What are some areas of nanotechnology applications in everyday life that you didn't know about
Nanotechnology research has been very successful in creating thousands of new materials, but molecules are still just ideas in terms of forming themselves into useful objects or building miniature nanomachines. The laws that determine the behavior of individual atoms are different from those that govern large materials. Scientists in this field must first understand the properties of nanomaterials and take advantage of them for specific activities. For example, lumps of elemental carbon in the form of coal or graphite do not have electrical or optical properties, but microscopic carbon nanotubes have these properties. These unique properties of carbon nanotubes are useful for enhancing the properties of lightweight bicycle components. But it is unclear how successful engineers will be in manipulating individual atoms of different elements more precisely.
The NNI's funding has paid off: 2,000 to 3,000 manufactured nanomaterials have been approved for use in new products. But in the rush to find new uses for nanotechnology, have we lost sight of the risks involved? Many analysts suspect that some of these nanomaterials may be toxic, but they have not been subjected to the rigorous testing required by, for example, the U.S. Federal Drug Administration (FDA), which requires drugs to be licensed before they can be sold. the FDA's rules for testing new drugs are among the most stringent in the world. It takes 7 to 10 years and $500 million to develop and approve a new drug. Similar regulations for each nanomaterial could slow or even interrupt much of the nanotechnology research. Only a small fraction of the nanomaterials that are developed have a large enough market to justify such huge testing costs.
The FDA does require nanotechnology to undergo a basic toxicity analysis. Should we be more cautious about taking more precautionary measures and requiring more testing of the health effects of nanomaterials. Or do the potential benefits of nanotechnology require us to accelerate research in this area? How can we know how to address the potential risks if we don't wait 20-30 years to see what the impact will really be? How many cases of cancer, lung disease, and mental illness would it take to prove that current testing of the health risks of nanomaterials is inadequate? More rigorous testing of nanomaterials is difficult because it's hard to determine whether the material will be processed into food or drugs or something that won't be used for eating, and whether it's harmful or not once a person ingests it. For example, the FDA has been concerned for decades about products that have been labeled as dietary supplements so that they don't have to undergo the same costly testing that drugs do, but that may also be harmful.
It can be assumed that if waterproof fabrics are coated with toxic nanomaterials, the coatings could vaporize as the clothing ages, which could be inhaled by the body. In addition, some materials change properties as they transform into nanoparticles, just as water may become crystals, liquid or vapor at different temperatures. Then again, if you ingest a bit of silver, it will pass through the body's systems without causing harm. In India, silver foil is used to decorate desserts and can be taken as food, but silver is not allowed as food in the United States because silver salts, as well as silver-containing compounds with other molecules, are toxic. Complicating matters further, other silver salts, as well as silver nanoparticles, are anti-microbial and are often used as coatings for medical devices, such as wound dressings, and even in washing machines to stop the growth of disease-causing microbes. As more and more pathogenic diseases evolve to become immune to antibiotics, the antimicrobial characteristics of silver nanoparticles will become even more important. But most people can't be sure if, or under what conditions, silver nanoparticles might combine with other molecules to form toxic compounds.
Nanomaterials employed in solar cells or batteries are not ingestible, but the focus should be on waste generation and waste disposal at the end of the device's useful life. Life cycle analysis is one of the indicators used to determine the impact of a large project or the application of new materials. Performers who are very serious about risk analysis and environmental impact analysis try to control the adverse effects of bias on the objectivity of their findings. A good report should pay attention to what is still not known, either because the necessary studies were not or could not be carried out, or because the results of the various actions are too complex to be analyzed. In the best case scenario, the various issues considered in the decision-making process can be illustrated by risk analysis and cost-benefit analysis. In the context of many specific constraints, careful analysis can provide a fairly accurate picture of the actual situation. The report will be full of figures and graphs that demonstrate objectivity. Of course, EIRs and risk analyses can also contain many value judgments about what is more important, what is less important, and other subjective factors that bias the results of the study.
The trade-off between accelerated development and long-term risk is often that accelerated development wins. This is especially true when the risks are uncertain and the projected benefits are enormous. Increased public health and environmental risks are among the trade-offs. There are still many opportunity costs in the development of nanotechnology innovations that generate and store energy. Global climate change and the urgent need for clean energy are matters of urgency, and there is a need for governments to subsidize the development of industrial products with low market efficiency. Policymakers are focusing extraordinarily on the potential benefits, hoping that innovation and production at scale will eventually make solar and wind power cost-competitive with other non-renewable energy sources. There is no evidence that this will be achieved any time soon. The cost of clean energy will fall, but probably not at a rate lower than the cost of coal power in the coming decades.
In the meantime, opportunities will be missed because extra money is spent on funding clean energy that could be used to fund other social development needs. Policy makers are split on the idea that development should be slowed down because of global warming. As a result, we don't have an effective way to synthesize the trade-offs between energy options. Clean energy advocates believe that cost comparisons between energy sources are misleading. Producers and suppliers of coal, oil, and natural gas are not responsible for the environmental and public health damage caused by their products. They propose a carbon tax on coal and fossil fuels to cover social costs and level the playing field. But so far, politicians have shown little interest in how to respond to potential resistance to the implementation of a carbon tax. For many politicians, particularly those who represent constituencies with a strong oil industry, resistance to a carbon tax is the main justification for denying global climate change.