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

If they say so, I believe them

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like I *cough* believe the cigarette *cough* companies.

Nail Salon

[redelm]

... whew, that's a relief. I won't need to tell my sister to watch out for the printer at her nail polishing salon :)

Agree with HP's assessment and cautious concern...

[neapolitan]

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.)

on a semi-related note...

[jjeffries]

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!

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.