China Reports the First Human Nano-Fatalities

By Paul Adams Posted 08.20.2009 at 11:23 am 8 Comments

Nanoscale Silicon Powder Twisp via Wikipedia

Two women in China have achieved the dubious honor of being the first humans to be killed by nanotechnology. The women, who worked in a poorly ventilated factory spraying a paint that contained nanoparticles, reportedly inhaled the particles over a period of months. The tiny compounds infiltrated the workers' lungs and skin, causing lung damage, fluid buildup, and eventual respiratory failure. Five other women have been hospitalized for the same condition.

Reuters quotes Yuguo Song, a Beijing toxicologist whose report appeared in European Respiratory Journal: The particles' size "means that they can penetrate the body's natural barriers, particularly through contact with damaged skin or by inhalation or ingestion," and once they've entered lung cells they cannot be removed.

Nanotechnology's uses are as wide-ranging as the particles are small; Reuters projects that the market for the tiny tech will reach one trillion dollars by 2015. In the last few months alone, PopSci has reported on using nanotech to boost power, track criminals, create motors, destroy tumors, and build more nano-molecules.

There has long been speculation about a dramatic disaster in which the entire world is consumed by out-of-control self-replicating nano-bots, but realistic scenarios of currently existing nanotech killing humans have received somewhat less attention.

The White House, it turns out, has a National Nanotechnology Coordination Office, whose head promises that proper ventilation and masks would have made the Chinese factory environment completely harmless. We'll be carefully watching the future of nano-safety and nano-risks -- with our nano-enhanced eyesight.

[via Reuters]

Previous Article: Solar SunFlowers Look Like Reincarnated Cell Tower Trees

Next Article: Giant Free-Roving Robotic Cages Could Be the Healthy Future of Fish Farming

Want to learn more about the environment, solar energy, sustainability, and more? Subscribe to Popular Science and enter to win $5,000!

8 Comments

link to this comment

Battleshield

08/20/09 at 12:05 pm

Not sure if Reuters or Paul Adams wrote the bit about the grey-goo scenario (nanotech running rampant and consuming the earth), but there is a distinction between nanotech and intelligent nanotech as outlined by K. Eric Drexler in Engines of Creation. Both are potentially harmful but in different ways.

One interesting note to this story, no mention of measures or levels of nanotech within the deceased tissues was mentioned. Since nanotechnology is in it's infant stages of commercialization, we need a better understanding of the toxicity threshold levels, and accidents like this are perfect opportunities to study those levels.

link to this comment

Cdin

08/20/09 at 8:13 pm

Imagine nano-weaponry.

"Fred, our nanites are eating through the resinated silicon transparent alumino plexiglass..."

"Naaa... can't happen!"

"Yes happen..."

"Sh**!!!"

Cdin
------------------------
cdin.us/all
cdin.org
cdin.us/blogsites
: )

link to this comment

JoShatkin

08/21/09 at 8:29 am

It is a shame and regrettable that two Chinese workers died from overexposure to fumes and a breadth of substances, particularly because they were preventable with standard industrial hygiene techniques commonly used in manufacturing environments.

Its also regrettable that Popular Science chose such an alarmist and untruthful headline to tell the story, since it will mis-inform readers. As the researchers themselves state, "These cases arouse concern that long-term exposure to some nano particles without protective measures may be related to serious damage to human lungs."

There clearly were exposures to other substances, and the evidence doesn't prove nanoparticles are the cause of the worker's respiratory distress. Still, this type of incident was predicted years ago, and the fact that it has occurred raises the bar for ensuring that the health and safety of workers, consumers of nano-products, and the environment is protected.

link to this comment

chillinbeachside

08/21/09 at 1:25 pm

dubious honor!?! what honor is there in dying like that? while the info is pertinent, i don't see the honor in 2 people dying and 5 others hospitalized. i am somewhat offended in the tone of this, instead of curiosity how bout alarm or concern for the exposure of these people. dubious honor my ***.

link to this comment

NeonRobot

08/22/09 at 10:47 am

@chillinbeachside you just took the words out of my mouth

link to this comment

Vivia

08/24/09 at 5:31 am

there is no honor,pal!
what a tragedy!!!

link to this comment

tr0n

11/08/09 at 2:11 am

Maybe PopSci should deliver these types of news blurbs in a more cheery tone. Maybe the fundies wouldn't complain so much about it then?

link to this comment

zerobass

11/09/09 at 12:20 am

@chillinbeachside/NeonRobot: The fact that MULTIPLE people are up in arms about the use of the term 'dubious honor' just shows how little they understand the definition of dubious.

It is doubtful that this is really an honor; that's what dubious is. How can you comment on an author's meaning if you can't even read the words. Or, if you can understand them, you choose to ignore them for the sake of your reply.

"How dare they call this an 'honor'".
They didn't.