Tag Archives: EPA

Artificial intelligence (AI) brings together International Telecommunications Union (ITU) and World Health Organization (WHO) and AI outperforms animal testing

Following on my May 11, 2018 posting about the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) and the 2018 AI for Good Global Summit in mid- May, there’s an announcement. My other bit of AI news concerns animal testing.

Leveraging the power of AI for health

A July 24, 2018 ITU press release (a shorter version was received via email) announces a joint initiative focused on improving health,

Two United Nations specialized agencies are joining forces to expand the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the health sector to a global scale, and to leverage the power of AI to advance health for all worldwide. The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and the World Health Organization (WHO) will work together through the newly established ITU Focus Group on AI for Health to develop an international “AI for health” standards framework and to identify use cases of AI in the health sector that can be scaled-up for global impact. The group is open to all interested parties.

“AI could help patients to assess their symptoms, enable medical professionals in underserved areas to focus on critical cases, and save great numbers of lives in emergencies by delivering medical diagnoses to hospitals before patients arrive to be treated,” said ITU Secretary-General Houlin Zhao. “ITU and WHO plan to ensure that such capabilities are available worldwide for the benefit of everyone, everywhere.”

The demand for such a platform was first identified by participants of the second AI for Good Global Summit held in Geneva, 15-17 May 2018. During the summit, AI and the health sector were recognized as a very promising combination, and it was announced that AI-powered technologies such as skin disease recognition and diagnostic applications based on symptom questions could be deployed on six billion smartphones by 2021.

The ITU Focus Group on AI for Health is coordinated through ITU’s Telecommunications Standardization Sector – which works with ITU’s 193 Member States and more than 800 industry and academic members to establish global standards for emerging ICT innovations. It will lead an intensive two-year analysis of international standardization opportunities towards delivery of a benchmarking framework of international standards and recommendations by ITU and WHO for the use of AI in the health sector.

“I believe the subject of AI for health is both important and useful for advancing health for all,” said WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus.

The ITU Focus Group on AI for Health will also engage researchers, engineers, practitioners, entrepreneurs and policy makers to develop guidance documents for national administrations, to steer the creation of policies that ensure the safe, appropriate use of AI in the health sector.

“1.3 billion people have a mobile phone and we can use this technology to provide AI-powered health data analytics to people with limited or no access to medical care. AI can enhance health by improving medical diagnostics and associated health intervention decisions on a global scale,” said Thomas Wiegand, ITU Focus Group on AI for Health Chairman, and Executive Director of the Fraunhofer Heinrich Hertz Institute, as well as professor at TU Berlin.

He added, “The health sector is in many countries among the largest economic sectors or one of the fastest-growing, signalling a particularly timely need for international standardization of the convergence of AI and health.”

Data analytics are certain to form a large part of the ITU focus group’s work. AI systems are proving increasingly adept at interpreting laboratory results and medical imagery and extracting diagnostically relevant information from text or complex sensor streams.

As part of this, the ITU Focus Group for AI for Health will also produce an assessment framework to standardize the evaluation and validation of AI algorithms — including the identification of structured and normalized data to train AI algorithms. It will develop open benchmarks with the aim of these becoming international standards.

The ITU Focus Group for AI for Health will report to the ITU standardization expert group for multimedia, Study Group 16.

I got curious about Study Group 16 (from the Study Group 16 at a glance webpage),

Study Group 16 leads ITU’s standardization work on multimedia coding, systems and applications, including the coordination of related studies across the various ITU-T SGs. It is also the lead study group on ubiquitous and Internet of Things (IoT) applications; telecommunication/ICT accessibility for persons with disabilities; intelligent transport system (ITS) communications; e-health; and Internet Protocol television (IPTV).

Multimedia is at the core of the most recent advances in information and communication technologies (ICTs) – especially when we consider that most innovation today is agnostic of the transport and network layers, focusing rather on the higher OSI model layers.

SG16 is active in all aspects of multimedia standardization, including terminals, architecture, protocols, security, mobility, interworking and quality of service (QoS). It focuses its studies on telepresence and conferencing systems; IPTV; digital signage; speech, audio and visual coding; network signal processing; PSTN modems and interfaces; facsimile terminals; and ICT accessibility.

I wonder which group deals with artificial intelligence and, possibly, robots.

Chemical testing without animals

Thomas Hartung, professor of environmental health and engineering at Johns Hopkins University (US), describes in his July 25, 2018 essay (written for The Conversation) on phys.org the situation where chemical testing is concerned,

Most consumers would be dismayed with how little we know about the majority of chemicals. Only 3 percent of industrial chemicals – mostly drugs and pesticides – are comprehensively tested. Most of the 80,000 to 140,000 chemicals in consumer products have not been tested at all or just examined superficially to see what harm they may do locally, at the site of contact and at extremely high doses.

I am a physician and former head of the European Center for the Validation of Alternative Methods of the European Commission (2002-2008), and I am dedicated to finding faster, cheaper and more accurate methods of testing the safety of chemicals. To that end, I now lead a new program at Johns Hopkins University to revamp the safety sciences.

As part of this effort, we have now developed a computer method of testing chemicals that could save more than a US$1 billion annually and more than 2 million animals. Especially in times where the government is rolling back regulations on the chemical industry, new methods to identify dangerous substances are critical for human and environmental health.

Having written on the topic of alternatives to animal testing on a number of occasions (my December 26, 2014 posting provides an overview of sorts), I was particularly interested to see this in Hartung’s July 25, 2018 essay on The Conversation (Note: Links have been removed),

Following the vision of Toxicology for the 21st Century, a movement led by U.S. agencies to revamp safety testing, important work was carried out by my Ph.D. student Tom Luechtefeld at the Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing. Teaming up with Underwriters Laboratories, we have now leveraged an expanded database and machine learning to predict toxic properties. As we report in the journal Toxicological Sciences, we developed a novel algorithm and database for analyzing chemicals and determining their toxicity – what we call read-across structure activity relationship, RASAR.

This graphic reveals a small part of the chemical universe. Each dot represents a different chemical. Chemicals that are close together have similar structures and often properties. Thomas Hartung, CC BY-SA

To do this, we first created an enormous database with 10 million chemical structures by adding more public databases filled with chemical data, which, if you crunch the numbers, represent 50 trillion pairs of chemicals. A supercomputer then created a map of the chemical universe, in which chemicals are positioned close together if they share many structures in common and far where they don’t. Most of the time, any molecule close to a toxic molecule is also dangerous. Even more likely if many toxic substances are close, harmless substances are far. Any substance can now be analyzed by placing it into this map.

If this sounds simple, it’s not. It requires half a billion mathematical calculations per chemical to see where it fits. The chemical neighborhood focuses on 74 characteristics which are used to predict the properties of a substance. Using the properties of the neighboring chemicals, we can predict whether an untested chemical is hazardous. For example, for predicting whether a chemical will cause eye irritation, our computer program not only uses information from similar chemicals, which were tested on rabbit eyes, but also information for skin irritation. This is because what typically irritates the skin also harms the eye.

How well does the computer identify toxic chemicals?

This method will be used for new untested substances. However, if you do this for chemicals for which you actually have data, and compare prediction with reality, you can test how well this prediction works. We did this for 48,000 chemicals that were well characterized for at least one aspect of toxicity, and we found the toxic substances in 89 percent of cases.

This is clearly more accurate that the corresponding animal tests which only yield the correct answer 70 percent of the time. The RASAR shall now be formally validated by an interagency committee of 16 U.S. agencies, including the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] and FDA [Food and Drug Administration], that will challenge our computer program with chemicals for which the outcome is unknown. This is a prerequisite for acceptance and use in many countries and industries.

The potential is enormous: The RASAR approach is in essence based on chemical data that was registered for the 2010 and 2013 REACH [Registration, Evaluation, Authorizations and Restriction of Chemicals] deadlines [in Europe]. If our estimates are correct and chemical producers would have not registered chemicals after 2013, and instead used our RASAR program, we would have saved 2.8 million animals and $490 million in testing costs – and received more reliable data. We have to admit that this is a very theoretical calculation, but it shows how valuable this approach could be for other regulatory programs and safety assessments.

In the future, a chemist could check RASAR before even synthesizing their next chemical to check whether the new structure will have problems. Or a product developer can pick alternatives to toxic substances to use in their products. This is a powerful technology, which is only starting to show all its potential.

It’s been my experience that these claims having led a movement (Toxicology for the 21st Century) are often contested with many others competing for the title of ‘leader’ or ‘first’. That said, this RASAR approach seems very exciting, especially in light of the skepticism about limiting and/or making animal testing unnecessary noted in my December 26, 2014 posting.it was from someone I thought knew better.

Here’s a link to and a citation for the paper mentioned in Hartung’s essay,

Machine learning of toxicological big data enables read-across structure activity relationships (RASAR) outperforming animal test reproducibility by Thomas Luechtefeld, Dan Marsh, Craig Rowlands, Thomas Hartung. Toxicological Sciences, kfy152, https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfy152 Published: 11 July 2018

This paper is open access.

Burning coal produces harmful titanium dioxide nanoparticles

It turns out that Canada has the fifth largest reserve of coal in the world, according to the Coal in Canada Wikipedia entry (Note: Links have been removed),

Coal reserves in Canada rank fifth largest in the world (following the former Soviet Union, the United States, the People’s Republic of China and Australia) at approximately 10 billion tons, 10% of the world total.[1] This represents more energy than all of the oil and gas in the country combined. The coal industry generates CDN$5 billion annually.[2] Most of Canada’s coal mining occurs in the West of the country.[3] British Columbia operates 10 coal mines, Alberta 9, Saskatchewan 3 and New Brunswick one. Nova Scotia operates several small-scale mines, Westray having closed following the 1992 disaster there.[4]

So, this news from Virginia holds more than the usual interest for me (I’m in British Columbia). From an Aug. 8, 2017 Virginia Tech news release (also on EurekAlert),

Environmental scientists led by the Virginia Tech College of Science have discovered that the burning of coal produces incredibly small particles of a highly unusual form of titanium oxide.

When inhaled, these nanoparticles can enter the lungs and potentially the bloodstream.

The particulates — known as titanium suboxide nanoparticles — are unintentionally produced as coal is burned, creating these tiniest of particles, as small as 100 millionths of a meter [emphasis mine], said the Virginia Tech-led team. When the particles are introduced into the air — unless captured by high-tech particle traps — they can float away from power plant stacks and travel on air currents locally, regionally, and even globally.

As an example of this, these nanoparticles were found on city streets, sidewalks, and in standing water in Shanghai, China.

The findings are published in the latest issue of Nature Communications under team leader Michael F. Hochella Jr., University Distinguished Professor of Geosciences with the College of Science, and Yi Yang, a professor at East China Normal University in Shanghai. Other study participants include Duke University, the University of Kentucky, and Laurentian University in Canada.

“The problem with these nanoparticles is that there is no easy or practical way to prevent their formation during coal burning,” Hochella said, adding that in nations with strong environmental regulations, such as the United States, most of the nanoparticles would be caught by particle traps. Not so in Africa [a continent not a nation], China, or India, where regulations are lax or nonexistent, with coal ash and smoke entering the open air.

“Due to advanced technology used at U.S.-based coal burning power plants, mandated by the Clean Air Act and the Environmental Protection Agency, most of these nanoparticles and other tiny particles are removed before the final emission of the plant’s exhaust gases,” Hochella said. “But in countries where the particles from the coal burning are not nearly so efficiently removed, or removed at all, these titanium suboxide nanoparticles and many other particle types are emitted into the atmosphere, in part resulting in hazy skies that plague many countries, especially in China and India.”

Hochella and his team found these previously unknown nanoparticles not only in coal ash from around the world and in the gaseous waste emissions of coal plants, but on city streets, in soils and storm water ponds, and at wastewater treatment plants.

“I could not believe what I have found at the beginning, because they had been reported so extremely rarely in the natural environment,” said Yang, who once worked as a visiting professor in Virginia Tech’s Department of Geosciences with Hochella. “It took me several months to confirm their occurrence in coal ash samples.”

The newly found titanium suboxide — called Magnéli phases — was once thought rare, found only sparingly on Earth in some meteorites, from a small area of rock formations in western Greenland, and occasionally in moon rocks. The findings by Hochella and his team indicate that these nanoparticles are in fact widespread globally. They are only now being studied for the first time in natural environments using powerful electron microscopes.

Why did the discovery occur now? According to the report, nearly all coal contains traces of the minerals rutile and/or anatase, both “normal,” naturally occurring, and relatively inert titanium oxides, especially in the absence of light. When those minerals are burned in the presence of coal, research found they easily and quickly converted to these unusual titanium suboxide nanoparticles. The nanoparticles then become entrained in the gases that leave the power plant.

When inhaled, the nanoparticles enter deep into the lungs, potentially all the way into the air sacs that move oxygen into our bloodstream during the normal breathing process. While human lung toxicity of these particles is not yet known, a preliminary biotoxicity test by Hochella and Richard Di Giulio, professor of environmental toxicology, and Jessica Brandt, a doctoral candidate, both at Duke University, indicates that the particles do indeed have toxicity potential.

According to the team, further study is clearly needed, especially biotoxicity testing directly relevant to the human lung. Partnering with coal-power plants either in the United States or China would be ideal, said Yang.

More troubling, the study shows that titanium suboxide nanoparticles are biologically active in the dark, making the particles highly suspect. Exact human health effects are yet unknown.

“Future studies will need to very carefully investigate and access the toxicity of titanium suboxide nanoparticles in the human lung, and this could take years, a sobering thought considering its potential danger,” Hochella said.

As the titanium suboxide nanoparticle itself is produced incidentally, Hochella and his team came across the nanoparticle by accident while studying a 2014 coal ash spill in the Dan River, North Carolina. During the study of the downstream movement of toxic metals in the ash in the Dan River, the team discovered and recognized the presence of small amounts of the highly unusual titanium suboxide.

The group later produced the titanium suboxide nanoparticles when burning coal in a lab simulation.

This new potential air pollution health hazard builds on already established findings from the World Health Organization. It estimates that 3.3 million premature deaths occur worldwide per year due to polluted air, Hochella said. In China, 1.6 million premature deaths are estimated annually due to cardiovascular and respiratory injury from air pollution. Most Chinese megacities top 100 severely hazy days each year with particle concentrations two to four times higher than WHO guidelines, Yang said.

Direct health effects on humans is only one factor. Findings of thousands of scientists have determined that the biggest driver of warming of the planet and the resulting climate change is industrial-scale coal burning. The impact of titanium suboxide nanoparticles found in the atmosphere, in addition to greenhouse gases, on animals, water, and plants is not yet known.

They’ve used an unusual unit of measurement, “100 millionths of a meter,” nanoparticles are usually described in nanometers.

Here’s a link to and a citation for the paper,

Discovery and ramifications of incidental Magnéli phase generation and release from industrial coal-burning by Yi Yang, Bo Chen, James Hower, Michael Schindler, Christopher Winkler, Jessica Brandt, Richard Di Giulio, Jianping Ge, Min Liu, Yuhao Fu, Lijun Zhang, Yuru Chen, Shashank Priya, & Michael F. Hochella Jr. Nature Communications 8, Article number: 194 (2017) doi:10.1038/s41467-017-00276-2 Published online: 08 August 2017

This paper is behind a paywall.

This put me in mind of the famous London smog, which one doesn’t hear about much anymore. For anyone not familiar with that phenomenon, here’s more from the Great Smog of London Wikipedia entry (Note: Links have been removed),

The Great Smog of London, or Great Smog of 1952 sometimes called the Big Smoke,[1] was a severe air-pollution event [emphasis mine] that affected the British capital of London in December 1952. A period of cold weather, combined with an anticyclone and windless conditions, collected airborne pollutants – mostly arising from the use of coal [emphasis mine]– to form a thick layer of smog over the city. It lasted from Friday, 5 December to Tuesday, 9 December 1952 and then dispersed quickly when the weather changed.

It caused major disruption by reducing visibility and even penetrating indoor areas, far more severe than previous smog events experienced in the past, called “pea-soupers”. Government medical reports in the following weeks, however, estimated that up until 8 December, 4,000 people had died as a direct result of the smog and 100,000 more were made ill by the smog’s effects on the human respiratory tract. More recent research suggests that the total number of fatalities was considerably greater, about 12,000.[2]

London had suffered since the 1200s from poor air quality,[3] which worsened in the 1600s,[4][5] but the Great Smog is known to be the worst air-pollution event in the history of the United Kingdom,[6] and the most significant in terms of its effect on environmental research, government regulation, and public awareness of the relationship between air quality and health.[2][4] It led to several changes in practices and regulations, including the Clean Air Act 1956. …

Using a sponge to remove mercury from lake water

I’ve heard of Lake Como in Italy but Como Lake in Minnesota is a new one for me. The Minnesota lake is featured in a March 22, 2017 news item about water and sponges on phys.org,

Mercury is very toxic and can cause long-term health damage, but removing it from water is challenging. To address this growing problem, University of Minnesota College of Food, Agricultural and Natural Sciences (CFANS) Professor Abdennour Abbas and his lab team created a sponge that can absorb mercury from a polluted water source within seconds. Thanks to the application of nanotechnology, the team developed a sponge with outstanding mercury adsorption properties where mercury contaminations can be removed from tap, lake and industrial wastewater to below detectable limits in less than 5 seconds (or around 5 minutes for industrial wastewater). The sponge converts the contamination into a non-toxic complex so it can be disposed of in a landfill after use. The sponge also kills bacterial and fungal microbes.

Think of it this way: If Como Lake in St. Paul was contaminated with mercury at the EPA limit, the sponge needed to remove all of the mercury would be the size of a basketball.

A March 16, 2017 University of Minnesota news release, which originated the news item, explains why this discovery is important for water supplies in the state of Minnesota,

This is an important advancement for the state of Minnesota, as more than two thirds of the waters on Minnesota’s 2004 Impaired Waters List are impaired because of mercury contamination that ranges from 0.27 to 12.43 ng/L (the EPA limit is 2 ng/L). Mercury contamination of lake waters results in mercury accumulation in fish, leading the Minnesota Department of Health to establish fish consumption guidelines. A number of fish species store-bought or caught in Minnesota lakes are not advised for consumption more than once a week or even once a month. In Minnesota’s North Shore, 10 percent of tested newborns had mercury concentrations above the EPA reference dose for methylmercury (the form of mercury found in fish). This means that some pregnant women in the Lake Superior region, and in Minnesota, have mercury exposures that need to be reduced.  In addition, a reduced deposition of mercury is projected to have economic benefits reflected by an annual state willingness-to-pay of $212 million in Minnesota alone.

According to the US-EPA, cutting mercury emissions to the latest established effluent limit standards would result in 130,000 fewer asthma attacks, 4,700 fewer heart attacks, and 11,000 fewer premature deaths each year. That adds up to at least $37 billion to $90 billion in annual monetized benefits annually.

In addition to improving air and water quality, aquatic life and public health, the new technology would have an impact on inspiring new regulations. Technology shapes regulations, which in turn determine the value of the market. The 2015 EPA Mercury and Air Toxics Standards regulation was estimated to cost the industry around of $9.6 billion annually in 2020. The new U of M technology has a potential of bringing this cost down and make it easy for the industry to meet regulatory requirements.

Research by Abbas and his team was funded by the MnDRIVE Global Food Venture, MnDRIVE Environment, and USDA-NIFA. They currently have three patents on this technology. To learn more, visit www.abbaslab.com.

Here’s a link to and a citation for the paper,

A Nanoselenium Sponge for Instantaneous Mercury Removal to Undetectable Levels by Snober Ahmed, John Brockgreitens, Ke Xu, and Abdennour Abbas. Advanced Functional Materials DOI: 10.1002/adfm.201606572 Version of Record online: 6 MAR 2017

© 2017 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

This paper is behind a paywall.

Political internship (Canada’s Liberal Party)

i don’t usually feature jobs for political parties but there appears to be a movement afoot in the US where scientists are possibly going to run for political office so it seems more à propos than usual. Before getting to the job information (for a Canadian political party), here’s more about the nascent scientists as politicians movement from a Jan. 25, 2017 article (Professor Smith Goes to Washington) by Ed Yong for The Atlantic (Note: Links have been removed),

For American science, the next four years look to be challenging. The newly inaugurated President Trump, and many of his Cabinet picks, have repeatedly cast doubt upon the reality of human-made climate change, questioned the repeatedly proven safety of vaccines. Since the inauguration, the administration has already frozen grants and contracts by the Environmental Protection Agency and gagged researchers at the US Department of Agriculture. Many scientists are asking themselves: What can I do?

And the answer from a newly formed group called 314 Action is: Get elected.

The organization, named after the first three digits of pi, is a political action committee that was created to support scientists in running for office. It’s the science version of Emily’s List, which focuses on pro-choice female candidates, or VoteVets, which backs war veterans. “A lot of scientists traditionally feel that science is above politics but we’re seeing that politics is not above getting involved in science,” says founder Shaughnessy Naughton. “We’re losing, and the only way to stop that is to get more people with scientific backgrounds at the table.”

Yong is a good writer and the article offers some insight into why scientists do or don’t involve themselves in the political process along with links for more information.

***ETA Feb. 13, 2017: phys.org has published an article by Deborah Netburn (originally written for the Los Angeles Times) which offers some insight into scientists some of whom are involving themselves in politics for the first in their lives in a Feb. 13, 2017 news item titled ‘Science entering a new frontier: Politics‘.***

Science Borealis, the Canadian science blog aggregrator/community, has chimed in on the science and politics situation in the US with two blog postings on the topic. I wish they’d used titles that more accurately reflected the content but there’s Sarah Boon’s Jan. 24, 2017 posting, The War on Science: Can the US Learn From Canada? on her Watershed Moments blog, where she notes how different the situations are and how much Americans have already done and are doing to work on the issues,

When Donald Trump was first elected president of the United States, our editorial team at  Science Borealis talked about whether or not we should write an editorial supporting US scientists in what was likely going to become a fight for science. In the end we decided not to write it, for a number of reasons. For one thing, the likely impact of Trump on science remained a huge unknown. But for another thing, we thought US scientists were already well-prepared for a war on science. …

Unfortunately, Boon goes on to offer a collection of writings on the Canadian situation. I understand it’s well meant but I can’t help recalling people who rushed to comfort me in a difficult situation by recounting their own stories, at length. It wasn’t as helpful as they might have hoped.

John Dupuis’ Jan. 25, 2017 posting, The Trump War on Science: What Can the US Learn From Canada’s Experience? on his Confessions of a Science Librarian blog, is more egregiously titled but he goes on to provide links to resources for more information on the situation in the US. Although he, too, goes on to offer links to more about the Canadian situation.

One final observation, I have an objection to the term ‘war on science’; there was never a war on science in Canada. There was/is a war on certain kinds of science. In any event, here’s getting to the point of this posting.

Internship

For those scientific (stretching past political science students) types who think they might be interested in politics,  from the 2017 Liberal Party of Canada Internship Program page,

Are you a young Canadian with a love of politics? Are you passionate about serving your community, engaging with volunteers, and talking with Canadians about the issues that matter most? The Liberal Party of Canada is looking for hardworking young leaders to join Justin Trudeau’s team this summer, to help us continue to grow Canada’s Liberal movement from coast to coast to coast.

Whether it includes marching in the Vancouver Pride Parade, knocking on doors in Halifax, getting our message out to Canadians using social media, supporting our local Liberal associations in their communities, or learning directly from our campaign experts in Ottawa, an internship with the LPC is guaranteed to be an unforgettable summer! Our interns will have the opportunity to learn the foundations of organizing and campaigning directly from the people who paved our road to victory in 2015, and those who are already hard at work planning for the next election. With less than three years until the next general election, our team is looking for talented young Canadians to bring fresh and innovative ideas to the table.

You’ll gain valuable career experience, and get to know leading members of the Liberal team.

While every individual’s tasks and projects will be different, selected Liberal interns may work in areas including:

  • Communications and Media Relations
  • National Field – Campaigns
  • Social Media
  • Email Marketing
  • Graphic and Web Design
  • Local Field and Outreach
  • Riding Services
  • Party Operations
  • Finance and Accounting

Who: You! All Registered Liberals are encouraged to apply! We are looking for talented young Canadians from coast to coast to coast to work on Justin Trudeau’s team and become the next generation of leaders in the largest, most open, and most inclusive political movement in Canadian history.

Where: Most Interns will be placed in the Liberal Party of Canada National Office in Ottawa, and there also exciting opportunities available in our Regional Offices across the country. Please indicate in your application at least one city where you would be interested in working with our team.

When: Internship positions will run from Monday, May 1 to Friday, August 25. You must be available full-time for the duration of the internship.

This is a full-time, paid internship. [emphasis mine]

All applicants will receive an email of confirmation upon the submission of their application. Interviews will be conducted throughout the month of February. Due to a high volume of applications, only those who are selected for an interview will be contacted.

Apply now

Application Deadline: 11:59pm PST on Friday, February 10, 2017. [emphasis mine]

There is a FAQs (frequently asked questions) section on the the 2017 Liberal Party of Canada Internship Program page. Good luck!

2016 report on nanomaterial reporting released by French government

Lynn L. Bergeson has announced the release of a new report from the French government in her Jan. 3, 2017 posting on Nanotechnology Now,

In November 2016, the Ministry of the Environment, Energy, and the Sea released its 2016 report, in French, Éléments issus des déclarations des substances à l’état nanoparticulaire. … The report analyzes nanomaterial declarations received in 2016 for reporting year 2015. Under Decree No. 2012-232, companies that manufacture, import, and/or distribute a “substance with nanoparticle status” in an amount of at least 100 grams per year must submit an annual report with substance identity, quantity, and use information. According to the report, while the number of declarations received in 2016 decreased from 2015, the quantity of materials produced increased (350,487 tonnes vs. 300,822 tonnes in 2015), as well as the quantity imported (125,279 tonnes vs. 114,951 tonnes in 2015).

For people with the French language skills, you can find the report here (PDF). You can also check out the R-Nano website (French language) (English language) for more information about the reporting programme in France.

In related news. the US Environmental Protection Agency announced its one-time only nanomaterial reporting requirements as highlighted in my Jan. 18, 2017 posting.

US Environmental Protection Agency finalizes its one-time reporting requirements for nanomaterials

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced its one-time reporting requirement for  nanomaterials. From a Jan. 12, 2017 news item on Nanowerk,

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is requiring one-time reporting and recordkeeping requirements on nanoscale chemical substances in the marketplace. These substances are nano-sized versions of chemicals that are already in the marketplace.
EPA seeks to facilitate innovation while ensuring safety of the substances. EPA currently reviews new chemical substances manufactured or processed as nanomaterials prior to introduction into the marketplace to ensure that they are safe.

For the first time, EPA is using [the] TSCA [Toxic Substances Control Act] to collect existing exposure and health and safety information on chemicals currently in the marketplace when manufactured or processed as nanoscale materials.

The companies will notify EPA of certain information:
– specific chemical identity;
– production volume;
– methods of manufacture; processing, use, exposure, and release information; and,available health and safety data.

Reactions

David Stegon writes about the requirement in a Jan. 12, 2017 posting on Chemical Watch,

The US EPA has finalised its nanoscale materials reporting rule, completing a process that began more than 11 years ago.

The US position contrasts with that of the European Commission, which has rejected the idea of a specific mandatory reporting obligation for nanomaterials. Instead it insists such data can be collected under REACH’s registration rules for substances in general. It has told Echa [ECHA {European Chemicals Agency}] to develop ‘nano observatory’ pages on its website with existing nanomaterial information. Meanwhile, Canada set its reporting requirements in 2015.

The US rule, which comes under section 8(a) of TSCA, will take effect 120 days after publication in the Federal Register.

It defines nanomaterials as chemical substances that are:

  • solids at 25 degrees Celsius at standard atmospheric pressure;
  • manufactured or processed in a form where any particles, including aggregates and agglomerates, are between 1 and 100 nanometers (nm) in at least one dimension; and
  • manufactured or processed to exhibit one or more unique and novel property.

The rule does not apply to chemical substances manufactured or processed in forms that contain less than 1% by weight of any particles between 1 and 100nm.

Taking account of comments received on the rulemaking, the EPA made three changes to the proposed definition:

  • it added the definition of unique and novel properties to help identify substances that act differently at nano sizes;
  • it clarified that a substance is not a nanomaterial if it fits the specified size range, but does not have a size-dependent property that differs from the same chemical at sizes greater than 100nm; and
  • it eliminated part of the nanomaterial definition that had said a reportable chemical may not include a substance that only has trace amounts of primary particles, aggregates, or agglomerates in the size range of 1 to 100nm.

The EPA has added the new information gathering rule (scroll down about 50% of the way) on its Control of Nanoscale Materials under the Toxic Substances Control Act webpage.

There’s also this Jan. 17, 2017 article by Meagan Parrish for the ChemInfo which provides an alternative perspective and includes what appears to be some misinformation (Note: A link has been removed),

It was several years in the making, but in the final stages of its rule-making process for nanomaterial reporting, the Environmental Protection Agency declined to consider feedback from the industry.

Now, with the final language published and the rule set to go into effect in May, some in the industry are concerned that the agency is requiring an unnecessary amount of costly reporting that isn’t likely to reveal potential hazards. The heightened regulations could also hamper the pace of innovation underway in the industry.

“The poster child for nanotechnology is carbon nanotubes,” says James Votaw, a partner with Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, of the form of carbon that is 10,000 smaller than human hair but stronger than steel. “It can be used to make very strong materials and as an additive in plastics to make them electrically conductive or stiffer.”

The EPA has been attempting to define nanomaterials since 2004 and assess the potential for environmental or human health risks associated with their use. In 2008, the EPA launched an effort to collect voluntarily submitted information from key players in the industry, but after a few years, the agency wasn’t happy with amount of responses. The effort to create a mandatory reporting requirement was launched in 2010.

Yet, according to Votaw, after a 2015 proposal of the rule was extensively criticized by the industry for being overly ambiguous and overly inclusive of its coverage, the industry asked the EPA to reopen a dialogue on the rule. The EPA declined.

The new reporting requirement is expected to cost companies about $27.79 million during the first year and $3.09 million in subsequent years. [emphasis mine]

As far as I’m aware, this is a one-time reporting requirement. Although I’m sure many would like to see that change.

As for the Canadian situation, I mentioned the nanomaterials mandatory survey noted in Stegon’s piece in a July 29, 2015 posting. It was one of a series of mandatory surveys (currently, a survey on asbestos is underway) issued as part of Canada’s Chemicals Management Plan. You can find more information about the nanomaterials notice and approach to the survey although there doesn’t appear to have been a report made public but perhaps it’s too soon. From the Nanomaterials Mandatory Survey page,

The Government of Canada is undertaking a stepwise approach to address nanoscale forms of substances on the DSL. The proposed approach consists of three phases:

  • Establishment of a list of existing nanomaterials in Canada (this includes the section 71 Notice);
  • Prioritization of existing nanomaterials for action; and
  • Action on substances identified for further work.

The overall approach was first described in a consultation document entitled Proposed Approach to Address Nanoscale Forms of Substances on the Domestic Substances List, published on March 18, 2015. This consultation document was open for a 60-day public comment period to solicit feedback from stakeholders, particularly on the first phase of the approach.

A second consultation document entitled Proposed Prioritization Approach for Nanoscale Forms of Substances on the Domestic Substances List was published on July 27, 2016. In this document, the approach proposed for prioritization of existing nanomaterials on the DSL is described, taking into consideration the results of the section 71 Notice.  Comments on this consultation document may be submitted prior to September 25, 2016 …

I look forward to discovering a report on the Canadian nanomaterials survey should one be made public.

Nanosunscreen in swimming pools

Thanks to Lynn L. Bergeson’s Sept. 21, 2016 posting for information about the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) research into what happens to the nanoparticles when your nanosunscreen washes off into a swimming pool. Bergeson’s post points to an Aug. 15, 2016 EPA blog posting by Susanna Blair,

… It’s not surprising that sunscreens are detected in pool water (after all, some is bound to wash off when we take a dip), but certain sunscreens have also been widely detected in our ecosystems and in our wastewater. So how is our sunscreen ending up in our environment and what are the impacts?

Well, EPA researchers are working to better understand this issue, specifically investigating sunscreens that contain engineered nanomaterials and how they might change when exposed to the chemicals in pool water [open access paper but you need to register for free] … But before I delve into that, let’s talk a bit about sunscreen chemistry and nanomaterials….

Blair goes on to provide a good brief description of  nanosunscreens before moving onto her main topic,

Many sunscreens contain titanium dioxide (TiO2) because it absorbs UV radiation, preventing it from damaging our skin. But titanium dioxide decomposes into other molecules when in the presence of water and UV radiation. This is important because one of the new molecules produced is called a singlet oxygen reactive oxygen species. These reactive oxygen species have been shown to cause extensive cell damage and even cell death in plants and animals. To shield skin from reactive oxygen species, titanium dioxide engineered nanomaterials are often coated with other materials such as aluminum hydroxide (Al(OH)3).

EPA researchers are testing to see whether swimming pool water degrades the aluminum hydroxide coating, and if the extent of this degradation is enough to allow the production of potentially harmful reactive oxygen species. In this study, the coated titanium dioxide engineered nanomaterials were exposed to pool water for time intervals ranging from 45 minutes to 14 days, followed by imaging using an electron microscope.  Results show that after 3 days, pool water caused the aluminum hydroxide coating to degrade, which can reduce the coating’s protective properties and increase the potential toxicity.  To be clear, even with degraded coating, the toxicity measured from the coated titanium dioxide, was significantly less [emphasis mine] than the uncoated material. So in the short-term – in the amount of time one might wear sunscreen before bathing and washing it off — these sunscreens still provide life-saving protection against UV radiation. However, the sunscreen chemicals will remain in the environment considerably longer, and continue to degrade as they are exposed to other things.

Blair finishes by explaining that research is continuing as the EPA researches the whole life cycle of engineered nanomaterials.

Nanotechnology and water sustainability webinar, Oct. 19, 2016

An upcoming (Oct. 19, 2016) webinar from the US National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) is the first of a new series (from an Oct. 7, 2016 news item on Nanowerk),

“Water Sustainability through Nanotechnology: A Federal Perspective” – This webinar is the first in a series exploring the confluence of nanotechnology and water. This event will introduce the Nanotechnology Signature Initiative (NSI): Water Sustainability through Nanotechnology and highlight the activities of several participating Federal agencies. …

The NNI event page for the Water Sustainability through Nanotechnology webinar provides more detail,

Panelists include Nora Savage (National Science Foundation), Daniel Barta (National Aeronautics and Space Adminstration), Paul Shapiro (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), Jim Dobrowolski (USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture), and Hongda Chen (USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture).

Webinar viewers will be able to submit questions for the panelists to answer during the Q&A period. Submitted questions will be considered in the order received and may be posted on the NNI website. A moderator will identify relevant questions and pose them to the speakers. Due to time constraints, not all questions may be addressed during the webinar. The moderator reserves the right to group similar questions and to skip questions, as appropriate.

There will be more in this series according to the webinar event page,

  • Increase water availability.
  • Improve the efficiency of water delivery and use.
  • Enable next-generation water monitoring systems.

You can register here to participate.

The NNI has a webpage dedicated to Water Sustainability through Nanotechnology: Nanoscale solutions for a Global-Scale Challenge, which explains their perspective on the matter,

Water is essential to all life, and its significance bridges many critical areas for society: food, energy, security, and the environment. Projected population growth in the coming decades and associated increases in demands for water exacerbate the mounting pressure to address water sustainability. Yet, only 2.5% of the world’s water is fresh water, and some of the most severe impacts of climate change are on our country’s water resources. For example, in 2012, droughts affected about two-thirds of the continental United States, impacting water supplies, tourism, transportation, energy, and fisheries – costing the agricultural sector alone $30 billion. In addition, the ground water in many of the Nation’s aquifers is being depleted at unsustainable rates, which necessitates drilling ever deeper to tap groundwater resources. Finally, water infrastructure is a critically important but sometimes overlooked aspect of water treatment and distribution. Both technological and sociopolitical solutions are required to address these problems.

The text also goes on to describe how nanotechnology could  assist with this challenge.

The Canadian nano scene as seen by the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development)

I’ve grumbled more than once or twice about the seemingly secret society that is Canada’s nanotechnology effort (especially health, safety, and environment issues) and the fact that I get most my information from Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) documents. That said, thank you to Lynne Bergeson’s April 8, 2016 post on Nanotechnology Now for directions to the latest OECD nano document,

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development recently posted a March 29, 2016, report entitled Developments in Delegations on the Safety of Manufactured Nanomaterials — Tour de Table. … The report compiles information, provided by Working Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials (WPMN) participating delegations, before and after the November 2015 WPMN meeting, on current developments on the safety of manufactured nanomaterials.

It’s an international roundup that includes: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, U.S., and the European Commission (EC), as well as the Business and Industry Advisory Committee to the OECD (BIAC) and International Council on Animal Protection in OECD Programs (ICAPO).

As usual, I’m focusing on Canada. From the DEVELOPMENTS IN DELEGATIONS ON THE SAFETY OF MANUFACTURED NANOMATERIALS – TOUR DE TABLE Series on the Safety of Manufactured Nanomaterials No. 67,

CANADA
National  developments  on  human  health  and  environmental  safety  including  recommendations, definitions, or discussions related to adapting or applying existing regulatory systems or the drafting of new laws/ regulations/amendments/guidance materials A consultation document on a Proposed Approach to Address Nanoscale Forms of Substances on the Domestic  Substances  List was  published  with  a  public  comment  period  ending on  May  17,  2015. The proposed approach outlines the Government’s plan to address nanomaterials considered in commerce in Canada (on  Canada’s  public inventory).  The  proposal is a stepwise  approach to  acquire  and  evaluate information,  followed  by  any  necessary  action. A  follow-up  stakeholder  workshop  is  being  planned  to discuss  next  steps  and  possible  approaches  to prioritize  future  activities. The  consultation document  is available at: http://www.ec.gc.ca/lcpe-cepa/default.asp?lang=En&n=1D804F45-1

A mandatory information gathering survey was published on July 25, 2015. The purpose of the survey is to collect information to determine the commercialstatus of certain nanomaterials in Canada. The survey targets  206  substances  considered  to  be  potentially  in commerce  at  the  nanoscale. The  list  of  206 substances was developed using outcomes from the Canada-United States Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC)  Nanotechnology  Initiative  to  identify nanomaterial  types. These  nanomaterial  types  were  cross-referenced  with  the Domestic  Substances  List to  develop  a  preliminary  list  of  substances  which are potentially intentionally manufactured at the nanoscale. The focus of the survey aligns with the Proposed Approach to  Address  Nanoscale  Forms  of  Substances  on  the Domestic  Substances  List (see  above)  and certain  types  of  nanomaterials  were  excluded  during the  development  of  the  list  of  substances. The information  being  requested  by  the  survey  includes substance  identification,  volumes,  and  uses.  This information will feed into the Government’s proposed approach to address nanomaterials on the Domestic Substances List. Available at: http://gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p1/2015/2015-07-25/html/notice-avis-eng.php

Information on:

a.risk  assessment  decisions, including  the  type  of:  (a)  nanomaterials  assessed; (b) testing recommended; and (c) outcomes of the assessment;

Four substances were notified to the program since the WPMN14 – three surface modified substances and  one  inorganic  substance.  No  actions,  including  additional  data requests,  were  taken  due  to  low expected  exposures  in  accordance  with  the New  Substances  Notifications  Regulations  (Chemicals and Polymers) (NSNR) for two of the substances.  Two of the substances notified were subject to a Significant New Activity Notice. A Significant New Activity notice is an information gathering tool used to require submission  of  additional  information  if  it  is suspected  that  a  significant  new  activity  may  result in  the substance becoming toxic under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.

b.Proposals, or modifications to previous regulatory decisions

As  part  of  the  Government’s  Chemicals  Management Plan,  a  review  is  being  undertaken  for  all substances  which  have  been  controlled through  Significant  New  Activity  (SNAc)  notices (see  above).  As part  of  this  activity,  the  Government  is  reviewing past  nanomaterials  SNAc  notices  to  see  if  new information  is  available  to  refine  the  scope  and information  requirements.    As  a  result  of  this  review, 9 SNAc  notices  previously  in  place  for  nanomaterials have  been  rescinded.    This  work  is  ongoing,  and  a complete review of all nanomaterial SNAcs is currently planned to be completed in 2016.

Information related to good practice documents

The Canada-led,  ISO  standards project, ISO/DTR  19716 Nanotechnologies — Characterization  of cellulose  nanocrystals, [emphasis mine] initiated  in  April 2014, is  now at Committee  Draft  (CD)  3-month  ISO ballot, closing    Aug 31, 2015. Ballot comments will be addressed during JWG2 Measurement and Characterization working  group meetings  at  the 18th Plenary  of  ISO/TC229, Nanotechnologies,  being held in Edmonton, Alberta, Sep. 28 – Oct. 2, 2015.

Research   programmes   or   strategies   designed   to  address   human   health   and/   or environmental safety aspects of nanomaterials

Scientific research

Environment Canada continues to support various academic and departmental research projects. This research has to date included studying fate and effects of nanomaterials in the aquatic, sediment, soil, and air  compartments. Funding  in  fiscal  2015-16  continues  to  support  such  projects,  including  sub-surface transportation, determining key physical-chemical parameters to predict ecotoxicity, and impacts of nano-silver [silver nanoparticles]  addition  to  a  whole  lake  ecosystem [Experimental Lakes Area?]. Environment  Canada  has  also  partnered  with  the National Research  Council  of  Canada  recently  to  initiate  a project  on  the  development  of  test  methods  to identify surfaces of nanomaterials for the purposes of regulatory identification and to support risk assessments. In addition,  Environment  Canada  is  working  with  academic laboratories in  Canada  and  Germany  to  prepare guidance to support testing of nanoparticles using the OECD Test Guideline for soil column leaching.

Health  Canada  continues  its  research  efforts  to  investigate  the  effects  of  surface-modified  silica nanoparticles. The   aims   of   these   projects   are  to:   (1) study the importance of size and surface functionalization;  and  (2)  provide a genotoxic profile and  to  identify  mechanistic  relationships  of  particle properties  to  elicited  toxic  responses.  A manuscript reporting  the in  vitro genotoxic,  cytotoxic and transcriptomic  responses  following  exposure  to  silica  nanoparticles  has  recently  been  submitted to  a  peer reviewed journal and is currently undergoing review. Additional manuscripts reporting the toxicity results obtained to date are in preparation.

Information on public/stakeholder consultations;

A consultation document on a Proposed Approach to Address Nanoscale Forms of Substances on the Domestic  Substances  List was  published  with a  public  comment  period ending  on May  17,  2015  (see Question  1).  Comments  were  received  from approximately  20  stakeholders  representing  industry and industry  associations,  as  well  as  non-governmental  organizations. These  comments  will  inform  decision making to address nanomaterials in commerce in Canada.

Information on research or strategies on life cycle aspects of nanomaterials

Canada, along with Government agencies in the United States, Non-Governmental Organizations and Industry,  is  engaged  in  a  project  to  look  at releases  of  nanomaterials  from  industrial  consumer  matrices (e.g., coatings). The objectives of the NanoRelease Consumer Products project are to develop protocols or
methods (validated  through  interlaboratory  testing) to  measure  releases  of  nanomaterials  from  solid matrices as a result of expected uses along the material life cycle for consumer products that contain the nanomaterials. The  project  is  currently  in  the  advanced  stages  of Phase  3  (Interlaboratory  Studies).  The objectives of Phase 3 of the project are to develop robust methods for producing and collecting samples of CNT-epoxy  and  CNT-rubber  materials  under  abrasion  and  weathering scenarios,  and  to  detect  and quantify, to the extent possible, CNT release fractions. Selected laboratories in the US, Canada, Korea and the European Community are finalising the generation and analysis of sanding and weathering samples and the    results    are    being    collected    in    a   data    hub    for    further    interpretation    and    analysis.

Additional details about the project can be found at the project website: http://www.ilsi.org/ResearchFoundation/RSIA/Pages/NanoRelease1.aspx

Under the OECD Working Party on Resource Productivity and Waste (WPRPW), the expert group on waste containing nanomaterials has developed four reflection papers on the fate of nanomaterials in waste treatment  operations.  Canada  prepared the  paper  on  the  fate  of  nanomaterials in  landfills;  Switzerland on the  recycling  of  waste  containing  nanomaterials;  Germany  on  the  incineration  of  waste  containing nanomaterials;  and  France  on  nanomaterials  in wastewater  treatment.  The  purpose  of  these  papers is to provide  an  overview  of  the  existing  knowledge  on the  behaviour  of  nanomaterials  during  disposal operations and identify the information gaps. At the fourth meeting of the WPRPW that took place on 12-14 November 2013, three of the four reflection papers were considered by members. Canada’s paper was presented and discussed at the fifth meeting of the WPRPRW that took place on 8-10 December 2014. The four  papers  were  declassified  by  EPOC  in  June  2015, and  an  introductory  chapter  was  prepared  to  draw these  papers  together. The introductory  chapter  and accompanying  papers  will  be  published in  Fall  2015. At  the sixth  meeting  of  the  WPRPW  in  June – July  2015,  the  Secretariat  presented  a  proposal  for an information-sharing  platform  that  would  allow  delegates  to  share research  and  documents  related  to nanomaterials. During a trial phase, delegates will be asked to use the platform and provide feedback on its use at the next meeting of the WPRPW in December 2015. This information-sharing platform will also be accessible to delegates of the WPMN.

Information related to exposure measurement and exposure mitigation.

Canada and the Netherlands are co-leading a project on metal impurities in carbon nanotubes. A final version  of  the  report  is  expected  to  be ready for WPMN16. All  research has  been completed (e.g. all components are published or in press and there was a presentation by Pat Rasmussen to SG-08 at the Face-to-Face Meeting in Seoul June 2015). The first draft will be submitted to the SG-08 secretariat in autumn 2015. Revisions  will  be  based  on  early  feedback  from  SG-08  participants.  The  next  steps  depend  on  this feedback and amount of revision required.

Information on past, current or future activities on nanotechnologies that are being done in co-operation with non-OECD countries.

A webinar between ECHA [European Chemicals Agency], the US EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] and Canada was hosted by Canada on April 16, 2015. These are  regularly  scheduled  trilateral  discussions  to keep  each  other  informed  of  activities  in  respective jurisdictions.

In  March 2015, Health  Canada  hosted  3  nanotechnology knowledge  transfer sessions  targeting Canadian  government  research  and  regulatory  communities  working  in  nanotechnology.  These  sessions were  an  opportunity  to  share  information  and perspectives  on  the  current  state  of  science supporting  the regulatory  oversight  of  nanomaterials with  Government.  Presenters  provided  detailed  outputs  from  the OECD WPMN including: updates on OECD test methods and guidance documents; overviews of physical-chemical properties, as well as their relevance to toxicological testing and risk assessment; ecotoxicity and fate   test   methods;   human   health   risk   assessment   and   alternative   testing   strategies;   and exposure measurement  and  mitigation.  Guest  speakers  included  Dr  Richard  C.  Pleus  Managing  Director  and  Director of Intertox, Inc and Dr. Vladimir Murashov Special Assistant on Nanotechnology to the Director of National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).

On   March   4-5, 2015, Industry   Canada   and   NanoCanada co-sponsored  “Commercializing Nanotechnology  in  Canada”,  a  national  workshop  that brought  together  representatives  from  industry, academia and government to better align Canada’s efforts in nanotechnology.  This workshop was the first of  its  kind  in  Canada. It  also  marked  the  official  launch  of  NanoCanada (http://nanocanada.com/),  a national  initiative  that  is  bringing  together stakeholders  from  across  Canada  to  bridge  the  innovation  gap and stimulates emerging technology solutions.

It’s nice to get an update about what’s going on. Despite the fact this report was published in 2016 the future tense is used in many of the verbs depicting actions long since accomplished. Maybe this was a cut-and-paste job?

Moving on, I note the mention of the Canada-led,  ISO  standards project, ISO/DTR  19716 Nanotechnologies — Characterization  of cellulose  nanocrystals (CNC). For those not familiar with CNC, the Canadian government has invested hugely in this material derived mainly from trees, in Canada. Other countries and jurisdictions have researched nanocellulose derived from carrots, bananas, pineapples, etc.

Finally, it was interesting to find out about the existence of  NanoCanada. In looking up the Contact Us page, I noticed Marie D’Iorio’s name. D’Iorio, as far as I’m aware, is still the Executive Director for Canada’s National Institute of Nanotechnology (NINT) or here (one of the National Research Council of Canada’s institutes). I have tried many times to interview someone from the NINT (Nils Petersen, the first NINT ED and Martha Piper, a member of the advisory board) and more recently D’Iorio herself only to be be met with a resounding silence. However, there’s a new government in place, so I will try again to find out more about the NINT, and, this time, NanoCanada.