What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
48 Comments
- MasterThief117, on 10/10/2007, -2/+31My boss is also an office health risk.
- gwinerreniwg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+23...Are a health risk if only because my blood pressure goes up 4 points every time my damn Dell POS jams.
- DariusMonsef, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14Found on another article after submitting:
The laser printers found to be high emitters, or potential high emitters depending on use, were:
HP Color LaserJet 4650dn
HP Color LaserJet 5550dtn
HP Color LaserJet 8550N
HP LaserJet 1320N
HP LaserJet 1320n
HP LaserJet 2420dn
HP LaserJet 4200dtn
HP LaserJet 4250n (old)
HP LaserJet 4250n (new)
HP LaserJet 5(a)
HP LaserJet 8000DN
HP LaserJet 8150N
Toshiba Studio 450 - piratearggghhh, on 10/10/2007, -4/+15PC Load Letter? WTF is PC Load Letter!?
- SmackMyMac, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10I think I've got the black lung pop. Keh Keh
- arcticwookie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7If you're going to quote the classics, get it right!
"PC Load Letter"? What the ***** does that mean?" -- Michael Bolton, Office Space - sQPha7e, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7No wonder the paper smells so good and warm when it comes out... it's CANCER!
- cactus476, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I test laser printers all day.
Let's just say my nostrils are pitch black. - WarBeast, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5PC Load Letter? WTF Does that mean?
- jchillerup, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4WHY does it say 'paper jam' when there IS no paper jam?!
- christopherRB, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Everything is a health risk
- HawkeyeMatt, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I love the smell of freshly laser printed paper, never thought sniffing it would ruin my lungs :(
- zoozo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3And what if i'm smoking next to the printer? Two minus is a plus, no?
- CheeseheadDave, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2/Looks at picture in article.
//Looks at the same model printer sitting next to my desk.
Death by printer? What a way to go... - chubbybubba, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3can you say Workers Compensation.
- fatmuscle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2was it this article?
http://www.thedailygreen.com/2007/08/01/laser-printers-cause-office-pollution/4653/ - FongoBongo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2*****, I have a HP LaserJet Printer at my desk, its a 4100 DTN! I noticed that I sneeze a lot...
- sephiroth965, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Dude, noone's playing WoW anymore and it's been easy to make money ever since BC came out.
- zouhair, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2***** the Dupe Police
- asbest, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2original art
Particle emissions from laser printers might pose health concern
Certain laser printers used in offices and homes release tiny particles of toner-like material into the air that people can inhale deep into lungs where they may pose a health hazard, scientists are reporting. Their study is scheduled for the August 1 online issue of the American Chemical Society’s Environmental Science & Technology (ES&T), a semi-monthly journal.
Lidia Morawska, Ph.D., and colleagues in Australia classified 17 out of 62 printers in the study as “high particle emitters” because they released such elevated quantities of particles, which the researchers believe to be toner, the ultrafine powder used in laser printers instead of ink to form text and images. One of the printers released particles into an experimental chamber at a rate comparable to the particle emissions from cigarette smoking, the report stated.
Thirty-seven of the 62 printers, on the other hand, released no particles that diminished air quality. Six released only low levels, and 2 medium levels. All printers were monitored in an open office, and the researchers recorded data on three laser printers in an experimental chamber. The study included popular models in the U. S. and Australia sold internationally under the Canon, HP Color Laserjet, Ricoh and Toshiba brand names.
Most of the printer-generated particles detected were ultrafine, Morawska said, explaining that such contaminants are easily inhaled into the smallest passageways of the lungs where they could pose “a significant health threat.” Previous studies have focused on emissions of volatile organic compounds, ozone, and toner particles from office printers and copiers. However, the research left broad gaps in scientific understanding of particle emissions and airborne concentrations of particles, the report noted.
Morawska and colleagues, who are with the Queensland University of Technology in Brisbane, initially were not trying to close that knowledge gap. “It wasn’t an area that we consciously decided to study,” Morawska said in an interview. “We came across it by chance. Initially we were studying the efficiency of ventilation systems to protect office settings from outdoor air pollutants. We soon realized that we were seeing air pollution originating indoors, from laser printers.”
The study found that indoor particle levels in the office air increased fivefold during work hours due to printer use. Printers emitted more particles when operating with new toner cartridges, and when printing graphics and images that require greater quantities of toner.
Funded by Queensland Department of Public Works and The Cooperative Research Centre for Construction Innovation, the ES&T report includes a list of the brands and models in the study classified by amount of particles emitted. As a result of the study, the scientists are calling on government officials to consider regulating emission levels from laser printers. “By all means, this is an important indoor source of pollution,” Morawska said. “There should be regulations.”
The health effects from inhaled ultrafine particles depend on particle composition, but the results can range from respiratory irritation to more severe illnesses, such as cardiovascular problems or cancer, Morawska said. “Even very small concentrations can be related to health hazards,” she said. “Where the concentrations are significantly elevated means there is potentially a considerable hazard.”
Larger particles also could be unhealthy without reaching the deepest parts of the lung. “Because they are larger,” Morawska added, “they contain more mass and can carry more toxins into the body. No matter how you look at it, there could be problems.”
Morawska said that more research on the health effects of inhaling printer-generated particles is needed. As a first step to lower risk, people should ensure that rooms in offices or houses are well ventilated to allow airborne particles to disperse.
### - zouhair, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1And you know what guys, after some time of being born, you'll die, join me to save life and stop this mess!! being born will surely kill you!!
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"Well ventilated areas?" Where exactly is that?
- jeezus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If you read the linked study, there actually is no mention of "toner". The study simply mentions "particles," which could be toner, paper dust, or any combination of the two.
- tmmi, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3I dug this relating thing earlier today, it links to the actual research papers which list all the models (including non-, medium and hi-emitter printers) http://www.digg.com/health/Particle_Emission_Characteristics_of_Office_Printers_Laser_printers
- Kratos76, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Way to submit some possibly useful information and not cite your source.
- tonythejetsfan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1First pass reading this article I'm curious about a number of things and I really need to read it more carefully but I welcome your input. I'm not very quick on the uptake so I usually need to really read and reread these things many times before I get it. By then, this thread will be gone so forgive me if I've made any obvious miscalculations.
I would expect particle levels in the air increase during the during periods of activity say when people are walking around kicking up dust vs at night when there's no movement and the AC is shutdown. They seem to rely on other studies suggesting most of the variation is due to larger particles rather than the super tiny particles they are measuring but they don't actually measure it for this office.
They don't seem do the measurements with the same activities with the printers present and then replicate the activities with the printers in say another office. They're probably networked, how hard would it have been to do that.
Most of their measurements appear to be with their monitors placed 1/2 meter from the printers. Even in a home office that's unusually close. What are the levels a meter away, 10 meters away?
I didn't really get how the test chamber worked. It sounds like it had a couple of air changes per minute. Did they measure the exhaust from the chamber, a location in the chamber itself? A diagram would probably help.
Sounds like we don't know the health effects of the particles because there have been no studies in office workers. What about workers who fill the cartridges and service the machines. They probably have much higher exposures. Is there any evidence there's any health risk to them and if not why would we be concerned about much lower exposures?
Was this office really typical? They don't seem to give a lot of info on how many air changes per hour there were in the test office, how much exchange with outside air, what was the pattern of air movement around the printers particularly with relation to where they place their monitors.
Wouldn't it have helped if they actually monitored the level of exposure of the actual workers. Say by sampling the air in their breathing zones during a typical work shift to see what their actual exposure to this particular contaminate was as they did their work?
I'm really uncomfortable with the cigarette analogy. I'm sure that if you really tried you could find a lot of activities that produces the same or more of a particular size of particle than smoking but suggesting that the material they are measuring is any where as dangerous as the multitude of carcinogens and poisons in cigarettes seems intentionally provocative.
All that being said you would think an outfit as big as HP would have a ton of research on this and know about it before these guys and have some sort of response. I find it troubling that they appear so silent on this assuming they have been. Anyone here seen a response from HP? - andshewas, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Another reason to skip work!
- gremos, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1and who cares?
- zanthrax, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I used to work for HP laserjet phonesupport in the Netherlands, at a certain point a dutch TV program paid attention to unhealthy laserprinters.
It was said that the particulates emitted by the printers are what's unhealthy.
Of-course the phones were red-hot the next day, HP's official response was that everything that the laserprinters emit have too large particles to classify as particulates, so it would just be filtered by your nose hairs. Doubtful...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particulate
The toner BTW is not ink, it's tiny metal balls coated with plastic, the smell laserprinters make is that of molten plastics, not ozone as often is said. - Heymoe, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I knew there was an office products conspiracy. The stapler took out an insurance policy on my cubicle mate for a reason.
- creiss74, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1People who work in an office?
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1that's why they smell so good!
- kruton6, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Can anyone tell me if the Dell 5100cn printer in my bedroom is trying to kill me or not? I smell a good reason to try and get a new printer from Dell :)
- FreezerBurn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Im in ur lungz stealzing ur airz
- hourog, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1LIVING can be hazardous to your health. Geez.
- sol2006, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Another piece of interesting information. I never would have thought that printers could give me lung cancer...but then again, I read somewhere that cows are actually the major cause for Global Warming. Who woulda thought?
- Blade2000, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Damn, better stop smoking rolled toner this week!
- Standeck, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Meh, I did field service on printers and copiers for twenty years and breathed lots of toner over that time. There's plenty of worse stuff you can put in your lungs. If you read the MSDS or WHMS for toner, the stuff is pretty inert. Way better than tobacco smoke or even just plain dirt dust (spoors and molds anyone?).
- aflaks, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0cause of CANCER
- crossers, on 07/14/2008, -0/+0oh, it's serious! and why so late they talk about it?
http://www.leannrimes.info
http://www.shpe-sac.org
http://www.pmidsig.org - jwking100, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0One of the problems is that people are alergic to it. There was an advert for alergy tablets a while back that showed what percentage of people were alergic to differnet things. Printer Toner was one of the highest ones. So a study showing its bad for you isnt a suprise. Plus anyhting other than oxegyn in the lungs isnt good
- gremos, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1There goes the first lawsuit
- ramiro, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Thanks. I have a Laserjet 4050N at my desk.
- TimTheGreat, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Water is the essence of wetness.
- nunzi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0buried for being like the 10th time i've seen this in two days
- munna80, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1***** all these stupid studies.
Everything can kill you these days, from lettuce to a walk in the park, its just so ridiculous. - monsenanna, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0Seriously people, what's with all the dupes.. buried.
- shishihenge, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0so xerox a ok?
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is