Letters

Letters 08-31-2015

Inalienable Rights This is a response to the “No More State Theatre” in your August 24th edition. I think I will not be the only response to this pathetic and narrow-minded letter that seems rather out of place in the northern Michigan that I know. To think we will not be getting your 25 cents for the movie you refused to see, but more importantly we will be without your “two cents” on your thoughts of a marriage at the State Theatre...

Enthusiastically Democratic Since I was one of the approximately 160 people present at when Senator Debbie Stabenow spoke on August 14 in Charlevoix, I was surprised to read in a letter to Northern Express that there was a “rather muted” response to Debbie’s announcement that she has endorsed Hillary Clinton for president...

Not Hurting I surely think the State Theatre will survive not having the homophobic presence of Colleen Smith and her family attend any matinees. I think “Ms.” Smith might also want to make sure that any medical personnel, bank staff, grocery store staff, waiters and/or waitress, etc. are not homosexual before accepting any service or product from them...

Stay Home I did not know whether to laugh or cry when I read the letter of the extremely homophobic, “disgusted” writer. She now refuses to patronize the State Theatre because she evidently feels that its confines have been poisoned by the gay wedding ceremony held there...

Keep Away In response to Colleen Smith of Cadillac who refused to bring her family to the State Theatre because there was a gay wedding there: Keep your 25 cents and your family out of Traverse City...

Celebrating Moore And A Theatre I was 10 years old when I had the privilege to see my first film at the State Theatre. I will never forget that experience. The screen was almost the size of my bedroom I shared with my older sister. The bursting sounds made me believe I was part of the film...

Outdated Thinking This letter is in response to Colleen Smith. She made public her choice to no longer go to the State Theater due to the fact that “some homosexuals” got married there. I’m not outraged by her choice; we don’t need any more hateful, self-righteous bigots in our town. She can keep her 25 cents...

Mackinac Pipeline Must Be Shut Down Crude oil flowing through Enbridge’s 60-yearold pipeline beneath the Mackinac Straits and the largest collection of fresh water on the planet should be a serious concern for every resident of the USA and Canada. Enbridge has a very “accident” prone track record...

Your Rights To Colleen, who wrote about the State Theatre: Let me thank you for sharing your views; I think most of us are well in support of the first amendment, because as you know- it gives everyone the opportunity to express their opinions. I also wanted to thank Northern Express for not shutting down these types of letters right at the source but rather giving the community a platform for education...

No Role Model [Fascinating Person from last week’s issue] Jada quoted: “I want to be a role model for girls who are interested in being in the outdoors.” I enjoy being in the outdoors, but I don’t want to kill animals for trophy...

Home · Articles · News · Features · Beware the new nano sunscreens
. . . .

Beware the new nano sunscreens

Harley Sachs - June 15th, 2006
Nanotechnology may turn out to be the newest bogeyman of science. Author Michael Crichton made much of this in his thriller, “The Swarm,” in which microscopic nano robots functioned like a colony of intelligent killer bees. He was exploiting a well-known risk in scientific development: the law of unanticipated consequences.
Some of us still remember the unanticipated consequences of thalydomide, a drug then banned in the U.S. by a cautious FDA scientist. Taken by pregnant women who got the drug in Europe, the resulting deformities created a rash of infants with flipper-like vestigial arms. And no one anticipated the consequences of DDT; created as an insecticide, it threatened to become the cause of a world without birds. Is that sort of nightmare likely to happen again?
You never know. Substances that are harmless in one form acquire new characteristics when reduced to nano size.
Just what is a nano? It’s one billionth of a meter. I once saw a nanosecond illustrated by a length of wire about a foot long. It was the distance electricity, traveling at the speed of light, could travel in a nanosecond. As described in the “Rachel’s Democracy & Health News,” a free Internet newsletter, “a human hair is 80,000 nanometers wide. A strand of DNA is 3.5 nanometers across.” A nano particle is that tiny.
That’s part of the allure of the new nanotechnology. At such small sizes, ordinary substances acquire totally different characteristics, including toxicity. Strange things happen when ordinary substances like the zinc oxide and titanium dioxide in your sunscreen are reduced to nano size.
In chemistry, nano particles have an enormous increase in surface area. As such, their ability to absorb UV light is greatly increased, just the thing when you’re shielding the skin from harmful sunlight. But what makes cosmetics and sunscreens that use nano materials absorb through the skin quickly also allows them to penetrate the cells themselves and to travel throughout the body.
They can even affect parts of living cells and may impact DNA. The unanticipated result of this technology is the reason why the International Center for Technology Assessment has filed a 79-page petition to the FDA to ban all sales of cosmetics and sunscreens that use nano technology until they are proven to be safe. They ask that such products be declared a hazard to public health. They want all nano substances to be classified as new drugs, subject to the same testing and scrutiny as medicines.
Most of us realize that asking industries to voluntarily regulate themselves is naïve at best. Industries argue that they are over-regulated. Consider how many drugs have had to be recalled. Cynical corporate lawyers regard payments of claims by survivors to be an acceptable cost of doing business. Is losing a spouse or child an acceptable risk?
The FDA argues that particle size doesn’t matter, that zinc oxide is zinc oxide even when reduced to nano size. Unfortunately, there are no current laws requiring companies to label cosmetics and sunscreens to warn users of the potential, untested hazards of nano substances. There’s no way to know whether the sunscreen you apply today may turn out to be toxic as those tiny particles travel throughout your body.
When I was a kid we never used sunscreen. Girls rubbed themselves with baby oil so they could brown like fried chicken. We couldn’t wait to get down to the beach. Inevitably we burned and peeled before we got that deep “darky” tan, so dark that I was once mistaken for an African-American.
Those days are over. Now in summer I wear white painter’s pants and long-sleeve white shirts and a Foreign Legion hat. With a summer on the water ahead of me, all that reflected sunlight, and the risk of skin cancer from the accumulated damage of those early sunburns, it looks like I’ll have to smear my nose and lips with plain old white and goopy zinc oxide. Even a parasol won’t protect you from reflected UV rays. What a sight!
Let’s hope the FDA acts quickly at least to require appropriate warning labels on cosmetics and sunscreens with nano substances.

P.S.: For more information you can subscribe to Rachel’s Democracy & Health News, it’s a free Internet newsletter. Visit the web site www.hu.mtu.edu/~hlsachs where you can listen to two stories, read a third, read reviews, and find links to the publishers of my books.
 
  • Currently 3.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
 
 

 

 
 
 
Close
Close
Close