Thank you - we removed the disclaimer and will look into the other things you brought up as well.
It may be a bad idea to use allometric scaling because as you say, it doesn't look like C60 being a metabolite at all.
We think that chronically ingesting relatively large quantities of carbon nanotubes would be a bad idea, as studies showed that they can cause similar damage as asbestos fibers, making me fear that carbon nanotubes might be carcinogenic. The mode of causing cancer would be the same as how asbestos fibers cause cancer: Due to their size and shape they are ideally poised to sever DNA strands.
From Wikipedia (
http://en.wikipedia....notube#Toxicity) - abridged:
"The available data clearly show that, under some conditions, nanotubes can cross membrane barriers, which suggests that, if raw materials reach the organs, they can induce harmful effects such as inflammatory and fibrotic reactions.
A study led by Alexandra Porter from the University of Cambridge shows that CNTs can enter human cells and accumulate in the cytoplasm, causing cell death.
The needle-like fiber shape of CNTs is similar to asbestos fibers. This raises the idea that widespread use of carbon nanotubes may lead to pleural mesothelioma, a cancer of the lining of the lungs or peritoneal mesothelioma, a cancer of the lining of the abdomen (both caused by exposure to asbestos). A recently published pilot study supports this prediction. Scientists exposed the mesothelial lining of the body cavity of mice to long multiwalled carbon nanotubes and observed asbestos-like, length-dependent, pathogenic behavior that included inflammation and formation of lesions known as granulomas.
The available data suggests that under certain conditions, especially those involving chronic exposure, carbon nanotubes can pose a serious risk to human health."
----
Since people are going to take this for years on end on a daily basis, we think only the absolute purest C60 can be considered for our products, since absolutely nothing is known about the long-term toxicity of carbon nanotubes, like when they are ingested on a daily basis for many, many years. We consider 99.95% purity to be the minimum purity that is defensible in a product that humans will take chronically. As soon as we have sold our first batch of 99.95% (we have 100 grams C60 of that purity), we will move to 99.97 - 99.99% sublimated C60, just because we want to avoid bad surprises twenty or thirty years down the road, when it turns out that carbon nanotubes cause cancer. Based on what we read in the research..
Example:
http://nanotoxcore.m...et al, 2004.pdf"Pulmonary exposures to SWCNT in rats produced a
non-dose-dependent series of multifocal granulomas"
..we suspect they are carcinogenic. So this suspicion, partially backed up by a little available mouse research, prompted us to use 99.95% C60 as a baseline and warn about less pure carbon soot mixtures, since there are cheap mixtures on the market with a very large percentage of non-C60/C70, including all types of nanotubes, wide, narrow, long, short, single-walled and double-walled - a lot of potential for trouble. SWCN's remained at least 4 months in mouse macrophages so when you ingest them, they may accumulate for years. Some of them may have the ideal shape to wreak havoc on cell nuclei.
Addendum:http://www.olonano.c...ene_safety.htmlWith reference to nanotubes, a recent study by Poland et al. (2008)[49] on carbon nanotubes introduced into the abdominal cavity of mice led the authors to suggest comparisons to "asbestos-like pathogenicity".
Edited by SarahVaughter, 27 May 2012 - 05:58 PM.