Talk:Pollution from nanomaterials

Title change
I restored the old title of this article, "Environmental implications of nanotechnology". The title it had been moved to, "Environmental impact of nanotechnology", was noted to be more consistent with other articles on the environmental impact of various products and technologies; however, the old title is more consistent with the series of articles on the implications of nanotechnology.

The difference is that the word "impact" has a slight connotation of negative implications, and the other environmental impact articles seem to only focus on negative implications of these technologies. This article is intended to contain both positive and negative implications, including potential improvements to the environment through new applications of nanotechnology, so I believe the more neutral "implications" title is more appropriate. Of course, I'm open to more discussion on the matter. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 16:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It is preferable for the title of this article to be consistent both with the articles dealing with the environment as well as those dealing with nanotechnology. There are a lot of articles about the environmental impact of various things, but only three other articles dealing with the implications of nanotechnology (Implications of nanotechnology, Health implications of nanotechnology, and Societal implications of nanotechnology). There has also been discussion about what the names of the environmental articles should be, with consensus being the use of the "impact" format. The intention of the environmental impact articles is in no way to focus on negative impact; positive impact is intended to be discussed in the proportion appropriate to the prevailing impact of the subject of each article. My suggestion is to move the nanotechnology articles to the "impact" format as well (ie. Impact of nanotechnology, Health impact of nanotechnology, Societal impact of nanotechnology, and Environmental impact of nanotechnology). The word "impact" is like the word "myth". Some people assume that "myth" is a negative term referring only to things that aren't true, but the term does not make any assertion about truth or falsehood. Similarly, "impact" makes no value judgement. I am not convinced that the word usually has negative connotations anyway. "Negative impact" and "Positive impact" receive similar numbers of hits on Google Books, with "Negative impact" receiving a few more. If anything, the hit-count difference suggests that the word "impact" needs to be qualified more often when it is negative because the assumption is that it is positive. Neelix (talk) 19:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I see your point about the connotations. But the issue is that "implications of nanotechnology" is a term of art which is universally used to describe the field.  The usage gap is particularly striking when you look at impact versus implications as part of titles of books, and "implications of nanotechnology" outweighs "impact of nanotechnology" (exact phrase, with the quotes) in all of Google Books (full-text search), Scholar, and web searches.  So, per WP:COMMONNAME, "implications of nanotechnology" is unambiguously the correct name to use, and moving all of the articles on the topic would be incorrect.


 * Given that the article title can't be consistent with both series, I would suggest that this article is more closely related to the other implications of nanotechnology articles, all of which were split from the same article, rather than the other environmental impacts articles. The existence of the redirect should prevent any confusion.  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 00:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You are correct in suggesting that the phrase "implications of nanotechnology" is found more frequently in the literature than the phrase "impact of nanotechnology". Nonetheless, the difference between the hitcounts is not so drastic to justify the conclusion that "implications of nanotechnology" is a term of art. WP:COMMONNAME applies exclusively and explicitly to proper nouns, and "implications of nanotechnology" is not a proper noun. The policy that holds the most weight in this case is one just above it about consistency, which states that "titles are expected to follow the same pattern as those of similar articles." The titles of articles about the effects/implications/influence/impact of various things should be consistent in employing the same format, and the "impact" format is the one that is best-established. Neelix (talk) 12:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I find it pretty drastic that almost no one has seen fit to write a book about the "impact of nanotechnology", while there are nearly a thousand a whole bunch of books on the "implications of nanotechnology". Furthermore, the latter term is offically used by the National Nanotechnology Initiative, the National Science Foundation, and by the two academic centers formed through NSF grants specifically to study it.  See    .  While the phrase "impact of nanotechnology" may come up in informal usage, it's pretty clear that "implications of nanotechnology" is the recognized formal name of the field, and not merely a descriptive title.  The overarching principle of WP:TITLE is that "article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources", and the title should not be changed to a less-recognized variant just because that term has been chosen for a set of other topics where that choice may indeed be appropriate.  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 06:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of books written about the impact of nanotechnology that use that term in the title:, , , , , , , . Reviewing the sources you provide makes me less convinced that "implications of technology" is an official term, not more. The phrase is used in each of your sources, but as are variants on the phrase, such as "issues in nanotechnology," "environmental effects of nanotechnology," "impact of nanomaterials," and "impact of engineered nanomaterials." You have stated that your sources make it clear that "implications of nanotechnology" is recognized as the field's formal name, but I find your sources to prove the opposite. There is no recognized formal name for how nanotechnology affects the world; "implications," "impact," "effects," and many other such words are used interchangeably and in variously constructed phrases to refer to nanotechnology. There is no standard in the field with which to be consistent; it is the other article titles here on Wikipedia with which we should pursue consistency. Neelix (talk) 11:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * My point is that "implications " is in the title of the organization. Other terms are used informally throughout prose, but when a formal name for the organization must be chosen, it seems that "implications" is the one accepted by reliable sources.
 * Running the search "intitle:impact intitle:nanotechnology" on Google Books yields five results, while "intitle:implications intitle:nanotechnology" gives 39. (Not 2,000, which GB displays on the first results page for some reason.)  So while you can pick out six books with "impacts" somewhere in the title, that is likely to be the majority of such books.  It's the overall number of books that counts, not the fact that you can pick out a certain number with a given term.  So I still fail to see how my evidence is unconvincing.  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 16:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * We are not discussing an organization. The influence of nanotechnology is not a company whose name is used as a proper noun. Both "implications of nanotechnology" and "impact of nanotechnology" are simply descriptions of a general concept; there is no title. If I understand you correctly, you are basing your argument on a guideline that does not apply to the present case while denying the importance of a guideline that does apply. WP:COMMONNAME explicitly applies only to proper nouns, which "implications of nanotechnology" is not. PRINCIPALNAMINGCRITERIA establishes the importance of consistency among article titles, and "impact of nanotechnology" is the naming format that is by far the most consistent with other related articles. Neelix (talk) 14:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:COMMONNAME is indeed not the correct set of criteria&mdash;I had linked to the wrong section of WP:TITLE. But according to the lead section, "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources; when this offers multiple possibilities, Wikipedia chooses among them by considering five principles".  This means that WP:PRINCIPALNAMINGCRITERIA does not even come into effect unless reliable sources are not clear on what the proper title is.  My assertion has been that "implications" is in fact not a "description of a general concept", and is clearly supported by reliable sources as what the field's name is whenever it is used formally, such as in the name of an organization or of a book.


 * I feel like we are not going to convince each other, and admittedly this is a minor issue which we nevertheless both clearly feel strongly about. If it doesn't look like we're going to agree soon, I'd suggest that we should list the issue at WP:Requested moves.  If it turns out that consensus to move the page(s) after a number of other editors have chimed in then I am happy to abide by it.  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 17:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * A requested move does appear to be the best option at this point. Since the nanotechnology articles are currently located at titles that I believe should be altered, it makes most sense for me to request the move, so I will go do that now. Neelix (talk) 15:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: pages moved. Rough but clear consensus, consistent with policy if a line call. I think both Antony-22 and Neelix deserve barnstars for the excellent conduct of this discussion. Andrewa (talk) 12:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

– The lengthy discussion between Antony and I above has resulted in the realization that we are not going to convince each other about what the title of this article should be, so we have together decided to request input from the wider community. I believe that Environmental implications of nanotechnology should be moved to Environmental impact of nanotechnology in order to be consistent with the many other articles about human impact on the environment, such as Environmental impact of agriculture, Environmental impact of biodiesel, Environmental impact of paint, Environmental impact of aviation, etc. All the other articles of this type follow the "Environmental impact of x" title format. The three other "implications of nanotechnology" articles should similarly employ the word "impact" instead of "implications" so that they will be consistent with Environmental impact of nanotechnology. Antony and I have agreed that there is no semantic or connotative difference between the words "implications" and "impact", therefore our disagreement rests solely in our interpretation of Wikipedia's article title policy. The phrase "implications of nanotechnology" is moderately more frequent in literature on the subject than "impact of nanotechnology", although Antony and I agree that WP:COMMONNAME does not apply to this case because neither "implications of nanotechnology" nor "impact of nanotechnology" are proper nouns, and WP:COMMONNAME explicitly applies only to proper nouns. Antony has invoked the sentence in the lede of WP:TITLE that states that "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources." Because the phrase "impact of nanotechnology" appears quite frequently in the literature, I do not believe that this sentence supports the "implications of nanotechnology" format much more than the "impact of nanotechnology" format. What I believe to be the relevant policy is WP:PRINCIPALNAMINGCRITERIA, which argues for consistency, stating that "titles are expected to follow the same pattern as those of similar articles." If the four articles implicated in this move request are moved as I have suggested, all of the articles about the environmental impact of things will follow a consistent title format and all of the impact of nanotechnology articles will follow a consistent title format, and all of the titles will still be phrases that are common in the literature. Relisting. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC) Neelix (talk) 16:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Environmental implications of nanotechnology → Environmental impact of nanotechnology
 * Implications of nanotechnology → Impact of nanotechnology
 * Health implications of nanotechnology → Health impact of nanotechnology
 * Societal implications of nanotechnology → Societal impact of nanotechnology


 * Oppose Neelix does a good job of summarizing our lengthy discussion above. I'd like to emphasize two points that cause me to believe that the article should not be moved.
 * While the terms "implications" and "impact" both appear in running prose of sources on the topic, with the former being moderately more prevalent, "implications" is used almost exclusively when the term is used in a formal or official capacity, as in the name of an organization, or as the title of a book (impact, implications, but note that for the latter you have to go to page 5 to get the accurate number).
 * WP:TITLE states that "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources; when this offers multiple possibilities, Wikipedia chooses among them by considering five principles," which are listed at WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. This is a statement that those criteria, which include consistency, are only factors if reliable sources are ambiguous about the proper name.
 * I belive that the proponderance of "implications" in formal usage makes it clear enough that this is what the subject is called in reliable sources, and thus WP:NAMINGCRITERIA does not apply. To put it in other words, correctness is more important than consistency: the title should not be changed to a less-recognized variant just because that term has been chosen for a set of other topics where that choice may indeed be appropriate.  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 01:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's perhaps an academic point, but you're not actually arguing that WP:CRITERIA doesn't apply. You're arguing that the criteria of recognizability and naturalness outweigh the consistency criterion. It's not an unreasonable claim to make, which isn't to say I agree or disagree. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I'm saying that the sentence in the lead of the policy, quoted in my second bullet above, seems to state that if reliable sources are unambiguous about the proper name, it trumps anything in WP:CRITERIA. Use in reliable sources is closely related to recognizability and naturalness, but isn't exactly the same criterion.  Of course, my reading of the policy may be inaccurate, the sentence may not actually reflect community consensus, or one can disagree that my evidence meets the bar for the reliable sources criterion.  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 00:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. As you indicate, there's more than one way to interpret the various policies at work here. Cheers. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Support move to be consistent with other articles on the impact of various products and technologies. Beagel (talk) 11:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - 'implications' and 'impact' can be treated as synonyms here, so although correctness is more important than consistency, correctness does not seem a major factor. By the way, props for the civility, both Antony and Neelix.    A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 02:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Support move. To me, the word impact seems more appropriate. (However, I admit that i'm not native english). Philtime (talk) 13:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm relisting this request to allow time for more discussion. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Optimistic bias
Just a co-op student here, though I have worked in a regulatory position for some time, in the context of the environment. I just wanted to inquire why there is an environmental benefits section when none of that information can really be substantiated. Everyone preaches the environmental benefits of nanotechnology and are completely one-sided in not addressing the flaws with each proposal. For example, the production costs in energy and water may outweigh the supposed efficiencies gained, as nanotechnologies generally require more stringent production conditions (and adversely higher energy/water usage), have less suitable regulations (we treat them as chemicals/polymers in Canada) to address the occupational exposure, and are incredibly wasteful through production. On top of that, most of these technologies are just nanoparticle dispersions of heavily grinded down particles (metals, metal oxides, etc) in polymer, plastic or composite materials, not space elevators or even solar cells at this stage. The largest group of patents are in cosmetics, and the most used application is probably the silver nanoparticles in clothing, which wash out completely after several uses. The silver then moves through our waterworks and kills the bacteria we grew in the wastewater treatment plant to digest the sludge for agricultural use. All so billy bob can wear his underwear three days in a row.

There seems to be an optimism-only bandwagon with the nanotechnology researchers. No negativity towards them, I understand they are excited for their field, though preach very controversial and unsubstantiated ideas. Another example is that of zero-valent iron nanoparticles being dumped deliberately into the environment to "soak" up organic pollutants as they have higher surface adsorption capacity, everyone seems to love this idea, and yet no one has asked how we will be able to identify them in the environment. Everyone in the room knows you can only do characterizations in the lab, and that nanoparticles were not around (in these concentrations, elements) during recent evolution, so most biological processes will have some interesting task of trying to dispose or depurate the particles once ingested. Then why is it that no one has asked themselves the obvious question of how abouts we will retrieve the nanoparticles effectively? Seems pretty ignorant for the entire field to be blind to it.

I won't even get started on the production of fuel cells and battery components, which drastically outweigh any environmental benefit in the production implications. Also, the solar cells that are being developed may be more efficient, but will still take a decade or a few to pay off the initial energy cost of production, so if we wanted to apply that correctly, we would have already created mass-production facilities to offset energy and material inefficiencies. Of course we are running out of time now, as we are entering our last doubling time of oil usage and will not have enough energy to produce them (solar cells) in time, when they are supposed to be our safe haven for energy.

Perhaps that whole section should be edited, to turn it from a beneficial section, to a "problems with the environmental benefits" of nanotechnology. It is incredibly sad how little content this article has, it is much more important than the societal/human health effects, as organisms and evolution will likely have to adapt to our nanoparticles for thousands of years to come. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nebnobla (talk • contribs) 21:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Non neutral, outdated page relying on primary sources
I agree with from 2013 above.

I find the page outdated, uninformative about environmental issues with nanotechnology and biased towards its benefits. This page needs a major rewrite and tertiary sources and at least some EPA refs (present on instead of the 6 primary sources from the last decade all touting benefits of nanotechnology.

The fragmented representation of environmental issues with nanotechnology on Wikipedia (Nanotechnology,Impact of nanotechnology and Environmental impact of nanotechnology leave alone more pages on health issues, nanotoxicology... ) speaks for itself: diffuse and confuse.--Wuerzele (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree. I've been trying to keep the most biased content out, but what this bunch of articles needs is a total rewrite from scratch.  It's a tough topic to write well, as there are lots of both "optimism-only" and "pessimism-only" sources, and to find the neutral, reliable analysis takes a significant amount of digging.  I'm happy to support any effort towards improving these articles.  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 23:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * thanks for your start. This is already much improved.--Wuerzele (talk) 00:49, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The article still has a POV tag. Are the sources cited in this article still not adequate? Jarble (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Environmental impact of nanotechnology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080719190037/http://nano.foe.org.au/node/130 to http://nano.foe.org.au/node/130

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Moved
I have tightened the focus of this article and renamed it from Environmental impact of nanotechnology to Nanomaterials pollution. The old title now redirects to Impact of nanotechnology. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 02:36, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * It s been 7 years and this page is still in shambles IMO- I have only touched the surface after I was notified by @Jarble that teh POV tag is still there.
 * The lede doesnt even summarize the body -@user: Jarble I am willing to delete large portions which really confuse (like Natural nanoparticles include particles from natural processes like dust storms, volcanic eruptions, forest fires, and ocean water evaporation.)- Can you help? Wuerzele (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Nanoplastics
Nanoplastics are alos part of it. They may arise from microplastic + water (or any) erosion. They are problematic as well, and pollution as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.193.35.108 (talk • contribs) 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * correct, Microplastics need to be added.--Wuerzele (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC)