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.
... whew, that's a relief. I won't need to tell my sister to watch out for the printer at her nail polishing salon :)
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
* 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!
The sad (but true) facts are:
Sad, yes. But inescapably true.