Stagecoach buses get into nanotech

Nanny Particle should take more time to study the info on Envirox - there's lots out there on the Internet. While many of us may be very critical of Brian Souter's activities, this one should be beneficial. The addition of Envirox to fuel REDUCES particulate emission (it also saves Mr Souter some money, of course). Other Google searches reveal that Envirox can also be used to reduce the risk of Legionnaire's disease in water-based air-conditioning units.

I'm pasting in a short passage that originated from the New Scientist:
 http://www.azonano.com/details.asp?ArticleID=31
For some time cerium oxide has been viewed as a potential fuel additive but it has never reached commercial success. It is known to act like a type of storage unit for oxygen releasing oxygen to oxidise carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon gases. It also absorbs oxygen to reduce the amount of harmful nitrogen oxides released. The net result is a cleaner burn with more fuel converted to carbon dioxide, less carbon deposits on the internal workings of the engine and a less noxious exhaust.
SNIP
Envirox has been successfully trialled in buses in Hong Kong. This trial covered 12 million kilometres and now the largest bus operator in the UK is doing its own tests. Stagecoach from Scotland are testing Envirox in 1000 of their 7000 diesel-fuelled vehicles.


Primary author: Barry Fox
Source: New Scientist

In reply to the post from Eileen, I think the Stagecoach/Envionex/Oxonica press release contained in the article by "Nanny Particle" is very interesting, this is one of the first large scale commercial uses of free nanoparticles in the UK.

Whilst Oxonica's nanoparticle fuel additive Environex may lead to fewer emissions from diesel engines, which is a good thing, I think their press release leaves several big questions unanswered and should be viewed cynically.

Does the use of Environex just replace a known and understood form of pollution (conventional air pollution) and with another pollutant (manufactured nanoparticles) whose dangers are only just becoming apparent and are as yet poorly understood.

As increasing numbers of products containing Nanoparticles are coming onto the market a growing body of scientific opinion is urging caution about their use. The small number of safety tests done on nanoparticles suggest that they have unique and largely unassessed safety problems.

Even the Royal Society has urged caution about the use of free (not bonded together in some other material), manufactured nanoparticles. Despite this, at present there is no regulation of the use of nanoparticles in the UK (or anywhere else yet).

Just how safe is a product like Environex

1. Exactly what comes out of the exhaust pipe of a motor burning a deisel/ Environex blend? Is it safe? Are those manufactured nanoparticles released into the environment?

2. What about Environex in its liquid state? Is it safe for Oxonica or Stagecoaches workers to handle or come into contact with or accidentally ingest? what happens if it gets spilt? Or accidentally washed down the drain? What are its implications for human health and the environment? How adequately has it been tested?

It strikes me as interesting that Environex a product that is supposedly 'good for the environment' is one of the first well publicised commercial uses of Nanotechnology in the UK. It reminds me of GM crops companies like Syngenta and Monsanto talking lots about feeding the world and launching products like vitamin A Golden Rice in order to convince the world that GM crops were a good thing.

To me it looks as though Oxonica (a company with a whole range of Nanotech products all with major questions about their safety) are using Environex to try to gain public acceptance of Nanotech as a whole. Nanotech is a technology that is surrounded by a whole load of unanswered questions. It is being rushed onto the market by companies like Oxonica (incidentally backed to the hilt by chemical giant BASF) their bottom line is making a profit and quickly, not saving the world. We should not be taken in by their PR about techno-fix solutions to stopping pollution. Nanotech innovations should be questioned and if necessary resisted at every step

In response to your quotes from New Scientist here are some other sources of information on Nanotech

A really interesting briefing on Nanoparticle toxicity is published by research group ETC group and is available online at
 http://www.etcgroup.org/article.asp?newsid=392

A good critique of Nanotechnology is available at
 http://www.etcgroup.org/article.asp?newsid=471

What about biodiesel as a viable fuel option, cheap, not full of nanoparticles (of which, there are conflicting views about benefits to health/environment anyway)?

Info -  http://www.biodiesel.co.uk/

Fill yer tank -  http://www.biodieselfillingstations.co.uk/

Okay

so heres the story on nanoparticles in exhaust fumes as i understand it. When you burn soemething at high temperature (eg incineration or internal combustion) you get production of ultrafine particles which are teh same thing as nanoparticles. Air pollution research has shown that these smallest particles are the most dangerous part of pollution - even when you exclude larger particles of air pollution (called PM10) you still get significant particle related mortality that seems to come from this tiny portion of the pollution. I think this also true for biodeisel (sorry..)

Its not clear to me if using Envirox will reduce the ultrafine component of air pollution form buses or just the larger PM10 and above particles. What i do know (as nano-geek rightly says) is its trying to fix another problem with a potentially worse problem (more engineered nanoparticles)- like spraying your dinner with DDT to keep the ants away.

The Royal Society (despite being a very very pro-industry organisation) said very clearly that free engineered nanoparticles should go through an independent assesment process before going on to the market and that they should be prohibited from environmental applications. Pouring them into the engines of thousands of UK buses - and by extension potentially out the exhaust contradicts this advice directly. Oxonica's environmental claims are not open to democratic challenge. There aren't even agreed protocols for assessing nanotoxicity. they simply can't make verifiable safety claims and the precautionary principle would disagree with them intrinsically.

"There is virtually no information available about the effect of nanoparticles on species other than humans or about how they behave in the air, water or soil, or about their ability to accumulate in food chains. Until more is known about their environmental impact we are keen that the release of nanoparticles and nanotubes to the environment is avoided as far as possible. Specifically we recommend as a precautionary measure that factories and research laboratories treat manufactured nanoparticles and nanotubes as if they were hazardous waste streams and that the use of free nanoparticles in environmental applications such as remediation of groundwater be prohibited.”

– Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering, “Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and uncertainties,” July 2004