25 Oct 08
One pro would have to be the effectiveness in which they could deliver a certain medicinal compound to the active site, reducing greatly the loss of the compound due to metabolic processes. In that sense, it would be beneficial to implement nanotechnology on the body.
The con would have to be the effects thus foreign object may have on the body. Anything that goes into your body has to be thoroughly studied, because it may become a cofactor on a reaction which can have effects as serious as destroying your DNA. Other possible effect may be the effectiveness of the removal from the organism once it finishes whatever it is it came to do.
I think there are a lot of variables that have to be carefully measured and prepared for before anyone actually implements this type of technology on the human body, although the benefits may well be worth all the trouble of the research.
26 Oct 08
2 edits
Originally posted by DtimeI just thought I mention the fact that nano-particles as well as natures nano-machines are a natural part of the human body -3 examples:
What are your thoughts on the use of nano's on the Human body?
The removal of nanos from the system?
The counter action with the Human system as a foreign object and rejection of the nanos?
pro and con
1, microtubules (with a diameter of 25nm)
2, the cilia that line the lungs
3, mitochondria (which is about 400nm across).
Enzyme molecules could be also regarded as natures “nano-machines” although I think this is would be stretching the definition a bit.
So I am guessing here that the introduction of man-made nacho’s into the human body wouldn’t necessarily impose any special or strange problems? -although I admit I wouldn’t like to bet my life on it.
26 Oct 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonTrue. But the possible interactions of these nanomachines with the body's own might includes a set of variables that might be regarded as a con until thoroughly studied. Most enzymes and proteins in the body require certain conditions to function properly. The nano machines that we might insert in a human body can actually alter these conditions (pH, concentration of ceatin salts, etc.), leading to denaturation of the protein and the loss of its function.
I just thought I mention the fact that nano-particles as well as natures nano-machines are a natural part of the human body -3 examples:
1, microtubules (with a diameter of 25nm)
2, the cilia that line the lungs
3, mitochondria (which is about 400nm across).
Enzyme molecules could be also regarded as natures “nano-machines” although I ...[text shortened]... impose any special or strange problems? -although I admit I wouldn’t like to bet my life on it.
I think that inserting a nanoparticle in such a delicate environment as the body requires thorough study and proof that the benefits far outweigh the possible consequences.
26 Oct 08
3 edits
Originally posted by dannyUchiha…I think that inserting a nanoparticle in such a delicate environment as the body requires thorough study and proof that the benefits far outweigh the possible consequences.....…
True. But the possible interactions of these nanomachines with the body's own might includes a set of variables that might be regarded as a con until thoroughly studied. Most enzymes and proteins in the body require certain conditions to function properly. The nano machines that we might insert in a human body can actually alter these conditions (pH, con ...[text shortened]... ody requires thorough study and proof that the benefits far outweigh the possible consequences.
I agree if a load of nano-particles are injected into the whole blood stream or a load of nano-particles are injected into a vital organ -I for one would be afraid of that being done to me. But I don’t see much risk if, say, a few are inserted just below the skin and don’t enter the general blood stream -I think that demanding “proof” that this is totally safe could be just a bit too curious! -“probably safe” would be good enough here I think.
Even if the proposal is to inject a load of them into the whole blood stream or into a vital organ (which I would agree could be risky without a lot of proper research), for a terminally ill patient that may have little to loose from such considerable risks, it may on balance still be worth it even though those same risks may be totally unacceptable for a person without a terminal illness.
27 Oct 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonFor the less informed, what precisely is a nano-particle or nano-machine? The Wikipedia article
[b]…I think that inserting a nanoparticle in such a delicate environment as the body requires thorough study and proof that the benefits far outweigh the possible consequences.....…
I agree if a load of nano-particles are injected into the whole blood stream or a load of nano-particles are injected into a vital organ -I for one would be afrai ...[text shortened]... ven though those same risks may be totally unacceptable for a person without a terminal illness.[/b]
is a little vague.
Nemesio
27 Oct 08
2 edits
Originally posted by Nemesio…The Wikipedia article
For the less informed, what precisely is a nano-particle or nano-machine? The Wikipedia article
is a little vague.
Nemesio
is a little vague. ..…
-I am not suppressed -a “nano-anything” is generally something that is just a “few” nano-meters across. But how much is a “few”? -I mean, is it 1000nm or 500nm or what?
There is also the thorny problem of exactly what distinguishes a “nano-particle” that is not said to be a “machine” from a “nano-machine” -I mean, is it just to do with moving parts? -if so, can just moving electrons be considered to be “mechanical moving parts” in this context? -if so, that would make a single molecule of chlorophyll a “nano-machine”! -somehow I don’t think we would normally refer to a molecule of chlorophyll as a “machine“.
Perhaps a “nano-machine” is a thing that is just a “few” nm across and itself partly consists of at least one other particle that is itself just a “few” nm across and which is a “mechanical moving part” because it can bend/slide/rotate relative to the position of the rest of the structure -but that would make certain molecules in chemistry “nano-machines”!
For these reasons, I doubt very much that there is a truly non-arbitrary “scientific” definition to what defines a “nano-particle” or “nano-machine” -I am afraid this is not the answer you would want 😕
29 Oct 08
Originally posted by dannyUchiha…The nano machines that we might insert in a human body can actually alter these conditions (pH, concentration of certain salts, etc.), leading to denaturising of the protein and the loss of its function.
True. But the possible interactions of these nanomachines with the body's own might includes a set of variables that might be regarded as a con until thoroughly studied. Most enzymes and proteins in the body require certain conditions to function properly. The nano machines that we might insert in a human body can actually alter these conditions (pH, con ...[text shortened]... ody requires thorough study and proof that the benefits far outweigh the possible consequences.
.….
I had somehow missed what you said there above before:
1, Acids and alkalines and also “PH buffers” normally change PH -there is no reason why nano-particles would generally have any significant effect on PH.
2, denaturising of proteins normally occurs as a result of excessive heat breaking the weak sulphur links between the amino-acid chains or by over exposure to very high concentrations of alcohol or bleach etc -not exposure to nano-sized particles. -there is no reason why nano-particles would generally have the effect of denaturising proteins.