Greenpeace Warns of
Pollutants Derived From Nanotechnology

ANTONIO REGALADO / Wall Street Journal 25jul03

Excitement over nanotechnology is attracting billions in government and private funding. But now the hot new science, which deals with manmade structures just a few billionths of a meter in size, is drawing something else: antagonists in the environmental movement.

Fresh from the fight over genetically modified foods, international environmental groups are starting to raise concerns over nanotechnology. Thursday, Greenpeace International called for a moratorium on the release of nanoparticles in commercial products until any risks can be assessed.

A 70-page report commissioned by the group warns that novel microscopic structures being invented in laboratories world-wide could "constitute whole new classes of nonbiodegradable pollutants."

Nanotechnology may one day revolutionize areas from electronics to manufacturing, with analysts projecting a $40 billion to $70 billion market by 2010. Already, some simple nanotech materials are finding their way into consumer products, like automobile fuel lines and tennis rackets. And governments are making major investments in basic research.

So far, there's no evidence nanotech poses much danger. And if predictions play out, the new materials won't only be a boon for industry and consumers, but are also likely to aid the environment. For instance, the Environmental Protection Agency is funding teams to use nanoparticles in advanced water filters and techniques to remediate pollution.

Still, safety questions tend to serve as a dueling ground for opponents with deep ideological differences about how technology is transforming society. The greens hope by raising safety concerns now they can win influence over how the technology plays out.

This carbon nanotube wire (in blue), sitting on top of electrodes, is a mere 10 atoms wide.

"What we want to avoid is the situation where a small group of financially and technologically interested people develop something and thrust it on the rest of the world," said Douglas Parr, chief scientist of Greenpeace UK, which helped lead the largely successful campaign against the introduction of biotechnology crops in Europe.

Environmental groups are concerned that the new generation of materials isn't well regulated. The Greenpeace report warns that the particles could be inhaled, potentially causing harm to humans, or could bind with poisonous metals and help disperse them through the environment.

Mark Modzelewski, director of the NanoBusiness Alliance, a trade group in New York City, says some of environmentalists' fears appear inspired by science-fiction scenarios dealing with swarms of tiny, deadly robots, like those portrayed in Michael Crichton's best-selling novel "Prey."

Though environmental worries represent a new twist, nanotechnology already has generated a fever pitch of interest, fueled by start-up companies seeking to raise funds and develop new products. Phaedon Avouris, a nanotechnology expert at International Business Machines Corp.'s Thomas J. Watson Research Center in Yorktown Heights, N.Y., says the attention is starting to bite back. "When people hype the promise, the general public thinks that we are a lot further ahead than we are," he says.

Industry groups are beginning to respond to the latest criticisms. The NanoBusiness Alliance recently formed a panel to look at the risks of nanotechnology, and in June Mr. Modzelewski sat down with environmental groups, as well as officials from the Environmental Protection Agency, to find common ground.

"It wouldn't have happened if we hadn't rattled the chains," says Pat Mooney, executive director of ETC Group, an antiglobalization advocacy organization in Winnipeg, Manitoba, that earlier this year released a report critical of nanotech research.

The ETC report, called "The Big Down," caused a major spat in the United Kingdom after it found its way into the hands of Prince Charles. The Prince of Wales, known for holding a dim view of genetically modified foods, asked his staff to organize a meeting of scientific experts, said a spokesman.

In the U.S., the Environmental Protection Agency plans to fund $4 million in research to assess possible damage from nanotechnology to ecosystems and humans. Nora Savage, an EPA scientist, says that new nanomaterials aren't currently subject to any special health or environmental regulations. But because they have unusual properties, Ms. Savage says, the EPA is considering whether to regulate nanotechnology more closely.

Nanotechnology supporters fear that the U.S. could fall behind Japan, whose investment in nanotech is higher on a per capita basis. The recently launched U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative is spending more than $700 million a year on research. In addition, the U.S. Army believes the science could yield advanced bulletproof fabrics as well as superweapons. It recently agreed to invest $50 million in a new Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Environmental concerns are being raised just as companies in the U.S. and Japan are planning to make large quantities of carbon nanotubes. The hollow straws of pure carbon atoms are unusually strong and already have been incorporated into some commercial materials.

Bob Gower, head of Carbon Nanotechnologies Inc., says engineers from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health visited his company and found that because the tubes clumped together, they weren't likely to be inhaled by workers.

At IBM, the tubes are being put into electronic circuits without special precautions, says Tom Theis, director of physical-science research at the Yorktown facility. "Long term, what you have to think about is if people start making tons of them to go into cloth or automobile bodies, then you have chance for a much more widespread exposure," he says.

Write to Antonio Regalado at antonio.regalado@wsj.com