In Search of Soft Machines 

A tourist’s guide to nanoparticles

[1.]
Yesenia Marquetti
General Biology Conference Paper
Professor Ray Clarke
May 8 2007
th

Abstract

The infiltration of nanotechnology is cause for concern on many levels considering its widespread
and unregulated use within the global market. Companies are not required to label their products
as containing such materials, based on the assumption that nanoparticles less than 100
nanometers don’t seem to behave much differently than larger molecules of the same compound,
even though it is a fact that the smaller the particle, the larger the surface area to volume ratio
possible for reactivity, and thus the increased chances of toxicity. This obviously eliminates the
right to choose for the customer, and engenders ethical issues for both businesses and governing
bodies. Although research has shown various hazards concerning exposure, the FDA has only
recently allocated funds for a proper investigation, and continues to support a voluntary self-
reporting system for businesses, obviously flawed by self-interest. There are various ways in
which these ultra-fine particles can infiltrate the human body, and their effects on it are
substantial enough to warrant a careful examination of further unwarranted exposure. What can
be done to protect the public from this flagrant abuse of trust? How can consumers avoid
unnecessary exposure to products containing untested nanoparticles. Before designing such tools
to benefit the public good, we must first understand the full repercussions of its use, and the very
nature of human tendencies to abuse such power. 
    With the development of grander and more complex technological advances—from earthquake-
resistant skyscrapers to quantum-sized computer processors—comes an implicitly ethical and
sensible duty to examine and exhaust from all angles, the functions, hazards, and impacts any
new technology will bring into the world. The spread of nanotechnology on a global scale has
raised issues of concern from various organizations about the consequences regarding
unregulated commercial use of untested nanoparticles [2,4,9]. Although some preliminary research
has already been conducted on the dangers of exposure, it is not nearly enough to allow for any
business to forego labeling their products as containing such materials, or to warrant the
voluntary self-regulated system of evaluation for such businesses, which several governments
(USA and Australia) have already established [3,4,6]. While one may be in favor of optimism, it is
curious when a branch of the almighty government—the same people who brought you a
democratic constitution—says it has no power over the regulation of certain products; products it
was established to evaluate; products that people will be using, regardless of their content size [3].
What “products” have such preferential treatment? After all, who is responsible for the evaluation
and approval of commodities accessed by the public, if not the institution founded to prevent
scenarios like The Jungle from reoccurring? Surely not my grandmother, unless she replaced the
current commissioner Lester Crawford overnight and did not tell me. 
    The goal of this paper is not only to construct a platform from which to hurl vindictive criticisms
at the institutions meant to protect us; it is also a much needed exploration into a topic, who’s
complex and relatively novel nature, tends to discourage the people it affects the most from
investigating it further. It is important as a consumer, and more importantly a citizen who pays
taxes, to understand and inform oneself concerning the policies and practices that affect one’s
every day life. In the hectic bustle of school, work, and family it is not always one’s first priority to
keep up on the current events concerning nanotechnology; few people see how it even relates to
their lives, and are usually bombarded with so much extraneous information on everything else—
easily pushing nanotechnology to the back of the bus.
   Problems in inefficient policy reformation and other such political problems always seem to
follow a long chain of blame, in the case of the FDA, Deputy Commissioner for Policy Michael
Taylor said responsible regulation of nanotechnology was hampered by "the failure of Congress
and successive administrations to adequately fund even FDA's base operations [7]."Essentially,
some issues of priority are skirted until someone finally notices, and decides to do something
about it, which then may or may not enamor the slow wheel of action to begin turning. So if
Congress isn’t allocating the adequate funds, who is? And is this charitable donation teeming with
promised favors and considerable influence? Perhaps. Coincidentally, The Pew Charitable Trust
stated in their Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies Report, “Total corporate nanotechnology
R[esearch]&D[evelopment] investments worldwide now exceed government funded research [10].”
    The FDA has cited various collaborations with the National Institutes of Health and the National
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIH/NIEHS), as part of a larger plan of action with the
National Toxicology Program, “examining the skin absorption and phototoxicity of nano-sized
titanium dioxide and zinc oxide preparations used in sunscreens” [3]. The National Nanotechnology
Initiative was also established to investigate the dangers of widespread nanotechnology use and
product handling[5]. While these efforts are now slowly gaining momentum and increased funding;
“Estimated budget allocations for the Nanotechnology Initiative, distributed to the National
Science Foundation and other agencies, totaled about $1.3 billion in fiscal year 2006…but
according to government estimates, less than 5 percent of that funding went to researching
nanotechnology’s social and health risks…”[7], it was only after various organizations like the CTA[13]
and FoE[4] stormed Washington and challenged the FDA to, “protect consumers from products…
that currently contain unregulated nanoparticles, including sunscreens and cosmetics used by
children and adults”[9], did the government decide to fund a public program that perhaps should
have been in place over twenty years ago when the science of nanotechnology was just
immerging[23].

 So what’s the big deal with nanoparticles?

 

[http://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/var/sciencelearn/storage/images/contexts/nanoscience/sci_medi
a/images/nanoparticle_size_comparison/61194-2-eng-
NZ/nanoparticle_size_comparison_full_size_portrait.jpg]
      A nanoparticle is any of the various synthetic and naturally occurring materials smaller than
one micron (1,000 nanometers), but usually classified as ranging between 1-100 nm[3,4,5].
Nanotechnology is the ability to measure, see, manipulate and manufacture at this scale. In
comparison, a DNA molecule is 2.0-2.5 nm in diameter, an erythrocyte measures a whopping
7,000 nm, a human hair is about 80,000 nm, and flea is close to 1 million nm in length [4,12]! The
laws of physics become fundamentally different down at this scale and the same methods for
construction and manipulation of materials must be redefined. One example of this is how the size
of a particle is inversely related to the viscosity index of its surroundings [9]. This means that the
smaller the particle, the thicker its environment becomes. Think of bacteria, equipped with its
rotating flagella, using  a whip like motion to propel itself in water. The force needed to overcome
the water’s inertia is significantly larger for the bacterium than it would be for a human swimming
in the same medium. This feature dramatically changes the possible mobility of nanoparticles,
similar in size to bacteria, which must be taken into consideration when engineering and
producing nanotechnology. 
    When designing medicinal nanomaterials, for the purposes of clearing a clogged artery, for
example, the device would not travel easily in the jerking, viscous blood stream, as well as react
quickly with its target binding site[9]. Another characteristic of the nanoworld is the state of
constant motion for particles called Brownian motion[9]. This is an inescapable feature of atoms
and molecules that are perpetually colliding and repelling off each other[9]. This sustained motion
is a reflection of the second law of thermodynamics, which states, “The entropy of an isolated
system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at
equilibrium” (Rudolf Clausius [24]). This simply means that over time, differences in temperature,
density, and pressure tend to even out in a physical system isolated from the rest of the world,
and most importantly, as work is done, heat is released into that system, which increases the
entropy (or disorder) of the universe[9,24]. 
    The third and most important feature of nanoparticles is its stickiness. This property is a
combination of electromagnetic force, the smoothness of particle surfaces that facilitate adhesion
to other particles, and the different charges dispersed around a molecule [9]. This last feature is
what helps facilitate the self-assembly of nanostructures, a property that provides much hope for
scientists and engineers across the field. With all of these features combined, it is possible to
throw a mixture of nanomaterials together and let them assemble themselves. The force of
Brownian motion jostles disparate pieces that don’t fit, while the stickiness allows for those that
are compatible to stick together, thus enabling a self-correcting method of assembly that ensures
the strongest possible structure[9]. These features, of course, are slightly more involved than the
purpose of this paper, but I was able to better understand these topics after reading Richard A.L.
Jone’s Soft Machines, which I highly recommend as a fairly accessible introduction to nanoparticle
physics. 
    In essence, it is these hallmarks of the nanoworld that allow for such phenomena like an
opaque substance becoming transparent (copper); an inert material becoming a catalyst
(platinum); a stable material turning into a combustible one (aluminum); a solid turning into a
liquid at room temperature (gold), and an insulator becoming a conductor (silicon) [9,25]. Much of
the fascination with nanotechnology stems from these unique quantum and surface properties
that matter exhibits at the nanoscale. The key factor in this fascination is the ability to construct
technology precisely atom by atom, from the bottom up, that was hitherto unthinkable and
impossible with our lack of proper instruments and imaging capabilities [8]. These properties reveal
a certain hope and promise for new approaches in engineering lifesaving technology, as well as a
monumental aid in the reversal of the damage already caused to the environment [10]. Dreams of
CO -absorbing paint and nanobots designed to target and kill cancers may not be the stuff of
2

imagination with many of the recent developments conducted in numerous laboratories

worldwide. Although nanoparticles demonstrate promise for numerous industries, adequate
evaluations of their safety must first be in place to protect both the people using them as well as
the environment they will be released into.

The uncertainties that breed disaster

    Nanoparticle is essentially another name for a particle that often—naturally or synthetically—

already occurs in our world, only in smaller quantities, sizes, or compositions, etc. We are
exposed to these ultra-fine particles (UFPs) on a daily basis from various sources, outlined in
Table 1[2], like salt nanocrystals in ocean air and diesel engines that emit carbon nanoparticles [2].
Nevertheless, only limited comparisons are possible between artificially manufactured
nanoparticles and natural ones. Many of the nanoparticles occurring in nature, such as saline
nanoparticles are water soluble, and when in contact with tissue loose their particle form, while
the nanoparticles from combustion processes—in motors, cigarettes or fireplaces—are
hydrophobic and show a very strong tendency towards agglomeration [25]. In this way they form
larger particles and change from nanoparticles into microparticles, acquiring different properties
altogether. This clumping together is less desirable for the manufacturers and buyers of
nanoparticles for various reasons, who only desire a product that exhibits the unique properties
found at the nanoscale. Thus, many of the particles in commercial products, like sprays or
powders, remain reactive and highly mobile[9,25]. 
    As mentioned earlier, as the size of the particle decreases, the ratio between mass and surface
area changes. This is because the smaller a body becomes, the greater its surface area becomes
in relation to its mass [2,4,23,25]. Their exceptionally large relative surface area enables nanoparticles
to exert a stronger effect on their environment and to react with other substances. In particular,
nanoparticles with a crystalline structure have more atoms on their surface that are less strongly
bonded than those in the interior of the particle [25]. This also means, however, that there are
proportionately more atoms on the surface and fewer in the interior. While these properties may
be desirable for catalytic purposes, if such products were inhaled, there could be harmful
consequences. A reported incident in Germany on April 2006, stated “an aerosol spray bathroom
cleaner marketed as a nano-product was recalled by German authorities after eighty people
reported severe respiratory problems and six were admitted to the hospital with fluid in their
lungs. While German authorities are still uncertain about what caused the recent health problems,
the incidents alarm many scientists and regulators concerned about the urgent need for
regulatory standards and labeling for nano-products[9].” 
    The surface reactivity of the nanoparticles can, depending on the type of coating, cause
chemical damage to the surrounding tissue [2,25]. This is based on the formation of free radicals,
which is another term for atoms with an unsatisfactory number of electrons [24]. They have either
an abundance or shortage of electrons and thus act in an excited state. As such, radicals are
highly reactive, because they can snatch electrons from neighboring atoms or force electrons unto
them[24,25]. In this way, free radicals optimize their own structure, while simultaneously
transforming another atom into a radical and triggering a chain reaction [25]. If such radicals are
also able to move freely, they can produce effects in the entire body and in all parts of the cell
causing inflammation and other subsequent damage [2,25]. In biological processes, free radicals are
seen widely, and are commonly found in completely normal, healthy cells [25]. At the same time,
these processes take place under controlled, local conditions. Intensive sunbathing, for example,
produces a similar effect: solar radiation causes cells in the body to become stressed and
stimulated, which leads to the emission of free radicals that harm the tissue, and in the worst
case can cause DNA deformation leading to cancer [25]. Because of their small size, nanoparticles
have the potential to be easily absorbed, posing a risk to human health. When inhaled,
nanoparticles in the nasal passages can be taken up by the olfactory nerves, crossing the blood-
brain barrier, and entering the various brain cells [2,25]. From the lungs, nanoparticles in the 30-50
nanometer range can readily enter the systemic circulation [12]. How deeply particles can penetrate
into the lungs depends on their size. [2]The lung is a well protected organ and inhaled particles must first pass
though the windpipe before reaching the lung tubules and bronchioles, which are lined with a dense mucous layer[2,25]. It
is here that the first particles to penetrate, above all the larger ones, are intercepted and borne away by the continuously
upward heaving mucous layer; most of which will be exhaled. Particles that penetrate more deeply get into the pulmonary
alveoli, which are located at the ends of the ramified lung bronchioles containing another protective shield: the so-called
macrophages or phagocytes[25]. These specialized cells absorb foreign substances and eliminate them. Nanoparticles are
absorbed by these phagocytes, and a considerable number can become deposited on the lung tissue without being exhaled
again[2,25]. As it is in the pulmonary alveoli that the oxygen exchange with the blood takes place, it would be possible for
the nanoparticles to enter the blood stream via respiration. Alternately, if particles are deposited on the olfactory fibers in
the nasal mucous membrane through inhalation, they may proceed directly to the olfactory centre of the brain via the nerve
cells in the nose, as has been demonstrated in various research reports[2,25,27]. Whether the particles continue to move
around inside the brain, and if so how they behave there, is still uncertain.
    Particle absorption through the skin has yielded disparate results conducted under various
conditions out of sync with each other—examining  live tissue supplied by the blood stream versus
excised tissue samples[2,25]. This presents a dilemma in the evaluation of products coming in direct
contact with the skin, especially considering how widespread sun tan lotion use is (particularly
with children), as well as other cosmetics containing engineered nanoparticles. Sun tan lotions
and sunscreens contain titanium dioxide, which is photoreactive, meaning it absorbs and reacts
with light, particularly ultraviolet rays offering protection against radiation [4,25]. Although titanium
dioxide was added to sunscreens in the past, it was in the form of larger particles, and they
tended to remain on the surface of the skin, while the new form is unclear as to whether it can or
will eventually enter the body with repeated exposure and accumulation [25]. Adding titanium
dioxide to suntan lotions in the form of nanoparticles is considered product enhancement, and
recognized as such by the FDA, releasing companies from disclosing this information on their
products to their customers[3,6]. The advantage to the cosmetics consumer is that particles of
nano-size are transparent, and the sunscreen no longer must be applied to the skin in the form of
a white mass. 
    Depending on the techniques used in manufacturing them and given their widespread
dissemination, nanoparticles can be released into the water or the air and ultimately contaminate
the soil and groundwater. Research at the Georgia Institute of Technology has already found
evidence of certain nanotubes aggregating into solvent particles like soil and other organic matter,
dispersing the amount of nanomaterials, and ensuring that they remain up to ten times longer in
the river water they sampled[26]. As in any production environment, the issue of efficient recycling
and acceptable biological re-absorption come to the forefront. What are the costs of making such
a product, in raw materials, and labor expenditure, and does that effort outweigh the product’s
benefits? How easily can this product be recycled? How will the adverse reactions associated with
spills damage natural marine et al. environments? There are no definitive answers as of yet, only
predictable trends that should be remedied, “In 2007, NSF's National Nanotechnology Initiative
will spend $273 million, but only $28 million is earmarked for "societal dimension" studies,
including testing and safety issues. The $28 million is divided among its Nanoscale Science and
Engineering Centers, which are studying nanoparticle manufacturing wet environments,
occupational safety during nanomanufacturing and the interaction between nanomaterials and
cells[27].”
     Currently, there are still no pragmatic regulations in place for the safe handling, production
and exposure of nanoparticles to industry workers and researchers, which presents ethical issues
of policy that the FDA must take seriously to enact [3,12]. In 2005, nanotechnology was incorporated
into $30 billion in manufactured goods—predicted to grow to $2.6 trillion in annual manufactured
goods by 2014. In December of 2006, there were almost 400 manufacturer-identified
nanotechnology-based consumer products on the market—ranging from computer chips to
automobile parts and from clothing to cosmetics and dietary supplements [4,12,27]. By 2015, the
National Science Foundation estimates that the nanotechnology sector will employ more than 2
million workers[4,9,27]. Let us hope by then that a few things have changed concerning
nanotechnological regulation, and efficient safety standards for manufacturers have been put in
place—although it is better to become involved in these causes affecting our society, than to
simply give way to chance and circumstance.
It is difficult to determine general regulations for all nanoparticles given the nature that they are
all different in form and outer coatings.
    Methods in place to begin evaluating dangerous particles from their reactions to living tissue
have proven to be a more realistic solution to the dilemma of testing for dangers. Andre Nel,
professor of medicine at UCLA, and one of the authors of the paper on this technique, says that
existing work on the toxicity of particles that are byproducts of industrial and natural processes
should help researchers identify the telltale danger signs in cell-culture screening of
nanoparticles[4,25]. According to the review, researchers studying particle toxicology have already
identified molecular mechanisms that are triggered when dangerous particles come into contact
with living cells. They've found that dangerous particles create reactive forms of oxygen that
damage cells. At low concentrations of these molecules, cells can defend themselves by producing
anti-oxidants. As concentrations increase, however, cells become inflamed or die. At each stage,
the cell produces signs that can be screened for, using cell cultures that have been exposed to
these new particles[4,25]. It is much more cost efficient to remove only the hazardous nanoparticles
from the market first instead of issuing a giant recall of all nanoparticles, as some interest groups
suggest[4,9]. Some researchers have compared this nanotechnology issue to the problem with
asbestos only a few years ago, in the way the government and the public is responding to it. Not
quite an exaggeration, and an accurate description of the way our society tends to function:
there’s not a problem until something goes wrong[4,25,27].

 A new technological revolution

    Now that you have been presented with the raw data of nanoparticle dangers and risk
assessment, it is important to see the innovations that instill hope in scientists for the future. I will
focus on some recent medicinal findings, because to be honest, the breadth of research conducted
in all fields is too much to even mention, but note that in every subject there are numerous
discoveries and projects ongoing—from the creation of more efficient fuel cells, bathrooms that
clean themselves, and milk made to taste like coca cola for toddlers [4,25,27]. 
Of particular interest to me is nanotechnology engineered for drug delivery systems. Using short
strands of genetic material, Purdue University scientists constructed miniature delivery structures
that can transport anticancer therapeutic agents directly to infected cells, showing promise for
new treatments for chronic diseases, particularly cancer [11]. The nanoparticles are assembled from
three short pieces of ribonucleic acid, a nucleic acid polymer consisting of nucleotide monomers,
that acts as a messenger between DNA and ribosomes, and that is also responsible for making
proteins out of amino acids[11,24]. These short strands posses both the right size to gain entry into
cells and also the right structure to carry other therapeutic strands of RNA inside with them,
where they are able to halt viral growth or cancer's progress [11]. 
    "RNA has immense promise as a therapeutic agent against cancer, but until now we have not
had an efficient system to bring multiple therapeutic agents directly into specific cancer cells
where they can perform different tasks," said lead scientist Peixuan Guo, who is a professor of
molecular virology at Purdue, with joint positions at Purdue's Cancer Research Center, School of
Veterinary Medicine and Weldon School of Biomedical Engineering [11]. "With these devices, Dr. Guo
was able to deliver three different therapeutic agents into a cell at the same time," said Jean Chin,
a scientist at the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, part of the National Institutes of
Health[11]. Guo's team engineered their NPs by joining together different kinds of RNA, only several
years after building a tiny "motor" from several strands of RNA that mimic those in a bacteria-
killing virus called phi29[11]. The team learned how to manipulate these stringy molecules into
different shapes, including rods, triangles and arrays. "We speculated at that time that these
shapes would be useful purely as physical scaffolding on which more sophisticated nanodevices
could be constructed," said Guo [11]. "But RNA, which carries genetic messages within cells, also has
many therapeutic functions. We realized that if we built different kinds of therapeutic RNA onto
the RNA scaffolding and created a single structure, we might be able to respond to several
challenges that have confronted the medical field[11]."
"We looked around for RNA strands that would behave in certain ways when they encounter a
cancer cell because each of them needs to perform one step of the therapy," Guo explained [11]. "An
effective agent against cancer needs to accomplish several tasks. It needs first to recognize the
cancer cell and gain access to its interior, and then it needs to destroy it. But we'd also like the
agent to leave a trail for us, to mark the path the molecule has taken somehow. That way, we can
pinpoint the location of the cancer and trace the outcome after the treatment [11]." Particles larger
than about 100 nanometers are generally too large to pass through cell membranes into the cell's
interior, and the body has a hard time retaining particles smaller than 10 nanometers [11]. The
structure Guo’s team created worked well enough to interrupt the growth of human breast cancer
cells and leukemia model lymphocytes in laboratory experiments. Additionally, the team found
that the nanoparticles completely block cancer development in living mice. A group of mice that
were in the process of developing cancer were tested with the nanoparticles, and they did not
develop the disease. A second group that was tested with mutated inactive     RNA all developed
tumors[11].
    Guo’s team must first ensure that these RNA strands are not toxic to non-cancerous cells, and
target only damaged cells before they can begin to think about testing this product on people. And
while Guo’s team is an exemplary model for research, it is difficult to accept wholeheartedly
without a consideration of all of the unknown information about how nanoparticles interact with
the body’s system after exposure. It is no wonder nanotechnology is the topic of much debate and
discussion considering its monumental dangers and miraculous potentials all the same!

 The precautionary principle

    As a sensible body of people, we owe a certain duty to our selves, our children and our
environment to make conscious, ethical choices about the well-being of all concerned. At times it
seems that it is much easier to simplify arguments because their solutions require too much work,
energy, and money. Yet, the reality is that as we progress technologically, we can’t keep covering
up our mistakes by cleaning up some of the damage and acting bewildered when it all comes
crashing down. We must prevent incidents before they occur, and exercise caution regardless of
the situation’s inanity or seeming innocence. In any and all circumstances it is always beneficial
and worth the effort to be prepared for whatever situations may come, than to allow disaster to
wreak havoc on everything we’ve worked so hard to build.
    It seems short-sighted and selfish of our nation’s government to have deliberated for so long
before enacting the proper precautions to ensure the safety of its people and surroundings. It is
hard not to be cynical about these findings, especially when all of the evidence seems to point to a
lack of efficiency and interest in the matter. My better judgment tells me that in situations like
these, the government perhaps has some vested interest in not regulating nanotechnology use, or
at least prolonging it as much as possible. It would not be the first lobby to sway them over,
especially in the current administration. This all seems vaguely reminiscent of pharmaceutical
companies exercising power over the approval of medications with slightly altered results to make
it through the testing phases, I can’t seem to remember the name of that one that gave people
heart attacks…
How strong is the public’s memory for disaster? Must one really occur before people realize their
obliviousness? A lack of available information to the public is also to blame, as well as people’s
general disinterest towards complex subjects that need several examinations before any
information is successfully assimilated. There is an absolute need for information about the
products we use as consumers, and companies should be required to label them as containing
nanoparticles if they do. People deserve the right to chose. Only various companies have listed
their products as containing engineered nanomaterials, mostly cosmetics, which can be found at
the end of the Friends of the Earth pdf available online.
    Awareness is the first and most important safeguard against such scenarios, and if one expects
quality from the products they consume they must be aware of their contents, the standards
under which they are produced, and the policy of the company producing them. It is difficult
managing such constant vigilance in the continuous distractions of every day life, but it is clear
that no one can do it for you, even the interest groups vehemently fighting for other’s rights.

Cited References:
[1.] Picture displayed on cover is of a triangular RNA nanoparticle used to target, mark, and turn off tumorous or cancerous cells.
Photo courtesy of Purdue University, September 2005.
[2.] Nanotoxicology: An Emerging Discipline Evolving from Studies of Ultrafine Particles. Günter Oberdöster, Eva Oberdöster, Jan
Oberdöster. Published in Nanotoxicology, Environmental Health Persepectives Volume 113, Number 7, July 2005.
[3.] U.S. Food and Drug Administration, FDA and Nanotechnology Products.
http://www.fda.gov/nanotechnology/faqs.html
[4.] Nanomaterials, sunscreens and cosmetics: small ingredients, big risks. Friends of the Earth Report May 2006.
[5.] National Nanotechnology Initiative
http://www.nano.gov/html/society/Responsible_Development.htm
[6.] Nanotech Critics Warn Against Industry Self-Regulation. Michelle Chen, April 16 th 2007. The New Standard Newspaper.
http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/4677
[7.] ‘Nanocosmetics’ Alarm Safety Advocates. Michelle Chen, October 12 th 2006. The New Standard Newspaper.
http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/3756
[8.] Synthetic Nanoparticles, focus on environmental and health aspects. On behalf of the Federal Environmental Agency,
Dortmund Germany. August 2005.
[9.] Consumer, Health, and Environmental Groups Launch First-Ever Legal Challenge on Risks of Nanotechnology: Legal Petition
Challenges FDA's Failure to Regulate Health Threats from Nanomaterials Currently Used in Consumer Products and Calls for
Immediate Recall of Nano-Sunscreens. George A. Kimbrell, Center for Technology Assessment, May 16 th 2006.
[10.] Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. The Pew Charitable Trust and The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
April 2005.
[11.] Purdue scientists treat cancer with RNA nanotechnology, Purdue University. September 14 th 2005.
[12.] Nanotechnology Summary. Center for Bioethics. http://www.bioethics.umn.edu/resources/topics/nanotech.html
[13.] International Center for Technology Assessment and Friends of the Earth
Challenge FDA on Nanotechnology Risks: Consumers and Environmentalists Warn of Risks from Current Uses of Unregulated
Nanomaterials at First-Ever Agency Hearing, October 10th 2006.
[14.] Future foods: friend or foe? Paul Moss, February 6th 2007. BBC News.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6334613.stm
[15.] Screening for Toxic Nanoparticles: Researchers suggest a strategy that could weed out dangerous nanoparticles. Kevin Bullis,
February 7th 2006. Technology Review published by MIT.
http://www.technologyreview.com/NanoTech-Devices/wtr_16296,303,p1.html
[16.] Study Shows Silver Nanoparticles Attach to HIV-1 virus. Syeda Z. Hamdani, October 14 th 2005. Physorg.
http://www.physorg.com/news7264.html
[17.] Coated Nanoparticles Solve Sticky Drug-delivery Problem, Science Daily News, January 25 th 2007.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070125093326.htm
[18.] Magnetic Nanocrystals Carry Tumor-Killing Drugs. Nanotechwire. March 10 th 2007.
http://www.nanotechwire.com/news.asp?nid=4421&ntid=124&pg=1
[19.] No Carrier Necessary: This Drug Delivers Itself. Nanotechwire. March 8 th 2007.
http://www.nanotechwire.com/news.asp?nid=4412&ntid=124&pg=1
[20.] Cancer tip - Nanoparticles can damage DNA, increase cancer risk. Nanotechwire. April 21 st 2007.
http://www.nanotechwire.com/news.asp?nid=4560&ntid=190&pg=1
[21.] Widely used iron nanoparticles exhibit toxic effects on neuronal cells. Nanotechwire. March 28 th 2007.
http://www.nanotechwire.com/news.asp?nid=4485&ntid=190&pg=1
[22.] Dangers come in small particles. Hazards Magazine.
http://www.hazards.org/nanotech/safety.htm
[23.] Soft Machines, Nanotechnology and Life. Richard A.L. Jones, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Sheffield.
Oxford University Press 2004.
[24.] Wikipedia, www.wikipedia.org
[25.] Nanotechnology: small matter, many unknowns. Annabelle Hett. Swiss Reinsurance Company. 2004.
[26.] Danger? Nanotube-Infested Waters Created in the Lab Carbon nanomaterials can mix in water despite being hydrophobic,
raising the possibility of a spreading spill in the future. David Biello, December 5 th 2006. Scientific American.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=54FE2E30-E7F2-99DF-31326932BC5A7E58
[27.] Studies warn of nanoparticle health effects. R. Colin Johnson, April 13 th 2007. EE Times
http://www.eetimes.com/news/semi/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=199000914&pgno=1