This stuff scares the crap out of me. Nature has never had to deal with these man-made structures.

...
...The lack of toxicology data on engineered NPs does not allow for adequate risk assessment. Because of this, some may even believe that engineered NPs are so risky that they call for a precautionary halt in NP-related research...
...At this point, governmental regulation is not possible, given the lack of needed information on which to base such regulations. However, academia, industry, and regulatory governmental agencies should seriously consider the view that NPs have new and unique biologic properties and that the potential risks of NPs are not the same as those of the bulk material of the same chemistry...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1257642/
Even the proponents of the technology are nervous.
...Nanotechnology, nanomedicine and nanotoxicology are complementary disciplines aimed at the betterment of human life. However, concerns have been expressed about risks posed by engineered nanomaterials (ENMs), their potential to cause undesirable effects, contaminate the environment and adversely affect susceptible parts of the population. Information about toxicity and biokinetics of nano-enabled products combined with the knowledge of unintentional human and environmental exposure or intentional delivery for medicinal purposes will be necessary to determine real or perceived risks of nanomaterials...
...because a risk of adverse effects associated with ENMs is a function of hazard and exposure [risk = f (hazard; exposure)], the generally accepted approach is to incorporate both components into a risk assessment paradigm, consisting of Hazard Identification, Hazard Characterization, Exposure Assessment and Risk Characterization [64] so that appropriate risk management decisions can be made...
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2796.2009.02187.x/full
The OP is fine, but folks should also check this out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_on_Emerging_Nanotechnologies