Chemical or Radiation induced DNA damage by nanoparticles?

The NanoSafe Conference consensus that nanoparticles induce DNA damage by chemical reaction is inconclusive because reaction pathways cannot be distinguished from pathways from conventional ionizing radiation
By: Thomas Prevenslik
NP induced DNA Damage by QED radiation
NP induced DNA Damage by QED radiation
Nov. 26, 2010 - PRLog -- Background

The NanoSafe 2010 Conference on the safe use of nanoparticles (NPs) was held at Minatec in Grenoble.  Attendees generally held that the mechanism of NP induced DNA damage was by chemical reaction with water in body fluids, but at the same time admitting the DNA damage reaction pathways by chemical reactions could not be distinguished from those by conventional ionizing radiation.   See

In contrast, QED induced EM radiation was proposed at NanoSafe 2010 as the mechanism by which conventional ionizing radiation at UV or higher levels is naturally produced by NPs within the body. QED stands for quantum electrodynamics, EM for electromagnetic, and UV for ultraviolet.  By this theory, NPs convert collisional energy from water molecules to ionizing EM radiation, although at low intensity. See at  “Nanoparticle Toxicity and Cancer, ”  2010.  


The fact that DNA damage by chemical reaction cannot be distinguished from conventional radiation suggests that NPs by producing EM radiation are the actual DNA damage mechanism – not chemical reactions. In this regard, supporting arguments for the radiation mechanism of NP induced DNA damage are:

Proponents of DNA damage by chemical reaction do not identify the chemistry necessary to produce the energetics that form the reactive oxidative species (ROS) necessary to mimic DNA damage by conventional ionizing  radiation. Typically, ROS require energies in excess of 5.2 eV while surface reactivity of NPs can generate only a fraction of 1 eV. Instead, the NP as a DNA damaging agent is simply assumed to form the ROS, thereby avoiding the lack of surface energetics necessary to initiate the chemical reaction pathway. In retrospect, the reason for proposing QED radiation as the source of UV or higher radiation was precisely to overcome the inherent inability of NPs to produce ROS by chemical reaction through surface activity.

The consequence of DNA damage without repair is the unequivocal cause of cancer in man. In this regard, DNA damage may be induced from natural, man-made, and biological NPs, the latter of interest in tumor growth and cancer by disorganization of epithelial tissue. Chemical origins of DNA damage now thought to produce ROS by surface activity are not likely for such a diverse species of NPs. But QED induced radiation depending on < 100 nm NPs and only a weak dependence on chemical species is the more likely mechanism for NP induced DNA damage.  


1. QED radiation from NPs producing UV or higher ionizing radiation has  sound theoretical basis compared to that by chemical reaction.

2. Given that chemical induced DNA damage by NPs lacks energetics by surface activity and cannot be distinguished from conventional ionizing radiation, it may be concluded that DNA damage by chemical reaction does not occur, and instead QED radiation from NPs is not only being produced, but also is ionizing.

3. Comments that QED radiation from NPs requires experimental proof is understandable, but proof that chemical reactivity can produce the ROS necessary to produce DNA damage is also required.

# # #

About QED Indcued EM Radiation: Classically, absorbed EM energy is conserved by an increase in temperature. But at the nanoscale, temperature increases are forbidden by quantum mechanics. QED radiation explains how absorbed EM energy is conserved at the nanoscale by the emission of nonthermal EM radiation
Source:Thomas Prevenslik
Email:*** Email Verified
Tags:Cancer, Nanoparticles, Dna Damage, Uv Radíation, Chemical Reaction
Industry:Health, Science, Technology
Location:Youngwood - Pennsylvania - United States
Account Email Address Verified     Account Phone Number Verified     Disclaimer     Report Abuse
Page Updated Last on: Nov 27, 2010

Like PRLog?
Click to Share