Nanotechnology is still in its early days, and whether it will be of value to resource-poor countries is still hotly debated. Critics argue that when millions of people in countries like India or those in Sub-Saharan Africa are dying because of a lack of access to even basic healthcare, investing in cutting-edge technologies is a ludicrous waste of money. And experts are concerned that the toxicity of nanoparticles to human health and the environment has not been studied extensively enough.
For instance, a 2004 report by the UK Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering recommended that
nanoparticles and nanotubes cylindrical carbon molecules be treated as hazardous waste.
Some drugs can now be delivered through 'nano-vehicles'. For example liposomes, which can deliver the drug payload by fusing with cell membranes, have been used to encapsulate HIV drugs such as stavudine and zidovudine in vehicles ranging from 120 to 200 nanometres in size. Since both these drugs have short half-lives, the liposome coating could potentially make them active for longer periods.
However, nanotechnology carries risks, the primary one being lung damage. Studies have shown that most nanoparticles migrate to the lungs. Other organs are susceptible to damage as well.
Instead of inducing apoptosis, nanoparticles induced autophagy, a process that degrades damaged materials in a cell. Scientists have found that sometimes an over activity of this destruction process leads to cell death.
One area where nanoparticles seem to be growing in popularity is colloidal silver. Still, studies show cause for concern.
Nanosilver may damage mitochondria, which leads to DNA damage. Until further evidence concludes nanoparticles safe it may be best to use what has been true and tested for several decades and consider Colloidal Silver, without nanoparticles.
When illness threatens to put a damper on your holiday, turn to
Colloidal Silver for a safe, reliable immunity alternative. The suspended silver mimics and works with our own immune system, charging it upon delivery.
Comment: As with GMOs, mad scientists in the nanotech field believe that they can get away with manipulating mother nature. They will soon learn who is boss.
From
Nanotechnology - the new threat to food:
Nanotechnology in agriculture is based on the premise that we can improve efficiency and productivity by rearranging atoms in seeds, by developing even more potent chemical inputs, by using high technology surveillance to allow electronic, rather than person-based surveillance of on-farm conditions, and by further automating inputs to plant growth. Applications of nanotechnology to food processing assume that humans can 'improve' the taste, texture, appearance, nutritional content and longevity of food by manipulating it at the atomic level. It has even been argued that this will result in food that is 'safer'.
These assumptions are based on a flawed belief that humans can remake the natural world from the atom up - and get a better result. It assumes that we can predict the consequences of our actions, even when we are dealing with highly unpredictable processes and forces - such as quantum mechanics. Unfortunately, history tells us that we are simply not very good at predicting the outcomes of complex systems - witness the disasters that resulted from the introduction of biological controls such as the Cane Toad, or the introduction of rabbits and foxes for sport. History is similarly littered with examples of huge health and environmental problems that resulted from the failure to respond to early warning signs about previous perceived "wonder" materials such as CFCs, DDT and asbestos. This suggests that we should take the early warning signs associated with the toxicity of nanoparticles very seriously.
This article is an advertisement so just wondering about the facts.