At NanoVic we use safety labels to indicate the presence of ultrafine nanoparticles. The purpose of labelling these materials is to ensure that appropriate personal safety measures can be undertaken. This is based on the NIOSH report which indicated that ultrafine particles <100 nm may pose greater health risks than bigger particles of a similar material.
Current toxicity regulations seem to rely on the composition or properties of bulk materials rather than size. So for the layperson, it is difficult to know whether ultrafine particles of otherwise safe materials may pose a health risk. And are they dangerous only if in particle form or also within other materials? And nanoparticles also exist in nature, so is it only synthetically manufactured nanoparticles that are toxic?
The Australian Safety and Compensation Council released a report in July 2006 titled “A Review of the Potential Occupational Health and Safety Implications of Nanotechnology”. The report examines the potential toxicology of nanoparticles and outlines the uncertainties associated with toxicology, measurement and safe practices.
The ETC Group certainly seem to think that all nanoparticles are a hazard and are currently running a competition to develop a new hazard symbol for nanomaterials. I don’t think the current entries on display are entirely successful in terms of communicating the issue to the public. For me, what is missing is an appropriate way to deal with nanoparticles once they have been labeled as a hazard.
The Foresight Institute has responded in their NanoDot Blog by criticising the nano hazard symbol for two reasons - first because using precautionary symbols without basis leads to overuse and a less effective message and secondly because we already have a toxic hazard symbol that could be more generally applied.
What is certain is that things are uncertain. And this is justification for NanoVic using labelling and safe work practices for our activities.
Blog @ NanoVic - Encouraging Public Debate | 02-Nov-06 at 8:05 pm | Permalink
[…] Steve Mullins from the ACTU talked about his engagement with Standards Australia and the work they are doing around toxicity and safety standards, so it was good to hear a different view on hazards and labelling. Georgia Miller from Friends of the Earth stressed the importance of public involvement in decision-making and a need for government committment to the responsible development of nanotechnologies. […]