CDC "Current Intelligence Bulletin 60 Interim Guidance for Medical Screening and Hazard Surveillance for Workers Potentially Exposed to Engineered Nanoparticles" 2009 To 2024
This guideline was published in 2009. At that time, the dangers of exposure to engineered nanoparticles was not known. They could not recommend screening tests for adverse health effects then. The toxicity of nanometals like cadmium and titanium was stated. These and other metals are routinely found in vaccines as undisclosed ingredients New quality-control investigations on vaccines: micro- and nanocontamination
The health hazard exposure may be without symptoms and they were wondering in 2009 if they should screen these workers. This was an interim guidance, meaning a placeholder, until someone figures out what to do.
Fast forward to 2024. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Nanotechnology Research Center (NTRC) discusses occupational safety and health hazards in the nanotechnology field. The bottom line of their assessment is the same. It looks like at some point someone looked into the cancer causing potentials of carbon nanotubes, which degrades into Graphene Oxide ( GO). As we know from the Pfizer documents, GO and Gold are used to create the spike protein.
Nano and microplastics are discussed, but the hazards are still not acknowledged. For the fact that there is a phenomenal growth rate in the nanotechnology market forcasted, it seems the consideration and study of adverse health reactions is rather sparse.
The other notable omission: not a word about the potential warfare applications of engineered nanoparticles
Here is the entire document:
They do admit the toxicity of titanium dioxide, which was found in the C19 shots and Cadmium which is used for Quantum Dot manufacturing.
Single walled Carbon Nanotubes ( which degrade into Graphene Oxide, hence the similarity to Graphene side effects) was known then to cause lung scarring in animals.
Other chemicals of interest specifically mentioned are Carbon Black which is used in geoengineering operations; Styrene which is polystyrene building block making styrofoam and is currently used as stealth lipid nanoparticles in Moderna C19 shots.
Here is the updated information of the CDC for Nanomaterial safety from 2024.
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Nanotechnology Research Center (NTRC) has taken on a global leadership role on research and guidance for nanomaterials in the workplace since the formation of NTRC in 2004 [1]. Global Collaborations is one of the ten critical topic areas for nanotechnology research and communication identified by NTRC [2]. The NIOSH global collaboration efforts build on the strong NIOSH NTRC research and guidance efforts contributing to the global technical information and guidance about protecting workers and aim to facilitate international collaborations for research and for development and dissemination of guidance and training to protect workers not only nationally, but also worldwide from the potential risks of manufactured nanomaterials.
The NIOSH NTRC has successfully engaged with a number of international entities at all levels — bilateral with sister organizations in other countries as well as multilateral with regional and global organizations. At the bilateral level, the NIOSH NTRC has been communicating and collaborating with the United Kingdom Institute of Occupational Medicine and the Health and Safety Laboratory; the Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research; the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety; the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health; and the Australian Safety and Compensation Council (Safe Work Australia) [3].
At the multilateral level, NIOSH has been collaborating with major international government-level organizations such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the United Nations (UN) World Health Organization, the UN International Labour Organization and the UN Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) to build cooperation, coordination, and communication among governments around the world. NIOSH has been also working with international nongovernmental organizations such as the International Commission on Occupational Health and the International Council on Nanotechnology on global projects of information dissemination and communication.
NIOSH scientists have actively participated in all major international standards setting organizations developing standards for nanotechnology safety including the ASTM International E56 Committee on Nanotechnology and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Technical Committee (TC) 229 Nanotechnologies.
Major global milestones and success indicators of the NTRC include:
November 2005: NIOSH participated in the inaugural meeting of ISO TC 229 Nanotechnologies. NIOSH has continued active participation and has been taking on increasingly higher-level leadership roles in TC 229.
October 2006: NIOSH joined the inaugural meeting of the OECD Working Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials. Since that meeting, NIOSH has served as the chair of the Steering Group on exposure, which has developed and published 18 (as of 01-11-24) reports on occupational, consumer and environmental exposures to nanomaterials [4].
October 2008: The International Organization for Standardization published the first document on the safety of nanomaterials, Technical Report (TR) 12885, Health and Safety Practices in Occupational Settings Relevant to Nanotechnologies. This report, developed under the leadership of NIOSH, was based on the NIOSH Approaches to Safe Nanotechnology.
April 2010: NIOSH signed an agreement with UNITAR on the critical importance of the world of work in defining sound occupational safety and health prevention policies and interventions in the workplace and implementing strategies for expanding protection to workers and their communities. Through this agreement, NIOSH has assisted with developing and conducting UNITAR training on nanotechnology safety for government officials around the world.
October 2010: The World Health Organization approved the development of guidelines on worker safety in nanotechnology workplaces under the leadership of NIOSH. The guidelines were published in December 2017 [5].
September 2014: ISO selected NIOSH to lead an international working group on the health, safety, and environmental aspects of nanotechnologies. The working group is part of a larger initiative by ISO to develop standardization in the nanotechnologies field.
October 2014: The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) working group met to evaluate carcinogenicity of carbon nanotubes, fluoro-edinite, and silicon carbide. NIOSH research [6] was integral in the IARC decision to classify MWCNT-7 as a group 2b carcinogen.
November 2016: ISO published technical report TR 18637, Overview of Available Frameworks for the Development of Occupational Exposure Limits and Bands for Nano-Objects and their Aggregates and Agglomerates (NOAAs), which was developed under the leadership of NIOSH.
June 2020: American National Standards Institute selected NIOSH to chair the U.S. Technical Advisory Group for ISO TC 229.
As NIOSH NTRC enters its third decade of ensuring the safety of nanomaterials in the workplace, we will continue expanding our global leadership of occupational safety and health research and guidance for nanomaterials. Experience gained with nanomaterials will be applied to other emerging workplace hazards such as nanoplastics [7] and advanced materials [8].
The growing problem of plastic pollution in the environment is receiving an increasing amount of attention (see article in Nature). Small particles of plastics are often referred to as microplastics (plastic particles smaller than 5 mm [1]) and nanoplastics (the nanoscale fraction of plastic particles). Nano- and microplastic particles (NMPPs) can be formed through environmental and mechanical degradation (the top-down mechanism). They can be also generated through condensation of molecular species, for example, during heating or burning of plastics (the bottom-up mechanism).
A lot of attention is focused on the presence of NMPP in the food chain. A critical issue from an occupational health perspective is how workers might be exposed to NMPPs. Do they become airborne? If NMPP are airborne, the main route of exposure in the workplace is through inhalation.
In the workplace, potential for inhalation exposure exists to nano- and microplastics generated through both the top-down and bottom-up mechanisms. In the top-down mechanism, NMPPs can be emitted during mechanical and environmental degradation of plastic goods which can lead to potential exposures to nano- and microplastics among workers in the waste management and recycling operations [6]. Degradation of carpets and other synthetic fiber products can produce airborne fibers considered NMPPs [14] with potential for exposure among office/teleworkers and custodial staff. Another example of a workplace process potentially leading to worker exposure is machining of polymer and plastic products generating dusts [7, 9]. In the bottom-up mechanism, NMPPs can be emitted during high energy or high heat processes (such as laser cutting or high-speed drilling), treatment of polymer composites, [2] and during 3D printing from melting or fusing of plastics [3, 4, 5, 8] (Figure 1). Workers in the facilities hosting plastic processers and printers could be exposed to airborne nano- and microplastic particles.
Toxicity of inhaled NMPPs is not well characterized in part due to the complexity of their chemical compositions and size and shape distributions and common association with other chemical hazards producing mixed exposures. For example, inhalation of thermal degradation products of polytetrafluoroethylene can lead to “polymer fume fever” [10] and in extreme cases to fatal acute pulmonary oedema [11]. These adverse health effects were associated with the presence of nanoscale particles comprised of decomposition products, including polymers, in the fumes, which can reach deep into the lung and access the pulmonary interstitium [12]. While pristine nanoplastic particles are relatively inert, when inhaled they can elicit an inflammatory response. Inflammation could be compounded by adverse biological response to chemicals and metals also in the particles (the “Trojan horse” mechanism).
NIOSH has been studying workplace aerosols since it was created in 1970. In those five decades, NIOSH helped with establishing methods to characterize aerosols including particle size and shape distribution, concentration, and chemical composition and to minimize exposure to them. Most recently the NIOSH Nanotechnology Research Center developed approaches for exposure measurement, assessment and mitigation, and hazard characterization for nanomaterials. Many of the approaches would also be applicable to characterize and minimize risk of nano- and microplastics in the workplace. For example, the NIOSH Nanotechnology Center demonstrated that existing exposure mitigation techniques such as local exhaust ventilation and High Efficiency Particulate Air filters effectively reduce concentration of airborne particles including those in the nanoscale [13].
Presently there are no occupational exposure limits for nano- and microplastics. In the absence of occupational exposure limits for nano- and microplastics workplace safety efforts should focus on minimizing potential exposure through appropriate engineering controls such as isolation cabinets, exhaust ventilation, and utilizing good industrial hygiene practices.
NIOSH is engaged with its government partners to better understand potential exposures to nano- and microplastics in the workplace, their hazards, and tools to minimize exposures.
In the above section the toxicity of polymers is mentioned. Note that many of the chemicals like Carbon black, Graphene Oxide, metals and polymers are being aerosolized in geoengineering warfare operations. The government knows this is toxic when inhaled.
There is no expanded discussion about the possible toxicity of engineered nanoparticles and no call for immediate further research. It is known how toxic these materials can be as it is described in the literature. The fact that oxidative stress, DNA damage, cellular and genetic toxicity is known, but not discussed in the above documents, is very concerning.
Please see this review on mechanism of nanotoxicity below - and note that 67% of inhaled nanoparticles cannot be cleared by the body, which means they bioaccumulate and cause synergistic toxicity:
Nanotoxicity: a challenge for future medicine
Nanotoxicity and adverse effects of nanomaterials in exposed producers, industry workers, and patients make nanomaterials a double-edged sword for future medicine.
The size of the nanoparticles, its resistance to gravity, and its spreading pattern determine the area in which it will settle in the respiratory tract. Nanoparticles absorbed into the body through the respiratory tract cleaned in different parts of the respiratory system by mucociliary layer and macrophages or they clustered in the lungs and spread to the body with blood circulation [58]. Sajid et al. stated that 33% of the inhaled nanoparticles can be removed from the body by the defensive system of the respiratory tract. Animal studies reported that carbon nanotubes produce fibrosis, inflammation and granuloma in the lungs, and these toxic effects in the lungs cause systemic cardiovascular disorders. Besides, it was stated that the inhaled nanoparticles can reach different organs of the body including the brain, and the evaluation of the risk of association with prostate cancer was investigated
8.1. Circulatory system
Nemmar et al. detected cardiac oxidative stress and DNA damage in a study of intravenous administration of iron oxide nanoparticles in mice [78]. Magaye et al. reported a cardiac toxicity-arrhythmia in the study of intravenous administration of Ni nanoparticles in rats and observed toxic effects in organs such as liver, spleen and lung [79]
8.2. Digestive system
Arefian et al. reported that 100 ppm zirconia oxide nanoparticles cause damage to the liver in rats [80]. Also, iron oxide nanoparticles cause liver toxicity in mice [81].
8.3. Endocrine system
Yousefi et al. reported that oral form iron oxide nanoparticles cause irregularities in thyroid hormones in rats [82].
8.4. Immune system
Xu et al. reported that Ti02 nanoparticles in mice caused a serious increase in the number of white blood cells [83]. Besides, iron oxide nanoparticles cause an increase in the number of white blood cells, and the liver and spleen are the most affected organs immunologically [84].
8.5. Respiratory system
Cai et al. reported that metal nanoparticles (Cobalt oxide, nickel oxide, titanium oxide) applied by oropharyngeal aspiration cause toxicity in the lungs [85]. Similarly, Sadeghi et al. determined that iron oxide nanoparticles cause lung toxicity in rats [86].
8.6. Urinary system
Saranya et al. stated that zinc oxide, iron oxide and copper nanoparticles cause toxic effects on kidney cells in several monkeys, pig and bovine [87]. Besides, Fartkhooni et al. reported that TiO2 nanoparticles injected intraperitoneally cause degeneration in rat kidneys [88].
8.7. Nervous system
Studies were carried out on animal ears and eyes related to vision and hearing toxicity, and minimal toxicity was detected or no toxicity was detected generally [89,90].
8.8. Reproductive system
Mozaffari et al. determined that zinc oxide nanoparticles injected intraperitoneally in mice caused a decrease and loss in seminiferous tubule cells [91]. Besides, Kong et al. stated that nickel nanoparticles cause a decrease in FSH and LH hormone levels and changes in sperm motility in rats [92].
Summary:
There is a remarkable lack of acknowledgement of engineered nanoparticle toxicity by the regulatory bodies for workers safety. The lack of further investigation into this topic, given the projected growth expansion by 2030 to a 33.63 BILLION DOLLAR market seems shocking, given the known nanotoxicology concerns for human health.
Gotta love those undisclosed ingredients. We have been deliberately poisoned for a long time.
To me this is interesting in light of the PCR megaqtip deep into sinuses,,.” Other studies have demonstrated that discrete nanoparticles may enter the bloodstream from the lungs and translocate to other organs [Oberdörster et al. 2002] while other studies have shown that discrete nanoparticles (35-37 nm count median diameter) that deposit in the nasal region may be able to enter the brain by translocation along the olfactory nerve”
From paper attached to stack