On the basis of this article about emissions from laser printers, our department administrator came by this week to take my HP 1200 series LaserJet away.
I said I wanted to keep it.
The worry is that the particles of toner emitted when printing with a laser printer may be just as bad for human health as secondhand cigarette smoke.
But ... I like my laser printer! It yields a higher quality printout than the inkjet printers I've used. And it's still working really well. And it's not like I'm printing stuff on it all day, every day. There are some days when I don't print anything at all.
What if I keep the window open when I print stuff? Or start things printing and go take a walk to somewhere else until the print job is done?
Is there a way to establish whether my printer is one of the models that puts out lots of emissions?
And hey, don't photocopiers use toner that's nearly identical to the stuff in the laser printers? Because I photocopy a lot more than I print, and nothing seems to spread toner around like all the random paper jams that need clearing. If they're going to take my laser printer, clearly the photocopier should be the next to go. After which, I can only guess that my dry-erase pens (with their fumes) and chalk (with its own special particulates) will be confiscated.
Wax tablets anyone?
In September of 1997, while we were in Scotland, the BBC reported research that indicated an increased cancer risk among people who consumed more than 3 ounces of meet a day. The reaction of the Scots seemed to be, "Pshaw! There's more than 3 ounces of meat in a proper breakfast!"
I think I'm starting to understand their reaction.
Next thing you know they're going to tell me my coffee is bad for me.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Thanks for this article.
Before we give up our fast, high-quality printers, perhaps some occ-med folks, or other environmental scientists could try to come up with some more specific data...causation vs correlation.
Agreed, PalMD. Might say the same about AGW. Janet -- Now you know how conservatives feel about Kyoto ;>)
Before we give up our fast, high-quality printers, perhaps some occ-med folks, or other environmental scientists could try to come up with some more specific data...causation vs correlation. yes
Has anybody done a study on how many years bureaucratic crap takes off of all of our lives?
One suspects that particulates have not been found emanating from ink jet printers because no one has performed the experiments. A rational approach to the matter would be to assess the dosage per day based on actual use rather than organizational paranoia. And then, if you need to, you can get a portable hood (in the chemistry sense of the term) for the wee beastie.
Reminds me of an episode of Penn and Teller's Bullshit. As Penn goes through listing all of the risks that are often overstated (mad cow disease, lightning strikes, etc.), Teller protects himself from each one. By the end, Teller is left inside a box while Penn takes everybody to lunch on him.
We have to be willing to accept risk, or the alternative is to have no life at all. I would say that reacting to each new published article is overreacting. I'm keeping my laser jet too.
Empirically this is easy to study, even informally. While many laser printers might well put out odors when printing in high volumes (my HP 5550dtn does exactly this), you'll know if you're getting particulates, because there will be a fine coating of black dust absolutely everywhere (as well as magenta, yellow and cyan if it's a color printer).
No black, sooty dust clinging to your desk, and particularly to your monitor, indicates no dust in your lungs either.
Now, as for the additional (gaseous, not particulate) chemicals released into the air by the hot plastic fusing to the page, well, if someone wants to do a study on that it might be worth looking into.
Warren, can you provide a cite for your belief? You say:
> No black, sooty dust clinging to your desk, and
> particularly to your monitor, indicates no dust
> in your lungs either.
That does not make sense, and does not fit what I read about this report.
The particles studied are far smaller than dust size and don't settle out; they are compared to "second-hand smoke" particles.
If you are correct that's great, but if wishes were horses I'd own a riding stable by now.
The original study did name individual brands and models of printer, as I recall. You might want to look it up.
Perhaps study is flawed, imcomplete, setup badly.....
Hooray! We can go back to mimeographing!
snnnnnnniffffff!!!
Please....when they reformulated the dry erase markers to be "more environmentally friendly" and have "less fumes," their usable life also dropped by about 80%. What a DEAL for the manufacturer...they get the pat on the back for being good corporate citizens AND they get to force people to buy a whole lot more of their product. Bah...
Empirically this is easy to study, even informally. While many laser printers might well put out odors when printing in high volumes (my HP 5550dtn does exactly this), you'll know if you're getting particulates, because there will be a fine coating of black dust absolutely everywhere (as well as magenta, yellow and cyan if it's a color printer).
No black, sooty dust clinging to your desk, and particularly to your monitor, indicates no dust in your lungs either.
Now, as for the additional (gaseous, not particulate) chemicals released into the air by the hot plastic fusing to the page, well, if someone wants to do a study on that it might be worth looking into.
Please....when they reformulated the dry erase markers to be "more environmentally friendly" and have "less fumes," their usable life also dropped by about 80%. What a DEAL for the manufacturer...they get the pat on the back for being good corporate citizens AND they get to force people to buy a whole lot more of their product. Bah...
I've actually been thinking about this lately. I know that our current society is a heck of a lot more health conscious than ever before. It's okay to be health conscious. But, I think that oftentimes we've crossed the line from health consciousness to paranoia. Seriously. I mean, EVERYTHING is deadly in some way according to some studies. And they're not far off. Human life ends in death (this is a well known truth) and therefore everything about our world contributes towards this fact in some way. Makes you start delving into philosophy doesn't it? It probably should. Obviously, medical science stops short of that fact. But the truth is that I often wonder if I'm really health conscious, or just paranoid about everything? And if that's my fault, or the fault of wacko studies like this one?
LOL - LOVED the Scot comment!