Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

laser printers - health risk

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • laser printers - health risk

    Printer particles as bad as cigarettes - Technology - smh.com.au
    Printer particles as bad as cigarettes


    August 1, 2007
    SMOKERS have been banished from the office - but another threat, potentially as dangerous, may still be lurking by the water cooler.
    It is the laser printer, says Lidia Morawska, a Queensland University of Technology professor.
    A study led by the physics professor found many laser printers emit clouds of ultra-fine particles that she compared with cigarette smoke and motor vehicle emissions. "They are so small you can't see them."
    Although her team has yet to analyse their chemistry, she warned that such small particles "can get deep into the lungs", leading to respiratory and cardiovascular problems. Some particles were potential carcinogens.
    Professor Morawska said that of about 40 models of laser printers her team had tested, 13 were "high emitters" of particles from the toner. All were relatively new. Office photocopiers failed to produce similar particles.
    The emissions were detected when the researchers, undertaking a joint project with the Queensland Department of Public Works, began studying the efficiency of office air ventilation and filtration systems.
    They discovered concentrations of microscopic particles five times higher than outdoor levels often produced by traffic.
    Using an electronic sniffer they traced the emissions to the office laser printers. "Concentrations were considerably higher than outdoors by a busy road. We didn't expect the emissions could be so high."
    Concerned by the discovery, staff in her university office checked their own printers, and those found to be high emitters were relocated away from people.
    She now wants to conduct another study, looking at the chemistry of the particles, and called for rules to regulate emissions from office equipment.
    "Governments regulate emission levels from outdoor devices, such as motor vehicles, power stations and factories, so why not printers?"
    Bill Physick, a CSIRO atmospherics air quality scientist, said the danger created by ultra-fine particles only began to be appreciated in the 1990s.
    "While large particles get trapped in the hairs of the nose or only go partially down into the respiratory system, ultra-fine particles are so small they can get to the very lowest reaches of the lungs," Dr Physick said.
    "The current thinking is that it's other toxic chemicals, which adhere to the ultra-fine particles, that could be the source of the health problems."
    Syd

  • #2
    Another one.

    Printers pose health risks: study - Technology - smh.com.au
    Syd

    Comment


    • #3
      My thoughts/perspectives.
      1. The paper was published in Environmental Science and Technology, which is a highly regarded refereed, peer-reviewed technical journal. That means that submitted articles are first vetted by a technical committee, then are subjected to anonymous review by a team of peers.That means this isn't junk science; the work should be properly done and the data reliable, subject to the limits of the study.
      2. The true health risk in the story is the possible presence of concentrations of very fine particulates in significant quantities near laser printers. Very fine particles are linked with asthma and breathing disorders. Assuming that they were detecting particles in the sub 2.5 micron range, the concentrations found (similar to a busy road) would be at a level likely to cause problems for sensitive individuals.
      3. With the caveat that I have not read the specific journal, the connection to carcinogenicity is much more tenuous. Carcinogens are a natural part of the world around us; people have been exposed to carcinogens long before there was any rise of industry. The mere presence of carcinogens is not a matter of concern. What is important is dose and response information. No information on that has been presented.
      4. The mention of tobacco smoke is totally improper in providing perspective on the findings. While the tar in cigarette smoke is not highly carcinogencic, smoking delivers massive quantities of a known carcinogen deep into the lungs. The amount of fine particulate generated by a laser printer is going to be orders of magnitude less - totally trivial compared with typical second hand smoke environment, and absolutely ludicrous in comparison with what a smoker is exposed to.
      5. Of course newspapers are going to run with the carcinogen part of the story and the mention of tobacco smoke - that is what sells papers. The carcinogen slant, though, diverts attention away from what people should really take from this work, i.e., likely significant exposures to high levels of fine particulates in the air near laser printers that receive heavy usage.
      “Maybe you shouldn't dress like that.”

      “This is a blouse and skirt. I don't know what you're talking about.”

      “You shouldn't wear that body.”

      Comment


      • #4
        Thank goodness that's one of the pollutants I am *not* exposed to. But I get plenty of other exposures living in polluted Atlanta. Also, when the bridge collapse happened in MN, the society of Civil Engineers or something, was referred to on tv. They had done a study on bridges and other infrastructure, including our tap aka drinking water. They gave the USA's overall drinking water a rating of D+. That's enough to make one sick to the stomach just reading it. And it's surely a contributing factor to all the cancer in the USA, and maybe even a factor when one looks at places with "cancer clusters". Egads.

        Thanks for posting, Syd.
        "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed and those who are cold and are not clothed."
        -- Dwight D. Eisenhower

        Comment


        • #5
          Cancer Prevention Coalition

          There is a FREE 60+ page book there and a lot of information.

          Comment


          • #6
            Talk about old news being recycled! About 15 years ago we had a notice round at work (I'm in IT support) reminding us about the importance of changing the filters on laser printers strictly in accordance with the manufacturers recommendations. That was because of the ultra-fine particles .....

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Carol C
              Thank goodness that's one of the pollutants I am *not* exposed to. But I get plenty of other exposures living in polluted Atlanta. Also, when the bridge collapse happened in MN, the society of Civil Engineers or something, was referred to on tv. They had done a study on bridges and other infrastructure, including our tap aka drinking water. They gave the USA's overall drinking water a rating of D+. That's enough to make one sick to the stomach just reading it. And it's surely a contributing factor to all the cancer in the USA, and maybe even a factor when one looks at places with "cancer clusters". Egads.

              Thanks for posting, Syd.
              Being a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers, a member of the Society's Environmental Engineering Division, and a trained sanitary engineer with who worked for ten years doing inspections and reviews of water treatment facilities, I think I"m qualified to comment here.

              That is a classic example of how the context and background of statements gets lost and distorted.

              The quality of tap water in virtually all urban parts of the world is excellent. There is not a thing wrong with it. Most people who drink only bottled water because they believe it purer or more healthful are simply throwing money - they could easily pay the annual fees on a typical timeshare with the money being spent unnecessarily on bottled water.

              ASCE issued the low rating on waterworks based on their assessment of aging waterworks infrastructure, not the quality of water.

              ***

              It's also worth noting that virtually all public works projects are designed by civil engineers. In other words, ASCE members have much to gain by stimulating government spending on public works projects.

              As much as I love the organization and have been committed to it for over 30 years, I recognize that we might have just a smidgen of a conflict of interest when making assessments such as this. In much the same way that a person who makes a living selling security services is not truly objective in making recommendations about security flaws.
              “Maybe you shouldn't dress like that.”

              “This is a blouse and skirt. I don't know what you're talking about.”

              “You shouldn't wear that body.”

              Comment

              Working...
              X