yes. that was actually a fascinating vid. despite the numbers embossed on those fibers and electrical components i had hoped morgellons was the result of GMO, or cosmetic/biological nanotechs resulting somehow in same phenomenon but i'm not so sure anymore. i dislike accepting an idea that we are deliberately, unknowingly being used as guinea pigs. but maybe we we need to develop anti-nano cremes, like spread-on aluminum foil
http://www.ewg.org/skindeep/2007/08/25/hundreds-of-personal-care-products-contain-poorly-studied-nano-materials/
256 products with one or more of 57 different types of small-scale ingredients listed on the label or package (Table 1 and Table 2), including products with “nanodelivery systems,” 23 forms of “micronized” ingredients, and 3 products containing carbon-based, nano-scale “wire cages” known as fullerenes, among other types of nano-scale materials.
These products include 27 sunscreens that specifically note the use of micronized or nano-scale zinc oxide or titanium dioxide (Table 2). Neither of these two sunscreen ingredients have been comprehensively reviewed for safety in their micronized or nano-scale form by FDA. The European Union’s Scientific Committee on cosmetics denied approval for micronized zinc oxide as a sunscreen in 2003, citing a lack of data on skin absorption and inhalation, and studies showing the ingredient to be potentially toxic in the presence of light (SCCNFP 2003, SCCP 2005).
- 9,509 products (over one-third of all personal care products assessed by EWG) contain ingredients that are commercially available in nano-scale forms (Table 3). This includes 250 sunscreens containing titanium dioxide or zinc oxide (Table 4), and containing gold, silver, iron oxide, zeolite, and liposomes, miniscule fatty balls used to deliver ingredients deeper into the skin (Table 3). Nearly all of these products fail to note whether the listed ingredient is conventional or nano-scale.
Widespread use, unknown risks. Our research indicates that the cosmetics industry uses nano-scale ingredients routinely, even though exposures and potential risks are poorly understood. We understand that FDA is still conducting basic safety studies on these personal care product ingredients, necessitated by the unique properties FDA highlights in the announcement for their October 10, 2006 public meeting on nanotechnology: “due to their small size and extremely high ratio of surface area to volume, nanotechnology materials often have chemical or physical properties that are different from those of their larger counterparts,” including “increased chemical and biological activity.” FDA recently presented a summary of ongoing research the agency is conducting to evaluate the penetration and toxicity in vitro and in mice and pigs of quantum dots and zinc oxide and titanium dioxide nanoparticles, with tests to define pharmacokinetics, toxicogenomics, photocytotoxicity, and photocarcinogenicity (FDA 2006b).
and
http://www.nanoandme.org/nano-products/cosmetics-and-sunscreen/
Nano in cosmetics and personal care
There are a number of nano-enhanced products available in the UK ranging from sunscreens and anti-ageing products to razors and curling tongs, (though at the moment we can't give a comprehensive listing.) Here are some of the main areas and what they claim to do:
Sunscreens
It's long been known that titanium dioxide (TiO2) and zinc oxide (ZnO) block the harmful effects of ultraviolet light - the stronger the sunblock the whiter the lotion, with total sunblocks becoming a thick white paste.
But when you break down these substances to nano-sized particles, they become transparent. So you get the beneficial effect without the 'face pack' look.
So when you see a high-factor sunscreen in a moisturiser or sun cream which is clear, not white, you know that it is nano.
This use of nano-sized TiO2 and ZnO2 in sunscreens and moisturisers is one of the largest uses of nano in the cosmetics and personal care markets.
and
http://nano.foe.org.au/nanoparticles-found-10-top-brand-cosmetics
Nanoparticles found in 10 top brand cosmetics
Testing commissioned by Friends of the Earth Australia has found nanoparticles in foundations and concealers sold by 10 top name brands including Clinique, Clarins, L’Oréal, Revlon, The Body Shop, Max Factor, Lancôme Paris, By Terry, Yves Saint Laurent and Christian Dior.
Scientific testing commissioned by Friends of the Earth Australia and carried out by the Australian Microscopy and Microanalysis Research Facility has found:
• Concealers, foundations and mineral foundations sold by 8 leading brands contained particles measuring less than 100nm in size
(Clinique, Clarins, L’Oréal, Revlon, The Body Shop, Max Factor, Lancôme Paris and By Terry)
• A further 2 products contained particles that measured 100nm
(Yves Saint Laurent and Christian Dior)
Furthermore, Friends of the Earth has found:
• 7 of the cosmetics tested contained ingredients known to act as ‘penetration enhancers’, making it more likely that nanoparticles will be taken up into the skin
• The 3 cosmetics that did not contain penetration enhancers were mineral foundations, which pose greater inhalation risks due to their powdered form
• Only one of the brands surveyed (Christian Dior) indicated the use of nano-ingredients on the product label. Failing to label nano-ingredients denies consumers the capacity to make an informed choice
The nanoparticles found are used to diffuse light (disguising wrinkles), provide sun protection or for improved colour.
Click here for a detailed background briefing on the cosmetics test results.
Concerns about long term health risks of nano-cosmetics
The long-term health risks of nanoparticles remain poorly understood. The likely exposure in ‘real life’ conditions is also unknown. But early studies have suggested that if exposure is high enough, nanoparticles now used by the cosmetics industry could cause lung damage , cell toxicity, damage DNA, and possibly even harm unborn children.
Production of free radicals by nanoparticles used in sunscreens and cosmetics is greater when exposed to UV light. Last year, in relation to nano-sunscreens, the director of CSIRO’s Nanosafety research program warned The 7.30 Report that: “the worst case scenario, I suspect, could be development of cancer. But we don't know. That's what we're trying to find out”. Dr McCall cautioned that CSIRO’s research will take another two years.
In 2004, the United Kingdom’s Royal Society, the world’s oldest scientific institution,recommended that given the evidence of serious nanotoxicity risks, nanoparticles should be treated as new chemicals and subject to new safety assessments before being allowed in consumer products. It also recommended that nano-ingredients in products should be labelled, to give people the chance to make an informed choice.
[Edited 6/7/14 17:49pm]
[Edited 6/7/14 17:51pm]