(NHI Nanoblog) A new report from the environmental advocacy group Friends of the Earth takes aim at the promotion of nanotechnology as the “green” answer to energy and climate issues. The group argues that nano-based solutions often use lots of energy, and that some pose potentially serious risks to the environment and people.
The study slaps at the promotion of nanotechnology as a panacea and questions whether we have enough answers about the possible downside of nano-based projects.
It’s true that nanotechnology, which exploits the often amazing properties of incredibly small particles to develop new medicines and super-products, is often discussed in hyperbolic terms. It’s also more and more obvious that there are risks associated with it.
The new report pokes some important holes in the hype, noting that many projects, such as solar panels printed on film, face huge obstacles in scaling up production to the point where they can actually be widely used.
Other ideas, such as using carbon nanotubes to reinforce windmill blades for wind energy, are energy hogs when it comes to production, the report says. In addition, carbon nanotubes — tiny cylinders of carbon — are associated with some health problems, and are the focus of large amounts of research to determine how to safely handle them.
The report also raises good questions about so-called “lifecycle” issues, what happens to nanomaterials over the long term. This concern i’s widely shared, since these applications are relatively new, and it’s difficult to gauge their impact.
The Friends of the Earth report is taking some criticism (here’s one example) for spending much of its time panning substances that aren’t really associated with energy production.
For example, the report derides skin creams and other materials that use nanoparticles, such as antimicrobial fabrics, as not very helpful to the larger cause of reducing our damage to the planet; most, it says, are working against the goal of conservation and sustainability. There are plenty of weird nano-based applications out there (it’s unclear why anyone would drink gold particles, nano-sized or not), but that’s somewhat beside the larger point, and has opened up the organization to the aforementioned hits.
At its heart, though, the report is an interesting response to nanopromoters.
