• io9
  • science
  • overmind
  • kotaku
  • gizmodo
  • Profile logout login

#nanoparticles

io9

Share Cancel
   
Upload an image | Add an image URL
×

logging in
  • FAQ. Include # before tag:
  • #observationdeck,
  • #tips,
  • #calendar,
  • etc.

San Francisco, 4:48 AM
Mon Nov 30
10 posts in the last 24 hours

Team

Tip your editors: tips@io9.com

Editor-in-Chief:
Annalee Newitz | Email

News Editor:
Charlie Jane Anders | Email

Associate Editor:
Meredith Woerner | Email

Assistant Editor:
Lauren Davis | Email

Weekend Editor:
Graeme McMillan | Email

Contributors:
Joshua Glenn
Stephen Goldmeier | Email
Ed Grabianowski | Email
Austin Grossman
Paul Hogan | Email
Lauren Davis | Email
Chris Hsiang | Email
Lynn Peril | Email
Ann VanderMeer
Alasdair Wilkins | Email

Graphic Designer:
Stephanie Fox | Email

Interns:
Tim Barribeau | Email
Julia Carusillo | Email
Alex Eichler | Email
Cyriaque Lamar | Email
Caitlin Petrakovitz | Email
Mary Ratliff | Email
Josh Snyder | Email

More:
io9 on Facebook
follow io9 on Twitter

SUBSCRIBE TO io9 RSS

New: Breaking news and daily top stories via email
1428 Subscribers
io9
  • posts about #nanoparticles more →

    Are Nanoparticles Unsafe?

    Nanoparticle Drugs' First Target: Improving Your Sex Life

    Golden Breathalyzer Could Diagnose Lung Cancer

    Nanoparticle Breakthroughs That Could Save Millions of Lives

    Nanopaper Can Identify Deadly Bacteria in the Water
  • Your version of Internet Explorer is not supported. Please upgrade to the most recent version in order to view comments.
    Dsmvwl  Admin  Promote to frontpage Approve user Ban user ×
    Image of J_Frank_Parnell J_Frank_Parnell
    11/09/09

    In reply to Are Nanoparticles Unsafe?
    Hooray for Science! #nanoparticles
     Reply
    J_Frank_Parnell was starred J_Frank_Parnell was unstarred
    Image of bookwench bookwench
    11/08/09

    In reply to Are Nanoparticles Unsafe?
    Can we get a "duh"? When carbon nanotubes first came out they did a study showing the little buggers would kill *every* kind of cell on contact. Great for disinfecting stuff, not so great if you ever intend to use that surface again later. #nanoparticles
     Reply
    bookwench was starred bookwench was unstarred
    Image of Jeremy Tapsell Jeremy Tapsell
    11/08/09

    In reply to Are Nanoparticles Unsafe?
    I must be weird then. I can't see any problem here. Nana Particles are sweet, yet tiny, dear old things who wouldn't harm a fly!
    Until they get behind the wheel of a car! #nanoparticles
     Reply
    Jeremy Tapsell was starred Jeremy Tapsell was unstarred
    Image of Dr Emilio Lizardo Dr Emilio Lizardo
    11/08/09

    In reply to Are Nanoparticles Unsafe?
    John Percival Hackworth is not amused. #nanoparticles
     Reply
    Dr Emilio Lizardo was starred Dr Emilio Lizardo was unstarred
    Image of gorehound gorehound
    11/08/09

    In reply to Are Nanoparticles Unsafe?
    if you handle deadl;y substances properly there is not going to be an accident ( most of the time).
    proper usages of this nano tech will prove beneficial but improper usage/storage could lead to folks being nano-infected (maybe) #nanoparticles
     Reply
    gorehound was starred gorehound was unstarred
    Image of cadrina cadrina
    11/08/09

    In reply to Are Nanoparticles Unsafe?
    so the nanoparticles are thinking bad toughts and that is affecting the DNA? Did they found out the midichlorians of the dark side? #nanoparticles
     Reply
    cadrina was starred cadrina was unstarred
    Image of Malthian Malthian
    11/08/09

    @cadrina: What are midichlorians and why are you implying they have something to do with the force? #nanoparticles
     Reply
    Jeremy Tapsell promoted this comment Malthian was starred Malthian was unstarred
    Image of Jeremy Tapsell Jeremy Tapsell
    11/08/09

    @Malthian: thats what i want to know #nanoparticles
     Reply
    Jeremy Tapsell was starred Jeremy Tapsell was unstarred
    Image of Roklimber Roklimber
    11/08/09

    In reply to Are Nanoparticles Unsafe?
    This is ridiculous.

    Such a general conclusion is not warranted by the specifics of the very particular kind of experiment they performed.

    It's like saying that any kind of light is harmful to cells because gamma rays cause DNA mutations.

    The Guardian article is an example of terrible reporting of bad science.
     Reply
    Edited by Roklimber at 11/08/09 7:49 AM Roklimber was starred Roklimber was unstarred
    Image of The_Sporean_Bob The_Sporean_Bob
    11/08/09

    @Roklimber: what I'm wondering is: how did the nanoparticles damage the DNA without touching it? Telekinesis? Magic?
    How it happened is just as important as that it happened. #nanoparticles
     Reply
    Roklimber promoted this comment The_Sporean_Bob was starred The_Sporean_Bob was unstarred
    Image of Roklimber Roklimber
    11/08/09

    @The_Sporean_Bob: The Guardian article mentions the researchers' hypothesis on how the damage occurs, and it isn't surprising given the concentration of metallic nanoparticles they used. #nanoparticles
     Reply
    Roklimber was starred Roklimber was unstarred
    Image of DireWombat DireWombat
    11/08/09

    @The_Sporean_Bob: My first reaction is to ask "How soluble are your cobalt-chromium nanoparticles?" Both of those metals are fairly toxic, and some nonzero concentration of them will be present in solution from breakdown of the nanoparticles. That concentration may be negligible (if the particles are essentially insoluble), but if it's not, it would provide a better explanation than "Nanoparticles, whooo scary" (i.e., that the study showed that cobalt and/or chromium is toxic, which isn't exactly news). #nanoparticles
     Reply
    Dresan promoted this comment DireWombat was starred DireWombat was unstarred
    Image of Dirk Anger Dirk Anger
    10/13/09

    In reply to Nanoparticle Drugs' First Target: Improving Your Sex Life
    Oh, who would have seen this coming...
     Reply
    Dirk Anger was starred Dirk Anger was unstarred
    Image of gorehound gorehound
    10/12/09

    In reply to Nanoparticle Drugs' First Target: Improving Your Sex Life
    Awesome !!!! Men all over the world will need their nanos and soon they will offer hair growth on TV in bad infomercials
     Reply
    gorehound was starred gorehound was unstarred
    Image of ManchuCandidate ManchuCandidate
    10/12/09

    In reply to Nanoparticle Drugs' First Target: Improving Your Sex Life
    If any drug researcher wants to get the attention of Big Pharma they should add the phrase "Makes Your Dick Hard" somewhere in the drug they're working on list of side effects.
     Reply
    Edited by ManchuCandidate at 10/12/09 2:25 PM ManchuCandidate was starred ManchuCandidate was unstarred
    Image of acrobatic rabbit acrobatic rabbit
    10/12/09

    In reply to Nanoparticle Drugs' First Target: Improving Your Sex Life
    "Eureka!" - Scientist 1
    "You finally discovered a topical cream to cure skin cancer?" - Scientist 2
    "Probably not, but it makes my dick hard!!"
     Reply
    acrobatic rabbit was starred acrobatic rabbit was unstarred
    Image of Chip Overclock Chip Overclock
    10/12/09

    @acrobatic rabbit: No joke: Viagra failed miserably as a blood pressure medicine. They were going to cut the clinical trials short, when a funny thing happened: the old guys in the trial refused to return their pills. Then someone broke into one of the labs and ransacked the dispensary, taking the pills for the trial. That's when they knew something was up and started asking questions about ancillary effects.

    I'd like to think that the researchers stopped at the Mercedes dealership on the way home that night.
     Reply
    Chip Overclock was starred Chip Overclock was unstarred
    Image of GreyHammer GreyHammer
    10/12/09

    In reply to Nanoparticle Drugs' First Target: Improving Your Sex Life
    we have plenty of dick medicine can we please help real deseases now?
     Reply
    GreyHammer was starred GreyHammer was unstarred
    Image of Dr Emilio Lizardo Dr Emilio Lizardo
    10/12/09

    @GreyHammer: Short answer: No.

    Long answer: Follow the money. Old men have it. Old men get impotence and baldness. Insurance companies can say these are not covered medical conditions so they don't have to pay for treatment. Drug company makes list price on the drug, not what some insurance company negotiates.

    So when the drug companies say that if healthcare reform involves cutting their profits, there will be fewer new drugs, they mean fewer everyhting except dick and hair medicines.
     Reply
    Dr Emilio Lizardo was starred Dr Emilio Lizardo was unstarred
    Image of Gann Gann
    10/12/09

    @GreyHammer: Yeah, but this is the first of it's kind for really small penises.
     Reply
    Gann was starred Gann was unstarred
    Image of GreyHammer GreyHammer
    10/12/09

    @Dr Emilio Lizardo: im aware of the economics of it. but viagra and cialus fixt everyone's dix. lets get better meds for heart conditions, cancer, the HIV now k thx
     Reply
    GreyHammer was starred GreyHammer was unstarred
    Image of Dr Emilio Lizardo Dr Emilio Lizardo
    10/12/09

    @GreyHammer: I think the economics go deeper than you appreciate. It's far easier to develop a me-too drug. Somebody else has layed the groundwork so you have a better idea where to start, what the side effects will be and how to design the trials to get it to market faster. It will be available on patent longer. Also, the market is huge. There are more men who want to perform better in bed than there are people with cancer.

    I'm with you, but the drug companies are not. I have 20 drugs to treat breast cancer. I would love one that treated melanoma.
     Reply
    Dr Emilio Lizardo was starred Dr Emilio Lizardo was unstarred
    Image of J_Frank_Parnell J_Frank_Parnell
    10/12/09

    @Dr Emilio Lizardo: I hear ya, but old men get cancer and heart disease too. They surely would pay to live longer so they can enjoy the effects of newest boner cream with their 20 year old trophy wives, no?
     Reply
    J_Frank_Parnell was starred J_Frank_Parnell was unstarred
    Image of Makidian Makidian
    10/12/09

    @Dr Emilio Lizardo: They may not cover Viagra but they sure as shit cover penile implants. I would be pissed if I had ED and I couldn't get a little blue pill but instead get a pump implanted in my cock to pump it up when it was time to get down to business.
     Reply
    Edited by Makidian at 10/12/09 3:51 PM Makidian was starred Makidian was unstarred
    Image of I Think We're Property I Think We're Property
    10/12/09

    In reply to Nanoparticle Drugs' First Target: Improving Your Sex Life
    I'm suddenly reminded of the intro spiel for Idiocracy.

    "Science could have countered this problem, but was too busy solving the problems of hair loss and erectile dysfunction."
     Reply
    kagekiri promoted this comment I Think We're Property was starred I Think We're Property was unstarred
    Image of veeerules veeerules
    10/12/09

    @I Think We're Property: Frightening, isn't it? That was the first movie that ever made me want to have more children...
     Reply
    The Curse of Millhaven promoted this comment veeerules was starred veeerules was unstarred
    Image of TheLostVikings R.O.A.C.H. TheLostVikings R.O.A.C.H.
    09/01/09

    In reply to Golden Breathalyzer Could Diagnose Lung Cancer
    Sometime in the near future a iintoxicated driver is pulled over by a rutine traffic patrol. The following conversation takes place:

    Cop: I have some good news and bad news.
    Driver: What's the good news?
    Cop: You passed the breathalyzer test.
    Driver: Yay! And the bad news?
    Cop: You apparently have lung cancer.
    Driver: ...
     Reply
    Edited by TheLostVikings R.O.A.C.H. at 09/01/09 4:33 PM TheLostVikings R.O.A.C.H. was starred TheLostVikings R.O.A.C.H. was unstarred
    Image of Discodave: R.O.A.C.H. M.O.T.E.L. Discodave: R.O.A.C.H. M.O.T.E.L.
    09/01/09

    In reply to Golden Breathalyzer Could Diagnose Lung Cancer
    Not so good for Cybermen, however.
     Reply
    Discodave: R.O.A.C.H. M.O.T.E.L. was starred Discodave: R.O.A.C.H. M.O.T.E.L. was unstarred
    Earlier discussions Other discussions Show all discussions Show featured discussions only Start a new discussion

Login

Enter your username and password.

Please enter a username.
Please enter your password.
logging in
Login via Facebook | Sign Up | Forgot Password?

Reset Password

Please enter your email address to have your password reset.

Please enter your email address.
Please enter a valid email address.
requesting password reset

Register

Registering will give you a user profile and the ability to add other users as friends. To become a commenter, however, you need to audition.

Want to know more? Consult the Comment FAQ and legal terms.

Please enter a username.
Please enter a password.
Please confirm your password.
Passwords are not identical.
Please enter a valid email address.
registration sent, waiting for reply

Submit Your Comment

You don't need to login to comment. Just enter your email address below.

See how your address will be displayed in the Comment FAQ.

Please enter a valid email address.
Please enter a valid email address.
logging in

Login with your Facebook or io9 account.

Sign up here.



  • Archives
  • About
  • Advertising
  • Legal
  • Help
  • Report a Bug
  • FAQ
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.