Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Graphene Could Be Dangerous To Humans and the Environment

samzenpus posted about 7 months ago | from the keep-out-of-eyes-and-mouth dept.

Earth 135

Zothecula (1870348) writes "It's easy to get carried away when you start talking about graphene. Its properties hold the promise of outright technological revolution in so many fields that it has been called a wonder material. Two recent studies, however, give us a less than rosy angle. In the first, a team of biologists, engineers and material scientists at Brown University examined graphene's potential toxicity in human cells. Another study by a team from University of California, Riverside's Bourns College of Engineering examined how graphene oxide nanoparticles might interact with the environment if they found their way into surface or ground water sources."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

One word (0)

Swampash (1131503) | about 7 months ago | (#46887471)

Grey goo

Grey goo (4, Insightful)

kruach aum (1934852) | about 7 months ago | (#46887503)

Ever since I first heard about the idea of grey goo, I've always wondered why no-one realises that grey goo already exists: they're called bacteria and viruses. They reproduce unchecked, can have catastrophic consequences for all other forms of life, and are largely carbon-based nano-machines.

Re:Grey goo (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46887559)

Ever since I first heard about the idea of grey goo, I've always wondered why no-one realises that grey goo already exists: they're called bacteria and viruses. They reproduce unchecked, can have catastrophic consequences for all other forms of life, and are largely carbon-based nano-machines.

The idea of self-replicating small entities is the same, but that bacteria is micrometer scale not nanoscale aside, the difference is the scenario where gray goo consume everything. Virus replicate only within living cells, and most of them in a non-deadly (even if somewhat harmful) symbiosis with the host. Grey goo nano-machines consume raw materials, not only us, but all the stuff around us (including what we try to contain them with).

Re:Grey goo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46887755)

They also won't be as small as viruses either.

Quantum level interactions prevent that... to get usable machines you need something much bigger than a virus.

Re:Grey goo (2)

kruach aum (1934852) | about 7 months ago | (#46887839)

I don't know, viruses seem to be working just fine to me.

Re:Grey goo (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46887921)

For the purpose of grey goo they actually don't work fine, since they need to hijack larger cell machinery to work.

Re:Grey goo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46887785)

Grey goo sounds like humans.

Re:Grey goo (1)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 7 months ago | (#46888749)

but all the stuff around us (including what we try to contain them with).

If you can demonstrate how to derive energy from a glass container in an oxygen atmosphere, then there is a Nobel Prize waiting for you in Stockholm. If it was really so easy to "eat" glass, or even cellulose, then life would have evolved a way to do it eons ago.

Re:Grey goo (0)

siddesu (698447) | about 7 months ago | (#46887603)

Probably because the original scifi concept is that gray goo is not lifelike -- it is very simple, and won't evolve, just dissolve everything into ever more gray goo. Or somesuch.The nanodes that can only be killed by the Martian defense systems, on the other hand...

Re:Grey goo (1)

tepples (727027) | about 7 months ago | (#46888919)

Where does science fiction gray goo get its energy to work?

Re:Grey goo (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about 7 months ago | (#46889001)

From Solient Green

Re:Grey goo (1)

BronsCon (927697) | about 7 months ago | (#46890307)

Soylent Grey is graphene

Re:Grey goo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46887669)

grey goo is mold.

Re:Grey goo (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | about 7 months ago | (#46887895)

That's called green goo.

Re:One word (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46887549)

That's two words!

Re:One word (4, Insightful)

delt0r (999393) | about 7 months ago | (#46887781)

Yea so its going to turn all the other elements into carbon? Its going dissipate its heat how?

The laws of physics, the way the universe works in other words, precludes a grey goo any worse than we already have. aka bacteria.

Re:One word (0)

plopez (54068) | about 7 months ago | (#46888077)

That's two words

Graphene Oxide? Its May 1st , not April 1st (4, Funny)

Viol8 (599362) | about 7 months ago | (#46887475)

Graphene oxide is CO2 FFS.

Re:Graphene Oxide? Its May 1st , not April 1st (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46887517)

They're probably referring to something more like a ketone or esterified/ether-like polymer. Oxidation can be partial and stable, which is why carbon monoxide persists in the atmosphere for a unhelpfully poisonous period.

Re:Graphene Oxide? Its May 1st , not April 1st (4, Informative)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 7 months ago | (#46887523)

Only if you really oxidize it, good and hard. Carbon's ability to bond fairly strongly with itself, and graphite's mixture of strong bonds within layers and weak bonds between them allow for a variety of vexingly complex oxidized forms that definitely have a lot more oxygen grafted on than the non-oxide form; but still retain much of their graphite layer structure.

Re:Graphene Oxide? Its May 1st , not April 1st (4, Informative)

Viol8 (599362) | about 7 months ago | (#46887541)

"Only if you really oxidize it, good and hard"

Yes - its called fire!

Joking aside , it does seem the nano engineers are somewhat taking liberties with the chemical naming system since graphene isn't an element - its an allotrope. You might as well say diamond oxide which would be equally non sensical.

Re:Graphene Oxide? Its May 1st , not April 1st (4, Informative)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 7 months ago | (#46887587)

I get the impression that, once you get into the realm of molecules that can easily be thousands to tens of thousands of atoms in size (and, just for extra fun, 'graphene oxide nanoparticle' isn't even a specific molecule, just a gigantic class of various differently shaped and sized hunks of graphene with assorted oxidizers grafted on here and there. There might actually be no two alike in a modestly sized sample...) 'systematic naming' becomes a bit of a joke. Assuming your pet molecule doesn't break some hitherto trusted rule it can probably be named; but you aren't going to want to read the result.

It's still arguably sloppy, there just aren't terribly good options.

Re:Graphene Oxide? Its May 1st , not April 1st (1, Informative)

azav (469988) | about 7 months ago | (#46887843)

it's* called fire

        it's = it is

Learn this.

Aww bless , its the spelling troll! (-1, Offtopic)

Viol8 (599362) | about 7 months ago | (#46888145)

Nice to have you back. Hows the anal canal, still retentive? You should really get that looked at.

Re:Graphene Oxide? Its May 1st , not April 1st (4, Informative)

Sockatume (732728) | about 7 months ago | (#46887847)

Chemist here: the "chemical naming system" as you so quaintly put it makes enormous distinctions between materials with the same composition but different structures, so yes, we refer to graphene oxide, graphite oxide, oxidised diamond, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and every other possible combination of carbon and oxygen because they have entirely different properties.

Re:Graphene Oxide? Its May 1st , not April 1st (1)

Viol8 (599362) | about 7 months ago | (#46888103)

Oh right. So whats dihydrogen oxide then?

Oxidane (5, Informative)

tepples (727027) | about 7 months ago | (#46888963)

Dihydrogen monoxide [wikipedia.org] , hydrogen hydroxide, hydroxylic acid, etc. are all humorous names for the abundant compound oxidane [wikipedia.org] . In solid phase it's also called ice, in liquid phase it's water, and in gas phase it's steam. It doesn't have the same sort of allotropic variation as elemental carbon.

Re:Graphene Oxide? Its May 1st , not April 1st (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | about 7 months ago | (#46889223)

Something irrelevant to the discussion, since it doesn't have carbon in it.

Re:Graphene Oxide? Its May 1st , not April 1st (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46889261)

The fact that a term is well defined in one context doesn't mean its use is precluded in other contexts, in particular when there is no confusion possible. "Material oxide" generally is understood to mean "material degraded in complicated ways by oxidation" when "material" is not an element or molecule.

Re:Graphene Oxide? Its May 1st , not April 1st (1)

Goldsmith (561202) | about 7 months ago | (#46890097)

I'm a nanotechnologist who has worked on all these materials, and I've got to support your sentiment here.

Graphene is a great material, it's got a lot of cool properties and it won the Nobel Prize. People discovered that you could make something like graphene, but it had a lot of oxygen incorporated into it. They called it "graphene oxide," with a shorthand of "graphene." Then, other people found that you get more interesting stuff if you replace the oxygen with hydrogen in graphene oxide, leading to "reduced graphene oxide" with a shorthand of... "graphene."

These are all different materials with very different properties. It is very confusing trying to explain this all to people who are not immersed in the field, particularly because everyone seems to default to calling all these materials "graphene." It would be like using the same words to describe electronics grade silicon, glass and sand. Yes, they're all types of silicon, but all of these different materials should have distinct names.

Re:Graphene Oxide? Its May 1st , not April 1st (1)

StripedCow (776465) | about 7 months ago | (#46887807)

Naming conventions in chemistry suck.

Re:Graphene Oxide? Its May 1st , not April 1st (2)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | about 7 months ago | (#46887557)

Carbon? Ban it!

Re:Graphene Oxide? Its May 1st , not April 1st (2)

rossdee (243626) | about 7 months ago | (#46888519)

But CO2 is toxic to humans (volcanos have killed entire villages with CO2 clouds) and theres the greenhouse problem, which we are now feeling the effects of. We don't need more C02 in the atmosphere.

Re:Graphene Oxide? Its May 1st , not April 1st (0)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 7 months ago | (#46890657)

But CO2 is toxic to humans (volcanos have killed entire villages with CO2 clouds) We don't need more C02 in the atmosphere.

That's not toxicity, it's simply suffocation. There is a rather large difference.

... and theres the greenhouse problem, which we are now feeling the effects of.

We have been feeling less "greenhouse problem", every year that passes. Simple observation (and mounting strong scientific evidence) suggest that it may not be a "problem" at all. More likely it was a political agenda.

A nuisance, really... (4, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 7 months ago | (#46887489)

We like exotic nanostructures because they have cool properties that their bulk counterparts don't. Unfortunately, this ends up meaning that a knowledge of the toxicology of the bulk material is of only limited use for inferring what the cool nanostructure will do. Carbon shows signs of potentially being rather nastier in its fancy forms than it is in more familiar flavors; but other nanomaterials might go the other way.

Re:A nuisance, really... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46887631)

We like exotic nanostructures because they have cool properties that their bulk counterparts don't. Unfortunately, this ends up meaning that a knowledge of the toxicology of the bulk material is of only limited use for inferring what the cool nanostructure will do. Carbon shows signs of potentially being rather nastier in its fancy forms than it is in more familiar flavors; but other nanomaterials might go the other way.

wow !!

Re:A nuisance, really... (1)

oneandoneis2 (777721) | about 7 months ago | (#46887713)

> Carbon shows signs of potentially being rather nastier in its fancy forms

That's like saying "Some types of technology can harm your health".

Carbon is a very versatile element, it can take many forms. Some will be good, some will be bad, some will have no impact.

e.g. There are signs of it being extremely beneficial in buckyball form: http://www.gizmag.com/diet-buc... [gizmag.com]

Re:A nuisance, really... (4, Informative)

ultranova (717540) | about 7 months ago | (#46887961)

Carbon shows signs of potentially being rather nastier in its fancy forms than it is in more familiar flavors; but other nanomaterials might go the other way.

Unlikely. The problem with "nano" anything is that small particles are hard to filter out, for example by your nose and throat, and thus tend to get where they aren't wanted, for example into your lungs. Whenever you hear "nanoparticle" think "really fine dust"; if the bulk material is toxic, why wouldn't the dust be? Remember that poison needs to get into your body to poison you, so a solid lump is harmless unless you eat it, but dust tends to float in the air and get sucked in when you inhale.

But luckily, most of the promises of graphene - specifically, carbon nanotubes - depend on producing longer fibers, which should have the side effect of solving this problem.

Re:A nuisance, really... (4, Interesting)

KozmoStevnNaut (630146) | about 7 months ago | (#46888261)

That depends on a lot of factors. Do you know why asbestos causes cancer? The fibers are fine enough that they will physically damage your DNA. I see very little reason why carbon nanotubes shouldn't be capable of the same thing.

Re:A nuisance, really... (1)

stenvar (2789879) | about 7 months ago | (#46889301)

The problem isn't that asbestos fibers are damaging to DNA (lots of things are), it's that they are chemically inert and can't be eliminated by the cells. Carbon nanotubes are degraded by cells, and fairly quickly.

Re:A nuisance, really... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46889811)

Tell that to the pencil lead I have stuck in my hand from 20 years ago...

Re:A nuisance, really... (2)

mrchaotica (681592) | about 7 months ago | (#46889283)

Whenever you hear "nanoparticle" think "really fine dust"; if the bulk material is toxic, why wouldn't the dust be?

And even if the bulk material isn't toxic, the dust could still be (due to the particles' physical shape, not its chemical properties). See, for example, silicosis [wikipedia.org] .

Re: A nuisance, really... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46890715)

Not necessarily. Many of asbestos' desirable properties (strength, insulation) are due to its fibrous nature. I doubt carbon nanotubes would be any safer than silicon fibers (aka asbestos).

Re:A nuisance, really... (1)

mspohr (589790) | about 7 months ago | (#46890391)

It's hard to predict the potential problems that will be caused by these materials.
One thing that struck me in the articles was that graphene has sharp edges which can easily pierce cell membranes. This is not good for living things made up of cells. One other material which we have had experience with with similar properties is asbestos which has small (not nano) sharp particles easily inhaled into the lungs leading to lung cancer... not a good thing.

Yeah, but... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46887527)

Is it more toxic than the widely-used dihydrogen monoxide?

Re:Yeah, but... (0)

Torp (199297) | about 7 months ago | (#46887553)

Wish i had mod points right now...

Re:Yeah, but... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46887569)

Wish i had mod points right now...

Why? Answering real and interesting science with a stupid chemist joke some people are proud to understand is helpful how?

Re:Yeah, but... (-1, Troll)

Torp (199297) | about 7 months ago | (#46887591)

50 years ago it would have been real and interesting science. These days all these studies only sound like scare mongering. You know, like anti virus vendors.

Re:Yeah, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46887601)

50 years ago it would have been real and interesting science. These days all these studies only sound like scare mongering. You know, like anti virus vendors.

And if this is your conclusion after having read these two scientific studies, could you help enlighten us specifically where their science is not sound?

Re:Yeah, but... (1)

hamburger lady (218108) | about 7 months ago | (#46888581)

but the joke is totally new. it's innovative, like 'where's the beef?'

Re:Yeah, but... (2)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | about 7 months ago | (#46887563)

Yes, and the amount being manufactured is increasing. And this at time when we're drowning in dihydrogen monoxide.

Re:Yeah, but... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46887577)

Consumption of dihydrogen monoxide has a fatality rate of 100% in a time frame no longer than 2^16 days.

Re:Yeah, but... (1)

Karmashock (2415832) | about 7 months ago | (#46887691)

Exactly... if the stupid regulators shut down the production of this stuff then I'm done with them.

Re:Yeah, but... (1)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 7 months ago | (#46890421)

It's as toxic as the used-to-be-widely-used asbestos.

We normally think of toxicity as being based on chemical reactions. In graphene and asbestos, it's the nano-scale mechanical damage that causes problems.

Colon Bunk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46887529)

Graphene wasn't invented by Elon Musk, so they have to find a way to discredit it.

Re:Colon Bunk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46887613)

What was invented by Elon Musk?

Re:Colon Bunk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46888847)

3d printing, cars, the internet, space rockets, bitcoin...

Wonder material (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46887573)

A wonder material that turns out to be extremely dangerous?

You don't say? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos

Re:Wonder material (2)

indytx (825419) | about 7 months ago | (#46887761)

A wonder material that turns out to be extremely dangerous?

You don't say? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A... [wikipedia.org]

I was thinking the same thing. Mesothelioma is a horrible way to go.

Re:Wonder material (1, Interesting)

GoCrazy (1608235) | about 7 months ago | (#46888175)

Then again, 90%-95% of asbestos (crystotile) used wasn't carcinogenic, and the remaining 5% of asbestos used was only carcinogenic to smokers.

http://scienceworld.wolfram.co... [wolfram.com]

Re:Wonder material (2)

elwinc (663074) | about 7 months ago | (#46888633)

Then again, 90%-95% of asbestos (crystotile) used wasn't carcinogenic, and the remaining 5% of asbestos used was only carcinogenic to smokers. http://scienceworld.wolfram.co... [wolfram.com]

Thanks for the excellent link. It does NOT support your summary. For example: "amphiboles are more potent than chrysotile in the induction of fibrotic lung disease and associated lung cancer" does NOT mean chrysotile is non carcinogenic. Similarly, "Asbestos-induced cancer is found only rarely in nonsmokers" does not support your claim that amphibole asbestos " was only carcinogenic to smokers."

Re:Wonder material (1)

GoCrazy (1608235) | about 7 months ago | (#46888913)

Thanks for the clarification. I was looking for the link between asbestos and mesothelioma, but ignored the relation to lung cancer.

Re:Wonder material (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46889107)

I think nano substances that typically don't happen in nature will prove to be worse the more we look at it.

Basically a lot of nano substances are not found that way in nature so we've never adapted to handling them. This leads to all sorts of issues where they can bypass the cell membranes and get in to places where they are supposed to be and cause unforeseen issues. A study found that nano particles of zinc oxide were able to bypass the cell membranes and cause issues with cell functions, this lead to the speculation that it could lead to some sort of cancer. Which is very much in line with asbestos getting where it didn't belong causing issues.

I think a prudent test of the effects of the nano particles that are being used of any type is in order before wide spread use. In the end I think many of them will prove dangerous for long term exposure.

This time will be different! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46887617)

The biological properties of lead were very well known.
Didn't keep people from adding it to fuel and blowing it out of the tail pipes of virtually every car for a couple of decades.
This time it's nano materials.
The only thing we learn from history is that we don't learn from history.

Re:This time will be different! (5, Insightful)

Sockatume (732728) | about 7 months ago | (#46887875)

Begging your pardon, but isn't the fact that graphene is being studied for low-level toxicity and environmental impacts before it's in actual use evidence that we have, in fact, learned from history?

Re:This time will be different! (1)

deadweight (681827) | about 7 months ago | (#46888135)

AFAIK diesel engine exhaust has enough "nano particles" of carbon to be dangerous, so we already do know the stuff is not good to breath.

Re:This time will be different! (1)

drunkenoafoffofb3ta (1262668) | about 7 months ago | (#46888177)

That's why all recent cars with diesel engines have Diesel Particulate Filters. Which cost a bloody fortune to replace!

Re:This time will be different! (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | about 7 months ago | (#46889343)

...And those filters screw up using biodiesel, which is ironic since burning biodiesel (at least in my experience using a 1.9L VW engine) produces less soot in the first place.

Re:This time will be different! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46890265)

Begging your pardon, but isn't the fact that graphene is being studied for low-level toxicity and environmental impacts before it's in actual use evidence that we have, in fact, learned from history?

If you learned from history, then you would know that graphene will make its way into every known product before the results of the study are in. People will then whine like little bitches because it will have become so ingrained in our daily lives that we won't be able to live without it, until it kills us,

Re:This time will be different! (1)

Type44Q (1233630) | about 7 months ago | (#46889753)

The only thing we learn from history is that we don't learn from history.

However, if we were to learn anything from history, it'd be that those in charge have no qualms about poisoning, maiming or starving everyone else if it furthers their agendas (and in some cases even if it doesn't)...

Razor wire (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46887693)

If graphene threads are as thin and strong as stated, would they not present an extreme cutting hazard?
As in slice your arm off before you notice?

Re:Razor wire (2)

AlecC (512609) | about 7 months ago | (#46887809)

It is imaginable that a fibre such as you describe could be one of the products which could be made with graphene. But the nanoparticles being described in the articles are dangerous at the cellular level, not at the size of an arm. They are much more like incredibly fine, incredibly hard grit.

Re:Razor wire (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46888133)

i recall an old-school science fiction story/novel where one molecule threads were used as weapons, where they were dropped on people and floated down and sliced them into segments before they knew what had happened... cool...

Re:Razor wire (1)

cellocgw (617879) | about 7 months ago | (#46890227)

If graphene threads are as thin and strong as stated, would they not present an extreme cutting hazard?
As in slice your arm off before you notice?

Been reading RingWorld recently, eh?

Maybe it would eventually spread out and turn all (4, Interesting)

mark_reh (2015546) | about 7 months ago | (#46887697)

the carbon on the planet into nanotube meshes or sheets, eventually pulling all the carbon out of the air. Like Ice 9!

Ban pencils and sticky tape! (1)

Bazman (4849) | about 7 months ago | (#46887751)

Remember how graphene was first made? There's even a YouTube video on it now! Ban this dangerous sticky tape and pencils before terrorists get their hooks - I mean hands - on them!

"Could* *be"? (4, Insightful)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | about 7 months ago | (#46887769)

Come back when you can say "is" or "isn't". Until then, this doesn't even qualify as tabloid-worthy. It's not even a supposition, as that would require you to state an opinion either way, regardless of how ill informed.

Re:"Could* *be"? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46888169)

Come back when you can say "is" or "isn't".

That's called a religion. Meanwhile, in the real world, we don't have that luxury. Come back to me when your reasoning skills beat that of a plant.

Yup. Graphene oxide can definitely be harmful... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46887795)

It used to be calls soot.

And inhaling that is hazardous to your health.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soot

Order of Magnitude? (5, Insightful)

AlecC (512609) | about 7 months ago | (#46887801)

It is hardly surprising that graphene can, in some circumstances, be dangerous. Exhaust particulates, which he have known for years are dangerous, contain (now we know what we are looking for) large numbers of graphene nanoparticles, which may well contribute to their damaging effects. Just about every chemical ever tested has bad effects at some scale. What I didn't get from either article was any sense of the scale of the danger. Obviously, it is early days in the research, and one would only expect an order of magnitude estimate. But is is such a danger that we should not allow graphene products into the home lest they spill, or merely one which demands normal safety precautions in the factories for future graphene products? A warning of danger without some idea of the scale of the problem is just sensationalist: it induces fear without giving any idea as to what should be done, if anything,

Re:Order of Magnitude? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46887881)

"All substances are poisonous; there is none which is not a poison. The right dose differentiates a poison and a remedy" Von der Besucht, Paracelsus, 1567

Re:Order of Magnitude? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46888953)

the LD50 for the oral administration of water to rats is 90 g/kg

This is known as the 'least toxic substance'.

Re:Order of Magnitude? (1)

kheldan (1460303) | about 7 months ago | (#46888959)

Indeed.
Too much oxygen in the air can be extremely toxic.
Too much water in your body can kill you.
Remember Socrates? What did they use to kill him, again? Hemlock? Isn't that a 100% naturally occurring substance? Deadly! Better ban it! Oh, wait..

Graphite dangerous too? (1)

Twinbee (767046) | about 7 months ago | (#46887837)

I thought fragments of graphene were found in graphite, so shall we start to ban all pencils while we're at it?

Re:Graphite dangerous too? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46888127)

Possibly.

The armies of the stupid are on the march (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46887925)

Graphene too dangerous in the environment? Well better ban all wood fires and BBQ grills because graphene forms pretty commonly on the inside of metal stoves/grills.

Chicken little is at it again.

sue school (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46888025)

Damn , I can sue school for toxic pencils

Current CPUs use toxic materials (1)

Eravnrekaree (467752) | about 7 months ago | (#46888027)

Dont forget that current CPUs use an array of toxic metals as dopants in their manufacture. Such as arsenic. Not to mention the many process chemicals.

Re:Current CPUs use toxic materials (1)

coolsnowmen (695297) | about 7 months ago | (#46889639)

So I should stop eating them? Or just put them in cocaine baggies first?

Junk science (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46888037)

Someone needs to kick these so called "scientists" to the curb. I'm sick and tired of seeing junk science in the media.

Re:Junk science (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46888863)

Whoever -1'ed this, fuck you. It's fucking muppets like you that let the FDA do as they please, including approving drugs that cause suicide and death.

What does it take to make graphene? (1)

plopez (54068) | about 7 months ago | (#46888091)

Petro chmicals? Refinereries? If so then there are many more side effects to look at.

Re:What does it take to make graphene? (1)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about 7 months ago | (#46889777)

Petro chmicals? Refinereries? If so then there are many more side effects to look at.

More like any organic matter and fire. You burn wood and you will get it. All graphene is, is graphite like in a pencil. it is one individual layer of pure graphite. it ocurs naturally all over.

Ban carbon (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46888563)

We need to ban all carbon compounds since they can all be dangerous.

Then we can get back to inorganic farming.

In Soviet California... (1)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | about 7 months ago | (#46888619)

...everything kills you.

Re:In Soviet California... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46888915)

And in Republican denialist faggotistan, lying is truth.

Water movement (1)

BrokenSoldier (737420) | about 7 months ago | (#46888781)

I dont have a chemistry background, can someone translate some of this for me, or at least link me to something that tries? The excerpt talked about ground water movement, but not really about WHY that is a bad thing.

Graphine May be Beneficial to the Environment! (1)

briester (1031918) | about 7 months ago | (#46889033)

Making an outright claim that the scientists are SPECIFICALLY LOOKING FOR TOXICITY, when really they're making preliminary datasets by which future studies MAY OR MAY NOT yield actual findings: maximising click-throughs since 1985.

Dumb Ass Me ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46890685)

I would have thought IF, and I emphasize "IF", graphene were harmful to Humans and the environment, We would have already seen such damage since the originally discovered sources of graphene are simply thin layers of graphite, which is in abundance.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?