(NHI Nanoblog) On a list of 24 things to worry about, nanoparticles come in 19th — way below drugs and cigarettes, and lower than concerns about tanning, nuclear power plants and drinking alcohol.
The numbers come from a new survey that’s been published online in the Journal of Nanoparticle Research.
Nanotechnology leverages super-small particles (a nanometer is a billionth of a meter) to create products with amazing properties. These materials can make bike frames lighter and stronger and sunscreen more transparent on the skin, as well as new medical instruments and medicines that can save lives.
There is broad agreement that nanomaterials hold great promise for a wide variety of applications. But shrinking these substances can change their properties, and scientists are struggling to figure out whether, how and why that shift can make them dangerous in the process.
The average person, though, apparently isn’t worried too much about it. The authors of the paper, from N.C. State University and the University of South Carolina, did the survey in the fall of 2009; 307 households responded. They were asked to rate substances or activities on a spectrum, from “high risk” to “almost no risk.”
The top five risks were street drugs, cigarette smoking, AIDS, nuclear waste and obesity. Blood transfusions, cellphone use, commercial air travel and medical X‑rays were ranked behind nanoparticles.
Andrew Binder, an assistant professor of communication at N.C. State and one of the study’s authors, said he thought the low ranking of nanoparticles happened for two reasons: first, Americans are generally comfortable with technological advances.
“It’s a cultural artifact of how Americans deal with technologies, especially new technologies,” he said.
Generally, people in the U.S. see technology as something good that needs to be adopted to make life better, he said. Europeans tend to be more skeptical, he said, offering genetically-modified food as an example.
The second factor, Binder said, is that nano just isn’t on most people’s radar screens. Many of the other risks, like cigarettes, have been well-known for many years — even if at one time, they weren’t considered harmful.
The terminology used in the nano field may have something to do with it, too. Although the survey used the term “nanoparticle,” in the broader social discussion, “nanotechnology” is almost always used. Compare that with the derisive shorthand coined for genetically-modified crops, fish and other products.
“‘Frankenfood’ is a pretty powerful label,” Binder said.
In addition to Binder, the authors of the paper are David M. Berube, Christopher L. Cummings, Jordan H. Frith and Robert Oldendick.