A little story about drugs, bass and balls

Written by Howard Lovy
Published April 10, 2004


buckybowlingballWired didn't make me wait very long to find an illustration of a point I made last week in Washington.

Big Concern for Very Small Things (Get it? The concerns are "big," yet the technology is "small.") mentions the Nanodesu bowling ball as "one of the first consumer products that uses nanoparticles called fullerenes — aka buckyballs. ..." (These beauties come come in regular and "1500").

The reporter rolls out the balls, however, as merely a transitional vehicle to get to where he really wanted to go: From apples to oranges to, yes, fish. Our poor, brain-damaged bass who likely will never see retirement as long as Google News exists.

This seems like a good opportunity for a transition of my own to a conversation I had last week with Clayton Teague, director of the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO). It's going to be his job to handle "public outreach" for the U.S. government's nanotech program. In this conversation, I present a scenario similar to the one Wired so nicely illustrated for me, only I used the example of buckyballs as drug-delivery device rather than as angel of 10-pin death.

Here's a peak into the middle of our hour-long conversation (these are some pretty raw notes, so forgive the typos):

    Howard Lovy: There's a difference between chemicals that are bad for you in any size, are toxic whether they're nanometer-size or not ...

    Clayton Teague: Yes, arsenic — it doesn't matter whether it's 1 micrometer or a tenth of a nanometer. It's bad for you.

    HL: But what's not understood is the effect of some of these new engineered nanoparticles and what happens when it's ingested or breathed in, or what happens when it passes through the blood-brain barrier. That's what's not understood.

    Teague: Let me just make one other point there. There's also a difference between, as you say, exhaust nanoparticles, or abrasive nanoparticles and some of the new engineered nanoparticles. There, if you took even nanometer-scale asbestos. It may have some dimensions that are nanoscale, but it's very highly uncontroled sizes, the surface chemistry is different, the aspect ratios are different.

    If I go to a buckyball. Every one of those buckyballs is nearly identical. They may conglomerate and form a different shape when they come together, but their surface chemistry and they way they look is like a highly uniform collection. They're very monodispersed. They're very highly uniform in character, in dimension, chemical surface property and things like that. So, that's why, in some instances they're functioning completely different, but it also may mean that their interaction with the body might be very different because they have this very nice, different surface chemistry and are very monodispersed in size. So, when we say they may be different in the body, they may be different in the body.

    page 1 | 2
Keep reading for information and comments on this article, and add some feedback of your own!
A little story about drugs, bass and balls
Published: April 10, 2004
Type:
Section: Politics
Filed Under: Culture: Media, Interviews
Writer: Howard Lovy
Howard Lovy's BC Writer page
Howard Lovy's personal site
Spread the Word
Like this article?
Email this
Submit to del.icio.us Save to del.icio.us
RSS Feeds
All RSS Feeds (240+)
Comments on this article
BC articles by Howard Lovy
Culture: Media
Interviews
All Politics Articles
All BC articles
All BC Comments

Comments

#1 — October 29, 2004 @ 14:38PM — mo [URL]

what is islam

#2 — October 29, 2004 @ 16:24PM — Eric Olsen

it's the younger version of issheep

#3 — October 29, 2004 @ 17:53PM — Victor Plenty [URL]

Buckyballs are probably far older than the human species is. They're a naturally occurring form of carbon molecule, found in substances like soot. Being exposed to a few buckyballs is not necessarily new or dangerous.

That being said, until very recently it has not been possible to separate out and concentrate the buckyballs. Until now, living things have always encountered them in very low concentrations, mixed with diverse sets of other molecules. So it will be difficult to predict what might be a safe concentration of purified buckyballs, until we've done a lot more research.

Looks like, as usual, most of those lessons will be the hard ones we'll learn by experimenting on ourselves, and on everything else that gets exposed to the products of our recklessness.

#4 — February 26, 2006 @ 23:51PM — BIlly

Looks like, as usual, most of those lessons will be the hard ones we'll learn by experimenting on ourselves, and on everything else that gets exposed to the products of our recklessness.

Why?

Want comments emailed to you? No spam, promise! Address:

Add your comment, speak your mind

(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/14601)

Personal attacks are not allowed. Please read our comment policy.





Remember Name/URL?

Please preview your comment!

Fresh
Articles
Fresh
Comments