According to the textbook, nanotechnology is still something that is considered new and
therefore the health effects have yet to be extensively studied or clearly identified (Maxwell,
2009).But with exposure routes to these materials through both manufacturing and use occurring
through: inhalation, skin contact and even simple ingestion- it has been with great diligence that
health risks linked to nanotechnology has been studied.
In fact, there have been health predictions based on engineered nanoparticles from environmental
sources that have anticipated nanotechnology's health effects based on what has already been
studied.
The National Nanotechnology Initiative's (NNI) website makes note of the organization's
commitment to assessing both the benefits and risks of nanotechnology's impact on the
environment's health and safety. The site is quoted as saying, "the Federal commitment to health
and the environment has been part of a nanotechnology research framework since 2001" (Nano,
n.d.).
The NNI's 2011 Environmental, Health, and Safety (EHS) Research Strategy "provides a
framework of human exposure, the environment, human health, risk assessment and risk
management, along with research needs in predictive modeling" to better understand the
Environmental Health and Safety's impacts of nonmaterial. (Nano, n.d.). It is clear that health
risks associated to nanotechnology is being taken seriously and researched cautiously.
The textbook references the potential health risks associated with the human body. This
particular association should be of concern when regarding human health due to deep penetration
of the nanoparticles into the lungs. The text elaborates on the tiny particles likely being able to
induce inflammatory responses and likely to cause health effects throughout the entire human
body.
The article I chose (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090610192431.htm) also
highlights the health effects of nanotechnology in this way.
In fact, the article examines how lung damage is indeed triggered by nanotechnology. It
describes "a type of programmed cell death known as autophagic cell death" (Science News,
2009). Although the article goes on to further mention benefits associated with nanotechnology,
it clearly identifies safety as a concern when regarding nanotechnology-insinuating that health
risks need to be prevented. While, lung damage continues to be identified as the chief human
toxicity concern regarding nanotechnology, with studies showing that most nanoparticles migrate
to the lungs; studies have also proved that nanoparticles can translocate through the circulatory,
lymphatic, and nervous systems to many tissues and organs, including the brain therefore
potential damage to other organs have also been of concern. Unfortunately, the ones usually
impacted the most by such exposure are the workers in these industries.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) website, "the earliest and
most extensive exposure to hazards is most likely to occur in the workplace" with workers within
nanotechnology-related industries being exposed to the toxicities of nanotechnology before
anyone else and perhaps even in longer duration (CDC, 2012) Unfortunately, most workers
exposed to nanoparticles are typically not informed that this is the case, so little is known about
personal protection as an answer to toxic exposure.
Although, the article I chose indicates both the benefits and risk of nanotechnology's use. I
believe the author's argument of its health risks because various other sites have also been in
support of the same theory of lung damage due to nanotechnology. With a variety of studies
indicating the same health risks, it is not hard to agree with the author that this new technology is
putting many in harm's way.
References
CDC. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, (2012). Nanotechnology. Retrieved from
website: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/nanotech/
Science Daily. (2009, June 11). Health risks of nanotechnology: How nanoparticles can cause
lung damage, and how the damage can be blocked. Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090610192431.htm