Some graphene firms have reaped its potential but others are struggling
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
Try not to breathe any, studies are still pending but that stuff gets everywhere.
Literally just, take a process that used to use sand or horsehair or whatever filler, and add a significant portion by mass of asbestos powder instead.
Answering my own question: the WHO estimates it costs 200K lives per year. No estimates on the other side, but that's a big number to overcome...
I'm not sure how to square that with claims like:
> With phenolic resins, asbestos products are produced which will provide insulation and retain strength when subjected to 5,000°F for periods of minutes (1 to 30 minutes) . See Figure 2.1 in which a rocket motor part is subjected to a temperature of 5,000°F. Figure 2.1. Rocket motor aft (asbestos-phenolic insulator) before and after firing at 5,000°F.
> The temperature approximately 1/8 in. from the surface exposed to 5,000°F will be approximately 200°F after 1/2 to 1 min. of exposure.
> When combined with magnesium carbonate and other similar products, heat insulators can be produced which will be useful for many years in such applications as boilers operating at temperatures from 500° to 1,200°F or 1,800°F.
We seem to use a matted "Ceramic Fiber" roll for its high-heat insulation capabilities these days, up to about 2300F-2600F depending on type. Asbestos fiber insulation seems to be good to somewhere between 1500F to 2700F depending on how you use it. Ceramic fiber is carcinogenic in a similar way to asbestos, but apparently considerably safer due to the fiber length/alignment.
I would understand such comment in the context of carbon nanotubes or fullerenes, but graphene? Have you forgot that graphite is literally a bunch of stacked graphene?
Considering how much graphite pencils are used across the world, we would've seen hypothetical negative effects already with a high degree of confidence.
Yes, graphene production aims to produce larger sheets, but it only makes graphene less biologically active, not more.
Graphitosis is the graphite equivalent of silicosis and asbestosis so yes we’ve got plenty of evidence it’s harmful, but it’s mostly a problem with occupational exposure where large amounts of graphite dust are produced.
That might change if there’s tiny sheets of graphene flaking off everywhere from nanocoatings and it turns out to be carcinogenic for the same reason asbestos is (which isn’t out of the question given the studies on CNTs and nanotoxicity in general).
Why do you expect a different result from "tiny sheets of graphene flaking off everywhere from nanocoatings" compared to the same flaking from graphite smeared across paper?
Nanosheets are a different story and I’m worried that the graphene produced for industrial applications will be much smaller, flake off much easier in the field as distinct sheets like from abrasion, and stay airborne for longer. In that form they’re likely to behave like asbestos and the evidence is already pretty strong that they do.
That said, I don't think we will ever have large amounts of it in house objects. Graphene doesn't seem to be useful that way. We may have it embedded in some material, but that will limit exposure to waste management and manufacture.
Also, differently from asbestos, graphene is not chemically stable. So very small pieces of it have a limited half-life.
It doesn't mean it's good - it can do damage in the time it's present in various systems in the body, but it's not going to present a chronic, persistent threat like asbestos.
Graphene oxidizes relatively easily, and is vulnerable to all sorts of chemical processes that can attack the edges, and there are all sorts of metabolic pathways that can handle degrading and eliminating carbon. Natural decomposition from graphene in degrading concrete, asphalt, building materials, etc should handle it without any significant health risks, as well.
Some amount of graphene is present in carbon black and ground charcoal that's been used for tattoos for at least 8,000 years (Ötzi had some pretty cool tats) and hasn't presented any significant health threats.
Don't go around inhaling graphene flakes, wear sensible PPE when handling it. Acute exposure is already known to be unhealthy. That said, carbon is processed pretty well by a multitude of organisms and natural chemical processes, making the risk of chronic graphene contamination fairly low. It's a different order of hazard than asbestos entirely, and by all the evidence available so far, carbon fibers are going to be the more dangerous material.
One example was a floor material for care homes that could detect pressure in a 2D sense, so the floor itself could detect "fall events" and track movement + gait etc.
And I think they had a prototype of a similar thing in Australia that weighed all trucks coming and going from a mine just under the road they drove, no need to stop on weighing stations.
No idea where that went.
Nowadays we'd do the fall detection with either a wrist device (any Apple Watch can do this) or cameras + "AI" detection. The floor is a lot more privacy preserving though, it only detected shapes and pressure.
Camera on the wall is quick, easy, doesn't have to deal with the wear and tear usage of a floor, and gives a good enough solution for the problem.
their Making Graphene and Graphene Oxide playlist;
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLbQqm4rNo6243e69xp-ZPUkYD...
a more recent 30m omnibus of a number of their graphene videos;
finishing with blood and milk and eggs!
their last video;
and after;
cheers mate :')
Musou black is what I tried.
I'll admit that it's pretty niche, but it is also used in tires, batteries, and as grounding in electronics.
It isn't the easiest stuff to work with, I'll admit, and we've done some experiments in nanotubes as well.
Happy to answer any questions.
Wait what? If this is actually true this Jensen is going to be the richest/most important. If $500B is being invested in Datacenters and this company is raising a few ten million, something isn't adding up here.
It looks like they're using "graphene" as a pigment in the plastic, and I'd wager this probably means "99% conventional black pigment and 1% graphene"...