It is a daily ritual. Every morning before he leaves for work, San Diego twenty-something Terrance Smalls unplugs his iPod Nano from his home computer, plugs it into his car adapter for the rush-hour commute, and upon arrival, transfers the 4-gigabyte device to a futuristic docking station on his desk. On the way to his office at the Coronado Naval Base he’ll pass by a coworker or two with one peeking out from a messenger bag or designer purse. And later on, while working out at his local gym, he’ll encounter a few more fellow iPod owners scattered about on treadmills or weight machines.

To say that the iPod is ubiquitous would be an understatement. With over 200 million sold since its 2001 debut, the miniature machine sparked an aural revolution the likes of which hadn’t been seen since the launch of the Sony Walkman 20 years before. Two versions, the iPod Shuffle and the Nano, a 2-inch, 2.5 oz. device, were the reigning champions of American top-selling music players only months after their 2005 release.

The introduction of the iPod Shuffle and Nano may have also marked the introduction of nano-technology to the mass consumer market. Since the turn of the 21st century, companies have used nano-technology to produce everything from sunscreen to solar panels. And the number of nano-related products is growing exponentially, with three to four products hitting the market every week, according to the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN), a joint effort between the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and Pew Charitable Trusts. Currently there are 608 products being produced by over 300 companies in 20 countries around the globe, with profits upwards of $30 billion.

The surge in nanotech popularity is largely due to its low cost, which—though great for the economy—may not be as great for our health or the environment. An increasing number of nano-based products are being targeted to children, who are more susceptible to toxins than adults. And more of them are hitting the market with little government oversight—specifically the health and beauty industry, two areas in which the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has limited authority.

And with silver rapidly becoming the most commonly used nano-engineered material in consumer products, scientists caution that particles could enter water supplies, where they may have an adverse effect on aquatic organisms and humans.All of that and more is a cause for concern, says Colin Finan, PEN’s public affairs and policy associate.

“There’s been little invested in nanotechnology research, and that raises a lot of questions,” says Finan, who spent years reporting on nanotechnology issues for � Inside Washington Publishers before joining PEN last winter. “The government has spent $1.6 billion on research so far, and we still have no idea what we’re dealing with. It’s like asbestos; we knew little about it but continued to use it, not realizing the impact until it was too late.”

With funding for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) slashed each year, there’s little hope that any substantial move from the agency will be made in the near future, though some—like Dr. Gregory Triplett, assistant professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of Missouri—believe that the EPA is taking the necessary steps to facilitate research.

“Is it enough? We could pose that question to many other industries. The investment in nanowaste research is not where it needs to be,” says Triplett, whose work involves nanostructures used for optoelectronic applications. “How-ever, no matter how many resources are utilized to address nanowaste, the issues will continue to be accountability. How will companies account for nanowaste? What nano-technologies are currently under development that will be a liability in the future? This is an even greater concern.” Municipalities across the country are now using brownfield funding to remove asbestos from sites.

“Where Does the Nano Go?: End-of-Life Regulation of Nano-technologies,” a report co-authored by environmental attorneys Linda K. Breggin and John Pendergrass in June 2007 and sponsored by the Pew Charitable Trusts, addresses the liability issue by using two hypothetical case studies to show how nanowaste can be federally regulated using the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA).

Though both laws can apply to the handling of nanowaste, the study concluded that RCRA’s focus on the statute and regulations on mass as a determinant of regulatory coverage doesn’t really fit the bill, and disposal of most products containing nanomaterials would be considered household waste, making it exempt from hazardous waste regulations.

CERCLA gives EPA enough power to address any pollutant and contaminant releases that pose an imminent threat, but Breggin and Pendergrass stress that the key issue is whether any nanomaterials could be considered hazardous substances under the Superfund statute. And they explain that this underscores how critically important it is for EPA and private firms to invest in and support the development and collection of data on human health and ecotoxicity.

But EPA will need to determine where and how to apply both regulatory programs, which could be a daunting task as data on health and environmental effects are lacking, write Breggin and Pendergrass. In the meantime, they recommend that EPA work with other federal agencies to educate the private sector, particularly small companies and start-ups, on RCRA and CERCLA laws.

Triplett believes that the research community should be brought into the discussion, pointing to a number of archival journals with published reports on nanoparticles. He also suggests that a conference dedicated to nanowaste issues would help move efforts along.

One agency picking up the gauntlet is the International Organization of Standardization (ISO). Like ASTM International, the ISO is a non-government entity that plays an important role in crafting the framework used to guide the global economy. It is the world’s largest developer and publisher of international standards, with 157 countries currently in their network.

Last winter, a project group of the ISO approved a draft report on nano safety and healthy practices in occupational settings. But the report, based on a National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) study, focuses more on short-term procedures like engineering and exposure control.

“The ISO has no bureaucracy to deal with, so they can set standards before the government does,” says Finan. “And the government will defer to ISO in certain cases.”

But that’s not to say that the government isn’t working on a plan of its own. The House Committee on Science and Technology recently approved HR5940, a major nanotech bill that addresses the responsible development of nanotechnology through strategic planning, research and funding for the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO). A Senate commerce subcommittee also held a recent hearing on the issue, but no bill is currently on the table.