Posted on 12/10/2005 11:50:27 AM PST by md2576
Computer simulations show that a common nanoparticle called a buckyball has the potential to damage DNA. The simulations suggest that buckyballs bind strongly to the DNA strands, distorting the molecules and interfering with functions like self-repair.
Researchers caution that the simulations do not prove that buckyballs actually do any damage in the real world. But the work does raise another concern about possible dangers of nanotechnology.
On Thursday, the US Environmental Protection Agency released a draft paper that called for more research into the safety of nanotechnology, saying that there are a number of unanswered questions about possible effects on health and the environment.
The worry is that even familiar materials, such as carbon, might have completely different health effects at the nanoscale. One recent study, for instance, found that buckyballs accumulate in the brains of largemouth bass and cause cell damage. Drug delivery
Buckyballs, or buckminsterfullerenes (C60), are hollow spheres made from 60 carbon atoms. Because of their unique physical properties they are being considered for many applications, from drug delivery to fuel cells.
Researchers at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, and Vanderbilt University in Nashville, both in the US, decided to investigate how buckyballs would react if they came into contact with DNA. They used standard biomolecular simulation software to model two strands of DNA, with 12 base pairs each, interacting with two buckyballs over about 20 nanoseconds.
They found that the buckyballs bind strongly to DNA, with about the same energy that drugs bind to receptors on the surface of cells. When the buckyballs bound, they distorted the strands of DNA. Peter Cummings, a Vanderbilt chemical engineer, says it seems likely the interaction would interfere with the DNA's function, disrupting replication and repair and increasing mutation rates.
(Excerpt) Read more at newscientist.com ...
"In the computer game Deus Ex it could be used both ways. The Gray Death nano-virus (central to the game's plot) was actually the same nanites that gave the Dentons their enhanced abilities. The only difference betwen nano-virus and nano augmentation was the propgramming of the nanites themselves."
Pauldentoncheatsenabled
'Prey' by Michael Crichton deals with this.
The season of hope and good cheer and presents and goodwill towards men (except Muslims and DemocRats) and enough "Happy RamaHanuKwanzMas"'s for everyone!
Buckyball, what a scientific name! Makes you wonder doesn't it?
Be sure to keep your buckyballs away from your nanotube.
Too True!
Merry Christmas!
Actually, I think buckminsterfullerene is reserved for the smallest of these fullerenes, C60. The obvious reason is that they look very much like one of Bucky Fuller's domes.
Here's a picture of fullarene C540:
Looks slippery!
The second time?
Suppose this is true, but cells cannot be penetrated, thus keeping DNA safe. Suppose then that one were to devise a way to weaken cell membranes of cells selectively, thus allowing one to target specific types of cells to be attacked by buckyballs. And suppose those were cancer cells. Hmmmm.
Can modern day Ned Lude's and an army of tort lawyers be very far off in the nantechnology business?
Ah, a "mother-in-law & lobster boat" story. Did you "set'er agin"?
Sounds like it has the potential to be weaponized - a "buckeybomb"!
Let's not look too closely into the details.
Can you be sure that the enormous increase in the rate of allergies, asthma, anaphylactic shock, etc., is not due to GM foods?
|
Bucky's got balls.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.