Since the carcinogenic effect of asbestos is mostly caused by it's physical properties[1]; anything that resembles the shape of asbestos' micro-particles is also highly suspected to be carcinogenic.

The shape, size, and adsorbing nature of the fibers also appear to be critically important. Recently, doubts have arisen concerning the safety of commercially available carbon nanotubes,[2] which may possess the same carcinogenicity as asbestos fibers because of their similar characteristics. Ample care has to be taken to prevent a tragedy similar to the one caused by asbestos exposure.[1]

[1] http://www.med.nagoya-u.ac.jp/medlib/nagoya_j_med_sci/7112/p... [PDF]

[2] http://www.nature.com/nnano/journal/v3/n7/abs/nnano.2008.111...

On making nanotubes less dangerous: Shorter is better http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/anie.201207664/ab...

In another life I had to take aircraft crash response training, and was in charge of recovery (salvage, battle-field repair etc). The response to an aircraft with composite materials is totally different. With normal construction we could get to work as soon as the fire, was out and any hazardous liquids were taken care of. Crashes involving damage to composite structures required that the damaged areas be sprayed down with a varnish like chemical by the same troops who handle Chemical weapon response (they had special suits). Then there would be air particulate tests before we could move in. Here is a military study: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a420193.pdf

Formula 1 and other open wheel racing drivers have been exposed to carbon fiber dust (from the carbon-carbon brakes) for a few decades now. There is some research going on with former racing drivers.

E.g. former F1 driver Mika Salo underwent surgery where his lungs were examined to assess the effects of repeated exposure to burned carbon fiber dust (this was several years ago). Unfortunately, I do not have any links to sources nor do I know the results of the research.

Another big question mark is the health and environmental effects of graphene. There is a lot of research going on in applications of graphene but only now there have been research projects into possible negative effects on the environment.

A research facility of the german armed forces warns that carbon fiber once burned at high temperatures is transformed to micro-sized particles having effects on the lungs comparable to asbestors.

The USAF was concerned at one point that should an F-16 burn on a runway, it would release carbon-fiber strands which would float around the base and short out electrical equipment (communications gear, phone switch, power generation, etc).

Seems like the concern was correct, but misplaced. We had a plane catch fire on a taxiway and burn, and no electrical mayhem resulted. Perhaps we should have worn our gas masks -- but we didn't know at the time.

While in undergrad I spent about 5 years working with carbon fiber in a motorsports setting. I did a lot of cutting and sanding without a mask. There were weeks I would blow my nose 3 days after working on a part and still find black specks. I guess I'll find out in a few years...

From the Google translated version of the article it looks like it's only dangerous when burned.

I was in the US military in the late 80s and early 90s and we were told then that carbon fiber used in aircraft may be cancer causing. Nothing new here.

Translated highlights:

Carbon fiber once burned at high temperature breaks down sufficiently for it to penetrate mucous membranes. The risk highlighted by the Germans here relates to the ash left over after the fire. i.e. Hinting a potential long term dangers / contamination from the ash floating around.

Note that this article (at least from the translated version) seems to be implying that the risk is around burning or particulate carbon fiber. I would definitely believe that.

The epoxy is also pretty nasty too. If you don't wear the right personal protective equipment when using it, you can quickly become sensitized to it. I don't know what that means medically, but it can't be good. I have always worn the right gear when building things, but it is clearly harmful to you without proper ventilation and separation from your skin.

I love composites, but they definitely have downsides.

I find it interesting that this article was yanked from Hacker News just as quickly as I saw it. I clicked on the link, wanted to go to the discussion and had to find it through search in spite of its high vote count and recent submission.

And next week our great Bundeswehr Research Facility will tell us that: smell of burned oil can make us ill and eating of weapon bullets can cause diarrhea.

Though I'm all in to scientific development and the benefits of these new materials, I still want to point out, that nor carbon-fiber or graphene exist in nature in large quantities for more than one reason, while diamond and graphite do. Now the question should be .. why is that?

Here is something: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/motorsport/formula_one/41211...

Apparently the surgery was unrelated, they found lots of carbon brake dust in his lungs purely by chance. No conclusion on whether it is dangerous or not.

Edit: grahamel was quicker :)

I remember this. Article link http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/41211...

One minor statistical problem is I googled around for mesothelioma and it looks like when tens of millions are exposed, roughly about thousands die per year, about 20-40 years after exposure. So if you have a population of maybe 1000 total drivers after thirty or so years you'll have maybe one die per year. Or so.

Another problem with the disease is the proverbial 18 year old apprentice steamfitter could die of lung cancer in his relatively young late 40s which is epidemiologically very interesting and easy to detect. There are some young 20-something F-1 drivers who are barely old enough to drink booze, but if a 40 year old driver finally today inhales "the" fiber that would kill him 40 years later, that is rather moot if he dies at 65 of a totally unrelated heart attack or 70 of an unrelated cancer.

So there are two problems: There are not many possible victims resulting in perhaps less than one cancer as a result, and some of the drivers are "really old" by SV programmer standards and the cancer is really slow to kill, so they'll die long before the cancer takes hold.

So... by analogy, if smoking pot will kill me from lung cancer in 30 years, that is rather motivational when told to 10 year olds, but I don't think it'll discourage many new social security recipients from taking up the pipe. In fact that sounds like a fun idea to me.

I would also assume people working in the cycling industry who've been working with carbon fiber for decades would have the same exposure. The first carbon fiber frame was made in 1975:

http://www.jimlangley.net/ride/bicyclehistorywh.html (its at the bottom of the page in the timeline)

As with all manufacturing processes, I'm pretty sure in 1975, it wasn't nearly as precise or safe it is now and am wondering how many people were exposed to these fumes. If you wanted a good control group, I'd think they would be a prime candidate to examine the effects of this on the lungs.

I guess there is a point that the dust will always be around the car.

But while driving it does not look like the driver would be affected by it: http://www.ozeninc.com/images/hpc-carmesh-2.jpg