The sugar in sugar-coated truths ends up killing you

The e-mail makes up pages 2008-2013 of the 2nd and less discussed batch of Fauci e-mails provided by Del Bigtree’s ICAN and obtained through a FOIA request as well.
They discuss titaniumdioxide as antiviral coating for fabrics, but that bracket is undeniably historical.
The sender signs as
Richard J. Tubb, MD
Brigadier General (retired)
White House Physician Emeritus

BRIGADIER GENERAL (DR.) RICHARD J. TUBB

Retired   September 01,2009    

Brig. Gen. (Dr.) Richard J. Tubb is the Physician to the President, and Director, White House Medical Unit, the White House, Washington, D.C. He is responsible for providing direct support and advice to the President of the United States, and he oversees all healthcare services within the White House, Camp David, the Western White House, aboard executive aircraft, while deployed and at contingency locations.  The general develops the international medical intelligence infrastructure, and deploys the medical elements necessary to support the global reach of the President, Vice President and their supporting staff as well as U.S. Secret Service, the White House Military Office, U.S. State Department and other Presidential support elements. He serves as senior medical adviser to the White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations. He advises the Director of the White House Military Office on, and directs all joint service, interagency and international operational assets in, medical contingency planning and execution supporting the continuity of the presidency and an enduring constitutional government. He also advises the White House Chief of Staff on implementation of the 25th Amendment of the Constitution.

General Tubb received his commission from the U.S. Air Force Academy in 1981. He earned his Doctorate of Medicine from the University of Wisconsin and completed Family Practice Residency training at David Grant Medical Center, Travis Air Force Base, Calif., in 1988. He has held an appointment as Clinical Assistant Professor of Family Medicine at the Uniformed Services University since 1991, and has held leadership positions in all aspects of Air Force medicine including clinical, academic and operational medicine, garrisoned and deployed. President Clinton appointed him as Director, White House Medical Unit and Physician to the White House effective Jan. 20, 2000. President Bush reaffirmed Dr. Tubb’s leadership and subsequently commissioned him as Physician to the President (Deputy Assistant to the President) in March 2002.

EDUCATION
1981 Distinguished graduate, Bachelor of Science degree, U.S. Air Force Academy,
Colorado Springs, Colo.
1985 Doctor of Medicine degree, University of Wisconsin, Madison
1988 Aerospace Medicine Primary Course, USAF School of Aerospace Medicine, Brooks AFB, Texas
2000 Air War College, by correspondence

ASSIGNMENTS
1. June 1981 – May 1985, medical student, Health Professions Scholarship Program, University of Wisconsin, Madison
2. June 1985 – June 1988, family practice resident, Travis AFB, Calif.
3. July 1988 – July 1991, Chief, Acute Care Clinic, 10th Tactical Fighter Wing, Royal Air Force Alconbury, England
4. August 1991 – July 1994, faculty and Clinical Assistant Professor, Family Practice Residency Program, 375th Medical Group, Scott AFB, Ill.
5. August 1994 – June 1995, Flight Chief, Flight Medicine and Physical Exams, 375th Medical Group, Scott AFB, Ill.
6. June 1995 – June 1996, White House Physician, the White House, Washington, D.C.
7. June 1996 – January 2000, Director, Vice Presidential Medical Operations, and Deputy Director, White House Medical Unit, the White House, Washington, D.C.
8. January 2000 – March 2002, Director, White House Medical Unit, the White House, Washington, D.C.
9. March 2002 – present, Physician to the President (Deputy Assistant to the President), and Director, White House Medical Unit, the White House, Washington, D.C.

FLIGHT INFORMATION
Rating: Chief flight surgeon
Flight hours: More than 1,800
Aircraft flown: C-9, C-17, C-20, VC-25A, C-32, CT-43, C-130, C137, C-141, CH-3, CH-46, CH-53, VH-3 and VH-60

MAJOR AWARDS AND DECORATIONS
Defense Meritorious Service Medal with oak leaf cluster
Meritorious Service Medal
Air Force Commendation Medal
Air Force Achievement Medal with oak leaf cluster
Joint Meritorious Unit Award with two oak leaf clusters
Air Force Outstanding Unit Award with oak leaf cluster
National Defense Service Medal with bronze star
Global War on Terrorism Service Medal
Humanitarian Service Medal with oak leaf cluster
Air Force Overseas Ribbon – Long Tour
Air Force Longevity Service Award with silver oak leaf cluster
Small Arms Expert Marksmanship Ribbon
Air Force Training Ribbon

OTHER ACHIEVEMENTS
1979 U.S. Air Force Academy exchange student to U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, Md.
1988 Diplomate, American Board of Family Practice
U.S. Secret Service Director’s Award (unit)
General Paul Meyer Award for Mentorship, Society of Air Force Physician Assistants

PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS AND ASSOCIATIONS
American Academy of Family Physicians
Uniformed Services Academy of Family Physicians
Former member, Royal College of General Practitioners

EFFECTIVE DATES OF PROMOTION
Second Lieutenant  May 26, 1981
Captain  May 3, 1985
Major  May 3, 1991
Lieutenant Colonel  May 30, 1996
Colonel  Jan. 20, 2000
Brigadier General  Nov. 1, 2005 

(Current as of July 2006)

SOURCE

Spraying nano-sized titaniumdioxide into the atmosphere to combat climate change

Posted on May 16, 2012 by Science News Releases

Dispersing fine (sub-micron) light-scattering particles into the upper atmosphere could help to combat climate change, suggests a former UK government advisor and chemical engineer.

The technology concept developed in the UK and first revealed in this month’s tce magazine (“Up and away“; pdf), advocates dispersing benign titanium dioxide particles as used in paint, inks and sunscreens into the stratosphere to deflect the sun’s rays. In a tce webinar on 15 May, Peter Davidson, a Chartered Chemical Engineer, Fellow of IChemE and the Royal Academy of Engineering, and a former senior innovation advisor to a number of government departments, will call for this geoengineering concept to be researched as an insurance policy to cope with possible catastrophic effects of global warming if we don’t manage to reduce CO2 emissions fast enough.

“While it’s essential that we work to reduce carbon dioxide emissions now, it would be wise to have a well-researched emergency system in reserve as a Plan B,” says Davidson.

The idea may sound like science fiction; but the concept in fact mimics the earth-cooling effects of large volcanic eruptions which occur several times a century. When in 1991 Mount Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines, it caused temperatures to drop by around 0.5°C around the globe for two years, ending most talk of global warming during this period. The eruption threw 20 million tons of sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere, forming a fine mist of sulphuric acid particles that spread over the globe in a matter of months.

As the size of volcanic aerosol particles is similar to the wavelength of sunlight, they scattered a small proportion of the light (~1 %), and hence its heat back into space. The Earth cooled.

Adding sulphuric acid to the stratosphere degrades the ozone layer, and may cause regional changes in precipitation. We need a benign but similarly sized particle; Davidson suggests Titanium Dioxide (TiO2), mankind’s most commonly-used pigment. It is stable in air, non-toxic and seven-times more effective at scattering light than sulphuric acid. Titanium is abundant in the earth’s crust and five million tonnes a year of pigment is produced currently so supply appears feasible. If you are reading this on a printed page the ink and the paper probably both have a TiO2 pigment in them.

With a candidate particle identified, the next challenge is devising a system to effectively and economically lift and disperse millions of tons of particles some 20 km (~ 65,000 feet) up into the stratosphere, so they stay up for a couple of years and do not immediately get rained out.

Davidson says: “The impact of global warming is predicted to be most severe on the world’s poorest peoples, both because of their lack of resources and because of where they happen to be living. I would hope we could ensure that these peoples have a stake in decision-making and the opportunity to have their voice heard, alongside the richer countries, and appropriate NGO’s (for example environmentalists), as well as other bodies.

“Ideally an independent charitable trust funded by a variety of stakeholders from around the world would research not only the technology but suitable governance, legal and ethical frameworks,” adds Davidson.

The total capital cost of the balloon, tethers, ultra high pressure pumps, and the production and transport of the particles is estimated to be £500m plus £600m in annual operating costs in a paper to be published by the Royal Society. These costs are perhaps thirty times lower than the next best technologies considered, such as large numbers of very sophisticated jet aircraft, and do not have the same carbon footprint. “Space mirrors on the scale needed and 20km tall towers are likely to be for the 22nd century not this one.”

Very approximate estimates are that we’d need to disperse over a million tonnes of titanium dioxide per year to keep planetary temperatures constant if CO2 levels in the atmosphere double. If such an insurance policy was needed we would have to do this for 50 to 150 years. Ocean acidification would be a worry but this might be still worse if such temperature control did not keep methane emissions from melting arctic tundra or seas under control.

At current prices, supplying these particles would cost around £3bn per year or around 50p per person per year.

Davidson says: “Creating a suitable insurance policy for climate remediation is a vital task. It will not do to underestimate the challenges. Much research and work on governance is still needed, but a vision is now on offer for debate, and development where potential means of solving some of the most difficult technical challenges have been identified. It would be short-sighted to put-off research of such a safety-device – like trying to develop a life-jacket when you’re swept out to sea and struggling in the water.”

SOURCE

Harvard states that they want to develop new methods, the go-to substances to spray in the air are listed below. If we take a look at SPICE, a United Kingdom government funded geo-engineering research project that collaborates with the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, Edinburgh and Bristol, this is what we get.

Evaluating Candidate Particles

Work Package 1: Finding the Perfect Particle

This section of the SPICE project is aiming to discover whether any particle other than sulphate is ideally suited for injection into the Stratosphere for the purpose of reducing global temperature while minimising unwanted side-effects. This phenomenon has been observed following major volcanic eruptions e.g. Mt Pinatubo in 1991.

If successful this might temporarily buy time to reduce carbon emissions and potentially prevent the worst effects of human-induced global warming.

---

Candidate Particles

If successful this might temporarily buy time to reduce carbon emissions and potentially prevent the worst effects of human-induced global warming. The particles SPICE is looking at is as follows:

• Sulphate/Sulphuric Acid/Sulphur Dioxide
• Titania (TiO₂rutile)
• Titania (TiO₂anatase)
• Silicon Carbide (SiC)
• Diamond (C)
• Dust(either Arizona test dust of NX-illite)
• Calcium Carbonate
• Alumina (alpha-Al₂O₃)
• Silica (SiO₂)
• Zinc Oxide

Any particles action is goverened by the following characteristics:

• Size
• Surface properties
• Chemical Composition 
• Refractive Index

An ideal particle would have:

• Be higly reflective of sunlight
• Not too absorptive at longer (terrestrial) wavelengths
• Little or no influence on the reactive chemistry of the stratosphere

Other Key Factors:

• Lifetime of the particle in the stratosphere
• Effects on human health
• Supply/manufacture costs

To better understand the optical and chemical characteristics of the candidate particles we are using the following techniques:

• AFT CIMS (Aerosol Flow Tube Chemical Ionization Mass Spectrometer)
• PFTR CIMS (Plug Flow Tubular Reactor Chemical Ionization Mass Spectrometer)
• AFT-OA (Aerosol Flow Tube Ozone Analyzer)
• Coated-Wall Flow Tube
• Dust Aerosol Generator
• Laser Tweezers/Laser Beam Trap (Raman Spectroscopy)

Work is being undertaken at the Molecular Spectroscopy Facility (MSF) & the Central Laser Facility (CLF) at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory (RAL) as well as at Bristol, Oxford & Cambridge Universities

HARVARD’S SOLAR GEOENGINEERING RESEARCH PROGRAM

Harvard Scientists Moving Ahead on Plans for Atmospheric Geoengineering Experiments

The climate researchers intend to launch a high-altitude balloon that would spray a small quantity of reflective particles into the stratosphere.by 

• MIT TECHNOLOGY REVIEW

March 24, 2017

A pair of Harvard climate scientists are preparing small-scale atmospheric experiments that could offer insights into the feasibility and risks of deliberately altering the climate to ease global warming.

They would be among the earliest official geoengineering-related experiments conducted outside of a controlled laboratory or computer model, underscoring the growing sense of urgency among scientists to begin seriously studying the possibility as the threat of climate change mounts.

Sometime next year, Harvard professors David Keith and Frank Keutsch hope to launch a high-altitude balloon, tethered to a gondola equipped with propellers and sensors, from a site in Tucson, Arizona. After initial engineering tests, the balloon would spray a fine mist of materials such as sulfur dioxide, alumina, or calcium carbonate into the stratosphere. The sensors would then measure the reflectivity of the particles, the degree to which they disperse or coalesce, and the way they interact with other compounds in the atmosphere.

The researchers first proposed these balloon experiments in a 2014 paper. But at a geoengineering conference in Washington, D.C., on Friday, Keith said they have begun engineering design work with Arizona test balloon company World View Enterprises. They’ve also started discussions about the appropriate governance structure for such an experiment, and they plan to set up an independent body to review their proposals.

“We would like to have the first flights next year,” he said at the Forum on U.S. Solar Geoengineering Research, held at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

In an earlier interview with MIT Technology Review, Keith stressed that the experiments would not be a binary test of geoengineering itself. But they should provide useful information about the proposed method that he has closely studied, known as solar radiation management. 

The basic idea is that spraying certain types of particles into the stratosphere could help reflect more heat back into space. Scientists believe it could work because nature already does it. Large volcanic eruptions in the past have blasted tens of millions of tons of sulfur dioxide into the sky, which contributed to lower global temperatures in subsequent months.

What’s less clear is how precisely the technique could control worldwide temperatures, what materials would work best, and what the environmental side effects might be. Notably, previous volcanic eruptions have also decreased precipitation levels in parts of the world, and sulfur dioxide is known to deplete the protective ozone layer. 

Keith has previously used computer modeling to explore the possibility of using other materials that may have a neutral impact on ozone, including diamond dust and alumina. Late last year, he, Keutsch, and others published a paper that found using calcite, a mineral made up of calcium carbonate, “may cool the planet while simultaneously repairing the ozone layer.”

The balloon tests could provide additional insight into how these chemicals actually interact with precursors to ozone in the real world and offer additional information that could help refine their understanding of solar geoengineering, he says: “You have to go measure things in the real world because nature surprises you.” 

Keith stresses that it’s too early to say whether any geoengineering technologies should ever be deployed. But he has argued for years that research should move ahead to better understand their capabilities and dangers, because it’s possible they could significantly reduce the risks of climate change. He stressed that the experiments would have negligible environment impacts, as they will involve no more than a kilogram of materials.

Funding for the initial experiments would come from grants that Harvard provided Keith and Keutsch as new professors. Additional funds may come from Harvard’s Solar Geoengineering Research Program, a multidisciplinary effort launching this spring to study feasibility, risks, ethics, and governance issues surrounding geoengineering. As of press time, it had raised more than $7 million from Microsoft cofounder Bill Gates, the Hewlett Foundation, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, Harvard-internal funds, and other philanthropists.

Geoengineering critics argue that the climate system is too complex to meddle with, that the environmental risks are too high, or that even talking about technological “fixes” could ease pressure to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Only two known experiments have been carried out in the open air to date that could be considered geoengineering-related: University of California, San Diego, researchers sprayed smoke and salt particles off the coast of California as part of the E-PEACE experiment in 2011, and scientists in Russia dispersed aerosols from a helicopter and car in 2009. The so called SPICE experiment in the United Kingdom was quickly scuttled in 2012, following public criticism and conflict of interest accusations after several of the scientists applied for a related patent.

In an earlier interview, Jane Long, a former associate director at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, stressed that researchers moving forward with geoengineering experiments need to go to great lengths to ensure proper public notification, opportunities for input, and appropriate oversight, particularly if they’re relying on private funds. But she said it’s time to begin seriously studying the technology’s potential given the growing dangers of climate change.

“We should have started a decade ago,” she said. “It’s critical to know as much as we can as soon as we can.”

Department of Homeland Security to Simulate Biological Weapons Test in Oklahoma

November 13, 2017 Off Grid Survival

In early 2018, The Department of Homeland Security is planning to conduct chemical and biological tests near the border between Kansas and Oklahoma.

Homeland Security officials plan to execute a “low-level outdoor release” of inert chemical and biological simulant materials during at two buildings within the Chilocco Indian Agricultural School (Chilocco campus) in Newkirk, Kay County, OK. The tests will take place January/February 2018 and then again during June/July 2018.

According to DHS, the biological weapons simulation is designed to see how protected people would be when staying inside if biological agents are used in a terror attack.

For the particle test, the government plans to release titanium dioxide, which it describes as a “white, odorless powder that is chemically insoluble in water, nonreactive, nonflammable and nonhazardous.”

Despite the government’s claims that the chemical is harmless, according to the International Agency for Research on Cancer, Titanium dioxide dust, when inhaled, can be carcinogenic to humans.

For the biological portion of the test, the government plans to release genetic barcoded spores of an insecticide sold under the trade name of Dipel. Dipel is not considered hazardous by the Environmental Protection Agency when handled appropriately, according to the assessment.

Republican U.S. Rep. Ron Estes of Kansas said Thursday he is “monitoring the situation closely.”

“I have numerous questions regarding this proposed test,” Estes said. “While it’s important for our federal agencies to test their abilities in response to threats, we need to be 100 percent certain this test is safe for the residents of south-central Kansas.”

The city of Arkansas City has also said it’s reviewing media reports of the testing.

“This is the first time the city has been made aware of any testing to occur at Chilocco,” the city posted on its Facebook page Thursday. “Inert means chemically inactive, which means by definition there should be no risk to the citizens. However, we are looking into the situation to gather more information for our citizens and their safety.”

What is Titanium Dioxide?

Many people are familiar with titanium dioxide as an active ingredient in sunscreen. Titanium dioxide works as a UV filtering ingredient in sunscreen – it helps protect a person’s skin by blocking absorption of the sun’s ultraviolet light that can cause sunburn and is also linked to skin cancer. Learn more about titanium dioxide and sunscreen.

Uses & Benefits

Pure titanium dioxide is a fine, white powder that provides a bright, white pigment. Titanium dioxide has been used for a century in a range of industrial and consumer products, including paints, coatings, adhesives, paper, plastics and rubber, printing inks, coated fabrics and textiles, as well as ceramics, floor coverings, roofing materials, cosmetics, toothpaste, soap, water treatment agents, pharmaceuticals, food colorants, automotive products, sunscreen and catalysts.

Titanium dioxide is produced in two main forms. The primary form, comprising over 98 percent of total production, is pigment grade titanium dioxide. The pigmentary form makes use of titanium dioxide’s excellent light-scattering properties in applications that require white opacity and brightness. The other form in which titanium dioxide is produced is as an ultrafine (nanomaterial) product. This form is selected when different properties, such as transparency and maximum ultraviolet light absorption, are required, such as in cosmetic sunscreens.

Pigment-grade Titanium Dioxide

Pigment-grade titanium dioxide is used in a range of applications that require high opacity and brightness. In fact, most surfaces and items that are white and pastel, and even dark shades of color, contain titanium dioxide. Pigment-grate titanium dioxide is used in a range of applications, including:

• Paints and Coatings: Titanium dioxide provides opacity and durability, while helping to ensure the longevity of the paint and protection of the painted surface.  
• Plastics, Adhesives and Rubber: Titanium dioxide can help minimize the brittleness, fading and cracking that can occur in plastics and other materials as a result of light exposure.
• Cosmetics: Pigment-grade titanium dioxide is use in some cosmetics to aid in hiding blemishes and brightening the skin. Titanium dioxide allows for the use of thinner coatings of make-up material for the same desired effect.
• Paper: Titanium dioxide is used to coat paper, making it whiter, brighter and more opaque.
• Food Contact Materials and Ingredients: The opacity to visible and ultraviolet light offered by titanium dioxide protects food, beverages, supplements and pharmaceuticals from premature degradation, enhancing the longevity of the product. Specific classes of high purity pigment-grade titanium dioxide are also used in drug tablets, capsule coatings and as a decorative aid in some foods.

Ultrafine-grade, or Nanoscale Titanium Dioxide

Ultrafine-grades of titanium dioxide are most commonly used in the following specialty applications:  

• Sunscreen: Nanoscale titanium dioxide becomes transparent to visible light while serving as an efficient UV light absorber. Because the particle size is so small, nano-titanium dioxide does not reflect visible light, but does absorb UV light, enabling a transparent barrier that protects the skin from the sun’s harmful rays. According to the Skin Cancer Foundation, using sunscreens containing titanium dioxide can help prevent the occurrence of skin cancer.
• Catalysts: Nanoscale titanium dioxide is used as a support material for catalyst applications. Major uses include in the automotive industry to remove harmful exhaust gas emissions and in power stations to remove nitrous oxides.

Safety Information

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has assessed the safety of titanium dioxide pigment as a color additive in food, drug and cosmetic applications. FDA had issued guidance clarifying the safe use of titanium dioxide pigment as a food colorant, and has stated that titanium dioxide may be safely used in cosmetics, including cosmetics intended for use around the eye. FDA also regulates the safety and effectiveness of sunscreens and their ingredients, including nanoscale titanium dioxide.

Workers at titanium dioxide manufacturing plants and downstream value-chain manufacturing plants where titanium dioxide is used can be exposed to titanium dioxide dust. The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has established a Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) for titanium dioxide total dust and requires employers to control workplace exposure below that PEL.

Consumer exposure to titanium dioxide dust is presumed to be extremely low, because titanium dioxide is typically fully incorporated into the end product in which it is used.

SOURCE

Titanium dioxide: E171 no longer considered safe when used as a food additive

Published:6 May 2021

EFSA has updated its safety assessment of the food additive titanium dioxide (E 171), following a request by the European Commission in March 2020. 

The updated evaluation revises the outcome of EFSA’s previous assessment published in 2016, which highlighted the need for more research to fill data gaps.  

Prof Maged Younes, Chair of EFSA’s expert Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF), said: “Taking into account all available scientific studies and data, the Panel concluded that titanium dioxide can no longer be considered safe as a food additive. A critical element in reaching this conclusion is that we could not exclude genotoxicity concerns after consumption of titanium dioxide particles. After oral ingestion, the absorption of titanium dioxide particles is low, however they can accumulate in the body”. 

The assessment was conducted following a rigorous methodology and taking into consideration many thousands of studies that have become available since EFSA’s previous assessment in 2016, including new scientific evidence and data on nanoparticles. 

Our scientific experts applied for the first time the 2018 EFSA Scientific Committee Guidance on Nanotechnology to the safety assessment of food additives. Titanium dioxide E 171 contains at most 50% of particles in the nano range (i.e. less than 100 nanometres) to which consumers may be exposed.  

Genotoxicity Assessment 

Genotoxicity refers to the ability of a chemical substance to damage DNA, the genetic material of cells. As genotoxicity may lead to carcinogenic effects, it is essential to assess the potential genotoxic effect of a substance to conclude on its safety.  

Prof Matthew Wright, both a member of the FAF Panel and chair of EFSA’s working group on E 171, said: “Although the evidence for general toxic effects was not conclusive, on the basis of the new data and strengthened methods we could not rule out a concern for genotoxicity and consequently we could not establish a safe level for daily intake of the food additive.”

Risk managers at the European Commission and in EU Member States have been informed of EFSA’s conclusions and will consider appropriate action to take to ensure consumers’ protection.

Background 

Titanium dioxide (E 171) is authorised as a food additive in the EU according to Annex II of Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008.  

The safety of the food additive E 171 was re-evaluated by the EFSA ANS Panel in 2016 in the frame of Regulation (EU) No 257/2010, as part of the re-evaluation programme for food additives authorised in the EU before 20 January 2009.  

In its 2016 opinion, the ANS Panel recommended new studies be carried out to fill the gaps on possible effects on the reproductive system, which could enable them to set an Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI). Uncertainty around the characterisation of the material used as the food additive (E 171) was also highlighted, in particular with respect to particle size and particle size distribution of titanium dioxide used as E 171.   

In 2019, EFSA published a statement on the review of the risk related to the exposure to food additive titanium dioxide (E171) performed by the French Agency for Food, Environment and Occupational Health Safety (ANSES). In its statement, EFSA highlighted that the ANSES opinion reiterated the uncertainties and data gaps previously identified by EFSA and did not present findings that invalidated the Authority’s previous conclusions on the safety of titanium dioxide.

In the same year (2019), the Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority (NVWA) also delivered an opinion on possible health effects of food additive titanium dioxide, which highlighted the importance of examining immunotoxicological effects in addition to potential reprotoxicological effects.

• Scientific opinion on the safety assessment of titanium dioxide as a food additive (E171)

SOURCE

Tiny nanoparticles could be a big problem

by Alex Roslin on July 20th, 2011 at 11:59 AM

• Ian Illuminato of Friends of the Earth says consumers deserve a say in nanotech regulation.JIM THOMAS/ETC GROUP

Nanotechnology was supposed to revolutionize the world, making us healthier and producing cleaner energy. But it’s starting to look more like a nightmare.

Nanomaterials—tiny particles as little as 1/100,000 the width of a human hair—have quietly been used since the 1990s in hundreds of everyday products, everything from food to baby bottles, pills, beer cans, computer keyboards, skin creams, shampoo, and clothes.

But after years of virtually unregulated use, scientists are now starting to say the most commonly used nanoproducts could be harming our health and the environment.

One of the most widespread nanoproducts is titanium dioxide. More than 5,000 tonnes of it are produced worldwide each year for use in food, toothpaste, cosmetics, paint, and paper (as a colouring agent), in medication and vitamin capsules (as a nonmedicinal filler), and in most sunscreens (for its anti-UV properties).

In food, titanium-dioxide nanoparticles are used as a whitener and brightener in confectionary products, cheeses, and sauces. Other nanoparticles are employed in flavourings and “nutritional” additives, and to reduce fat content in “health” foods.

In the journal Cancer Research in 2009, environmental-health professor Robert Schiestl coauthored the first comprehensive study of how titanium-dioxide nanoparticles affect the genes of live animals. Mice in his study suffered DNA and chromosomal damage after drinking water with the nanoparticles for five days.

“It should be removed from food and drugs, and there’s definitely no reason for it in cosmetic products,” said cancer specialist Schiestl, who is also a professor of pathology and radiation oncology at UCLA’s school of medicine.

“The study shows effects [from the nanoparticles] on all kinds of genetic endpoints,” Schiestl told the Georgia Straight in a phone interview from his office. “All those are precursor effects of cancer. It’s a wake-up call to do something.”

After Schiestl’s study came out, he said, he started getting calls from nervous people saying they had discovered titanium dioxide was listed as a nonmedicinal ingredient in their prescription medication. “They wanted to know how to get it out,” he said. “I said, ”˜I don’t know how to get it out.’ ”

Schiestl’s study is cited by groups like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth in their calls for a moratorium on nanomaterials in food and consumer products.

“They were thought to be safe. Our study shows a lot of harm,” Schiestl said.

Nanoparticles can be harmful because they are so tiny they can pass deep into the skin, lungs, and blood. They are made by burning or crushing regular substances like titanium, silver, or iron until they turn into an ultrafine dust, which is used as a coating on, or ingredient in, various products.

Schiestl is now studying two other common nanoparticles, zinc oxide and cadmium oxide, and he has found they also cause DNA and chromosomal damage in mice.

Yet two years after Schiestl’s first study, titanium dioxide and other nanoparticles remain virtually unregulated in Canada and the U.S. Products containing nanoparticles still don’t have to be labelled, and manufacturers don’t have to prove they are safe for health or the environment.

In fact, only a small fraction of the hundreds of nanomaterials on the market have been studied to see if they are safe.

“The public has had little or no say on this. It’s mostly industry guiding government to make sure this material isn’t regulated,” said Ian Illuminato, a nanotech expert with Friends of the Earth, speaking from his home office in Victoria.

“Consumers aren’t given the right to avoid this. We think it’s dangerous and shouldn’t be in contact with the public and the environment,” he said.

Meanwhile, the number of products using nanomaterials worldwide has shot up sixfold in just a couple of years, from 212 in 2006 to more than 1,300 in 2011, according to a report in March by the Washington, D.C.–based Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies.

Those numbers are based on self-reporting by industry, and the real numbers are thought to be much higher. A Canadian government survey in 2009 found 1,600 nanoproducts available here, according to a report in December from the ETC Group, an Ottawa-based nonprofit that studies technology.

Nanotech is worth big money. More than $250 billion of nano-enabled products were produced globally in 2009, according to Lux Research, a Boston-based technology consultancy. That figure is expected to rise 10-fold, to $2.5 trillion, by 2015.

Lux Research estimated in 2006 that one-sixth of manufactured output would be based on nanotechnology by 2014.

Nanotech already appears to be affecting people’s health. In 2009, two Chinese factory workers died and another five were seriously injured in a plant that made paint containing nanoparticles.

The seven young female workers developed lung disease and rashes on their face and arms. Nanoparticles were found deep in the workers’ lungs.

“These cases arouse concern that long-term exposure to some nanoparticles without protective measures may be related to serious damage to human lungs,” wrote Chinese medical researchers in a 2009 study on the incident in the European Respiratory Journal.

When inhaled, some types of nanoparticles have been shown to act like asbestos, inflaming lung tissue and leading to cancer. In 2009, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Cancer Research declared titanium dioxide to be “possibly carcinogenic to humans” after studies found that inhaling it in nanoparticle form caused rats to develop lung cancer and mice to suffer organ damage.

Nanoparticles can also hurt the skin. All those nanoparticles in skin creams and sunscreens may be behind a rise in eczema rates in the developed world, according to a 2009 study in the journal Experimental Biology and Medicine. The study found that titanium-dioxide nanoparticles caused mice to develop eczema. The nanoparticles “can play a significant role in the initiation and/or progression of skin diseases”, the study said.

Schiestl said nanoparticles could also be helping to fuel a rise in the rates of some cancers. He wouldn’t make a link with any specific kind of cancer, but data from the U.S. National Cancer Institute show that kidney and renal-pelvis cancer rates rose 24 percent between 2000 and 2007 in the U.S., while the rates for melanoma of the skin went up 29 percent and thyroid cancer rose 54 percent.

Schiestl said workers who deal with nanoparticles could be the most affected. That concern prompted the International Union of Food, Farm, and Hotel Workers to call in 2007 for a moratorium on commercial uses of nanotechnology in food and agriculture.

But despite all the health risks, we may already have run out of time to determine many of nanotech’s health impacts, Schiestl said.

“Nanomaterial is so ubiquitous that it would be very difficult to do an epidemiological study because there would be no control group of people who don’t use it.”

What happens when nanoparticles get out into the environment in wastewater or when products are thrown out?

Nanosilver is the most common nanomaterial on the market. Its extraordinary antimicrobial properties have earned it a place in a huge variety of products, including baby pacifiers, toothpaste, condoms, clothes, and cutting boards.

Virginia Walker, a biology professor at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, decided to study nanosilver one day after a grad student said her mother had bought a new washing machine that doused clothes with silver nanoparticles to clean them better.

It sounded intriguing, Walker recalled thinking, but what would happen if nanosilver in the laundry water wound up in the environment? “What would it do to the bacterial communities out there?” she wondered.

On a whim, Walker decided to study the question. She figured the nanosilver would probably have no impact on beneficial microbes in the environment because any toxicity would be diluted.

“I did the experiment almost as a lark, not expecting to find anything,” she said by phone. “I hoped I would not find anything.”

In fact, Walker found that nanosilver was “highly toxic” to soil bacteria. It was especially toxic to one kind of nitrogen-fixing bacterium that is important to plant growth.

“If you had anything that was sensitive to nanoparticles, the last thing you would want is to have this microbe affected,” Walker said in a phone interview from her office.

The study prompted Walker to do more studies on nanoparticles. In one study now being reviewed for publication, one of her students found that mice exposed to nanoparticles developed skeletal abnormalities.

“People should have their eyes open. There are so many different nanoparticles, and the consequences of their use could be grave. We know almost nothing about these things,” Walker said.

Other scientists have raised concerns about nanosilver too. Some clothes makers now put it in socks and shirts, promising it will help control body odour. In a 2008 study in the Washington, D.C.–based journal Environmental Science and Technology, researchers took nanosilver-laced socks and washed them in water. They found the socks released up to half of their nanosilver into the water.

“If you start releasing ionic silver, it is detrimental to all aquatic biota. Once the silver ions get into the gills of fish, it’s a pretty efficient killer,” said study coauthor Troy Benn, a graduate student at Arizona State University, in a ScienceDaily.com story in 2008.

“I’ve spoken with a lot of people who don’t necessarily know what nanotechnology is, but they are out there buying products with nanoparticles in them.”

And what about the promise that nanotech could produce cleaner energy? The idea was that nanoparticles could make solar panels more efficient, be used as fuel additives to improve gas mileage, and make lighter cars and planes.

Most of the promised efficiency gains haven’t materialized, according to a 2010 report from Friends of the Earth. And it turns out that making nanomaterial is itself a huge energy guzzler.

A kilogram of carbon nanotubes—a nanoparticle used in cancer treatment and to strengthen sports equipment—requires an estimated 167 barrels of oil to produce, the Friends of the Earth report said.

Carbon nanotubes are “one of the most energy intensive materials known to humankind”, said a 2010 report to a symposium of the U.S.–based Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.

That report said many nanoproducts may remain profitable despite their high energy cost only because of enormous government subsidies to the nanotech industry—$1.6 billion from the U.S. government last year.

But despite all this, regulation of nanotech remains glacially slow. The European Parliament voted nearly unanimously to recommend that nanoproducts be banned from food in 2009. But the European Commission rejected that recommendation last year, agreeing only that it may require labels on food containing nanomaterials. It will also require labels on cosmetics containing some nanoingredients starting in 2014.

Canada and the U.S. have yet to go even that far. At Health Canada, which regulates nanotechnology, a web page dealing with nanoproducts hasn’t been amended in four years and contains outdated information.

Health Canada spokesman Stéphane Shank did not return calls.

They used to say small is beautiful. But that was before small got scary.

SOURCE

Bill Gates Names 10 Breakthrough Technologies of 2019

By DANIEL LIBERTO  Updated Jun 25, 2019

Carbon Dioxide Catcher

Technology that aims to trap carbon before it enters the atmosphere is now steadily becoming available at a reasonable price. Experts reckon carbon capture and storage tools can slash CO2 emissions from power stations by up to 90%. Gates and two oil and gas companies, Occidental Petroleum (OXY) and Chevron (OXY), have invested in Canada’s Carbon Engineering.

Bill Gates Is Thinking About Dimming the Sun

The billionaire is backing a study of the controversial technology called solar geoengineering.

 POPULAR MECHANICS ,MAR 26, 2021RON WURZERGETTY IMAGES

• Bill Gates and Harvard want scientists to study solar geoengineering.
• This process involves seeding the stratosphere with aerosols to reflect sunlight away.
• Aerosols are the gaseous clouds formed by particles of many common materials.

---

Bill Gates, who recently suggested the world should eat 100 percent synthetic beef and said bitcoin is bad for the planet, has set his sights on a new foe: the sun.

Gates and other private donors are backing Harvard University’s Solar Geoengineering Research Program, which will soon launch a new study researching the efficacy of blocking sunlight from reaching Earth’s surface.

This week, the influential National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) also released a new report urging the U.S. government to spend at least $100 million to study solar geoengineering, a controversial technology.

What is solar geoengineering, anyway, and why are scientists suddenly interested in—and concerned by—the concept?

Solar Geoengineering, Explained

Geoengineering is a blanket term for technologies that try to alter Earth’s physical qualities on the largest scale possible. One example is cloud seeding, where airplanes flush clouds with particulate matter in order to coalesce into rain. Carbon capture, where emissions are taken and sequestered beneath Earth’s surface, is another major form of geoengineering.
This content is imported from {embed-name}. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

Scientists have devised multiple ways to block sunlight from reaching Earth’s atmosphere or surface. These are gathered under the umbrella term “solar geoengineering.” The most common and studied method is to reflect sunlight away from Earth using aerosol particles in the atmosphere, but until now, this has been seen as more of a fringe idea. It’s the instigating event of the 2013 film Snowpiercer, for example, where blocking sunlight has turned Earth into a lifeless ice ball.

While the mechanism of an aerosol solar geoengineering study is simple—the physical structure of aerosol particles literally blocks and scatters light—the reality is more complex.

Remember the 2010 eruption of an Icelandic volcano that blocked the entire sky all the way into Europe? That was an atmospheric aerosol event. The meteor strike that might have killed the dinosaurs blanketed the Earth in a layer of aerosol dust. Almost any everyday substance can be aerosolized in the right conditions—the term is simply any airborne fine particulate that can float in clouds like a gas.

Why Do Scientists Want to Study This Now?

Solar geoengineering with aerosols runs head into the fact that aerosols, like ozone layer-destroying chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) spray aerosols, have often been a contributor to climate change. Scientists say this lack of concrete information and consensus is a critical failure that must be corrected with new studies.

The worst case scenario is that humankind faces an extreme climate emergency, but knows nothing about even the long-shot ways to address it. This is why scientists are asking now for a major investment in solar geoengineering research.

How the SCoPEx will work.KEUTSCH GROUP AT HARVARD

The researchers behind the forthcoming Harvard project, the Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment (SCoPEx), say we must study solar geoengineering in case we need to take a drastic action against climate change. The Gates-supported study seeks to do exploratory, small-scale experiments in the atmosphere:

“We plan to use a high-altitude balloon to lift an instrument package approximately 20 km into the atmosphere. Once it is in place, a very small amount of material (100 g to 2 kg) will be released to create a perturbed air mass roughly one kilometer long and one hundred meters in diameter. We will then use the same balloon to measure resulting changes in the perturbed air mass including changes in aerosol density, atmospheric chemistry, and light scattering. [W]e plan to release calcium carbonate, a common mineral dust. We may also release other materials such as sulfates in response to evolving scientific interests.”

What Happens Next?

Calcium carbonate is a plentiful and harmless mineral that’s also the active ingredient in Tums. But “harmless” only goes so far—the repercussions of solar geoengineering aren’t necessarily found in the material released, but in the unexpected effects of mixing ingredients into the stratosphere. This is why, SCoPEx says, most research has focused on an aerosol chemical already found in the stratosphere: sulfuric acid, which is a pollutant. Both need to be studied, and likely more.

Meanwhile, for a new prepublication report, the NASEM convened a committee of 16 international science luminaries to develop solar geoengineering research. Researcher Chris Field writes:

“Globally, 2015-2019 were the 5 warmest years in the instrumental record. The creation of this study committee is one response to the need for understanding the full range of options for dealing with the climate crisis.”

Chapters in the report include the role of philanthropists like Gates, the goals of preparing future political decisionmakers, and the state of existing research about solar geoengineering.

So, is all of this a good idea or not? That’s hard to say right now, but all of the scientists and backers involved are only suggesting doing research—not taking large-scale action.

No one is suggesting we spray the clouds with calcium carbonate tomorrow, or even 10 years from now. But if we don’t understand how solar geoengineering will affect the world, by the time we need it as an option in our climate playbook, it will be too late. And that’s what this news really is: keeping options open and exploring the ramifications of a radical technology.

MORE COINCIDENCE THEORIES

If I were Bill Gates or other nefarious swamp creature like that, and if I needed a platform to manage and coordinate spraying the skies, as a prominent World Economic Forum sponsor, I could easily and efficiently coincide with WEF’s The Clean Skies for Tomorrow Coalition:

“The Clean Skies for Tomorrow Coalition provides a crucial global mechanism for top executives and public leaders, across and beyond the aviation value chain, to align on a transition to sustainable aviation fuels as part of a meaningful and proactive pathway for the industry to achieve carbon-neutral flying.

Stakeholders will work together to address the chicken-and-egg scenario whereby producers and consumers are both either unwilling or unable to carry the initial cost burden of investing in new technologies to reach a scale where they are competitive with existing fossil fuel-derived options.

Champions of the Clean Skies for Tomorrow Coalition will advance co-developed initiatives to break this impasse, to advance the commercial scale of viable production of sustainable low-carbon aviation fuels (bio and synthetic) for broad adoption in the industry by 2030. Initiatives include a mechanism for aggregating demand for carbon-neutral flying, a co-investment vehicle and geographically specific value-chain pilots.

The Clean Skies for Tomorrow Coalition is led by the World Economic Forum in collaboration with the Rocky Mountain Institute and the Energy Transitions Commission. It is advanced through close consultation with advisory partner, the Air Transport Action Group.

Founding champions include: Airbus Group, Heathrow Airport, KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, Royal Schiphol Group, Shell, SkyNRG, SpiceJet and The Boeing Company.”

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them