Slashdot Mirror
HP to Researchers, 'Our Printers Are Safe'
Sidepocket_Pro sent us a link to this HP press release which reads, "Based on our own testing, HP knows that many variables can affect the outcome of tests for ultrafine particle emissions. Although HP is not aware of all of the specific methodologies used in the Queensland study, based on what we've seen in the report — as well as our own work in this area — we do not believe there is a link between printer emissions and any public health risk. Specifically, HP does not see an association between printer use by customers and negative health effects for volatile organic compounds, ozone or dust. While we recognize ultrafine, fine, and coarse particles are emitted from printing systems, these levels are consistently below recognized occupational exposure limits."
Just like I *cough* believe the cigarette *cough* companies.
What they failed to mention is that the HP writeup is based on testing of inkjet printers. : p
... whew, that's a relief. I won't need to tell my sister to watch out for the printer at her nail polishing salon :)
So some research group writes a bunch of pages of nonsense and starts off the latest annoying "OMG YOUR OFFICE JOB MAY KILL YOU, News at 11" theme.
Really, sheeple will listen to anything and take it as fact. I'm an IT manager at work and someone actually came to us yesterday with 'How do we get this printer replaced, it's a huge polluter, see attached study'. Luckily it was in email so he didn't hear me laughing.
I mean, if you actually look at things there's stuff that doesn't make sense. At least one of HP's printers is listed in two different coulumns. It's 'above average but *may* be high'. So they list it in high as well. No further explanation, no reasoning, just FUD. Of course, people just automaticlly check the high column and don't read thst study or look at the others in detail.
SHEEPLE!
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
One printer isn't going to cause harm, even if you are exposed for long times. However, the office I recently worked in, had about 7 printers for various purposes, and this was an office that used a particularly amount of paper, maybe they should carry out tests in more real conditions- it may not be an issue if you are ina sterile room with a printer, but lets face it, thats not gonna happen.
All right, as one of Slashdot's numerous physician-readers, I'll chime in...
As your intuition tells you, breathing stuff inside your lungs is, in general, quite bad. Your lung has numerous defense mechanisms that will swallow up inhaled gunk, known as macrophages, and to some degree destroy it. This system can be easily overwhelmed, and particles that are not able to be degraded by the macrophage essentially stay in the cell forever. This occurs after chronic and relatively large volume exposure, typically over many years, as common in coal miners.
When you do your human dissections in medical school it is easy to tell the lungs of a smoker on gross examination, which have numerous black dots from macrophage-ingested carbon fragments. Even city-dwellers will have these particles. Breathing in coal particles gives something called Anthracosis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthracosis which can cause numerous problems later on if severe. Breathing in asbestos particles and silica dust also gives similar problems, and can even increase risk of some cancers (mesothelioma) although this is, relatively speaking, quite overblown (smoking is orders of magnitude worse for you than transient asbestos exposure.)
Reading through HP's statement (I'm new here), I feel it is actually well worded and reasonable. Walking past your laser printer is fine. We would all be suffering if it were a health risk. There is not a large amount of aerosol created by normal printer operation under normal conditions, and nanoparticles fine enough to be lobbed long distances (across the entire office) are typically breathed in and out and not lodged in the lungs.
In summary, avoid breathing in any huge ball of black powder. Don't take out the printer cartridge, shake, and sniff, three times per day. Stop smoking. Finally, always take sensationalist research with a grain of salt (not several grains of toner.)
Slashdotter, ID #101. UIDs are in binary, right?
the day we have to march outside where the smokers hang out to retrieve our printouts, only to find that the damn machine has jammed again.
So doctor, what's your take on closing the lid before flushing? I've heard that leaving it open when flushing can spray tons of fecal matter around. I prefer to close it when I'm done anyways, but it's always good to be informed.
This guy's the limit!
You seem to know naught about academic funding. It's unlikely that these researchers will get "millions in funding", as you so claim.
We know right off the bat that they probably won't get industrial funding, at least not from HP and the other printer manufacturers. They could possibly get funding from those offering competing products. However, such money is better spent on R&D, rather than what essentially would amount to propaganda. So again, it's unlikely that they'd get industrial funding. Keep in mind that industrial funding makes up most of the funding that many researchers in the engineering, science, and medical fields receive.
So beyond that, they'd need to get funding from the government. Even in Europe and Asia where government funding of academia is prevalent, it's doubtful that they'd get anywhere near $1000000 (or the equivalent in the local currency), let alone some multiple of that.
There just aren't any grassroots organizations against printer dust. On the other hand, there is a large anti-smoking movement in many nations. So it's plausible that an anti-smoking researcher could get funding from such group. But such groups don't exist to fund these toner-dust researchers!
I was doing some "all-purpose geek" work-study for my school's IT dept some years ago. One day another work-study student gets mind to clean out one of our shop's big laser printers... with an air compressor.
POOF! went the jet of air, and a black toner cloud started to flow from the printer... and it kept coming and coming... the boss said, "everyone get out NOW" and closed the door behind us.
We weren't allowed in there again until men in fancy white suits swabbed down the entire room and the hundreds of PCs and parts within. Good times!
I read the HP press release, but does anyone know what testing protocols they used? If there is a difference with the toner formulations, would using a thrid-party toner put you at greater risk or remove HP's liability?
woot!
Thanks for astroturfing though...
We need a term for postings that immediately condemn any post that happens to back up or rationally expand on information provided by a manufacturer as astroturfing. Since you're simply assuming that no one comes by their opinions honestly (unless they happen to echo you), you're really engaging in - and encouraging - a level of discourse that's as bad or worse than what you imagine you're combatting.
Is genuine "grass roots" sentiment or information that combats the opinion you hold (obviously, you think that HP is knowingly killing people and happily taking their proceeds and heading off to their vast underground lair, where they are using the captives they still have left over from the kidnapped fake-9/11-attack passengers to test new pigment-based inkjets to see which will kill customers the most slowly while still making them want to print more PowerPoint presentations than necessary) only "astroturfing" when it happens to be well worded and punctuated correctly?
How do you devine which post reflects personally held convictions or knowledge and which is from a shill? Since the GP is clearly thoughtful, informed, and able to comment constructively on the larger topic - but is none the less a shill in your estimation - we have to assume that you'd feel more comfortable with comments from reactionary, uneducated, poor communicators that happen to emotionally resonate with some vague, paranoid anti-business world view that you prefer? Idiots that rail against The Man are more credible to you than professionals and academics who cooly explain that some hysteria isn't exactly well-grounded?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Grease up and bend over HP. The Lawyers and lawsuits are coming. It is only a matter of time.
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to think "profiling is worse than the slaughter of innocent people..."
Thanks, Doc! A well-worded comment from someone who can probably spell "ridiculous" and "definitely!"
Is Your Printer Spying On You?
What about the yellow dots on the paper that shouldn't be there?
Now I have to wear a tinfoil hat AND a gas mask at work.
What would you expect HP to say? "We believe there is a link between printer emissions and a public health risk?" I give HP enough credit to think that if they believed there was such a link, they would have done something about it... so by definition, since they haven't done anything about it they don't believe there's a problem.
And in further news, the CEO of Altria issued this statement: "Based on our own testing, Altria knows that many variables can affect the outcome of tests for cigarette smoke particulates. Although Altria is not aware of all of the specific methodologies used in the study, based on what we've seen in the report -- as well as our own work in this area -- we do not believe there is a link between our cigarettes and lung cancer."
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
I can't believe some people. I'd rank printer toner in the same danger zone as chalk dust and pencil graphite.
....but in the event that it goes crazy, there's now a kill switch.
A family member has run a toner remanufacturing business for nearly 20 years now. They have a filtration system in the room where cartridges are stripped down to pieces, rebuilt, and then refilled. But the room is still filthy even with fancy filtration. In the next room over, they have about 20 laser printers for testing, but no special filtration.
In the 20 years of doing this, not one of their employees has had any lung problems.
Perhaps the wifi makes you cough by telling your brain
Tinfoil hat time (joke)
Claims this dust is as bad as cigarette smoking is a ridiculous statement, as toner particles are non toxic (tests have been done). Buildup in the lungs is a major issue however, as ultra-fine particles are not expelled from the lungs once inside -- this is a worry.
I work for a large toner company, and we do tests on machines in enclosed areas with experimental toners. Areas we work in are monitored for dust particles, and we are well below safe limits. If our areas are safe, then an office environment certainly should be.
Note the vast majority of problem machines are by HP -- particle emissions is not a problem in the industry, it just seems to be a problem with HP printers. HP is a manufacturer of "affordable" printers, perhaps they are not as well put together as more expensive machines. The media took a small issue and blew it out of proportion, much as it does with everything.
And here's me thinking their study was going to show the printers weren't safe.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
I sort of agree with HP actually. The whole point of a scientific paper is that you publish your methodology, so others can verify your results or point out possible errors. This is a pretty big claim to make, and I think HP has legitimate gripe. However I think they might just be buying themselves time. I think we learned from cigarettes that small particles going into the lungs is never a good idea, the only question is: Does a normal office setup have enough printers to present a health risk?
A long time ago, I was reading a nutrition book, and it mentioned that a person could get a one's daily requirement for selenium from breathing the air near a photocopier or laser printer. One man's poison is another man's micronutrient.
If you want to talk astroturfing iirc, this "random" test was comprised almost entirely of HP machines. There are a lot of other people making those things these days as well. I am willing to question the study itself purely on that basis. It has a bad odor.
One thing to consider is: are these expelled printer particles carcinogenic. Cigarette smoke and asbestos are, and much of their affect on the human body are related to that. Is printer in carcinogenic?
Another thing to consider is quantity. People who get breathing problems from cigarette smoke, asbestos, coal, silica, and other substances like them tend to have very high exposure rates. They smoke 2 packs a day for 30 years. They manipulate asbestos/silica containing products in the workplace 8 hours a day for 40 years. They work in or near a coal mine with little or no breathing protection. Yes, these particles can be microscopic and invisible, but most of the people who are seriously hurt by these products could see "dust" in the air while they were working.
Is the quantity that these printers are spewing excessively high? Or is it no different than "background levels" of particles people experience while walking down the streets of a major city?
OH GOD... nano-particles... everywhere! Must... reach safety of...
A) The great urban outdoors
B) My particulate laden residential environs
C) One of the polar regions, where the climate will be tolerable 100 years from now...
(Quick, before the real estate values there go through the ozone layer!)
* These points are all related. Sometimes health guidelines are arbitrarily chosen. Other times, they're based on safety data from some semi-related guideline. HP tries to poke holes in the Queensland research by claiming that the field is new, yet attempts to fall back on 'the guidelines' in order to divest itself of any responsibility. There are no long term health studies, so HP is using the absence of evidence as evidence of absence.
** I'm not sure if they contradict themselves here or not, but they again try to fall back upon the guidelines as an authority.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
If you think I'm going to risk my life just to make money by shuffling papers around, you're crazy! I will not risk the dangers of 'tonerlung' and 'tonerloc', I'll take my chances with blacklung, thank you very much.
Mythbusters did a good experiment with this, and of course it's true that water from the toilet does spray, as you'd expect. But fecal matter is pretty much everywhere whether you close the lid or not. Your immune system can handle it, else you would be dead already.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
printers are safe from testing, due to the fact that their replaceable material probably is so expensive that the researchers couldnt afford it to test. Either that or they have been sued upfront into the ground by infringing on a patent for testing a device which is able to put something on paper. The printers probably were cheap though ;-)
The sad (but true) facts are:
Sad, yes. But inescapably true.
Not really worried about this anyway. I own an HP printer, but only print something once in a blue moon (because of the rediculous price of cartridges). Would be happy if HP would make Vista drivers for my old reliable HP ScanJet 4100C scanner though...
"A Bird In The Hand Will Poop On Your Wrist"-Benny Hill,1982
I read this and saw "Our Pointers Are Safe"
I think I need to get out today, read a book or something...
Money is the root of all evil?
by the way, totally off topic, but love your UID =)
In case you weren't already aware, it's a lower case e in the ascii table.
How do you devine which post reflects personally held convictions or knowledge and which is from a shill?
:)
The easiest way is to look at posting histories. For example Mr neapolitan seems to be a cardiologist who is often dismissive of sensationalist research but has posted on other issues. This leads me to believe that he's either real or a shill for hire to a wide variety of companies who can find a contract on short notice on a saturday.
His low uid and the fact that it's in binary make me lean towards the former
It's a bit like when they have a radiation leak and they say it was all within "safe limits". What they mean is, you'll never be able to prove in court your cancer was caused by their screw-up.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
by your friends in the Inkjet Industry.
*you* kill the printer?
OT, I know, but does that mean that someone who's living in a city could start to suffer respiratory problems (like asthma) despite no previous symptoms as a direct result of all the crap they're breathing in?
Of course HP - who had the most printers emitting the most crap in the study - can be expected to get defensive and spread FUD.
But you can be sure that if the report listed HP printers as low emitters, HP would have put out a press release praising the study and it probably would have also put a sticker on each new printer saying 'Low particle emissions'.
Oh, and BTW: people should read the original researchers paper in full, and not just accept the HP PR 'contoversy hose-down' attempt at face value. The original study is a detailed scientific paper with full details of its methodology, and with numerous citiations of relevant authorities and similar recent European, Japanese and US studies.
For perspective -- how does normal-use printer dust compare with everyday household dust? how about farm dust, such as one might breathe during a long day plowing the fields or baling hay?
:)
(My own method of determining dust levels: how much crap did I blow out of my nose at the end of the day?
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
HP's LaserJet printers encode the printer serial number and registration information (at a minimum) in a pattern of little yellow dots so that every sheet of paper can be tracked back to the printer that printed it. They aren't unique in this, however. Many other printer companies do the exact same thing.
r ticle.html
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,118664-page,1/a
That's EXACTLY what a shill would say. Shill!
paintball
Ok, have a few minutes so I'll post again.
u ng.html
:)
> Thanks for astroturfing though...
Will give you the benefit of the doubt and respond (I'm new here) -- a good defense against astroturfing would be to look at the poster's record of posting, and if they are a real person, not some corporate shill or reporter. I haven't posted too much, but I assure you I'm a real person, not a paid HP representative. If you generally hate "the man" or anybody in a position of any power, I'm sorry... however, to appeal to your rationality I would point out that corporations can *help* people. I mean, the keyboard on which you are typing was made by a corporation. Your computer was too, and its processor. If you wanted a CPU made by noncommercial hippies, it would cost *more*, and would suck. OTOH, I'm not a corporate whore, and totally agree with the excesses of corporate greed and tendency toward exploitation once they get to a position of dominance -- however, that is why you intellectually analyze each position, as we did with this response from HP.
I don't believe all corporate defenses are justified, or agree with them -- I agree with HP's response, in this specific case. No, I don't own any HP stock, nor am I affiliated with them in any way.
> That's EXACTLY what a shill would say. Shill!
See above. You are silly, and didn't address any concerns, just attacked me. I won't reply.
> So doctor, what's your take on closing the lid before flushing? I've heard that leaving it open when flushing can spray tons of fecal matter around. I prefer to close it when I'm done anyways, but it's always good to be informed.
Yes, would advise shutting it if you are concerned. There is probably a fine mist of crappy particles in every bathroom if you look hard enough. However, you must separate what is gross from what can make you sick. Every time you smell your little brother's noisy bum, you are breathing in something that was in his butt. Gross? Yes. Make you sick? Not at all, if you are healthy.
>OT, I know, but does that mean that someone who's living in a city could start to suffer respiratory problems (like asthma) despite no previous symptoms as a direct result of all the crap they're breathing in?
Yup -- inner city kids have a much higher prevalence of asthma; however, a lot of studies show that it is mostly moldy indoor conditions rather than generalized smog / particles in the city. Smog knows neither ghetto nor 5th avenue apartment, so all city-dwellers should be affected equally, but some groups will have more asthma, thought to be indoor chronic exposure.
>For perspective -- how does normal-use printer dust compare with everyday household dust? how about farm dust, such as one might breathe during a long day plowing the fields or baling hay?
Farm dust is bad, and tends to be higher exposure than household dust. For these particles that are not black, indigestible (by macrophages) particles, allergic reaction and inflammation in the lung tends to give the problem. There is something called "Farmer's lung." Wikipedia is not good on this topic, so here you go. http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/diseases/farmers_l
>Thanks, Doc! A well-worded comment from someone who can probably spell "ridiculous" and "definitely!
>by the way, totally off topic, but love your UID =)
You're welcome. Happy to provide on my (rare) day off.
Slashdotter, ID #101. UIDs are in binary, right?
The operational lie is "recognized occupational exposure limits". The work of the researchers may well lower those limits in future years.
We used to have an HP printer burn out and start smoking at least twice a month out on the production floor where I worked. Fire hazards are worse than pollution, IMHO. So no, HP printers are not safe from what I've seen.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.