if it existed! Yet a press release from the University of Ulster suggests the nanoparticles used in some sunscreens could potentially cause or exacerbate these diseases. Drawing on the release, a number of media outlets are now running stories along the lines of "Sunscreen could cause Alzheimer's" (this from The Daily Mirror in the UK).
This is a rather unfortunate case of a poorly conceived press release leading to sensationalist - and misleading - headlines. The press release is associated with new research funded under the umbrella of NeuroNano - a European project focused on developing nanoscale neuro-implants that will enhance the functioning of the brain. However this new project, being led by Professors Vyvyan Howard and D ...]]></description>
      <dc:creator>Andrew Maynard</dc:creator>
      <comments>http://www.safenano.org/KnowledgeBase/CurrentAwareness/Blogs/tabid/249/entryid/109/Default.aspx#Comments</comments>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.safenano.org/KnowledgeBase/CurrentAwareness/Blogs/tabid/249/entryid/109/Default.aspx</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Aug 2009 10:06:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
      <trackback:ping>http://www.safenano.org/DesktopModules/SunBlog/Views/Handlers/Trackback.aspx?id=109</trackback:ping>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Is nanotechnology poised for the ride of its life?</title>
      <category domain="http://www.safenano.org/knowledgebase/currentawareness/blogs/tabid/249/categoryid/6/default.aspx">Toxicology</category>
      <category domain="http://www.safenano.org/knowledgebase/currentawareness/blogs/tabid/249/categoryid/8/default.aspx">Industry</category>
      <category domain="http://www.safenano.org/knowledgebase/currentawareness/blogs/tabid/249/categoryid/10/default.aspx">Exposure</category>
      <link>http://www.safenano.org/KnowledgeBase/CurrentAwareness/Blogs/tabid/249/entryid/107/Default.aspx</link>
      <description><![CDATA[In the wake of a new study linking “nanotechnology” to two deaths and five additional cases of lung disease, the emerging technology of the ultra-small could be in for a rough ride. Yet the real risk is that in the rush to use or even abuse the findings, the science and it’s true relevance are overlooked.
It’s never good news when a new technology is associated with a death.
The emerging area of nanotechnology has had a fairly smooth ride so far. Sure, there have been questions over possible new health risks associated with some of its more esoteric offerings. But no one has actually got sick from the technology.
Until now it seems.
A new study published in the European Respiratory Journal describes seven cases of unusual and progressive lung disease and two deaths amongst workers at a Chinese factory, and pins the likely cause on nanoparticles—which the authors link inextricably with nanotechnology.
The study presses a number of emotional and political buttons that are like ...]]></description>
      <dc:creator>Andrew Maynard</dc:creator>
      <comments>http://www.safenano.org/KnowledgeBase/CurrentAwareness/Blogs/tabid/249/entryid/107/Default.aspx#Comments</comments>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.safenano.org/KnowledgeBase/CurrentAwareness/Blogs/tabid/249/entryid/107/Default.aspx</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2009 10:05:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
      <trackback:ping>http://www.safenano.org/DesktopModules/SunBlog/Views/Handlers/Trackback.aspx?id=107</trackback:ping>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Nanoparticle exposure and occupational lung disease – six expert perspectives on a new clinical study</title>
      <category domain="http://www.safenano.org/knowledgebase/currentawareness/blogs/tabid/249/categoryid/6/default.aspx">Toxicology</category>
      <category domain="http://www.safenano.org/knowledgebase/currentawareness/blogs/tabid/249/categoryid/8/default.aspx">Industry</category>
      <category domain="http://www.safenano.org/knowledgebase/currentawareness/blogs/tabid/249/categoryid/10/default.aspx">Exposure</category>
      <link>http://www.safenano.org/KnowledgeBase/CurrentAwareness/Blogs/tabid/249/entryid/106/Default.aspx</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The recent tragic account of seven Chinese workers suffering—apparently—from nanoparticle-induced lung disease, is likely to raise serious concerns with anyone potentially exposed to similar particles. Yet without the benefit of insight from scientists and others working on nanoparticles and their potential health impacts, it’s hard to get a handle on the study’s broader relevance.
When I first found out about the study, I asked six highly regarded experts familiar with the issues to share their thoughts on the work and its broader implications. Their comments (below) reflect a range of perspectives and opinions, and hopefully provide a deeper insight into an important but far from conclusive piece of research.
Professor Anthony Seaton MD
Professor Seaton is a distinguished clinical physician specializing in occupational health, and a highly regarded expert on the potential impacts of inhaling airborne nanoparticles. He is currently emeritus professor in the Department of Environmen ...]]></description>
      <dc:creator>Andrew Maynard</dc:creator>
      <comments>http://www.safenano.org/KnowledgeBase/CurrentAwareness/Blogs/tabid/249/entryid/106/Default.aspx#Comments</comments>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.safenano.org/KnowledgeBase/CurrentAwareness/Blogs/tabid/249/entryid/106/Default.aspx</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2009 10:04:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
      <trackback:ping>http://www.safenano.org/DesktopModules/SunBlog/Views/Handlers/Trackback.aspx?id=106</trackback:ping>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>New study seeks to link seven cases of occupational lung disease with nanoparticles and nanotechnology</title>
      <category domain="http://www.safenano.org/knowledgebase/currentawareness/blogs/tabid/249/categoryid/6/default.aspx">Toxicology</category>
      <category domain="http://www.safenano.org/knowledgebase/currentawareness/blogs/tabid/249/categoryid/8/default.aspx">Industry</category>
      <category domain="http://www.safenano.org/knowledgebase/currentawareness/blogs/tabid/249/categoryid/10/default.aspx">Exposure</category>
      <link>http://www.safenano.org/KnowledgeBase/CurrentAwareness/Blogs/tabid/249/entryid/105/Default.aspx</link>
      <description><![CDATA[A new study just published in the European Respiratory Journal links workplace nanoparticle exposure to seven cases of serious and progressive lung disease in China - leading to two patient deaths - and presses a number of "hot" buttons when it comes to the safety of emerging nanotechnologies. To help place the study in context, I have posted separately the following pieces on 2020 Science, and also on the SAFENANO blog:
Nanoparticle exposure and occupational lung disease – six expert perspectives on a new clinical study Observations from six leading experts on the study, and it's significance
Is nanotechnology posed for the ride of its life? A caution against overlooking the study's true relevance in the rush to use it to justify pre-existing positions on nanotechnology
Further links to useful resources are included at the end of this blog.
Study Overview
In brief, the paper by Song et al. that appears in the European Respiratory Journal is a clinical study of 7 female Chinese workers who were dia ...]]></description>
      <dc:creator>Andrew Maynard</dc:creator>
      <comments>http://www.safenano.org/KnowledgeBase/CurrentAwareness/Blogs/tabid/249/entryid/105/Default.aspx#Comments</comments>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.safenano.org/KnowledgeBase/CurrentAwareness/Blogs/tabid/249/entryid/105/Default.aspx</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2009 10:03:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
      <trackback:ping>http://www.safenano.org/DesktopModules/SunBlog/Views/Handlers/Trackback.aspx?id=105</trackback:ping>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Five years on from the RAEng/RS Report - a personal view.</title>
      <category domain="http://www.safenano.org/knowledgebase/currentawareness/blogs/tabid/249/categoryid/1/default.aspx">IOM-Safenano Initiative</category>
      <category domain="http://www.safenano.org/knowledgebase/currentawareness/blogs/tabid/249/categoryid/6/default.aspx">Toxicology</category>
      <category domain="http://www.safenano.org/knowledgebase/currentawareness/blogs/tabid/249/categoryid/10/default.aspx">Exposure</category>
      <link>http://www.safenano.org/KnowledgeBase/CurrentAwareness/Blogs/tabid/249/entryid/104/Default.aspx</link>
      <description><![CDATA[The 29th July marks the 5th anniversary of publication of the seminal Royal Academy of Engineering / Royal Society report 'Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties'. 
To mark the occasion, Professor Anthony Seaton CBE, who was involved in advising the RS/RAEng on compilation of the original report, has shared his thoughts on what progress has been made since the original publication, and what remains to be done:
I think it is helpful to imagine what might have happened had such a report not been published. At the time, Prince Charles had put the royal seal of approval on fears of the planet turning to grey goo and some environmental pressure groups were raising fears across a range of possible hazards to humans and the environment. There were signs that battle lines were being drawn up for a fight that could seriously hinder the development of these nanotechnologies similar to that waged over genetic modification; calls were made for a moratorium on their further development. But t ...]]></description>
      <dc:creator>Bryony Ross</dc:creator>
      <comments>http://www.safenano.org/KnowledgeBase/CurrentAwareness/Blogs/tabid/249/entryid/104/Default.aspx#Comments</comments>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.safenano.org/KnowledgeBase/CurrentAwareness/Blogs/tabid/249/entryid/104/Default.aspx</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Jul 2009 10:02:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
      <trackback:ping>http://www.safenano.org/DesktopModules/SunBlog/Views/Handlers/Trackback.aspx?id=104</trackback:ping>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Industry critics give nanotechnology sunscreens the thumbs up</title>
      <category domain="http://www.safenano.org/knowledgebase/currentawareness/blogs/tabid/249/categoryid/8/default.aspx">Industry</category>
      <category domain="http://www.safenano.org/knowledgebase/currentawareness/blogs/tabid/249/categoryid/9/default.aspx">Society and Ethics</category>
      <link>http://www.safenano.org/KnowledgeBase/CurrentAwareness/Blogs/tabid/249/entryid/103/Default.aspx</link>
      <description><![CDATA[[From 2020Science] The Environmental Working Group (EWG) – a US-based non-profit organization committed to using public information to protect public health and the environment – has just released what is probably the most comprehensive evaluation to date of the safety and effectiveness of using titanium dioxide and zinc oxide nanoparticles in sunscreens. And their conclusion?
On balance, EWG researchers found that zinc and titanium-based formulations are among the safest, most effective sunscreens on the market based on available evidence.
In other words, not only are zinc oxide and titanium oxide nanoparticle-based sunscreens OK, but they are safer and more effective than many non nanotechnology-enabled sunscreens.
What makes this statement so startling is that EWG is not known for treating regulators and industry with kid gloves. This is how the organization describes it’s way of working:
Our research brings to light unsettling facts that you have a right to know. It shames and shakes ...]]></description>
      <dc:creator>Bryony Ross</dc:creator>
      <comments>http://www.safenano.org/KnowledgeBase/CurrentAwareness/Blogs/tabid/249/entryid/103/Default.aspx#Comments</comments>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.safenano.org/KnowledgeBase/CurrentAwareness/Blogs/tabid/249/entryid/103/Default.aspx</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 05 Jul 2009 10:01:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
      <trackback:ping>http://www.safenano.org/DesktopModules/SunBlog/Views/Handlers/Trackback.aspx?id=103</trackback:ping>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Stress Testing the OECD Database</title>
      <category domain="http://www.safenano.org/knowledgebase/currentawareness/blogs/tabid/249/categoryid/6/default.aspx">Toxicology</category>
      <category domain="http://www.safenano.org/knowledgebase/currentawareness/blogs/tabid/249/categoryid/7/default.aspx">Ecotoxicology</category>
      <category domain="http://www.safenano.org/knowledgebase/currentawareness/blogs/tabid/249/categoryid/10/default.aspx">Exposure</category>
      <link>http://www.safenano.org/KnowledgeBase/CurrentAwareness/Blogs/tabid/249/entryid/102/Default.aspx</link>
      <description><![CDATA[Today I have been working with the OECD Database on research into the safety manufactured nanomaterials. Let me say firstly this is a very impressive and ambitious attempt to gather together information about all of the relevant nano EHS studies which have been carried out or are currently underway. Having just gone live, it is perhaps inappropriate at this time to expect too much from this database, even though it was constructed largely from the previous database from Woodrow Wilson. Having previously worked with that database as part of our EMERGNANO project, I know well the issues which have to be addressed in order to clean the data such that it may be usefully used in analysis or future studies. In addition the need to continually add to the data, and keep it up to date is also paramount. In our EMERGNANO study we took great care to dig below the entry level data available in the database in order to identify those projects which were really relevant and were making real contributions towards resolving  ...]]></description>
      <dc:creator>Robert Aitken</dc:creator>
      <comments>http://www.safenano.org/KnowledgeBase/CurrentAwareness/Blogs/tabid/249/entryid/102/Default.aspx#Comments</comments>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.safenano.org/KnowledgeBase/CurrentAwareness/Blogs/tabid/249/entryid/102/Default.aspx</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 May 2009 10:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
      <trackback:ping>http://www.safenano.org/DesktopModules/SunBlog/Views/Handlers/Trackback.aspx?id=102</trackback:ping>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>New carbon nanotube study raises the health impact stakes</title>
      <category domain="http://www.safenano.org/knowledgebase/currentawareness/blogs/tabid/249/categoryid/6/default.aspx">Toxicology</category>
      <category domain="http://www.safenano.org/knowledgebase/currentawareness/blogs/tabid/249/categoryid/10/default.aspx">Exposure</category>
      <link>http://www.safenano.org/KnowledgeBase/CurrentAwareness/Blogs/tabid/249/entryid/101/Default.aspx</link>
      <description><![CDATA[From 2020 Science:
I’m looking at an electron microscope image of a carbon nanotube - as I cannot show it here, you’ll have to imagine it. It shows a long, straight, multi-walled carbon nanotube, around 100 nanometers wide and 10 micrometers long. There is nothing particularly unusual about this. What is unusual is that the image also shows a section of the lining of a mouse’s lung. And the nanotube is sticking right through the lining, like a needle through a swatch of felt.
The image was shown at the annual Society of Toxicology meeting in Baltimore last week, and comes from a new study by researchers at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) on the impact of inhaled multi-walled carbon nanotubes on mice.
It’s highly significant because it takes scientists a step closer to understanding whether carbon nanotubes that look like harmful asbestos fibers, could cause asbestos-like disease.
Questions were raised about carbon nanotubes and their superficial si ...]]></description>
      <dc:creator>Andrew Maynard</dc:creator>
      <comments>http://www.safenano.org/KnowledgeBase/CurrentAwareness/Blogs/tabid/249/entryid/101/Default.aspx#Comments</comments>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.safenano.org/KnowledgeBase/CurrentAwareness/Blogs/tabid/249/entryid/101/Default.aspx</guid>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Mar 2009 11:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
      <trackback:ping>http://www.safenano.org/DesktopModules/SunBlog/Views/Handlers/Trackback.aspx?id=101</trackback:ping>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
