The Nano-Suncreen Wars
 

Of course there are interests to be served in this debate; I just hadn't realised .

" By Katherine Wilson

A smear campaign dressed up as government research.
Sock puppets and Freedom of Information revelations.
All smothered in... sunscreen?

Katherine Wilson reports on the nano-wars

This is a story of an award-winning author who used his storytelling skills in his public servant day-job.

It’s the story behind Australia’s nano-sunscreen wars.

It’s about a smear-campaign — but not the slip-slop-slap type — dressed up as government research. It involves FOI documents that show a community group was a direct target of this campaign.
..."

http://newmatilda.com/2012/09/04/nanoparticle-wars




Note:
Part two of this report will be published tomorrow.

Disclosure: Katherine Wilson has worked with Gene Ethics, one of NETS’ key stakeholders, and she has also accepted commissioned work for a biotechnology company in which her family owns shares.

Sigh.

All this started as a warning ages ago by a scientist who stated correctly that the health effects of nanoparticles hadn't been studied sufficiently. He was correct, and the follow up studies on the heath effects of nanoparticles were completed in the next two years. Sunscreen was given a clean bill of health.

But the press hype still continues.

Yep. They're deadly, those nanoparticles. All of them.

The smaller the deadlier. You don't want to get any atoms on you.

What is the smallest deadly thing on the quark, neutron, nuclear, atom, molecule scale?

Especially them nano thermites, get them in your sunscreen and they make your shoulders explode.

Do you have a reference that gives sunscreen nanoparticles a clean bill of health?

My understanding is that they have only been proven safe in one way, and that is that if they are applied to healthy skin then they cannot pass through the outer layer to living cells, where they can be toxic.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1130115812.htm

Are they safe if applied to cuts or grazes? Outdoor workers and kids often have many cuts and grazes.

Are they safe if you rub your eyes with some on your hands? Or sweat runs down into your eyes? Or you eat some food with some on your hands? Or any number of other mechanisms by which the nanoparticles could make their way to living cells?

Most kids and outdoor workers, or people at the beach, won't give safety a second thought either during or after application, and why should they? They have a right to assume it is safe under the usual conditions that it is used.

It is anything but proven safe.

Its not about whether they can make their way to the cells thats the issue, if they sit out side the cell theres no real issue. Its those nanoparticles that get into the cells that will be the problem. That is mostly a result of particle size and charge.

This article has some info on sunscreen nanoparticles and the effects on fish. I don't know the mechanism for this; I don't think it's nanoparticles though?

Additionally the other issue is going to be dose.

This article http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1116165739.htm showed a link between genetic damage and titania nanoparticles in mice. But look closely, the mice got 1.6 years of industrial scale exposure in a few days.

It does.

This article though was not about the science itself, which would seem to have been settled ages ago.

It is about the "interests" of the various participants in the debate, an analysis of what happened outside the lab, which is a different issue entirely and one that goes to the public perceptions of the integrity of not only that "science" for many, but of scientists to some extent.


It's a parallel to Bogsnorkler's thread, I think, about scientists not all being created equal but from a subject of science perspective..

And then based on all this its like anything its a risk-benefit analysis. Is the risk of getting some sort of damage from the sunscreen higher than the risk of getting skin cancer from not using the sunscreen. I suspect the risk of skin cancer would be many times higher than the sunscreen damage, so keep using the sunscreen,

And for me the big killer is the fact L_D thinks theres a link. For me thats a sure sign there is no link.

Agreed, but probably depends on variables such as your kidney health in the first place etc. I don't have enough info about the coral situation to make an informed opinion on that though, but that's outside the scope of this thread anyway.

Again though if your kidneys are under enough damage that the nanoparticles are going to make a difference, its probably a fairly extensive kidney disease.

In which case, melanoma is probably not high on your list of worries http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...lies/smile.png

From the link:

They subjected rainbow trout to titanium oxide nanoparticles which are widely used as a whitening agent in many products including paints, some personal care products, and with applications being considered for the food industry.

FAIL. Nanoparticles are used in sunscreens because they are transparent. That is the whole point. Whitening agents comprise larger particles.

It's not about risk-benefit analysis, there are plenty of alternatives to nanosunscreen. The safety of nanosuncreen is highly questionable and it shouldn't be allowed on the market until it is proven safe.

Some people are almost daily smearing themselves and their children in this shit thinking they are doing the right thing, all the while trusting that it has been thoroughly tested and is perfectly safe.

THey shouldn't really be doing it almost daily anyway.


And it is risk-benefit. Actually judge this stuff on its merits, not because you fall for every BS conspiracy running around.

Oxobenzone, perhaps?

http://www.organicconsumers.org/arti...icle_11225.cfm