Sign in or 
Share this
ナノテク規制に当惑気味の政府関係者
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/14/weekinreview/14feder.html?ei=5090&en=a76baac848df0fee&ex=1326430800&adxnnl=1&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1168769629-lkkL7iP9OK/l33a7tSIAew
Berkeley Legal:Teeny-Weeny Rules for Itty-Bitty Atom Clusters
Article Tools Sponsored By
By BARNABY J. FEDER
Published: January 14, 2007
ITの関係はそれが何であり、何をして、どのように機能し、誰がそれを作っているかを当局者が知っている場合、その規制はややこしい問題となる。
Berkeley, Calif.でこのほど施行された法律はnanotechnologyに関するもので、上記の要素がいっぱいだ。
現在のところナノテクはごくありふれたアプリケーション、例えば汚れ防止機能付き医療、透明性の高い材料を使った化粧品、医療、家庭用抗菌塗料といったものである。
業界関係者はナノテクが医療からエネルギー製造まで全てを変革すると鼻息は荒い。
しかし、健康、環境被害についてとなると、連中はナノテクについて法的関心の対象にするには特殊で、規制対象にする理由はないと安心させるのに必死だ。
しかし、このような矛盾に対して、Berkeley市の担当者は納得することは無かった。それは、彼らが長年にわたって市場原理には災害を予測する能力がないと考えているからである。
Berkeleyでは有害廃棄物管理担当部門に対して、企業は毎年、ナノ物質について、報告を義務づけた。（下限無しで）直径100ナノメーター以下の物質について、その毒性、追跡、取り扱い、処理について文書で提出することになる。
ナノテク批判者がこの条例をホームランと呼ぶのは、無理がある。The Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the University of Californiaは除外されている。Berkeley市内で誰もナノパーティクルを製造、使用した人はこれまでいない。
担当者はBerkeleyの活動が一部の研究成果に注目が集まれば良いという。すなわち動物実験で一部のナノパーティクルは肺、脳に有害で、Berkeley以外の関係当局のより多くの情報を要求する役に立つことを願っているという。
連邦政府の担当者は、外国の担当者と同様に、規制を求める会合、研究にこれまで金は出しているが、実際に規制を行うことはためらっている。潜在的リスクへの研究のための支援も極わずかだ。
政府はナノテク規制でナノテクの成果による利点を失うことを恐れているとBerkeleyの担当者は言う。
業界関係者は、もっとはっきり次の様にいう。すなわち、現在利用されているナノパーティクルの量は極めて少なく、他の物質と密接に結びついており、規制に値する量が一般に曝されることはないという。
規制当局はナノテクに対して、既存の法律を適用する傾向がある。EPAが11月に行ったのもその例である。Samsung’s SilverCareという名称の洗濯機を殺虫剤と分類した。その理由はこの機器が銀原子をイオンかし、洗濯に追加してバクテリアとビールスを破壊するからだという。
今年は、EPAの論理が広範にナノテクベースの抗菌製品に適用されそうだという。
EPA の関与を避けたければ、現在の抗菌の表示を単に止めればいい。
Sharper Image社はコンテナーを変えず、銀パーティクルを含んだ他の製品について既にそのようにしている。
このような抜け穴は潜在的な危険を完全に研究するためのより厳格な規制、更に、公的部門と民間とのパートナーシップの必要を明らかにしていると専門家は言う。
ワシントンのNatural Resources Defense Councilの専門家は”対象が何であれ、それに規制の斧をふるうには我々の知識は十分でない”という。
IT is hard enough to regulate something when you know what it is, what it does, how it works and who is actually making it.
Nabil Al-Hadithy had none of those advantages when he began to consider what — if anything —Berkeley, Calif., wanted to do about regulating nanotechnology.
That issue became a concern for Mr. Al-Hadithy, the city’s hazardous waste manager, when a federal research laboratory affiliated with the University of California filed an environmental impact statement three years ago for its latest building project — a “molecular foundry” to make nanoparticles.
“We sent them a bunch of questions, starting with: ‘What the heck is a nanoparticle?’ ” Mr. Al-Hadithy said.
It turns out to be a deceptively complicated question, but that did not stop Mr. Al-Hadithy from coming up with his own answer. When the city council adopted his regulation last month, Berkeley became the first government body in the United States — and possibly anywhere, according to some analysts — to explicitly regulate businesses that make or use nanoparticles.
Nanoparticles are generally defined as clusters of atoms and molecules used in a rapidly growing range of invisible products and microscopic manufacturing processes measured in nanometers, or billionths of a meter. The largest particle subject to Mr. Al-Hadithy’s regulation is roughly 800 times thinner than a human hair.
For now, nanotechnology is limited to somewhat mundane applications, including stain-resistant clothing, transparent cosmetics and antimicrobial surfaces for medical and household products.
Promoters, however, have not been shy about predicting how nanotechnology might transform everything from health care to energy production.
But when the same folks talk to health and environmental regulators, those promises tend to be replaced with soothing assurances that there is no reason — at least not yet — to presume that nanotechnology is unusual enough to present unique regulatory concerns.
That seeming contradiction did not go over well in Berkeley, which has long been skeptical about the marketplace’s ability to anticipate disaster.
Hence the new regulation that requires businesses to annually identify for Mr. Al-Hadithy’s office any materials they use or produce with at least one dimension of 100 nanometers or less, no matter how small the quantities. They must also share what they know about how toxic the particles might be and describe procedures for tracking, handling and disposing of them.
Unlike most definitions of nanoparticles, Berkeley’s has no lower size limit and so presumably covers individual atoms a fraction of a nanometer in diameter if they have been ionized — that is, given positive or negative charges.
It would be a stretch to call the new ordinance a home run for critics of nanotechnology. The Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the University of California are exempt, although the lab said it planned to voluntarily supply any relevant data it gathers as a byproduct of its research. Mr. Al-Hadithy said he had no reason so far to believe that any business in Berkeley actually made or used nanoparticles. None has stepped forward, anyway.
But he said he hoped that Berkeley’s move would draw attention to animal studies suggesting ways that at least some nanoparticles might harm the lungs or brain and would influence regulators elsewhere to seek more information.
Federal and state regulators, like their counterparts overseas, have so far been happy to sponsor meetings and studies that call for regulation but notably reluctant to engage in any. A very small fraction of the billions of dollars being invested in nanotechnology research is being used to ferret out potential risks.
“Governments are scared of regulating nanotechnology out of fear of losing the benefits,” Mr. Al-Hadithy said.
Those in the industry, like Dennis Schneider, director of marketing and sales for NanoHorizons, a nanotech startup in State College, Pa., say there is a more straightforward explanation for the inactivity: the nanoparticles now being used are made in such small volume and are so bound up in other material that people are not exposed to quantities worth regulating.
“You can’t pump them or blow them,” said Mr. Schneider of his company’s products. “You have to bind them to something and drag them around, then change the binding forces to put them somewhere. Or grow them where they are going to be used.”
When regulators encounter nanotechnology, they have tended to apply existing laws to new products in ways that can seem odd at first glance. In November, for example, the Environmental Protection Agency said it would classify Samsung’s SilverCare line of washing machines as a pesticide because the machines ionize silver atoms and add them to the wash — 100 quadrillion per load, Samsung says — to kill bacteria and viruses.
While some would argue that the ions are too small to qualify as nanotechnology, the logic of the E.P.A. ruling would appear to apply to a wide range of nanotechnology-based antimicrobial products that have been advertised this year, including A.R.C. Outdoor’s E47 underwear, Sharper Image’s line of “FresherLonger Miracle Food Storage Containers” and Motorola’s i870 cellphone.
The E.P.A. said that its ruling had nothing to do with particle size and will be clarified in an official publication this month. Of course, the way to avoid any dealings with the E.P.A. on the subject under the current pesticide law is to simply stop making the antimicrobial claim.
Sharper Image has already done just that without changing the containers or other products with silver particles.
Such loopholes underscore the need for tighter regulation and public-private partnerships to more thoroughly study potential hazards, according to the critics.
“We don’t know enough to wield a hammer on anything,” said Jennifer Sass, a senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council in Washington.
Berkeley Legal:Teeny-Weeny Rules for Itty-Bitty Atom Clusters
Article Tools Sponsored By
By BARNABY J. FEDER
Published: January 14, 2007
ITの関係はそれが何であり、何をして、どのように機能し、誰がそれを作っているかを当局者が知っている場合、その規制はややこしい問題となる。
Berkeley, Calif.でこのほど施行された法律はnanotechnologyに関するもので、上記の要素がいっぱいだ。
現在のところナノテクはごくありふれたアプリケーション、例えば汚れ防止機能付き医療、透明性の高い材料を使った化粧品、医療、家庭用抗菌塗料といったものである。
業界関係者はナノテクが医療からエネルギー製造まで全てを変革すると鼻息は荒い。
しかし、健康、環境被害についてとなると、連中はナノテクについて法的関心の対象にするには特殊で、規制対象にする理由はないと安心させるのに必死だ。
しかし、このような矛盾に対して、Berkeley市の担当者は納得することは無かった。それは、彼らが長年にわたって市場原理には災害を予測する能力がないと考えているからである。
Berkeleyでは有害廃棄物管理担当部門に対して、企業は毎年、ナノ物質について、報告を義務づけた。（下限無しで）直径100ナノメーター以下の物質について、その毒性、追跡、取り扱い、処理について文書で提出することになる。
ナノテク批判者がこの条例をホームランと呼ぶのは、無理がある。The Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the University of Californiaは除外されている。Berkeley市内で誰もナノパーティクルを製造、使用した人はこれまでいない。
担当者はBerkeleyの活動が一部の研究成果に注目が集まれば良いという。すなわち動物実験で一部のナノパーティクルは肺、脳に有害で、Berkeley以外の関係当局のより多くの情報を要求する役に立つことを願っているという。
連邦政府の担当者は、外国の担当者と同様に、規制を求める会合、研究にこれまで金は出しているが、実際に規制を行うことはためらっている。潜在的リスクへの研究のための支援も極わずかだ。
政府はナノテク規制でナノテクの成果による利点を失うことを恐れているとBerkeleyの担当者は言う。
業界関係者は、もっとはっきり次の様にいう。すなわち、現在利用されているナノパーティクルの量は極めて少なく、他の物質と密接に結びついており、規制に値する量が一般に曝されることはないという。
規制当局はナノテクに対して、既存の法律を適用する傾向がある。EPAが11月に行ったのもその例である。Samsung’s SilverCareという名称の洗濯機を殺虫剤と分類した。その理由はこの機器が銀原子をイオンかし、洗濯に追加してバクテリアとビールスを破壊するからだという。
今年は、EPAの論理が広範にナノテクベースの抗菌製品に適用されそうだという。
EPA の関与を避けたければ、現在の抗菌の表示を単に止めればいい。
Sharper Image社はコンテナーを変えず、銀パーティクルを含んだ他の製品について既にそのようにしている。
このような抜け穴は潜在的な危険を完全に研究するためのより厳格な規制、更に、公的部門と民間とのパートナーシップの必要を明らかにしていると専門家は言う。
ワシントンのNatural Resources Defense Councilの専門家は”対象が何であれ、それに規制の斧をふるうには我々の知識は十分でない”という。
IT is hard enough to regulate something when you know what it is, what it does, how it works and who is actually making it.
Nabil Al-Hadithy had none of those advantages when he began to consider what — if anything —Berkeley, Calif., wanted to do about regulating nanotechnology.
That issue became a concern for Mr. Al-Hadithy, the city’s hazardous waste manager, when a federal research laboratory affiliated with the University of California filed an environmental impact statement three years ago for its latest building project — a “molecular foundry” to make nanoparticles.
“We sent them a bunch of questions, starting with: ‘What the heck is a nanoparticle?’ ” Mr. Al-Hadithy said.
It turns out to be a deceptively complicated question, but that did not stop Mr. Al-Hadithy from coming up with his own answer. When the city council adopted his regulation last month, Berkeley became the first government body in the United States — and possibly anywhere, according to some analysts — to explicitly regulate businesses that make or use nanoparticles.
Nanoparticles are generally defined as clusters of atoms and molecules used in a rapidly growing range of invisible products and microscopic manufacturing processes measured in nanometers, or billionths of a meter. The largest particle subject to Mr. Al-Hadithy’s regulation is roughly 800 times thinner than a human hair.
For now, nanotechnology is limited to somewhat mundane applications, including stain-resistant clothing, transparent cosmetics and antimicrobial surfaces for medical and household products.
Promoters, however, have not been shy about predicting how nanotechnology might transform everything from health care to energy production.
But when the same folks talk to health and environmental regulators, those promises tend to be replaced with soothing assurances that there is no reason — at least not yet — to presume that nanotechnology is unusual enough to present unique regulatory concerns.
That seeming contradiction did not go over well in Berkeley, which has long been skeptical about the marketplace’s ability to anticipate disaster.
Hence the new regulation that requires businesses to annually identify for Mr. Al-Hadithy’s office any materials they use or produce with at least one dimension of 100 nanometers or less, no matter how small the quantities. They must also share what they know about how toxic the particles might be and describe procedures for tracking, handling and disposing of them.
Unlike most definitions of nanoparticles, Berkeley’s has no lower size limit and so presumably covers individual atoms a fraction of a nanometer in diameter if they have been ionized — that is, given positive or negative charges.
It would be a stretch to call the new ordinance a home run for critics of nanotechnology. The Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the University of California are exempt, although the lab said it planned to voluntarily supply any relevant data it gathers as a byproduct of its research. Mr. Al-Hadithy said he had no reason so far to believe that any business in Berkeley actually made or used nanoparticles. None has stepped forward, anyway.
But he said he hoped that Berkeley’s move would draw attention to animal studies suggesting ways that at least some nanoparticles might harm the lungs or brain and would influence regulators elsewhere to seek more information.
Federal and state regulators, like their counterparts overseas, have so far been happy to sponsor meetings and studies that call for regulation but notably reluctant to engage in any. A very small fraction of the billions of dollars being invested in nanotechnology research is being used to ferret out potential risks.
“Governments are scared of regulating nanotechnology out of fear of losing the benefits,” Mr. Al-Hadithy said.
Those in the industry, like Dennis Schneider, director of marketing and sales for NanoHorizons, a nanotech startup in State College, Pa., say there is a more straightforward explanation for the inactivity: the nanoparticles now being used are made in such small volume and are so bound up in other material that people are not exposed to quantities worth regulating.
“You can’t pump them or blow them,” said Mr. Schneider of his company’s products. “You have to bind them to something and drag them around, then change the binding forces to put them somewhere. Or grow them where they are going to be used.”
When regulators encounter nanotechnology, they have tended to apply existing laws to new products in ways that can seem odd at first glance. In November, for example, the Environmental Protection Agency said it would classify Samsung’s SilverCare line of washing machines as a pesticide because the machines ionize silver atoms and add them to the wash — 100 quadrillion per load, Samsung says — to kill bacteria and viruses.
While some would argue that the ions are too small to qualify as nanotechnology, the logic of the E.P.A. ruling would appear to apply to a wide range of nanotechnology-based antimicrobial products that have been advertised this year, including A.R.C. Outdoor’s E47 underwear, Sharper Image’s line of “FresherLonger Miracle Food Storage Containers” and Motorola’s i870 cellphone.
The E.P.A. said that its ruling had nothing to do with particle size and will be clarified in an official publication this month. Of course, the way to avoid any dealings with the E.P.A. on the subject under the current pesticide law is to simply stop making the antimicrobial claim.
Sharper Image has already done just that without changing the containers or other products with silver particles.
Such loopholes underscore the need for tighter regulation and public-private partnerships to more thoroughly study potential hazards, according to the critics.
“We don’t know enough to wield a hammer on anything,” said Jennifer Sass, a senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council in Washington.
|
ishida |
Latest page update: made by ishida
, Jan 27 2007, 8:32 AM EST
(about this update
About This Update
Edited by ishida
1 word deleted view changes - complete history) |
|
Keyword tags:
Berkeley Calif.
epa
nanoparticle
nanotechnology
More Info: links to this page
|
There are no threads for this page.
Be the first to start a new thread.
