The lack of understanding about possible cancerous effects of CRT screens worries me, especially with stuff like this and "digital" displays.
The lack of understanding about possible cancerous effects of GMO food worries me...
The lack of understanding about possible cancerous effects of inert silicone gel breast implants worries me...
Someone over 30 can fill in earlier examples: "The lack of understanding about possible cancerous effects of $NEW_TECHNOLOGY_I_DONT_UNDERSTAND worries me. I'd just hate to find out 20 years down the road that $NEW_TECHNOLOGY was slowly killing us. "
Oh wait, it is actually pretty nasty stuff. Now, while the "20 years down the road" thing is a bit silly, a lack of understanding about potential adverse effects is a reason to investigate further, not to dismiss anyone who's cautious about it as paranoid.
I'm not advocating we abandon nanomaterial research by any means. I'm hoping that it's widespread use and adoption doesn't outpace research of it's effects on humans given it's similarities with asbestos.
Compared to other health threats in the US. Before the 60's and 70's, Asbestosis was a minor concern except for people with occupational exposure (e.g. asbestos miners). Much bigger and more pressing issues were polio, malaria, measles, and the like.
Once we became rich and healthy enough to care about it, we dealt with it. It was hardly an unknown threat, just a minor one.
As such, Asbestos was never directly marketed to consumers. Asbestos exposure was also limited because it's relatively narrow scope of usefulness. Asbestos was never a cultural phenomenon.
The extremely wide range of usefulness of nanotech means that it will show up in everything everywhere. Of specific concern should be anything designed to be airborne or directly applied directly on somebody. The product in question directly matches that description. Furthermore, this product is aimed directly at consumers, and the article even mentions how it is about to "revolutionize everything", alluding to widespread adoption and use.
I'd hate for something like this to be plastered over keyboards, door knobs, floors and countertops, sunglasses, shoes, phones, surgical equipment, dishes and silverware, headphones, cosmetics, etc... Those are the targets for something like this. You know, things you touch and use every day.
You're thinking of tritium:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos#History_of_health_conc...
You can debate his example, but his point stands.
If not, you missed the point of my comment.
Lead paint, though - there's a good one. Everybody knew you shouldn't drink it, but nobody suspected the dust was a problem. (Although Japan had already banned it by the 20's, if I recall correctly, while America was still merrily painting everything in sight with toxins).
And of course, the Romans didn't even know you shouldn't drink it. Although the benefits lead plumbing in Rome due to widespread availability of clean water almost certainly outweighed the costs of some stupider Romans.
Radiation and it's effects are well understood and quantified with fields devoted explicitly to the research of it's effects on humans.
Animals have been continuously eating food food that's mutated since animals have been mutating.
People have not been smearing engineered nanoparticles over their face and putting them into their body in these quantities for any appreciable amount of time, except around places like coal mines, heavy industrial areas (especially where exhaust from combustion), asbestos lined buildings, and all sorts of other fun places directly linked with mesothelioma.
You are correct in your observation that dust can be harmful, and I would be surprised if concentrated nano dust behaves differently. In particular, a very real danger from spray on glass might be silicosis - a non-cancerous disease caused by occupational exposure to glass dust.
I'm only responding here to the social phenomenon of "omfg, scary new technology, CANCER", I'm not trying to engage in amateur epidemiology.
I think it was a perfectly valid comment: we really don't understand biological interactions at nanostructured interfaces all that well. See eg. all these hand-waving explanations for the supposed toxicity of carbon nanotubes http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080520/full/news.2008.845.ht...
(btw, CRT screens emit beta radiation, so if you'd sit close enough...)
Wifi is known to be safe; we understand what makes UV and higher frequency light dangerous, and know that radio frequencies are fine (ionizing vs non-ionizing). CRT screens I believe use leaded glass to block the xrays they'd otherwise bombard you with.
I'd guess GMO foods are about as safe as anything else intentionally made poisonous to insects and other field pests.
I assume this was a tongue in cheek remark. The problem is that we contain these things whilst the article is anticipating covering virtually all contact surfaces with this spray. Which will probably be fine for 20 years or so and then we'll run out of serviceable lungs.
http://www.bonkersinstitute.org/medshow/bayerheroin1901.html