Slashdot Mirror


3D Printers Shown To Emit Potentially Harmful Nanosized Particles

An anonymous reader writes "A new study by researchers in the Built Environment Research Group at the Illinois Institute of Technology shows that commercially available desktop 3D printers can have substantial emissions of potentially harmful nanosized particles in indoor air. Many desktop 3D printers rely on a process where a thermoplastic feedstock is heated, extruded through a small nozzle, and deposited onto a surface to build 3D objects. Similar processes have been shown to have significant aerosol emissions in other studies using a range of plastic feedstocks, but mostly in industrial environments. In this study, researchers measured ultrafine particle concentrations resulting from a popular commercially available desktop 3D printer using two different plastic feedstocks inside an office. Ultrafine particles (or UFPs) are small, nanosized particles less than 100 nanometers in diameter. Inhalation of UFPs may be important from a health perspective because they deposit efficiently in the lung and can even translocate to the brain. Estimates of emission rates of total UFPs in this study were high, ranging from about 20 billion particles per minute for a 3D printer utilizing a lower temperature polylactic acid (PLA) feedstock to about 200 billion particles per minute for the same type of 3D printer utilizing a higher temperature acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) feedstock. The emission rates were similar to those measured in previous studies of several other devices and indoor activities, including cooking on a gas or electric stove, burning scented candles, operating laser printers, or even burning a cigarette."

180 comments

  1. So... How worrying is this, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The emission rates were similar to those measured in previous studies of several other devices and indoor activities, including cooking on a gas or electric stove, burning scented candles, operating laser printers, or even burning a cigarette.

    1. Re:So... How worrying is this, really? by Shinobi · · Score: 0

      Because it's cumulative, it can be very worrying. Factor in that it's not just your own activities you have to worry about, but neighbours etc, and you can see the problem. I mean, all non-smokers know how fucking vile it is having to be near smokers, and how it affects breathing for many.

    2. Re:So... How worrying is this, really? by gl4ss · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because it's cumulative, it can be very worrying. Factor in that it's not just your own activities you have to worry about, but neighbours etc, and you can see the problem. I mean, all non-smokers know how fucking vile it is having to be near smokers, and how it affects breathing for many.

      yeah.. but candles & cooking? if it's similar to cooking, I'll continue to not give a shit about it. if smoking.. well I might build an exhaust - or start smoking indoors.

      this study isn't about if it smells good or not though, which is pretty much the instant cigarette effect people get, so why bring that up..

      (anyhow, from the study, pla seems to be 3x background for duration of the print. I'd be interested in PET plastic study too, the prints with it are a lot sturdier.. also, probably the coloring agents etc play a role, so including those would have been nice)

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    3. Re:So... How worrying is this, really? by Dunbal · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Oh dear, using these devices will knock a whole year off of your life expectancy. That crucial year between 80 and 81, gone forever. Just think of all the soiled diaper opportunities you will miss! Yes I am being sarcastic.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    4. Re:So... How worrying is this, really? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Or you'll start soiling your diapers earlier, effectively taking away a year of good health.

    5. Re:So... How worrying is this, really? by khallow · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Factor in that it's not just your own activities you have to worry about, but neighbours etc

      No, you don't. You might not have noticed, but this world is chock full of floating nanoparticles. We call them "dust", "pollen", "smoke", etc. Our lungs have similarly evolved to deal with these particles. I think it is quite senseless to get up in arms over the minuscule supply of particles from your neighbor's 3D printing machine while ignoring the vast swarm of particles coming from the dust mites living on your skin and environment.

    6. Re:So... How worrying is this, really? by interval1066 · · Score: 4, Funny

      BBQ-ing causes cancer too. So... if you're creating a gun w/a 3D printer while BBQing some pork and the power goes out, don't take that last drag off that cigarette, it could be your last.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    7. Re:So... How worrying is this, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      yeah.. but candles & cooking? if it's similar to cooking, I'll continue to not give a shit about it.

      It really depends on what type of cooking you are talking about though, and if it is the total that is comparable, or the emission rates. If the rates are comparable to some high temperature cooking in a skillet, that could be bad. Some users will have the printer running hours on end. And have you seen what happens to a kitchen that is cooking things like that for long periods of time? The walls and surfaces anywhere near the stove will can become caked in oil and soot, even if it doesn't look like much is coming off the food (i.e. you aren't burning it or making a lot of smoke).

      And a family member used to really like scented candles, to the point it was the only thing I could give her as a gift that she wouldn't become fusy over. Until she realized that they were leaving a film of soot and junk on surfaces around the house, even though she only used a candle in one of two rooms.

    8. Re:So... How worrying is this, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah.. but candles & cooking? if it's similar to cooking, I'll continue to not give a shit about it.

      The question I would like answered is: "Was this a legitimate study, or were they paid for specific results?"

    9. Re:So... How worrying is this, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it has the prefix "nano" in it, so that must mean that it's nanotechnology, right? And we all know that that ends in gray goo. Please click the link in the article!

    10. Re:So... How worrying is this, really? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Or you'll start soiling your diapers earlier, effectively taking away a year of good health.

      Probably worse than that. Particulate-related health effects tend to concentrate either in the lungs, for obvious reasons, or the heart/major blood vessels(because suitably small particulates can enter the bloodstream through the gas-exchange surfaces of the lungs and trigger various inflammatory freakouts).

      If you think pissing yourself is inconvenient and humiliating, try operating on substantially substandard oxygen supplies... Every shallow gasp giving you about half the oxygen you really want...

    11. Re:So... How worrying is this, really? by Jmc23 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Something tells me our systems are a little more capable of dealing with biodegradable skin cells than burnt plastic byproducts.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    12. Re:So... How worrying is this, really? by stenvar · · Score: 0

      Because it's cumulative, it can be very worrying

      "It can also be very worrying" if you believe that the CIA is hypnotically programming your brain through a radio receiver implanted in your tooth. That doesn't make it a rational worry.

    13. Re:So... How worrying is this, really? by Jmc23 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Yes, but how often do you cook plastic?

      One must distinguish between similarity in particle output and similarity in particle composition!

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    14. Re:So... How worrying is this, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      um, no. please read up about how and why certain kinds of asbestos are bad for your lungs and others aren't. hint: not all tiny particles are the same size, and you just lumped together particles covering many orders of magnitude.

      your body is quite good at filtering out particles of a few given size bands, but there ARE gaps in that. And if the particle falls into that gap (what was it, ~6 micron?) then you really shouldn't be breathing it in if you can help it.

      our lungs have not evolved to deal with these sized particles exactly because they are not common in nature. (until now, thanks to us)

    15. Re:So... How worrying is this, really? by BlackHawk-666 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Pollen can break down in our bodies, dust get's encased in mucus and expelled and smoke - well, you don't want to be inhaling too much of that at a time. As you said our bodies 'evolved' to handle most of those threats - including becoming smart enough to not expose ourselves to them. Plastic however is only about 100 years old. I'm pretty sure we haven't evolved enough since the early 1900s to develop resistance to inhaling an aerosolized version of this already toxic chemical.

      --
      All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
    16. Re:So... How worrying is this, really? by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      Which is why these things should not be in your house. They should be operated in your garage, with the windows open and ventilation fans blowing while you're in the house waiting for your part to be made. Then it's safe.

    17. Re:So... How worrying is this, really? by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 2

      Nanoparticles are much smaller than pollen. (11.5 nm to 116 nm). At that scale, particles can be much more active than the bulk materials. And seriously, POLLEN? When people think of airborne substances that give them problems, that's very high on the list. Not to be compared in severity with coal dust, but still pretty bad.

      The take home lesson is this: keep it out of your house and operate it in an area well-ventilated to the outside, or in a room with HEPA filters which MIGHT be good enough to take most of the nanoparticles out of the air before you breathe it into your lungs where it can cause problems.

    18. Re:So... How worrying is this, really? by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      Probably. But at nanoscale, the plastics may be biodegradeable too. Or not. Maybe they just pile up in your lungs like some other particles.

    19. Re:So... How worrying is this, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The particulates you listed are significantly bigger than nanoparticles.

    20. Re:So... How worrying is this, really? by anchovy_chekov · · Score: 1

      Great.. so now I have to give smoking and 3D printing.

    21. Re:So... How worrying is this, really? by anchovy_chekov · · Score: 2

      give up.. not give.. ah... I give up

    22. Re:So... How worrying is this, really? by khallow · · Score: 2

      If those were alpha particles of helium, for example, you'd have all sorts of problems

      You know what happens when you take a whiff of a bag of alpha particles? You talk funny for a few seconds. What makes alpha radiation dangerous isn't that they are alpha particles, but that they're alpha particles with lots of kinetic energy, enough to ionize any cells they happen to run into.

      The fact that you would spew out words like "nanoparticles" and then completely ignore the consequences makes me think you were trying to sound smarter than you really are. Judging by your posting history, I don't blame you.

      Like the "fact" that you would spew out words like "alpha particles"? I find it interesting how many people do the things of which they accuse me in the very post in which they make the accusation.

      I see no evidence of any "consequences" to breathing in small amounts of small particles of plastics, especially inert and decomposable stuff like polyethylene. I think it's ridiculous that people are so overwrought over this story.

      And I didn't use the odious term, "nanoparticles" because I wanted to look clever, but because that was the term used in the summary.

    23. Re:So... How worrying is this, really? by matria · · Score: 1

      Fumes from overheated teflon pans will kill parrots and other cagebirds.

    24. Re:So... How worrying is this, really? by mysidia · · Score: 1

      The amount of emissions might be similar... I would expect the composition of those emissions to be considerably different. How many plastics would there be getting cooked on a gas or electric stove, or in a scented candle? Probably not very many...

    25. Re:So... How worrying is this, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The whole "dust is mostly skin cells" thing is an urban legend.

    26. Re: So... How worrying is this, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1st world problems.

    27. Re: So... How worrying is this, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Avian problems, Id have thought.

    28. Re:So... How worrying is this, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, other than the xenoestrogen effects of certain plastic, I haven't noticed in the news of any potential ill effects of plastics. I would think that plastic particles are safer than gas, wax, ash, etc., as plastic polymers are in general less reactive than natural ones which have all sorts of volatile impurities.

    29. Re:So... How worrying is this, really? by mirix · · Score: 1

      Burning (err, decomposing, I guess) enough teflon will kill people too. HF is nasty shit.

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
    30. Re: So... How worrying is this, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Second hand 3D printing kills!

    31. Re:So... How worrying is this, really? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Hey, it's something we can get hysteric about. And since everyone stopped smoking already, we need a new boogeyman.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    32. Re:So... How worrying is this, really? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Sir, may I have a word with you over there in that black van with the tinted windows?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    33. Re:So... How worrying is this, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [S]ince everyone stopped smoking already, we need a new boogeyman.

      We don't all live in the Majority's Democratic Authority of California (thank fucking god...).

    34. Re:So... How worrying is this, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know what makes alpha particles different from helium? One has electrons and the other doesn't, and that makes a whole lot of difference to what it can do to you.

    35. Re:So... How worrying is this, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For me, everytime I use a non-stick pan, or use a plastic spatula or microwave a reusable container. So pretty much every day.

    36. Re:So... How worrying is this, really? by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      That was my first thought. When did we stop calling these nanosized particles "dust" and "smoke" ?

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    37. Re:So... How worrying is this, really? by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 1

      > I see no evidence of any "consequences" to breathing in small amounts of small particles of plastics

      This is is the single most dangerous error in thinking when dealing with new technologies. It is the person who introduces the unnatural who needs to have the burden of proof, as Nassim Taleb says in Antifragile. Logically it is wrong to claim there is no evidence of consequences to a complex system -- our bodies and the environment -- that we don't and probably never will understand. In a complex system, the only evidence o lack of consequences is time -- a very long time.

      Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. So if you're dealing with something that has potential large, hidden, and delayed costs, your first question should be, does the perceived benefit outweigh the risk? Sometimes yes, and sometimes -- most 3D printing uses, seems to me -- no.

    38. Re:So... How worrying is this, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The walls and surfaces anywhere near the stove will can become caked in oil and soot...

      Eeew! Use an extractor hood and clean your fucking kitchen regularly. You're a highly evolved being. There is no excuse for living in your own filth.

    39. Re:So... How worrying is this, really? by lxs · · Score: 1

      Soot is nasty stuff. I'd rather take my chances with PLA which degrades in the human body. It's the stuff they make self dissolving suture wire and bone screws out of.

    40. Re:So... How worrying is this, really? by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Dude, where's the beer?

      --
    41. Re:So... How worrying is this, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Will bars soon have to have a printing space out back near the garbage dumpsters?

    42. Re:So... How worrying is this, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably. But at nanoscale, the plastics may be biodegradeable too.

      Which means they do all sorts of nasty stuff if they are bioactive.

    43. Re:So... How worrying is this, really? by khallow · · Score: 1

      This is is the single most dangerous error in thinking when dealing with new technologies.

      If it really were, then there'd be no point in listening to you since you've just described a rather meaningless error. To the contrary, when new technologies do bad things, we see those consequences.

      It is the person who introduces the unnatural who needs to have the burden of proof

      Like the people who make unfounded claims of unusual harm from some ambiguous thing called "nanoparticles"? That's pretty unnatural.This sort of talk reminds me of the self-contradictory "Precautionary Principle" which, if applied to itself, would have to reject its own use.

      as Nassim Taleb says in Antifragile

      So let me get this right. An author of a book that advocates the virtues of chaos supposedly says that people who introduce change should should have to "prove" the change first? Somehow that seems very shoot-your-foot contradictory.

      Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

      Well, All you have to do is show evidence. If you can't do that as a self-appointed defender from new technology, then I'm going with evidence of absence.

      So if you're dealing with something that has potential large, hidden, and delayed costs, your first question should be, does the perceived benefit outweigh the risk? Sometimes yes, and sometimes -- most 3D printing uses, seems to me -- no.

      That's ok. It probably would be very unwise for human society to adopt your preferences. I don't see a reason to consider what you think of benefits and risks.

    44. Re:So... How worrying is this, really? by khallow · · Score: 1

      You know what makes alpha particles different from helium? One has electrons and the other doesn't,

      For a small bit of time until the alpha particles acquire electrons, then all you have are helium atoms.

    45. Re: So... How worrying is this, really? by PuZZleDucK · · Score: 1

      This now needs a new verse: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2p5svFJ9cQ

      --
      Can a person program a new solution to a problem? Why should anyone be able to stop such a thing? -Richard Stallman
    46. Re:So... How worrying is this, really? by PuZZleDucK · · Score: 1

      Which means they do all sorts of nasty stuff if they are bioactive.

      Wrong... try again.

      (Just incase you can't be bothered reading... the summary is that implants are made out of PLA because it degrades in such a "good" way)

      --
      Can a person program a new solution to a problem? Why should anyone be able to stop such a thing? -Richard Stallman
    47. Re:So... How worrying is this, really? by PuZZleDucK · · Score: 1

      We all know what "Dust" realy is.

      --
      Can a person program a new solution to a problem? Why should anyone be able to stop such a thing? -Richard Stallman
    48. Re:So... How worrying is this, really? by kermidge · · Score: 1

      There's certainly precedent; unless local weather was bad much of the time, historically in much of the world cooking was done apart from living spaces - either outside or in an alcove or courtyard. So many of today's houses and apartments really are not that well thought out, if you stop to think about it.

    49. Re:So... How worrying is this, really? by sFurbo · · Score: 1

      You wont get HF directly from teflon, there is no hydrogen in there. You might get it if there is oil in the pan.

      What you will get is carbonyl flouride, the fluoride analogue of phosgene. Mmmmhhhh...

    50. Re:So... How worrying is this, really? by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      These days, what we're "not getting enough of" seems to have shifted to krill oil and antioxidants, for which you must compensate by taking their pill or drinking their special juice that you can get for only $29.95 a month if you act now.

    51. Re:So... How worrying is this, really? by delt0r · · Score: 1

      Really. Then why do we get sick from Asbestos? It is a nano fiber. Our lungs don't deal with it at all. We have a precedent.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    52. Re:So... How worrying is this, really? by Osiris+Ani · · Score: 1

      historically in much of the world cooking was done apart from living spaces - either outside or in an alcove or courtyard. So many of today's houses and apartments really are not that well thought out, if you stop to think about it.

      Oh, yes, especially considering how often we cook by burning wood or charcoal inside our homes today. It's a wonder that no one has pointed out the danger of our anachronistic cooking methods before.

    53. Re:So... How worrying is this, really? by kermidge · · Score: 1

      In the U.S. alone wood stoves were in common use for some time, generally until the local availability of a natural gas, and they were used indoors, in the kitchen, which most commonly was an intrinsic portion of the living space. A poorly adjusted flue or sudden downdraft could send smoke throughout the house. I've lived in several homes that still used a wood or coal stove. Last I looked, about ten years back, one can still buy such stoves.

      I wasn't referring to anachronistic cooking methods, as you apparently have taken it. I referred explicitly to cooking in living spaces. By use of the word "cooking" I addressed, at least by implication, the activity, without any reference to whatever method might be used.

    54. Re:So... How worrying is this, really? by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 1

      Well then, what can I say. If you have no intuitive understanding of risk, no logical argument will change your assumptions. I am not saying that new technology should not be used anywhere, on the contrary, there are situations that desperately need new technology, but consumer 3D printing isn't one. If the idea of possibly inflicting horrible damage to your body for the sake of generating plastic trinkets in your home doesn't concern you, then by all means go for it. In fact you will directly help the research showing whether 3D printing is harmful for the health, the only way to know is to have volunteers like you doing it. Remember only that it may take 10-20 years for the consequences to show, so make sure you don't expose anyone else in your family to it.

    55. Re:So... How worrying is this, really? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Well then, what can I say.

      If you haven nothing useful to say, then "nothing" is a good answer.

      If you have no intuitive understanding of risk, no logical argument will change your assumptions.

      I have a considerable knowledge of risk. And one relevant thing stands out - risk is not intuitive.

      If the idea of possibly inflicting horrible damage to your body for the sake of generating plastic trinkets in your home doesn't concern you

      Of course, it doesn't. People have many dangerous things in their homes. Maybe we need to use ventilation when doing 3D printing or even something like vacuum bagging as one might do when sanding advanced composites. Then we can do it.

      But I'll note here that no one has actually shown a need for such. Merely saying that nanoparticles are produced tells us nothing about the concentration or toxicity of whatever that happens to be.

    56. Re:So... How worrying is this, really? by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 1

      > But I'll note here that no one has actually shown a need for such. Merely saying that nanoparticles are produced tells us nothing about the concentration or toxicity of whatever that happens to be.

      Suppose those nanoparticles acts as a catalyst for some dreadful consequences to show in 10 years in the future. If it happens to be so, how can anyone show a need for protection from them now?

      Of course you will say that it is pure speculation that there may be consequences in 10 or 5 or 1 year. But ask yourself, why did some people -- scientists, nonetheless -- even raise the possibility of danger? This is *their* intuition. They have maybe seen in their lifetimes cases of tiny small things getting in places in sensitive tissues and staying there and doing damage, and are extrapolating it to nanoparticles. Or they have seen nanoparticles behave elsewhere in a way that looks like it would be a pain to deal with; check out the article and the Wikipedia references.

      What you're doing is you are weighing the intuitive, as-of-yet-unproveable understanding and pattern recognition of a group of experts against the logical thinking and ideas of another group of experts and non-experts, and you're choosing the latter. So much for your considerable knowledge of risk.

    57. Re:So... How worrying is this, really? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Suppose those nanoparticles acts as a catalyst for some dreadful consequences to show in 10 years in the future. If it happens to be so, how can anyone show a need for protection from them now?

      Well, we'll know in ten years (or actually much less since these devices have been around for some time). But this is a case of arguing from ignorance. We can't know that the particular combination of things we do today won't kill us in 10 years.

      But ask yourself, why did some people -- scientists, nonetheless -- even raise the possibility of danger?

      I think it's a psychological thing. Some people are naturally risk adverse about unknown things that they are made aware of. I think such an outlook is a poor fit for technology development.

      I think it's pointless to be cautionary about something merely because we're somewhat ignorant of relevant details. A reasonable response is to ask how much of this sort of thing are we currently exposed to? For example, terrestrial dust contains glass fragments known to be as small as 2000 nanometers. So there's exposure to nanoparticles in our current environment.

      Second, as I keep saying, there's no consideration of concentration or toxicity.

    58. Re:So... How worrying is this, really? by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 1

      I completely agree with you on that one: such outlook is a poor fit for technology development. It's just that you're operating under assumption that technology development is the most important thing. I used to, too, and it's still my first impulse, but now I believe health and sanity are primary and technology is at best secondary. So in that sense I'm in favor of using risky technology where it improves health and sanity -- if you are somewhere far away and your life is danger, printing that gun is way more important than worrying about inhaling potentially toxic nanoparticles. And likewise I have become cautious towards technology if it doesn't benefit health and sanity: if you are printing cool coffee mugs and risk terminal respiratory illness because of it, it's not worth it.

      But I stand corrected: I can't say in general that being healthy and sane at the cost of some technology slowdown is "better" than being technologically advanced at the cost of some health and sanity. If the majority in society values one over the other, than they should pick actions consistent with that belief. I was assuming that the majority prefers the former but I may be wrong.

    59. Re:So... How worrying is this, really? by khallow · · Score: 1

      It's just that you're operating under assumption that technology development is the most important thing.

      [...]

      but now I believe health and sanity are primary

      Suit yourself. I'll just note a couple of things. First, the risks discussed here are local and no more extreme than the safety requirements of a typical machine shop. Second, we don't need to have a majority of people on board in order to do interesting things with technology or to remove most risks to third parties which might come from developing or using this technology.

      Third, there seems to be a cottage industry for finding imaginary risks. It's not particularly useful to me to read scare stories which don't bother to evaluate or discuss the risks, but merely hype up a possible risk.

  2. Something must go by BSAtHome · · Score: 2

    When multiple options are available to mitigate the problem, then the most often used should be eliminated.

    Hear you all, stop cooking! You're potentially killing yourself from nano-particle emissions. Stop cooking, now, please.

    1. Re:Something must go by ndogg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The difference is that we don't know what these particular particles will do to our bodies yet, and this was something rather unanticipated with 3d printers. Ultimately more research needs to be done, and it may well turn out that these particles are harmless, but considering that we don't know much about their interactions with our biology, it's best to assume the worst until we know better.

      With cooking, candles, etc., we've been doing it for so long that we can probably safely assume that the resulting particles aren't causing any significant harm.

      --
      // file: mice.h
      #include "frickin_lasers.h"
    2. Re:Something must go by stenvar · · Score: 1

      Soot is known to cause lots of harm because it contains carcinogens and particulate carbon.

      There are several studies on the interaction of PLA particles with living tissue. PLA is a non-toxic, biocompatible, biodegradable polymer; it's almost certainly less harmful than soot.

    3. Re:Something must go by BlackHawk-666 · · Score: 1

      What's the chance those studies were funded by the companies that sell PLA? Pretty decent I would say.

      --
      All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
    4. Re:Something must go by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      From the summary this is only a side effect of gas and electric cooking. Everyone should switch to using open wood fireplaces. That'll stop the particles from gas and electric cooking from fouling our air.

    5. Re:Something must go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's the chance your post was funded by the companies that sell soot? Pretty decent I would say.

    6. Re:Something must go by Sentrion · · Score: 1

      Can't take the chance. Just going to eat my chicken raw, just like my ancestors did before they learned to cook with fire. I imagine they must have been much healthier then since their diet was more natural and not tainted with carcinogens. How many people have died from cancer through the eons that could have been prevented by staying away from smoke and fire?

    7. Re:Something must go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give up cooking. Just 3D print your dinner.

    8. Re:Something must go by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      Can't take the chance. Just going to eat my chicken raw, just like my ancestors did before they learned to cook with fire. I imagine they must have been much healthier then since their diet was more natural and not tainted with carcinogens. How many people have died from cancer through the eons that could have been prevented by staying away from smoke and fire?

      "We'll be saying a big hello to all intelligent lifeforms everywhere and to everyone else out there, the secret is to NOT bang the rocks together, guys."

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    9. Re:Something must go by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      It's well known that roasting and frying creates certain carcinogens. Like, say, in french fries. Still I see rather few people going all hysteric about it and picketing fast food chains because they're selling poison to our children! Save the children!

      Just because something doesn't kill you instantly doesn't mean it's safe to do it. Actually, we know a lot MORE about how frying kills us indirectly than we do about how 3D printing harms us, so I guess we should stop frying right now and continue research on 3D printing.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    10. Re:Something must go by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      My landlord and the fire department want to have a word with you concerning your great idea...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    11. Re:Something must go by garyoa1 · · Score: 1

      Well, our lifespans are averaging somewhere in the 70's but it's been increasing over the years.
      If you eliminate cooking, candles, vacuum cleaners, fossil fuels (the list goes on)... who knows? Our lifespans could be in the thousands.
      Bottom line is, what we don't know CAN hurt us.

      --
      Wuddooeyeno? IITYWYBMAD? Like nuts? eclecticallyincorrect.com
    12. Re:Something must go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OH GOD. Because if a company that sells PLA, and has a vested interest in knowing as much as possible about PLA, funds a study, then we have to assume that everything from them is automatically biased and false and self-serving. Christ. University professors do the EXACT SAME THING, yet the moment a business does it they must be evil soul sucking capitalist pigs out to destroy children and society and their neighbors. Don't bother letting facts or science get in the way of your biases. This crap is why slashdot can't have nice discussions anymore. Flame-wars ON!

    13. Re:Something must go by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you live on a farm and grow your own vegetables and fruit, raise your own chickens and pigs, then yes, you should be worried about the emissions of that 3d printer, but if not. Well, ... nobody really know what they're eating, personally, I know enough that I don't want to know more details.

    14. Re:Something must go by lxs · · Score: 1

      Before 3D printing came along PLA was used almost exclusively for surgical procedures...
      OMG Big Pharma is involved. We're all going to die!

    15. Re:Something must go by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      Well, our lifespans are averaging somewhere in the 70's but it's been increasing over the years. If you eliminate cooking, candles, vacuum cleaners, fossil fuels (the list goes on)... who knows? Our lifespans could be in the thousands. Bottom line is, what we don't know CAN hurt us.

      This is incorrect, in meaning if not in fact. Life expectancy at birth has increased dramatically. Life expectancy at 5 years old has increased markedly. Life expectancy at adulthood has increased very little.

      Yes, average lifespans have been increasing a lot in the last century or so, but that will happen when previously a quarter or more of the population was dying before 5 years old.

      A couple references.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    16. Re:Something must go by cusco · · Score: 1

      Finally, someone who understands this really, really basic point. My parent-in-law in Peru had 13 children. Five of them died before they were 5 years old. If all the survivors live until they're 100 their average life expectancy is only 62 years.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  3. Panic inducing by argStyopa · · Score: 3, Interesting

    My guess is that we're going to find nanoparticles a VERY common part of our environment, and that just about any process that grinds or sprays is going to generate nanoparticles.

    Fortunately, considering that bacteria and viruses are ALSO nanoparticles, our bodies have evolved amazing defenses against them.

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:Panic inducing by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      well their study has the PLA result to be 3x than what the baseline is, about. the abs result seems a bit funky, why that happens would be interesting. there's likely large differences between models though too, while in principle most 3d home printers have a same kind of extrusion setup.. it's not really so.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:Panic inducing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The concern is what the nanoparticles are made from, not merely that they exist. The dangers of asbestos come from its airborne nanoparticle form.

    3. Re:Panic inducing by Exitar · · Score: 2

      Bacteria and virus are biodegradable, plastic is not.

    4. Re:Panic inducing by pla · · Score: 1

      well their study has the PLA result to be 3x than what the baseline is, about. the abs result seems a bit funky

      Well, y'know, I do keep myself in shape, but I wouldn't really call my abs anything to write home about...

    5. Re:Panic inducing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention I'd still take sitting in a room with a 3D printer over sitting in traffic behind a diesel bus all day. Emissions controls still haven't done much for the amount of soot those things are allowed to emit.

    6. Re:Panic inducing by plover · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Asbestos is dangerous because the tiny shattered fibers are like little X-acto knife blades, forever stabbing at lung cells, popping them like tiny balloons. Eventually, one pierces a cell wall without killing the cell, the sharpened tip of the asbestos crystal slices some of that cell's DNA into random bits, and the cell replicates with that corrupt DNA. Sorry, but that cell just became ground zero for another case of mesothelioma.

      Aerosolized ABS plastic? I don't know what shape those nanoparticles are, but I'd bet a lot they're not tiny sharpened spears, so they're not going to act like asbestos. If they're going to harm the lungs, it would have to be through a chemical reaction, like tobacco smoke. But ABS is a nontoxic, stable compound, and as it's insoluble in water, it's unlikely to break down into its toxic components. Certainly, an awful lot of very small kids have chewed on ABS plastic toys to no toxic effects.

      Of course, the material safety data sheet I linked to above shows that molten plastic can cause burns, and if set on fire can release toxic smoke. So I suspect that if you inhale molten flaming ABS plastic, the health effects would be very harmful indeed.

      --
      John
    7. Re:Panic inducing by Flere+Imsaho · · Score: 1

      ... just about any process that grinds or sprays is going to generate nanoparticles.

      Hmm, must have a word with the wife

      --
      It gripped her hand gently. 'Regret is for humans,' it said.
    8. Re:Panic inducing by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Nope, but usually quite inert.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    9. Re:Panic inducing by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Nope, but usually quite inert.

      HAHAHAHAA

      and also

      BAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

      Most plastics are the diametric opposite of inert. They can react with all kinds of things normally found in their environment. For example, literally all plastic bottles leach toxics into their contents, BPx-free or not, even if those contents are only water. And you happen to be mostly water.

      In addition, the smaller the particle, the more chance it has to do damage. Your cilia are good at sweeping large particles, like those from wood smoke, out of your lungs. They cannot do this with even smaller particles being released from synthetics which we have the gall to refer to as biomimicry. A gecko climbs a wall due to van der waals forces due to tiny hairs on their hands. We can make gloves that do the same thing. But when they are used they break down, and the little bits take much longer to degrade than the ones that break off of a gecko. Performance clothing also tends to give off nanoparticle dust.

      Finally, things which actually are stable and persistent can also harm the body. Naturally-occurring asbestos tends to be less harmful than the processed stuff humans actually use because the particle size is larger. Asbestos is also stable, and also causes cancer.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:Panic inducing by lxs · · Score: 1

      Not all plastics are alike. PLA is biodegradable.

    11. Re:Panic inducing by khallow · · Score: 1

      They can react with all kinds of things normally found in their environment. For example, literally all plastic bottles leach toxics into their contents

      Leaching is not a reaction. And you neglect that dosage is a big part of what makes "toxics" toxic.

    12. Re:Panic inducing by PuZZleDucK · · Score: 1

      PLA is biodegradable.

      Am I the only one sick of having to paste that link under all these "all plastics are bad" comments? :p I'm glad you beat me too this one.

      --
      Can a person program a new solution to a problem? Why should anyone be able to stop such a thing? -Richard Stallman
    13. Re:Panic inducing by sFurbo · · Score: 1

      Do you have a reference for asbestos physically cutting up DNA being the route by which it causes cancer? I would assume that it did it by causing constant inflammation, but that other route would be cool (well, as cool as carcinogens can be).

    14. Re:Panic inducing by delt0r · · Score: 1

      bacteria are a lot bigger than a nanoparticle. Asbestos is a nano fiber and is really bad for us. There is no reason to dismiss this out of had. They really could have strong negative effects.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    15. Re:Panic inducing by plover · · Score: 1

      It was a theory I read a few years back, probably in Scientific American. (I took special note because mesothelioma has affected our family, which includes several life-long plumbers and construction workers.)

      The Wikipedia article on mesothelioma doesn't mention this particular action. It does postulate that the DNA can get tangled with or otherwise adhere to the asbestos.

      There are correlations between different types of asbestos and the cancer, including the observation that long, thin fibers are more potent carcinogens, and that smaller particles are more dangerous. None of those observations run counter to the theory of the strands physically cutting the DNA.

      There is a lot of data known regarding the symptoms and effects of asbestos exposure, such as inflammation. But because the action is so small, it's hard to prove the exact pathophysiology at the moment a fiber causes the first incident of cancer. We know mesothelioma develops in people who were occupationally exposed, with higher exposure rates correlating to quicker time to cancer as well as a higher incidence rate. In the body, a mechanism like this would be repeated by millions, billions, or possibly even trillions of inhaled tiny sharp fibers. The fibers are a crystalline lattice, and easily fracture along two axes, and the third axis is not very strong either. As the lungs contract and expand during breathing, any larger fibers that were lodged in clumps of cells would be snapped into progressively smaller pieces, until they're so small they can enter the cells. The sharp fibers would probably kill most cells upon cutting into them, and the collection of dead cells would trigger an immune response, accounting for the inflammation (inhaling too many fibers at once would likely cause injury or death from asbestosis.) But some cells would survive. Of those that do, it's not unreasonable that the shards may occasionally enter the nucleus. Most of the time, that would probably kill the cell, too. But once in a horrible while, a cell might survive long enough to replicate. When you have billions of cells clashing with billions of tiny shards, eventually the numbers catch up. And while white blood cells carry dead cells away, they also carry the tiny sharp fragments which remain sharp, and can pierce and escape elsewhere in the body, not unlike carrying a plastic bag of broken glass shards to the trash bin.

      Here's a pretty dramatic photo (from 1974) of an asbestos shard that has pierced a cell: http://openi.nlm.nih.gov/detailedresult.php?img=1475375_envhper00499-0240-b&req=4

      --
      John
  4. That last sentence is a really nice teaser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Detecting the rate of generated nanoparticles when burning scented candles? Wait, I hear the investment coming, we are going to get rich!!!

  5. Absolute FUD by galadran · · Score: 2

    "Cooking on gas or electric stoves and electric toaster ovens was a major source of UFP, with peak personal exposures often exceeding 100,000 particles/cm and estimated emission rates in the neighborhood of 10 particles/min."

    So in other words, a toaster puts out 10x more UFPs. Nothing to see here folks.

    Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20087407

    1. Re:Absolute FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It isn't FUD, it is just science.

      There is a danger operating them just like any appliance that burns things and it should be noted.

      Add proper ventilation and the problem should all but disappear.

    2. Re:Absolute FUD by wierd_w · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes, Like 100% of laser printers on the market, which use a polystyrene based toner powder, and are potentially much worse for you than that reprap ever dreamed of being.

      Since not only does the laser printer flash heat and fuse the toner powder to the paper and release styrenes and other organic nanoparticles into the air, they also frequently leak, and pose a significant powder inhalation hazard!

      In other words, if you don't find your laser printer in the file room terribly dangerous, you shouldn't find the 3d printer any more so.

    3. Re:Absolute FUD by anwe79 · · Score: 1

      If your 3D-printer is burning anything, you have a serious calibration problem. Is your thermistor loose? ;)

      Personally I'm much more worried about the nasty particles coming off the highway, or radon seeping out of my apartment's walls/ventilation system, than fumes coming off my 3D printer.

  6. Mmm, yeah, real dangerous by Freddybear · · Score: 1

    Right up there with frying food or scented candles. We'll get back to you on that, sure.

  7. Re:Obvious Government FUD by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Funny

    Actually, if you 3D-print a gun it can potentially emit a harmful normal-sized particle.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  8. Re:Americans submersing in ignorance again. by aliquis · · Score: 1

    :)

    Yeah, I take my chances of cooked lentils over melted plastic.

  9. Re:Obvious Government FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    That's the point, so you can defend against getting your head bashed into the sidewalk by a 17 year old with Iced Tea and Skittles.

  10. OK so what this means is... by 3seas · · Score: 1

    They need to be enclosed and have a ionized air filter...

    1. Re:OK so what this means is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Need to wait on the 'putting fume-generating equipment in a box to make it safer' patent to expire before doing that though,

    2. Re:OK so what this means is... by Sneftel · · Score: 1

      I do that with all my scented candles.

      --
      The opinions stated herein do not necessarily represent those of anybody at all. Deal with it.
    3. Re: OK so what this means is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Enclosed with a filter will also help with the next step, 3-D printers that also paint an object.

    4. Re:OK so what this means is... by EETech1 · · Score: 1

      Need to make an open source ventilated box with exhaust duct project you can build without violating any patents for any specific uses for such a device.

      No, that is not an enclosure for my RepRap, due to workspace restrictions I am forced to have the two projects occupy roughly the same area on my bench.

    5. Re:OK so what this means is... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Great idea, I'll print one right away.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:OK so what this means is... by PuZZleDucK · · Score: 1

      Great idea, I'll print one right away.

      hahaha... you'd better hold your breath untill the build finishes :p

      --
      Can a person program a new solution to a problem? Why should anyone be able to stop such a thing? -Richard Stallman
  11. How do they compare to pollen? by istartedi · · Score: 5, Funny

    How do they compare to pollen? Are they full of spiky little projectiles that want to burrow into my nasal cavities and cross-polinate with my mucus membranes to create a giant mutant dandelion in my head? No? Then I'm not... ahh, ahhhhh, AH-CHOO!, sniff. worried.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    1. Re:How do they compare to pollen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then have unprotected sex in your nose?

    2. Re:How do they compare to pollen? by MouseTheLuckyDog · · Score: 1

      Eeew gross!

      Are there videos on the net?

    3. Re:How do they compare to pollen? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Eeew gross!

      Are there videos on the net?

      Google "Two nostrils One Cup".

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    4. Re:How do they compare to pollen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pollen is too big to enter your brain.

    5. Re:How do they compare to pollen? by lxs · · Score: 1

      Yours maybe. My brain is HUGE!

  12. Potentially you can also: by csumpi · · Score: 2

    - burn your fingers
    - trip on the power cord
    - drop the printer on your big toe

    1. Re:Potentially you can also: by naff89 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but we already knew about all of those. I don't think I would have ever guessed that my 3D printer was emitting nanosized particles at all, let alone consider whether that might be harmful.

      The point of scientific research is to tell us stuff we don't know, and I did not know this.

    2. Re:Potentially you can also: by Dthief · · Score: 1

      "The emission rates were similar to those measured in previous studies of several other devices and indoor activities, including cooking on a gas or electric stove, burning scented candles, operating laser printers, or even burning a cigarette." You might not have known it, but its a scare tactic if you read the last part. A better title would be, "Despite slight emission of nanoparticles, 3D printing is safer than many activities you already do."

      --
      www.RacquetUp.org - Helping Detroit Youth
    3. Re:Potentially you can also: by PuZZleDucK · · Score: 1

      - burn your fingers

      check

      - trip on the power cord

      check

      - drop the printer on your big toe

      not yet, but it has been half way off the table and just about ready too... If it did I'd be more woried about the printer: I can print a replacement foot with my printer, but no matter how much I try my foot refuses to make me even the simplest printing press.

      --
      Can a person program a new solution to a problem? Why should anyone be able to stop such a thing? -Richard Stallman
  13. Right up there with frying food or scented candles by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 3, Funny

    Medical science has been saying for YEARS that frying Scented Candles is bad for your health.

    --
    Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
  14. Re:Americans submersing in ignorance again. by khallow · · Score: 1

    At least ,we're not all a bunch of chicken littles. As to this so-called "knee jerk" reaction, it's worth noting that the concerns of the story are pretty stupid. The human body and its teeming hordes of parasites (such as dust mites and viruses), for a near and dear example, is a huge generator of harmful nanoparticles. We call this stuff names like "dust allergies" and "communicable diseases".

  15. Compared to breaking seals or toys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Every time my kids break a plastic toy they are, no doubt, emitting plastic nanoparticles. Every time I crunch a milk jug in the trash or use a plastic comb I'm emitting plastic nanoparticles. Every time I snap open a plastic garbage bag or sit on my old polyester-upholstered sofa I'm emitting plastic nanoparticles.

    Have you ever looked at the layer of paper dust around a printer?

    There better be a lot of these particles emitted, or they won't be of much concern to me.

  16. Re:Obvious Government FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By which you mean the plastic shrapnel when it explodes in your hand. (Okay to be fair it does fire at your target too.)

  17. This just in. by Rod+Beauvex · · Score: 3, Funny

    3D printing shown to cause potentially harmful cuts into corporate profits.

  18. Re:Americans submersing in ignorance again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    People used to say the same thing about asbestos. Also, the types of materials used in 3D printing are not the same as dust and pollen and other "natural" particles.

  19. So if they make UFP by vlad30 · · Score: 1

    Can they be made to place the UFP? I know they process is currently uncontrolled however a little engineering could make 3D printing even more interesting

    --
    Your'e all thinking it, I just said it for you
  20. +1 Informative by D1G1T · · Score: 0

    So open a window or turn on a vent fan when you use a 3d printer. Good to know. Those of us with existing respiratory issues actually do appreciate hearing about unexpected sources of crap in the air.

    1. Re:+1 Informative by Jmc23 · · Score: 1

      How in the world is off-gassing and emission of particles even remotely unexepected when you're heating plastic??? It seems a little education might help your respiratory issues.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
  21. Relative dangers? by DrEldarion · · Score: 1

    Sure, it may put out the same amount of particles as more common things, but I imagine they're different types of particle. The site is dead so I can't check, but is there anything said about the relative dangers of one particle compared to another? I'm sure, for example, nanoparticles of plastics are much more hazardous than nanoparticles of burnt toast.

    1. Re:Relative dangers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, asbestos is confirmed as a dangerous carcinogen due to its properties as a nanoparticle. On the other hand, bacteria are also nanoparticles and we've been digesting them harmlessly for all of history.

    2. Re:Relative dangers? by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 1

      I'm sure, for example, nanoparticles of plastics are much more hazardous than nanoparticles of burnt toast.

      Given the long-known harmful effects of soot, and the newly-discovered harmful effects of carbon nanoparticles, that would seem a spectacularly unsafe assumption.

    3. Re:Relative dangers? by PuZZleDucK · · Score: 1
      --
      Can a person program a new solution to a problem? Why should anyone be able to stop such a thing? -Richard Stallman
  22. Re:Right up there with frying food or scented cand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Medical science has been saying for YEARS that frying Scented Candles is bad for your health.

    But breaded fried candles are part of my heritage!

  23. Re:Americans submersing in ignorance again. by Chrontius · · Score: 1

    Lactic acid, however, is an intermediate ion the energy metabolism of eukaryotic (AKA your) cells; it's produced as a fermentation by-product, which can then be broken down into CO2 + H2O in the presence of oxygen to extract remaining energy.

    I'd go out on a limb and suggest that PLA is pretty damn "natural".

  24. They want funding... by dinther · · Score: 1

    Another lot of "Researchers" wanting to use scare tactics to get funding.

    "Additionally, more controlled experiments should be conducted...."

    I like to see the testing results in a wood shop or metal shop. Let them measure nano particle emissions when using spray cans or how about a simple inkjet printer?
    Suddenly the world is full of "Harmful" nano particles. Scary things you can't see or prove easily always good for a good scare.

    We need a nano tax to stop the inhuman crime of nano particle emission. I want to see Greenpest protesting against nano pollution. Get your banners out morons.

    1. Re:They want funding... by plover · · Score: 1

      I want to see Greenpest protesting against nano pollution. Get your banners out morons.

      Yes, that's it! They should wave microscopic banners protesting the nanoparticles! We could use a bunch of protestors as a sort of Maxwell's Demon, to use their tiny signs to bat away the bad nanoparticles while admitting the good natural nanoparticles.

      --
      John
  25. Oh crap by kilodelta · · Score: 1

    So I cook and own a laser printer. I'm screwed. But last printer is another room, door closed.

    1. Re:Oh crap by EETech1 · · Score: 1

      Just letting those laser printer nanos collect in the room so you can get them all when you go in to get your printouts.

      You need to think of your heath man...

    2. Re:Oh crap by kilodelta · · Score: 1

      Well, I could always suit up and go get the printouts.

    3. Re:Oh crap by Dthief · · Score: 2

      Or just print outdoors like nature intended

      --
      www.RacquetUp.org - Helping Detroit Youth
  26. Re:Right up there with frying food or scented cand by KitFox · · Score: 1

    Medical science has been saying for YEARS that frying Scented Candles is bad for your health.

    Which is worse though, frying them or eating them fried? Obviously more healthy poached.

    Wait...

    Don't tease the participle just because it dangles. It can get some blue pills for that and then you'll be sorry!

    --

    @Whee

  27. Re:Right up there with frying food or scented cand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about the next big thing from Boeing, flying Scented Candles?

  28. Re:Americans submersing in ignorance again. by c0lo · · Score: 1

    :)

    Yeah, I take my chances of cooked lentils over melted plastic.

    :) :)
    Tell me when you get to the "cooked lentils 3D printing" level.

    --
    Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
  29. OMFG by Osgeld · · Score: 1

    melting plastic results in fumes, gee go figure, glad we wasted our collective tax money on yet another "NO FUCKING SHIT" study

  30. Sounds like a setup... by nurb432 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    For regulation, and then restriction.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  31. Re:Americans submersing in ignorance again. by aliquis · · Score: 1

    Will be awesome when you can 3dprint your food. Even better when the matter is brought into existance from energy (or maybe not depending on what's easier to come by =P, use sand or trash as raw material, turn it into energy and use the energy to make whatever matter needed for the food? Fine for me.)

  32. OhMiGawd! by pla · · Score: 1

    Oh... My... Gawd!

    I use a gas or electric stove on a nightly basis! Some nights I even *sobs* barbecue!

    Wow. So these things make slightly less nanoscale dust than most 2D printers (which, inkjet or laser, make dusting your bookshelf look practically good for you). Call me when the liberal media stops trying to spread FUD about "gun printers".

  33. Re:Obvious Government FUD by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

    WHY is there no +1 Troll mod? This really needs to be fixed.

  34. Where this research should have gone... by GrpA · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, smoke sometimes curls from the printhead. No surprises there. Usually, there's not much, but hey, ABS chemicals aren't exactly a health-product.

    What I would have liked to have known though is whether the use of covers ( eg, stabilising temperature and keeping the workpiece enclosed ) make any difference.

    There is actually benefit to using covered printers, so it wouldn't be that difficult to add some filters to them would it? It's an entirely practical approach too, since plastic fumes are always worth avoiding.

    And the use of less emotive terms for smoke would have been nano-appreciated.

    GrpA

    --
    Enjoy science fiction? "Turing Evolved" - AI, Mecha, Androids and rail-gun battles. What more could you want?
    1. Re:Where this research should have gone... by cavebison · · Score: 1

      There is actually benefit to using covered printers

      FWIW, in the old days of dot-matrix printers, sound covers were common for big printers in offices. Interesting that we would make covers for a product that emits a bit of bothersome noise, but not for one that emits airborne particles.

  35. Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Enclose the printer and add a fan and a nano-filter. Done. Government conspiracy mitigated just like that.

  36. drank, yo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Makin' that drank, dawg!"

    Damn! That's just how I troll!

  37. Applies to laser printers as well by bAdministrator · · Score: 1

    There was a similar study on this surrounding laser printers.

    http://computer.howstuffworks.com/printer-health.htm

  38. Re:Perfect Excuse by Sentrion · · Score: 1

    If only that bastard Nixon were still alive to account for the atrocities of the agency he created so many years ago.

  39. Invalidate enclosure patent? by mattr · · Score: 1

    Above poster suggests study should have included mitigation effect of enclosures.
    It would be interesting if an OSHA, CDC or other regulation/law could require enclosures, and invalidate the patent some company IIRC holds on them for public health reasons.

  40. Okay, the question we should be asking is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How long before someone figures out how to turn this phenomenon into a weapon? The reason this is important is that as soon as someone does, BAM, they're baned. That translocation to the brain thing's kind of worrisome. I keep important things there, wouldn't want bits of foreign material ending up in there. I likes me a CLEAN brain, not one what looks like that Pacific Garbage patch!

  41. Plastic Gallon Milk/Water Containers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slightly off topic but related, I've always wondered how much plastic the world drinks in a year from gallon milk/water containers. I've noticed there's always plastic pieces near where the lid screws on, and I can't imagine they are super careful with the process to make the containers, they've been the same since I remember back. Also, what about those plastic lined paper milk "boxes"? They always taste like paper, I can't stand drinking from those.

  42. Hype much? by Dthief · · Score: 1

    "The emission rates were similar to those measured in previous studies of several other devices and indoor activities, including cooking on a gas or electric stove, burning scented candles, operating laser printers, or even burning a cigarette."

    --
    www.RacquetUp.org - Helping Detroit Youth
  43. Re:Americans submersing in ignorance again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, you are of course SOOO HARDCORE, with your asbestos-filled lungs, Roundup-poisoned body, and this shit here giving you cancer in every single part of your body... unless the shit you call "food" kills you first. (Normally it only causes decades of pain and suffering.)

    Our body evolved and *adapted* to deal with parasites, viruses, etc, you dumbfuck. It didn't adapt to this shit.
    Did the high-fructose corn syrup already melt your brain away, or are you simply *that* willfully ignorant?

    And I, for one, consider having the brains to avoid shitting/polluting where I live, to be the way we will have evolved to be adapted to it.
    So keep being "hardcore", and die out, you moron. I'll be over here, being "chicken little", and having fun watching.

  44. hi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    v my co-worker's step-sister makes $83 hourly on the net. She has been discharged for 6 months however last month her pay check was $19589 simply acting on the net for a number of hours. Here's the location to scan additional Read more at... www.bay92.Co

  45. Re:Americans submersing in ignorance again. by khallow · · Score: 1

    Our body evolved and *adapted* to deal with parasites, viruses, etc, you dumbfuck. It didn't adapt to this shit.

    I'd have to disagree with that, but only because you're wrong here. The natural world has a lot of small crap in it, including a lot of toxic, sharp and otherwise dangerous to breathe stuff. Even asbestos dust occurs naturally though probably not in quantities large enough to affect our evolution.

    And I wonder what our relatively high resistance to toxins like round up comes from? I'd say evolutionary exposure to other such toxins in what we eat and breathe.

    Second, you clearly aren't considering dosage or the kind of materials used in 3D printing, you know, basic toxicology stuff. Apparently the level of "nanoparticles" produced is lower than running an electric toaster or flushing a toilet. And last I checked, most 3D printers don't use asbestos or round up in the printing process. Imagine that, assuming you ever had the capability to do so.

  46. Hey by The+Cat · · Score: 1

    Whatever it takes to create an excuse for the government to regulate them. Can't have the peasants making their own shit.

    Gotta keep that Guangdong gravy train rollin.

    3D printers will be regulated out of existence in two years. Guaranteed.

  47. Re:Right up there with frying food or scented cand by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Boeing? My ex-girlfriend invented those at our last fight.

    Guess I should have patented it.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  48. Re:Obvious Government FUD by jafiwam · · Score: 1

    This is obvious FUD created by some government to prevent people from using 3D printers to print guns.

    Yup. Pretty much this right here. "We can't control it, so we'll make you scared of it." Complete bullcrap. Use it in a well ventilated area or add a few household filters to the room.

    There hasn't been enough of these out for a long enough time for "OMG THEY CAUSE CANCER" of any kind. (Except in Commifornia, where everything causes cancer except liberalism.)

  49. Translocating by thenextstevejobs · · Score: 1

    Does this sound suspiciously to anyone else like, say, 'moving'?

    --
    Long live the BSD license
    1. Re:Translocating by PuZZleDucK · · Score: 1

      Yeah... Kinda' like how "nano" sounds suspiciously like "small".

      --
      Can a person program a new solution to a problem? Why should anyone be able to stop such a thing? -Richard Stallman
  50. So what you're saying is... by WillyWanker · · Score: 1

    It's the same as other shit we do every single day of our lives. Why is this written as a DOOM! story???

  51. but pla smells so good.. by JC61990 · · Score: 1

    This must be a trap, if you have ever printed with PLA you know it smells sweet, kind of like maple syrup. I could sit next to my printer all day cause it smells so good. I guess its time to invest in some type of vented enclosure for my printer.

  52. PLA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Polylactic acid is naturally biodegradable in the human body, forms lactic acid, which is also produced by your muscles during exercise. ABS is different.

  53. Re:Right up there with frying food or scented cand by lxs · · Score: 1

    Also known as Dreamliners

  54. so does my ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Emit potentially harmful nano sized particles.

  55. Who paid for this research? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This reeks of manipulation.

  56. Re:Obvious Government FUD by RaceProUK · · Score: 1

    Use it in a well ventilated area or add a few household filters to the room.

    And/or use one of those face masks you can get from the hardware store.

    --
    No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
  57. Re:Obvious Government FUD by ender89 · · Score: 1

    .... technically true.........

  58. Re:Obvious Government FUD by smithmc · · Score: 1

    Gee, I wonder how long before we can 3D-print gunpowder?

    --
    Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!