Out of sight is not out of mind

Taken from Big Issue magazine - December 19th 2011

Not enough is being done to evaluate whether tiny airborne 

nanoparticles are damaging people’s health, according to a former 

Manchester University scientist.

Nanoparticles of substances such as iron and copper are produced by 

industrial and waste management processes and car emissions.

They are found in products ranging from tennis racquets to paints, 

and also occur naturally. Critically, nanoparticles are so small – 

less than a billionth of a metre – that can often possess properties 

that are different from the bulk material from which they are drawn.

Scientists have suggested that nanoparticles could be associated with 

heart attacks, asthma and a worsening of the condition in people with 

dementia.

Last year new EU legislation reduced the level at which particulate 

matter (pm) is regulated from 10 to 2.5pm in diameter. But former 

research fellow Graham Cliff believes public bodies don’t have the 

equipment to do so.

 Graham Cliff 

The Environment Agency uses the well know method of light microscopy 

to assess particles. But Cliff said: “This cannot chemically analyse 

small particles, reducing our understanding of what is in the air.”

Cliff pointed out that that the initial failure to regulate asbestos 

particles below 10pm led to thousands of deaths from mesothelioma 

across Britain.

He said: “Cliff said: “We know that in 1947 scientists were 

instructed to ignore nanoparticles and then in the 1970s Professor 

John A Chandler from the Cardiff University Cancer Research Institute 

was restricted from analysing particles below 10pm because they were 

considered too small to do any damage.

“Although it’s now accepted that’s not the case the very same 

argument is being used with regard to nanoparticles down to 1pm.”

Three years ago at Beijing Chaoyang Hospital tests were carried out 

on seven young women exposed to nanoparticles in paint in their 

workplace for up to 13 months. Suffering from shortness of breath and 

excess fluids in their lungs, the women, two of whom died, were 

tested, with doctors concluding that “long-term exposure to some 

nanoparticles without protective measures may be related to serious 

damage to human lungs.”

Here in Britain Professor Patrick Case from Bristol University 

believes that “nanoparticles may cause DNA damage” and Professor 

Raymond Agius from Manchester University has suggested that 

“aggravation of dementia” may be a symptom. Cliff claimed other 

scientists fear that nanoparticles are contributing to heart attacks 

and a general rise in asthma amongst the public.

Yet Britain lags behind China and the US in assessing the possible 

health effects of human exposure to nanoparticles. The Health 

Protection Agency did establish a Nanotoxicology Research Centre in 

2008 in Oxfordshire – using sophisticated electron microscopes 

costing up to £3 million each – but could not say when it would issue 

any results.

But a Health Protection Agency spokesperson said this technique might 

not be suitable for other government departments. “It is not clear 

that electron microscopy would be the most appropriate technique for 

the Environment Agency to use to evaluate nanoparticles,” said the 

spokesperson.