The results of the research published online on May 6 in the Journal of Physical Chemistry C could constitute a major issue for broader disclosure: the characterization as a “public health issue” fit them perfectly. Nothing was done. Not because “this is just one study, there are many others showing the opposite.” But because if its findings are confirmed (which seems quite likely) and become widely known, large corporations on the capitalist planet will face very serious problems.
What was this research? And what were its findings? We translate the first paragraphs of the announcement (the emphasis is ours):1
A nanoparticle with widespread use in foods, cosmetics, sun filters and other products may have complex consequences on the action of genes that produce the enzymes that guide oxygenation in two types of cells. Although titanium dioxide (TiO2) nanoparticles are considered non-toxic because when found in low concentrations they do not kill cells, the effects detected in cells increase concern about long-term exposure to this nanomaterial.
Researchers from the Georgia Institute of Technology used high-throughput control techniques to study the effects of nanoparticles on the expression of 84 genes related to cell oxygenation. Their research found that 6 genes, 4 of which belong to the same gene family, were affected as soon as they were exposed for 24 hours to nanoparticles.
The consequences were detected in two types of cells: human HeLa cells2 commonly used for research, and monkey liver cells. Polyester nanoparticles, the same size and surface electric charge as titanium dioxide nanoparticles, did not affect gene function.
“It is an important finding, because classical measurements of cell status show that cells are not affected by titanium dioxide nanoparticles,” says Christine Rayne, professor at the Georgia University School of Chemistry and Biochemistry. “Our findings show that there is a complex change in cellular oxygenation that can damage cells or have long-term consequences. This means that other nanoparticles should be studied to investigate similar small-scale consequences.”
…
TiO2 nanoparticles are used to bleach donuts, to protect the skin from the sun and to improve the reflectivity of painted surfaces. At the concentrations usually used they are considered non-toxic, although there are several other studies whose results raise concerns about their potential effects on gene function, consequences that are not immediately apparent.
…
The researchers… “watered” Hela cells and monkey liver cells with TiO2 nanoparticles, at a level 100 times lower than the minimum concentration above which it is considered that cell problems will be caused. After 24 hours… researchers were surprised to find changes in the function of six genes, including four related to the production of the peroxidase enzyme family, which helps cells break down hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), which is a derivative of the oxygenation process. When there is a high concentration of H2O2 in cells, from oxygenation, DNA damage and other cellular components can be caused.
The effect of TiO2 nanoparticles was measured and was significant. Approximately 50% of enzyme function was affected. The research was conducted three times, and the same results were always obtained.
…
“There are previous studies that have shown that nanoparticles can affect oxygenation, but no one has dealt with so systematically and with so many and different proteins at the same time,” says Payne. “Our research focused on very low concentrations, and this raises questions about what else can be affected [note: refers to TiO2 nanoparticles]. We specifically dealt with oxygenation, but there may be other genes that are also affected.”
“Oxygenation concerns all types of inflammation and immune reactions,” says Melissa Kemp, who also participated in the research… “And of course we do not know what kind and intensity of combined effects may be on this process, not only from TiO2 but also from other factors.”
Let us briefly recap: TiO2 nanoparticles affect the smooth breakdown of H2O2 during cell oxygenation. This has chain consequences on their “health” (due to the steady concentration of hydrogen peroxide quantities), consequences that in their final form “are not visible at first glance.” They appear medium-term or long-term. And, of course, they are neither known nor recorded… Or (we would say) they are known but have not been associated either with TiO2 nanoparticles, nor with other similar “widely used” factors—and perhaps they never will be officially associated;
Let us look at some basic data from the beginning, necessarily summarized.3
titanium dioxide: a material for many jobs
Titanium dioxide (mainly in the form of cream or powder) does not announce its presence, but it is… everywhere. Global production is estimated at something less than 5 million tons per year. And it is used in cosmetics, in paint colors, in varnishes, in the processing of textiles, paper and plastics, in food and in medicines. Its basic property that has made it so popular is its photocatalytic action. Thus, it is often used as a “bleach” – and none of us knows how much bleaching various capitalist commodities need!
Here, for example, is how the pharmaceutical industry uses TiO2:
– In the preparation of tablets as a filler, to reduce cost and modify the properties of the solid mixture (active ingredient – excipients), e.g. electrostatic forces;
– As a coloring agent, due to its non-toxicity in crayons, soaps, and toothpastes;
– In the food industry as an additive (E171) for coating the outer layer of salamis;
– As a coloring agent in drug capsules (Hard capsules);
– In various skin creams mainly as a colorant;
– As a colorant for coating tablets (Dragees);
– As an opacifying agent in gelatin capsules (Gelatine capsules);
– In powders (topical powders) as it increases the powder’s adhesion capability as well as its flow properties.4
If we are shocked (;;;) by the discovery that the same material that is a component of the paint used to paint a wall is consumed (code: E171….), someone might comment that we are primitive. And that we want to return to caves where there were neither E-numbers nor wall paints. We will grit our teeth and apologize: no, we are not primitives. And we will quietly and nicely eat all the E-numbers that will be served to us, whether the packaging says so or not (the latter is more common). As long as the “scientific community” guarantees that we won’t get sick….
What did we say? The “scientific community” to guarantee? Here a very specific parenthesis is needed. There is a Greek doctor (epidemiologist) researcher, who holds an academic position at the University of Ioannina (but is much better known at most top international universities), named John Ioannidis, who in 2005 published in the reputable journal PLoS Medicine the results of a (let’s say: big data type…) “meta”research, titled “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”.5
The last word of the title, “false,” was a clever formulation. The meaning was false. Professor Ioannidis’s team took down a large number of international medical studies, with results published in reputable journals, and proved that around 90% of their seemingly wise findings are, simply and bluntly, fake. Bullshit! After such a triumphant conclusion, Ioannidis’s research should either have been classified among the 90% that deceive, or among the 10% that are valid. For a strange reason (;) the “international scientific community” preferred (perhaps was forced to: the Greek professor was already internationally recognized as a genius) to consider this finding valid. And it awarded even greater (international) honors to the physician/researcher. Understandably, the 90% of research/fairy tales continued, perhaps with stricter (research) protocols.
That research showed nothing different from what old-fashioned characters like us would suspect. It showed it, however, in a “scientific” way. In an interview with a Greek online magazine at the end of 2013, Professor Ioannidis answered the following question (the emphasis is ours):
question: What is this rather popular “cooking” of research about? Is there a difference in this area between Greece and other countries?
answer: There are many levels of “cooking”. There is a level that is pure fraud, the phenomenon where someone fabricates data that does not exist, patients they have never seen, analyses for which there is no documentation that they were ever performed. This is rather rare. It is hard to believe that someone becomes a scientist and spends countless years of their life studying and toiling to become a fraudster. However, there are other research practices that could be described as non-rational or suboptimal. For example, it is common practice for someone to “torture” the data until they start to see something that appears interesting or publishable or that can attract public interest. Is this fraud? It is not fraud. It is not that the data do not exist or that the analyses have not been performed. Simply, the results emerged through exhaustive torture of the data and the analyses. In this case, it is very difficult to say whether what has been found represents reality.
There is also the aspect where someone may inflate the results. That is, in interpreting the results, they may be more arbitrary, more enthusiastic, and present more of the positive rather than the negative. So what gets published is not incorrect, but it is only a piece of the truth. Greek studies are rather at the same level as the rest of the European studies. However, there are significant differences depending on micro-environments. We have observed that studies funded by industry are much more likely to produce positive results. Because there are conflicting interests, therefore the “cooking” of the results and their presentation is done in such a way as to show something that benefits the industry. Also, there are micro-environments that create tendencies for sensational results when there is great pressure to deliver significant results.
Diplomatic answer regarding the instinctive knowledge that there are 4 categories of lies, starting from the simplest and harmless ones and progressing to the most criminal: little lies, big lies, statistical lies, lies of scientific research.
But we live in capitalism.
We live in capitalism, and we are far more in the hands of techno-scientific guarantees than we think (there are also those who suffer hysterias and manic depressions trying to escape from these guarantees; individually, firstly: hygienists, ultra-hygienists, etc…).
This, exactly, is (also) the case of TiO2 – obviously not only this one! On March 11, 2010, the Member of the European Parliament (from the “Greens”) Michalis Tremopoulos made a question to the European Commission, with the subject “use of titanium dioxide nanoparticles in food and cosmetics”. The question was as follows:
A recent study6 shows that titanium dioxide nanoparticles, used in sunscreens, can cause cancer in mice. Although there is no proof that nanoparticles can cause cancer in humans, researchers say the study raises concerns about the safety of workers exposed to high concentrations of nanoparticles in industrial settings.
According to researchers, further studies need to be conducted to examine whether the same results could occur in humans. The idea that titanium dioxide nanoparticles could cause carcinogenic effects when ingested is concerning, given that nanoparticles are used in foods and toothpastes.
Along with limiting the exposure of people working with titanium dioxide nanoparticles in industry, researchers claim it would be appropriate to limit their consumption in any food or cosmetic product where their presence is not essential.The Commission is asked:
1. Are there control mechanisms in place to ensure that titanium dioxide nanoparticles are not used in food without the prior necessary approval from EFSA?
2. How does it intend to follow up on the latest researchers’ proposal regarding the use of these nanoparticles in any food or cosmetic product?
3. Does it intend to fund or encourage further research to examine the effects of these particles on humans?
About 1.5 months later, on April 27, 2010, the (Maltese) health and consumer policy commissioner John Dalli responded (excerpts, our emphasis):
Titanium dioxide is permitted to be used as a colorant in food based on the assessment of the Scientific Committee on Food, predecessor of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). This assessment did not concern titanium dioxide in the form of nanoparticles. Food additive legislation requires that such a product that has already been approved based on EU legislation and which has been produced through a manufacturing method or using initial materials significantly different from those included in the EFSA risk assessment, must be submitted for a new assessment by EFSA. The term “significantly different” could mean a change in particle size, including the use of nanotechnology. Currently, member states monitor substances in nanoparticle form mainly based on information checks in accompanying documents and through voluntary declarations.
…
The use of titanium dioxide in cosmetics is permitted as a colorant (only in non-nanoparticle form) and as a UV filter (in nanoparticle and other forms) based on scientific opinions of an independent scientific committee, the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS). According to available information, titanium dioxide in nanoparticle form is currently used exclusively as a UV filter.
…
It turns out (without any malice on our part) that in the spring of 2010 (six years ago), the European super-ministry of “health” (as well as all national European counterparts, and the American one, and all the other “civilized” ones on the planet) had deep concerns a) regarding the consequences of using TiO2 as a “foodstuff” (food “coloring substances” are consumed…), in paste or powder form, and even more deeply concerned b) about the consequences of its use at the nanoscale. Moreover (and what else could any ministry or super-ministry of health possibly do; who do they work for, anyway?) c) member states were monitoring (in 2010) what was happening with nanoparticles (titanium dioxide or anything else) through “accompanying documents” and “voluntary declarations.” Either from companies or from 90% of biased studies.
To make it even clearer (for whoever is interested, of course, and not to cause hygienic panic or hysteria), when we talk about the dioxide of a metal (titanium is a metal!), we mean rust. Various rusts may indeed have useful properties in everyday life… But eating them? That’s a different matter!
There is historical/social experience on the matter of bleaching. Lye. Lye is a solution made by boiling ash (from wood) – preferably with rainwater, so it doesn’t contain salts. This results in a potassium carbonate solution that dissolves vegetable and animal fats (but not petroleum derivatives). Lye was used (by housewives) for washing clothes, especially white laundry; it was, so to speak, an effective empirical bleaching agent. However, nobody drank lye to lose weight!!!
Apart from marketing, capitalism, and, mainly, techno-scientific research and guarantees (90% of which are lies…), there was a simple, solid, social knowledge/experience: what works for one job doesn’t necessarily work for others, even if we consider them “similar.” This means: if lye dissolves animal fats on clothes, it doesn’t mean it dissolves them in our stomachs! We won’t lose weight by drinking a couple of glasses of lye a day – we’ll probably get poisoned!
Which also means: if TiO2 is good for making painted walls shinier, we still won’t eat it in bread dough or in a pill, just because it made things “whiter.” And, of course, we won’t smear it on our skin…
Past forgotten. These can only be supported (without expecting results from research by any Georgia Institute of Technology) by old-fashioned, outdated, stuck-in-the-past people. Because the use of TiO2 in the form of nanoparticles came to satisfy a social need!!!
titanium sun protection
The infamous “ozone hole” no longer needs to be mentioned at all. It has been incorporated into the fantasies of the global elites, deeply. What is this phenomenon? It is the reduction of the ozone layer’s (O3) thickness in Earth’s atmosphere. It is assumed that the depletion of this layer (which filters a percentage of the sun’s ultraviolet radiation) exposes human health to serious risks.
One should have been suspicious from the beginning. Why is human health particularly at risk and not the health of all the (thousands of) species that live on the surface of the planet, first and foremost (but not only) plants? In the end, our species is not the most directly dependent on the sun! It hardly “sees us”!!!! Therefore, shouldn’t the first side effects from the “ozone hole” have been observed in plants and subsequently throughout the entire animal chain, everywhere?
We won’t insist. We have another question (see it as a quiz): does this reduction of the ozone layer occur throughout the entire atmosphere, or not? The answer is elementary. Elementary!!! Not at all!!! The “ozone hole,” that is, the danger from increased solar ultraviolet radiation, has been detected… over Antarctica! And only there! Throughout the rest of the Earth’s atmosphere, the ozone layer is just fine. And it filters ultraviolet radiation just as it has been doing for the last thousands of years…
From some points of view, the concern for the “ozone hole” (we repeat: it is located above Antarctica, at the South Pole) could have a meaning: now, indeed, it is there; but it may grow and spread elsewhere. This possibility (along with the “greenhouse effect”) has been used extensively against carbon dioxide emissions, that is, the use/burning (for energy purposes) of fossil fuels; and in favor of “renewable energy sources” (and nuclear energy, as well…). Up to this point, we would say: okay, we live in a phase of energy paradigm shift, so the doomsaying about the “ozone hole” that “could grow” is part of the arsenal of modernizers, supporters of “independence” from (geopolitically and not climatically) dangerous hydrocarbons.
However, the dangers from the “ozone hole” and solar ultraviolet radiation did not remain there. And why should they? We have capitalism, and whoever can make money by selling fear becomes rich!!! Exploiting the boundless primal gullibility that is a derivative of hygiene, the “danger” spread everywhere!!!! In Australia, in the Mediterranean, on American beaches; anywhere protection from the sun and its ultraviolet radiation could be sold!!! Does it matter that the “hole” is above Antarctica? No!!! It’s enough for someone to sell danger, and millions of fools will be found to buy it!!!
Sunscreen, therefore!!!! Another one of those things that humanity was unaware of (because it wasn’t needed) for hundreds of centuries, has now become so essential that there are already many people who slather it on just to leave their homes… during the first days of spring! The first phase of “sunscreen” was… to help everyone achieve the “perfect tan”… Even and uniform… (as if that ever happened otherwise…). But the “ozone hole” and “ultraviolet radiation” provided an even better opportunity: the sun is dangerous… the sun is bad… protect yourselves from it… But how? By staying inside all summer pale and white, in your houses or under umbrellas? Of course not!!! You can still get a tan… but by keeping those oh-so-deadly ultraviolet rays (“cause skin cancer,” claimed populist wisdom, and it was readily accepted) at bay!!!
That’s where “protection factors” were born!… And that’s where the photocatalytic properties of TiO2 found their mass commercial exploitation!!!!
The utilization occurred in two phases. Not in one. And it is very significant. Because the customer is always right – and once again, played the salto mortale role.
In the first phase, sunscreens were created based on the logic of “oil” / cream. Reapplication of the skin, that is, and creation of a “crust” on it, which played the role of a “filter” / shield. As if everyone was wrapped in aluminum foil, but in its transparent form… The mass use of these sunscreens (in our parts) must have started in the ’90s (however, we accept observations / corrections regarding the timing). Thus, the oily, shiny bodies became a must on the beaches. And the waters of the beaches acquired the familiar sheen, since these sunscreens dissolved in seawater, leaving oil stains on the surface. As if the burnt oil from a tanker had spilled; in the most fragrant (supposedly).
There must have been complaints about this technique – we assume. Thus, techno-scientists set out to find a solution. This was / is the second phase. Sunscreens to be absorbed by the skin, continuing (of course) “to protect from the miserable sun.” However, for them to be absorbed, their composition should allow it. Welcome then, customers, to nanotechnology!!! Welcome to nanotechnology in general; and especially to those of “absorption” (by the skin) of rust. Of titanium, and not only!7
This is how titanium nanoparticles reached directly into cells (dermal ones initially) via sunscreens… This is how an issue came up (and was resolved) in the European Commission in 2010… This is how the research of the Georgia Institute of Technology in 2016 hit the “bullseye”…
We would dare to say: the issue of pathogenic actions of nanoparticles (generally and specifically) has remained as an “internal techno-scientific issue,” for now. Perhaps something more will be heard someday. However, no one should declare themselves “fooled,” yesterday, today, tomorrow. Simple middle school chemistry knowledge and elementary reading of ingredients (as long as they are still listed) would be enough to prevent rust nanoparticles from reaching his / her cells. But “no.” (The racquets and the lounge chair at the beach are more interesting…)
However, what various materials that have been processed and assembled at the “nano” scale actually do (and do not do) remains one of the secrets buried in specialists’ ignorance—even as nanotechnologies represent one of the cutting-edge areas of research and application. At this scale, the properties of materials change, and they change dramatically. Materials that are hard at larger scales become flexible at the nanoscale. Materials that are normally poor conductors of electricity become good conductors at the nanoscale. And many other such transformations occur. It is precisely these entirely new properties of more or less familiar materials that have elevated the nanoscale to a cornerstone of the new capitalist paradigm.
Yet, these entirely new properties also imply completely different interactions and impacts with the surrounding environment. These interactions are entirely unknown (to specialists). Even more unknown are the effects of nanoparticles of material A or B on living organisms. Among themselves, specialists acknowledge this: we are moving forward blindly.
Nevertheless, especially regarding TiO2, there are studies dating back 30 years, from the mid-1980s, which refer to its ability to “kill” single-celled organisms or even cancerous cells—due to its photocatalytic properties.8 This means that the studies asserting its non-toxicity—which have allowed its widespread use in food, cosmetics, and pharmaceuticals—belong to the broad family of 90% “fabricated truths.” Specifically, they fall into that branch of manipulated research designed to produce the desired outcomes (from the chemical industry).
However, the issue doesn’t end there. In recent years, various populations have recorded significant increasing trends in various skin cancers—as well as in various skin conditions, skin allergies, etc. What are these attributed to? Guess: to ultraviolet solar radiation, consistently! So even more sunscreens! They have nothing to do with the chemical composition of soaps, shampoos, or sunscreens!! No, by no means, with the use of metal oxide nanoparticles (or, perhaps, other materials we are unaware of)!!
Is something being repeated that has already been known from 20th-century chemistry and pharmacology? That, namely, various entrepreneurs with all their techno-scientific equipment, metaphorically or literally, “kill and don’t pay”?
Exactly. Nano is neither “intangible” nor outside capitalist profit/looting.
Ziggy Stardust
cyborg #06 – 06/2016
- Common nanoparticle has subtle effects on oxidative stress genes. It can be searched online with the title. Indicatively at the address
http://www.news.gatech.edu/2016/05/10/common-nanoparticle-has-subtle-effects-oxidative-stress-genes ↩︎ - HeLa cells are human neoplastic cells that are “immortal.” They can multiply indefinitely without “dying,” unlike normal cells, which are destroyed after a few divisions. For this reason, since the 1950s they have been systematically cultivated for research purposes and have now become a kind of commonplace “primary cellular material.” The name HeLa was given “in honor of” the (American) patient from whom they were first taken, named Henrietta Lacks. ↩︎
- One of the 3 presentations at the next game over festival (this coming fall) will be dedicated to nanotechnology. Those interested will hear more there. ↩︎
- Sources: Voigt Pharmaceutical Technology Alfred Fahr, and European Pharmacopoeia 6.7 (European Pharmacopoeia). ↩︎
- http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 ↩︎
- Trouiller, B. Reliene, R., Westbrook, A et al. (2009). Titanium Dioxide Nanoparticles Induce DNA Damage and Genetic Instability In Vivo in Mice. Cancer Research. 69: 8784 – 8789 ↩︎
- Until recently, the chemical composition of sunscreens was written on the packaging, including the multitude of metal oxides they contain. We assume that if this “unnecessary information” has not already been removed (and who pays attention when the product promises many “degrees of protection”?), this will happen soon. ↩︎
- Chinese Science Bulletin, vol. 56, June 2011, A review of TiO2 nanoparticles. ↩︎