Buckyballs, the new flouride conspiracy?

Originally posted by Grey Magic
What would the world look like if we didn't invent plastics and used industrial hemp?

We wouldn't have a giant floating plastic island in the ocean, that's for sure!

I think plastics as a byproduct in the refinement of oil is a product that will keep ruining our planet, and I am convinced that there are no "safe plastics".

You mean you don't think this:

www.nyu.edu...

Is as beautiful as this?!

www.holidays-uncovered.co.uk...

LOL

Even the so called bio degradable plastic is crap for nature, thanks DuPont.

I say blame Victor Lebeau. He's the one that kick started the whole the policy decision for planned obsolescence after WWII.

I know this quote has been going around a lot lately, but eh, why not give it some more play?

Our enormously productive economy ... demands that we make consumption our way of life, that we convert the buying and use of goods into rituals, that we seek our spiritual satisfaction, our ego satisfaction in consumption ... we need things consumed, burned up, replaced and discarded at an ever-accelerating rate.
~ V. Lebeau

and now with this, nano technology? makes my skin crawl because it easy gets under your skin.

It may do more than just get under your skin it may, literally, put it in suspended animation.

www.popsci.com...

So this topic doesn't surprise me at all to be honest, good work OP.

Glad it was educational!

-MF

just dump it with the other million things we consume wear and apply to ourselves that is killing us faster. doesn't really surprise me. another reason to get off the grid and the rat race.

nice thread OP, it's been a while since i had a new man made toxin to worry about.

the thing i love about this is that the only good reason to use buckyballs in any of these products seems to be that you can use the words "nano-technology" in the ad to make the product sound cutting edge, it's pure marketing..

the "nano-technology" makes the product both more desirable and more toxic. kind of like radioactive toothpaste, that worked out well!!

Nanotechnology in commercial use like this can be washed down drains (ie. removal of makeup), slip through any filtering systems, and wind up in sewers, rivers and lakes. Let alone deliberate sabotage, we might find our oceans swimming with them, all with their unique intended applications, all interacting in chaotic ways. This should be worth a few trillion for future government funded marine biologists!

"In May 1995, the United Nations Environment Programme Governing Council (GC) decided to begin investigating POPs, initially beginning with a short list of the following twelve POPs, known as the 'dirty dozen':[2] aldrin, chlordane, DDT, dieldrin, endrin, heptachlor, hexachlorobenzene, mirex, polychlorinated biphenyls, polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins, polychlorinated dibenzofurans, and toxaphene.[1]

Since then, this list has generally been accepted to include such substances as carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and certain brominated flame-retardants, as well as some organometallic compounds such as tributyltin (TBT).

The groups of compounds that make up POPs are also classed as PBTs (Persistent, Bioaccumulative and Toxic) or TOMPs (Toxic Organic Micro Pollutants.)"

en.wikipedia.org...

Connect the dots to the Codex Alimentarius, which Obamacare and now in Canada, Bill C-6 hook us up with.

"Codex allows Deadly Pesticides
Although Codex says it is focused on "Consumer Protection" the Codex Alimentarius Commission now allows seven of the 12 deadliest compounds on earth to be used on food. These seven deadly pesticides are banned by US law and the Stockholm Convention, which the US and every member of Codex signed.

The Stockholm Convention, signed by 176 countries including the United States (May 2005) commits the signatories to eliminate world's 12 most dangerous Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs . The (CAC)Codex Alimentarius Commission, (made up of 171 countries, including the US, uses consensus to set the world’s rules for international trade in food) allows seven of the twelve agreed upon killer POPs to be used in the production of foods as varied as milk, soy oils, cotton seed, citrus fruits, eggs, poultry, cereal grains, pineapples, leafy and root vegetables, legumes and others.

POPs remain intact in the environment for long periods, become widely distributed geographically, accumulate in the fatty tissue of living organisms and are highly toxic to humans and wildlife. They increase brain, bladder, biliary, lung, breast and other cancers, cause damage to the kidney, liver, adrenals and thyroid, can cause decreased fertility, immune suppression, diabetes, porphyria, cardiovascular disease, fatal skin lesions especially in children and nursing infants (“pink sore”), headache, dizziness, nausea, general malaise, and vomiting, followed by muscle twitching, myoclonic jerks and convulsions."

www.globalhealingcenter.com...

Besides the awareness, nanotechnology isn't even considered on these lists yet. Whenever it makes its rightful place on, please rest assured our well-intended governments will give it the full address required to address the problem!

reply to post by TheMalefactor


I am the R&D lab manager for a small company that uses various types of coatings in the product line. We looked into incorporating these nano-particles (additives) into our coatings a few years back. My research led me to much the same findings that have been mentioned here.

Firstly, these materials are enormously expensive. Despite this, they are touted as imparting near magical (cure-all) properties into whatever product they are formulated into thus making them worth the expense. Yet, the number of industries and companies that have moved to using this technology is rather limited thus far.

Secondly, the jury was still out then on how to safely handle these materials as well as the health issues of exposure to them. One can only imagine a particle size that allows penetration into the once impenetrable. What plant safety gear and clothing would be sufficient to protect someone working with these materials? And so I persuaded our company's management not to incorporate nano-particle additives into our coating formulations. The biggest selling point in my argument was not the health issues regarding myself and the other employees but the possible future blowback once these materials were in the hands of our customers. Yes, the possibility of lawsuits from our customers was the clincher. Concerns over my health and that of our other employees? Well, not so much.

[edit on 6-4-2010 by Hemisphere]

I tried to find something on the life expectancy of these super molecules, but couldn't find anything.

From the articles you guys have posted, on results of the research and development of this type of substance since I first heard about the technology before nano tech became the new magic, it sounds like these molecules, once created, would not break down for a relative eternity.

Most of the articles on fullerenes state that they are highly toxic, but none go on to give a definition of how toxic.

I think someone on the thread or in one of the articles mentioned this, are fullerenes as toxic as asbestos? or the next PCBs?

Wow, when I read this stuff, it makes my skin crawl. The inhumanity of these corporations is beyond imagining. It makes the idea of a waiter peeing in your soup look kind.

en.wikipedia.org...

The toxicity associated with PCBs and other chlorinated hydrocarbons, including polychlorinated naphthalenes was recognized very early due to a variety of industrial incidents.[8] A conference about the hazards was organized at Harvard School of Public Health in 1937, and a number of publications referring to the toxicity of various chlorinated hydrocarbons were published before 1940.[9] Robert Brown reminded chemists in 1947 that Arochlors were "objectionably toxic. Thus the maximum permissible concentration for an 8-hr. day is 1 mg/m3 of air. They also produce a serious and disfiguring dermatitis".[10] However, PCB manufacture and use continued with few restraints until the 1970s.

Pittsfield is one of GE’s hometowns. Pittsfield was home to GE’s transformer and capacitor divisions, and electrical generating equipment built and repaired in Pittsfield powered the electrical utility grid throughout the nation.

PCB-contaminated oil routinely migrated from GE’s 250-acre industrial plant located in the very center of the city to the surrounding groundwater, nearby Silver Lake, and to the Housatonic River, which flows through Massachusetts to Connecticut on down to the Long Island Sound. Faced with ever mounting amounts of PCB-contaminated material, and with a growing need to dispose of this material, GE and its contractors hauled and dumped PCB-contaminated material anywhere they could. They still had too much. So GE in the 1940s and 50s launched a giveaway program. GE employees and their neighbors and local contractors, in return for signing a letter stating that they were receiving clean fill and that they would not hold GE liable for any subsequent problems, were given truckloads of PCB-contaminated material to use as fill in their backyards and construction projects.

The sheer magnitude and varied scope of this contamination has made the Pittsfield/Housatonic Site one of America’s most complicated PCB sites.

This makes small pox contaminated blankets look like charity.

Oh, but corporations can do no wrong without government!

Yeah right!

Great work in helping to bring this to light.

It makes me mad that everyday that goes by more and more products are being tainted with poisons to be exact, to keep us from possibly reaching better potentials.It makes me sick to really think about the world or reality i was born to.Im sure some of you feel the same.

Originally posted by Hemisphere
reply to post by TheMalefactor

 

I am the R&D lab manager for a small company that uses various types of coatings in the product line. We looked into incorporating these nano-particles (additives) into our coatings a few years back. My research led me to much the same findings that have been mentioned here.

I don't like alarmists, but buckyballs seem genuinely dangerous. Glad to hear someone with a professional background back up my initial "WTF?" reaction.

Firstly, these materials are enormously expensive. Despite this, they are touted as imparting near magical (cure-all) properties into whatever product they are formulated into thus making them worth the expense. Yet, the number of industries and companies that have moved to using this technology is rather limited thus far.

There was an article in 2004 that mentioned,

But their adoption has been held back by the cost — $500 a pound and up, Blakely said.
www.azonano.com...

Do you know if the price has dropped since?

So far the only industries I'm seeing really using this are cosmetic, fabric, disposable sport supplies, & OTC medical supplies (like suntan lotions). Only. LOL. One too many industries if you ask me.

Secondly, the jury was still out then on how to safely handle these materials as well as the health issues of exposure to them. One can only imagine a particle size that allows penetration into the once impenetrable. What plant safety gear and clothing would be sufficient to protect someone working with these materials? And so I persuaded our company's management not to incorporate nano-particle additives into our coating formulations. The biggest selling point in my argument was not the health issues regarding myself and the other employees but the possible future blowback once these materials were in the hands of our customers. Yes, the possibility of lawsuits from our customers was the clincher. Concerns over my health and that of our other employees? Well, not so much.

When you were researching this, did you ever get any details on what big cosmetic companies were doing to protect their employees that package the facial cremes?

This is why I'm a cynic. I'd like to think at some point they'd stop counting dollars in their head and realize they, their kids, and their loved ones will one day end up on the sh## end of the nano- stick. It half makes me think the andromeda strain isn't far off from a possible future reality.

Ethics? What a quaint notion.

Though a big for convincing your company to drop the idea.

[edit on 6-4-2010 by TheMalefactor]

reply to post by Northwarden


They might as well start selling toxic sludge in the dairy section. At least then people will have an inkling of the side-effects. It's ridiculous consumers nearly have to have a degree in chemistry to even know whether or not the food or drink they're buying is remotely safe.

Hell I showed a family member the big ass warning on the side of a Crest toothpaste container (in her own home) that read, "Warnings keep out of reach of children under 6 yrs of age. If more than used for brushing is accidentally swallowed, get medical help or contact a Poison Control Center right away. ... * do not swallow * to minimize swallowing use a pea-sized amount in children under 6 * supervise children's brushing until good habits are established * children under 2 yrs.: ask a dentist."

A day later she proceeded to wipe on a huge glob of toothpaste and swab it around her 2 year olds mouth.

Just, what the hell?

en.wikipedia.org...

Faced with ever mounting amounts of PCB-contaminated material, and with a growing need to dispose of this material, GE and its contractors hauled and dumped PCB-contaminated material anywhere they could. They still had too much. So GE in the 1940s and 50s launched a giveaway program. GE employees and their neighbors and local contractors, in return for signing a letter stating that they were receiving clean fill and that they would not hold GE liable for any subsequent problems, were given truckloads of PCB-contaminated material to use as fill in their backyards and construction projects.

The sheer magnitude and varied scope of this contamination has made the Pittsfield/Housatonic Site one of America’s most complicated PCB sites.

This makes small pox contaminated blankets look like charity.

Oh, but corporations can do no wrong without government!

Yeah right!

That's heart-breaking man.

I remember the first time I watched the flouride conspiracy,



and saw with my own eyes what skeletal fluorosis looked like. It was almost enough to make me want to pack the old hand cannon and go find the nearest "leader of industry."

Great work in helping to bring this to light.

Just trying to help out fellow brothers and sister!

[edit on 6-4-2010 by TheMalefactor]

Originally posted by pieman
nice thread OP, it's been a while since i had a new man made toxin to worry about.

the thing i love about this is that the only good reason to use buckyballs in any of these products seems to be that you can use the words "nano-technology" in the ad to make the product sound cutting edge, it's pure marketing..

You know you're probably right. Especially in fluff markets like cosmetics it seems like marketing is everything. So I can easily see how it would help sell their overpriced crap to women.

Imagine if they tried truthful marketing, "May cause skin to go in to stasis (1), could cause cancer (2), Alzheimer's (3), and many yet unknown side effects."

Sad thing is someone would probably still buy it.

the "nano-technology" makes the product both more desirable and more toxic. kind of like radioactive toothpaste, that worked out well!!

haha ... it's wrong to laugh, but this is the first I'm hearing of radioactive toothpaste.

www.orau.org...

Just wow ...

I been following C60 for quite a few years now, on and off, depending on what I saw, heard or read...

It does seem to be a rather interesting subject that has not had the publicity it rightly deserves.

Just to go over some of the things I learnt about C60 and its possible uses;

I saw a TV program that demonstrated how to make C60. A rather simple method of arcing a current onto anything that is made of, or contains, carbon. Both the arc and the carbon must be in a chamber at, from what I can remember, a pressure of 7 hemisphers. The resulting soot is the C60. The program then whent on to show you how to make the soot into a solid compound. All you needed was the soot, a liquid chemical (can't remember which, but is easy to get) and mix the two together and heat them up until they form a solid (they demonstrated this on a normal gas stove).

A few years later, I read in the newspaper about these tanks that were supposedly made of plastic and were able to change colour. This immediately made me think of C60 as being this 'plastic' as carbon can conduct electricity which could be used in the process of making the tank change colour. Due to the way the C60 molecule restructures itself upon an impact, it would make sense to make a tank out of this rather than plastic...

Have just done a little search on C60 and found this..

Although buckyballs spontaneously occur in nature from origins as simple as candle soot, their discovery is a very recent occurrence.

www.azonano.com...
Which makes you wonder just how dangerous C60 could be if it has been in the environment since before the invention of candles.. and just how many years of candle burning have we had?
That's a lot of balls... Bucky balls, that is.

I was trying to find the article that talked about these plastic tanks, but at this time, I can't find it...
Instead, I found this, which is just as interesting and highly likely connected to C60;

Convoys of United States Army tanks are rumbling across Kuwait this month-ready again to play a key role in war with Iraq. But before they fire a single shot, those tanks are already locked in battle with old foes: whipping desert sands, blistering sun, and even the air itself.
Each year, the axis of corrosion costs the U.S. Army $10 billion dollars-$2 billion for painting and scraping alone, labor-intensive work that's hazardous to people and the environment. So last fall, the Army's Tank-automotive and Armaments Command, Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center (TACOM-ARDEC) in Picatinny Arsenal, NJ asked a coalition of researchers at the New Jersey Institute of Technology, Clemson University, and the University of Illinois to do something about it. The command awarded them $838,000-and promised up to $1.5 million more-to find materials that combine self-healing characteristics with the ability to change color and sense structural damage or environmental changes. Dan Watts, the man leading NJIT's program, says their research has been pushed along by unexpectedly rapid advances in self-healing polymers and electronics made from carbon nanotubes that go "beyond the realm of interesting academic speculation and approach economic practicality."

www.technologyreview.com...
And that is from 2003...
Imagine what C60 is being used for now..

It's impossible to stay away from all the harsh synthetic compounds that are everywhere, but we must do our best to minimalize impact and exposure. Thanks for the thread OP. Shocking, to say the least. The nanotech industries are growing exponentially, and I just can't help but wonder when this insanity will ever end.

My uneducated guess is that within a few generations (3-5), we'll see human beings quite different than now. Heck, you can see how much we've changed in the last hundred years already. Men becoming feminized, and Women becoming more masculine. I realize that nothing stays the same, but at some point that wisdom becomes foolish, and common sense must step in.

I always knew there was a reason I only wear cotton, and don't wash my pants until a few days. Not only are the clothes that much more comfortable, but I also worry about the chemicals in detergents. No matter which brands I've tried, I always itch and develop rashes if I wear fresh pants daily. I also don't throw away pants until they're developing holes. Fresh clothes hurt a lot more than those which have naturally faded some. I suspect synthetic chemicals are the reason behind this.

[edit on 6-4-2010 by unityemissions]

Nanoparticulates are my favorite 'new old thing' to worry about.

Clearly some are investigating the damage they can do.

More here, if interested....

Originally posted by Maxmars
Nanoparticulates are my favorite 'new old thing' to worry about.

Clearly some are investigating the damage they can do.

More here, if interested....

Appreciate the extra info! The sciencedaily article,

nanoparticle growing in popularity as a bactericidal agent has been shown to be toxic to fish, according to a Purdue University study.
www.sciencedaily.com...

seems to nicely dovetail with the 2004 Wired article,

The nascent nanotechnology industry collectively cringed last week after a study showed that fish exposed to nanoparticles suffered brain damage. Critics say the much-hyped multibillion-dollar nano industry has a dark side few want to talk about.
www.wired.com...

It's nice to see different groups of scientists corroborating each others findings and they don't look so hot.

I don't have much time to really read what has been posted -- so sorry if this repeats something:

The main problem I see with "nanotechnology" in general, is the presumption that KNOWN CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS, are just fine -- they are just tiny. But Fullerenes -- made of common carbon, do not behave like other more "natural" molecules of carbon and do not break down in nature the same way.

In Chemistry -- it's more often about GEOMETRY.

When money is involved, it appears that there is too much of a cavalier attitude these days. New Molecules can live in the environment and behave in unpredictable ways; so, the FDA needs to at least have some studies done of these new nano-materials before they become ubiquitous.

It's very likely that nano-tubes will be carcinogenic -- and I expect that we'll have a least one or two incidents as bad as Mesothelioma before lessons are learned (again).

reply to post by TheMalefactor


Ah, the joys of nanotech.

It appears as they're putting an awful lot of effort into making this fullerene useful. With the trouble and the pitfalls, I cant help but wonder how they ever managed to get by without it. With some of the promises of nanotech in developing new solids for indestructable materials and such, I can see why go to the trouble.

But here, why would cosmetics need any of this? Maybe to make up for them having to remove the Lead (Pb) that researchers found in womens makeup (lipstick in particular) a couple years ago? How was that an accident?

So now, perhaps the nano particles being used in the makeup is where they're 'dumping' the 'waste' materials that are accumulating via all that research and effort. If you spend capital trying to develop something you should be able still make a profit from the 'waste' research materials, right? I'll admit, I've only read the materials on this subject from whats in the thread, but can anyone else offer a reasonable explaination of why they're even going to the effort to put 'cutting edge' nano materials into cosmetics?

Originally posted by TheMalefactor

Originally posted by Hemisphere
reply to post by TheMalefactor

 

I am the R&D lab manager for a small company that uses various types of coatings in the product line. We looked into incorporating these nano-particles (additives) into our coatings a few years back. My research led me to much the same findings that have been mentioned here.

I don't like alarmists, but buckyballs seem genuinely dangerous. Glad to hear someone with a professional background back up my initial "WTF?" reaction.

Firstly, these materials are enormously expensive. Despite this, they are touted as imparting near magical (cure-all) properties into whatever product they are formulated into thus making them worth the expense. Yet, the number of industries and companies that have moved to using this technology is rather limited thus far.

There was an article in 2004 that mentioned,

But their adoption has been held back by the cost — $500 a pound and up, Blakely said.
www.azonano.com...

Do you know if the price has dropped since?

So far the only industries I'm seeing really using this are cosmetic, fabric, disposable sport supplies, & OTC medical supplies (like suntan lotions). Only. LOL. One too many industries if you ask me.

Secondly, the jury was still out then on how to safely handle these materials as well as the health issues of exposure to them. One can only imagine a particle size that allows penetration into the once impenetrable. What plant safety gear and clothing would be sufficient to protect someone working with these materials? And so I persuaded our company's management not to incorporate nano-particle additives into our coating formulations. The biggest selling point in my argument was not the health issues regarding myself and the other employees but the possible future blowback once these materials were in the hands of our customers. Yes, the possibility of lawsuits from our customers was the clincher. Concerns over my health and that of our other employees? Well, not so much.

When you were researching this, did you ever get any details on what big cosmetic companies were doing to protect their employees that package the facial cremes?

This is why I'm a cynic. I'd like to think at some point they'd stop counting dollars in their head and realize they, their kids, and their loved ones will one day end up on the sh## end of the nano- stick. It half makes me think the andromeda strain isn't far off from a possible future reality.

Ethics? What a quaint notion.

Though a big

for convincing your company to drop the idea.

Malefactor, I don't have the technical/chemistry background typical of people in my position and in my industry. I worked my way up in a small company working initially as assistant to the owner/technical director, an actual chemist schooled in the 1930's. It was a work situation more typical of a century ago. An apprenticeship more or less.

I learned enough to get by and with that, what questions to ask and who in the industry to ask. And that's what I did with this nano-tech situation. Despite my limited technical background, I am the company expert due to everyone else knowing less than I. The current VPs read trade magazines and buy all the hype they read. They then throw it to me to investigate whether new technologies that have piqued their interests are beneficial to our products and operation. I in turn pick the brains of various experts I've befriended through the decades. In this case, I knew exactly who would give me the straight dope on the nano additives. He gave me a plausible negative based on the high cost and limited upside for our products. I spoke to him just weeks ago and we kicked the topic around once again. Apparently the prices have not dropped and his company has seen no growth in their sales of these items. He happened to mention that these nano additives were also being used to make CDs and other storage discs scratch proof. Those must be some expensive discs.

I was unwittingly exposed early in my career to a number of nasty materials. I will not elaborate here, I am however just fine. So far. Working with a chemist schooled in the 30's I was at times endangered by his old school hubris. "I've been working with that my whole life and it never hurt me!" I was fortunate, learned fast not to trust old cranks and now am in a position to better protect myself. I was not able to glean what safety precautions are used with these nano materials, if any, from my source. In order to determine how to handle a material, extensive research on what it does to people and the environment must be undertaken as you know. The time, willing subjects and technology to sufficiently test these particles has not yet been found. It would appear there has been an end around on the safety testing of nano-technologies. Just my opinion. I prefer not to be a test case for future OSHA and NIOSH requirements.

reply to post by Extralien

Although buckyballs spontaneously occur in nature from origins as simple as candle soot, their discovery is a very recent occurrence.

In what quantity? I found this link stating that buckeyballs can be ound in candle wax, but it soulds like this is not alway, and in very tiny amounts. If they could be consistently produced by burning candles, they they should be pretty cheap, which they are not. Probably not nearly as much as they would if mass produced for consumption by a gullible public.

www.science.org.au...

So does anybody know if these things are used in Dickies pants?

Cause I've wore those things for years, & I'm actually wearing some now lol.