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."

Comments

Re:Agree with HP's assessment and cautious concern

[ScentCone]

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?

And in further news...

[dpbsmith]

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."

Re:Methodology...

[cyberwench]

I'd lean towards buying time. They don't have a lot of info to go on here, so they're trying to sound cautious but reassuring until they can get a better grip on it.

Honestly, given how little actual toner escapes in the printers, I'd personally be more concerned about paper dust in a high-volume printing area.

Here's my breakdown

[TubeSteak]

Here's my breakdown of their press release.

Testing of ultrafine particles is a *very new scientific discipline. There are no indications that ultrafine particle (UFP) emissions from laser printing systems are associated with special health risks. Currently, the nature and chemical composition of such particles -- whether from a laser printer or from a toaster -- cannot be accurately characterized by analytical technology. There isn't a significant body of research and you can't prove that the particles are causing problems.

However, many experts believe that many of the UFPs found in common household and office products are not discrete solid particles, but **may be condensation products or small droplets created during thermal processes. The experts we're quoting don't really have proof to back up their claims either.

HP LaserJet printing systems, original HP print cartridges and papers are tested for dust release and possible material emissions and are compliant with all applicable international health and safety requirements. In addition to meeting or exceeding these guidelines, HP's design criteria for its laser printing systems incorporate guidelines from both the Blue Angel program in Germany and the Greenguard program in the United States. We're claiming our product is safe because it meets international guidelines, which *may or may not be based on any relevant scientific data.

*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. There's no data to prove a link and none of our studies have shown that there is (probably because we haven't been looking for one).

**While we recognize ultrafine, fine, and coarse particles are emitted from printing systems, these levels are consistently below recognized occupational exposure limits. We admit that our products put out UFPs, but since they are at levels below the guidelines, we can pretend that it's safe, since there is nothing to contradict us.

* 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.

Re:Agree with HP's assessment and cautious concern

[jimicus]

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?