Office Printers May Pose Health Risks 227
drewmoney writes "The BBC reports on new findings which may have implications for the way offices are laid out. According to an Australian study, around a third of modern printer models release 'potentially dangerous levels of toner into the air' as they are completing a job. 'Almost one-third were found to emit ultra-tiny particles of toner-like material, so small that they can infiltrate the lungs and cause a range of health problems from respiratory irritation to more chronic illnesses. Conducted in an open-plan office, the test revealed that particle levels increased five-fold during working hours, a rise blamed on printer use. '"
we've solved this problem (Score:5, Funny)
We worked out an agreement with all the smokers on the floor. We've installed our printer outside the front entrance about 20 feet away from the door. That's where all of the smokers go to take a break... they're saving money on cigarettes, and the office air is clean. Of course, it's a bit of a hassle waiting for the smokers to bring in our printouts.
Re:we've solved this problem (Score:5, Funny)
Re:we've solved this problem (Score:5, Funny)
Call it Nicotoner. A catchy name means you're half way to success already!
Then a few years later market the Nicotoner Patch, promising to finally usher in the era of paperless offices.
Re: (Score:2)
And the air of paperless offices too.
My First Thought (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:we've solved this problem (Score:5, Insightful)
They are absolutly discusting...
It's disgusting, and this isn't limited to printers. Keyboards, cases, anything that touches smoke is going to get brown. Well, "dark-beige", if you want. I'm guilty myself for smoking.
Doctors realised a long time ago that smoke was bad for you. I've seen quotes of over 100 years old saying that "smoke was vile". Anyway, you also have to realise that smoking became way more common with the introduction of the cigarette that was made to be smoked anytime anyplace. A hundred years ago, the man came home and smoke a pipe and only one because tobacco was hugely expensive and a big luxury. Cigars were the same: you took time to enjoy them. Cigarettes changed that all. So the amount consumed was way less than it was not, making the health impact much less.
I don't like cigarettes at all, as you might have understood by now. Yet, I love my cigars.
Re: (Score:2)
Then again, such is the justification behind the invention of the bong...
Re: (Score:2)
If you're using less tobacco, that's your biggest benefit, but if you're using less tobacco because you're using a certain more potent herb, you're not getting any benefit at all. The bad stuff in cigarettes doesn't come from the tobacco, it comes from the burning tobacco. Any leaf you burn is going to
Re: (Score:2)
"Research suggests that a session of shisha tobacco smoking (tobacco molasses) which lasts 45 minutes delivers 36 times more tar, 15 times more carbon monoxide and 70% more nicotine than a single cigarette.[10] "
But check out the whole section.. as it was with early smoking studies it seems the same with hookas.. one side says BAD, the other side says nah no biggie:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hookah#Health_benefit s_and_risks [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:we've solved this problem (Score:5, Funny)
Re:we've solved this problem (Score:4, Funny)
And irradiate myself by using a computer monitor? No way!
Paper shredders do this too (Score:5, Interesting)
Get a portable HEPA filter and droop it in the vicinity of your printers and your problems (if you have any) will get measurably better.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Paper shredders do this too (Score:5, Interesting)
That's one explanation. The BBC also says that "particle levels rise" during work hours... note that it doesn't specify the type of particles... well here are some other explanations:
1. Perfumes worn by employees
2. Dead skin (which is what 'dust' usually is)
3. Particulates stirred up by people walking around
4. Higher speed air due to cooling/heating systems which release and stir up dust
Does this remind anyone of "WiFi in schools causes cancer! Cell towers cause even more!" This was yet another BBC scare-story.
I can't believe anyone even reads the BBC's science and technology articles, especially after that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just because one scare story got through does not mean the reputation of the whole BBC is ruined, it just means that sometimes shit happens.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In 1986, between teletype courses, I learned to service the Savin 772S (or 722S?) liquid toner copier, the shipboard or marini
Re: (Score:2)
"I've worked on officer copiers,printers, fax machines since 1981. I've probably breathed in more toner & dust than any of you EVER will. I don't have ANY health problems what so ever! Until 3 years ago, I had BAD hay fever, but the dust & toner NEVER affected me, other than the occasional sneeze, blow your nose and your handkerchief comes out a little black. You need to read the material safety data sheets on toner. IT IS NOT hazardous, unless you snort the damn stuff. More nanny state BS..."
Dif
Management perspective (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure! Because dry air makes static, and static is electricity...and, uh, computers run on electricity!
I'd think the biggest air quality issues have to do with older laser printers that not only fluff toner, but which also have depleted ozone filters. An office full of ozone is definitely bad news - and every LaserJet 4 or 5 I've seen over the past few years has
Re:Management perspective (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, the LJ 4 and later don't emit ozone at all.
Obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
This study says nothing that isn't trivially obvious. Does airborne toner represent a particular health threat above and beyond the whole "breathing particles into your lungs" thing, or is this just another "ZOMG! Stuff in the air!" study with no actual facts to back it up. Doubly annoying for them to compare it to smoking, because the least problem with smoking is the particulates.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Dunno about the former as it is bound to have larger and less active particles, but the latter is a known health hazard on par with glass dust and asbestos. Just look at any IT health and safety handbook under "dealing with toner spillages". It is supposed to be collected using specialised vacuum cleaners, you have to have the floor tiles replaced and so on. Unfortunately very few people fol
Re:Obvious (Score:5, Informative)
Eh, maybe for smaller office printers they do but not in the commercial "toner" printing industry (like phone bills and the like). My company's printers (and our competitors) dust the entire room at an alarming rate. After working on a more dirty problem it's very likely to come out looking like a coal miner, black snot and all.
The problem is these get installed in your typical raised-floor computer rooms in the same area as storage and CPU's, sometimes not more than 10-20 feet away.
Toner isn't asbestos. Sure it's particulate and it may even be harmful (as an obstruction, like anything else) but there are way too many lifelong printer repairman in my company and lung/breathing issues are no more common here than anywhere else. I know a large number of them personally and the health problems just don't exist in any substantial amount. The division that deals with HDD and tape manufacturer has had a lot more public health issues with their materials.
Sure our company has funded studies which say Carbon Black is not harmful, but of course we all take this with a large grain of salt. I rely much more highly on the people I have personally known over the years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Today's my last day on the job as my company's resident "printer bitch." After a year and a half on the job I can safely say that most the toner emission doesn't usually come from normal use. It comes from directly from fucksticks.
Over time, printers will spill some toner that will eventually work its way out of the pri
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Prolonged inhalation of excessive amounts of any dust may cause lung damage. Use of this product as intended does not result in inhalation of excessive amounts of dust."
They rate it as low risk mainly BECAUSE it's not airborne during normal use. This study says that it is. It also says it's a possible carcinogen.
I just picked a cartridge at random, so there may be som
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Crap, now everyone is going to put that knowledge to use by putting laser printers at the bottom of deep holes lined with pungee sticks.
Re: (Score:2)
But nothing that could be proven, really. Despite that, there are regulations about mercury emissions because we know it's a bad idea, even though the
Why do people still print? (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They need -something- to do!
Re: (Score:2)
Uh...because you can't have people sign contracts that are being projected on a screen. Well, you could, but I don't know if you'd want to.
Re:Why do people still print? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do I still print?
Because when I have 3 or more documents I'm reading to review etc, it's more convenient to be able to
a) flick between the pages of different documents
b) underline/highlight/ make notes in the margins
c) carry them with me/ dump them on a couch/chair while reading.
d) I often need the computer screen to write a review document.
My PC screen's resolution isn't up to the job of having multiple documents open side-by-side (and the laptop's is even worse). Furthermore,the interface to Acrobat/Word/anything for that matter, is pathetically slow. A mouse and keyboard are no substitute for human hands on paper combined with a simple pen.
Maybe when we have desks that are touch sensitive LCDs with 10k*10k resolution, things may change.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like this [youtube.com]?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I just don't get it. If I send my boss a two page software design spec, the first thing he does is print it out, read it at his desk, and email me back any changes that are needed.
Re: (Score:2)
There are plenty of reasons why paper is still useful, and in some cases easier to use than a full paperless solution.
(1) Paper doesn't have parts that can fail
(2) Paper doesn't require a cable
(3) Paper doesn't spontaneously crash
(4) You can draw on paper
Re: (Score:2)
PC Load Letter.... (Score:3, Funny)
Inkjet printers do not have this problem... (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
No, really, thanks capt. Obvious.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"only laser printers shed toner powder into the air."
Also, ink jet printers emit solvents - that's why they dry out, and also how they print. If the solvent in the ink didn't evaporate, your injet prints would stay wet, and smear.
Of course, even booze can be harmful to your health if you're a dickhead [trolltalk.com].
Am I safe? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
So that's how the FBI and IRS track you... [cnn.com]
No worries - they still have a perfect scapegoat (Score:2, Troll)
Will this study form a new scapegoat? Nah. It's easier to simply blame people who partake of a particular vice, especially since it's politically correct to hate anyone who participates in
Re:No worries - they still have a perfect scapegoa (Score:5, Insightful)
No, we hate people who participate in it because of their unbelievably rude practice of subjecting everybody else to their filthy reeking emissions. Stale smoke smells like fucking shit.
Since so few smokers through the years have taken it upon themselves to do the civilized thing and ensure that nobody around them has to experience their vile backwashed fumes, the victims are banding together to help the smokers learn what should have been common courtesy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
*** HOW ABOUT? ***
No, we hate people who participate in it because of their unbelievably rude practice of subjecting everybody else to their filthy reeking emissions. Car exhaust smells like fucking shit.
Since so few drivers through the years have taken it upon themselves to do the civilized thing and ensure that nobody around them has to experience their vile backwashed fumes, the victims are banding together to help the drivers learn what should have been common courtesy.
*** OR ***
No, we hate pe
Re: (Score:2)
Stale smoke smells like fucking shit.
Same with perfume/cologne, vehicle emissions (as covered elsewhere, and yes it often stinks), campfires, barbecues (esp. if the guy is cooking seafood on it), certain restaurants, dog excrement (which many owners have no problems at all with leaving in situ), and a whole host of other activities which human activities manage to promulgate.
Since so few smokers through the years have taken it upon themselves to do the civilized thing and ensure that nobody around them has to experience their vile backwashed fumes, the victims are banding together to help the smokers learn what should have been common courtesy.
Nice stereotype... 'they're eeevil! eeevil I tell you! we're just the victims here, fighting one last desperate stand against Joe Camel Vader!"
Umm
Re: (Score:2)
So basically your argument boils down to the teenager's "Well everybody else is doing it, so why can't I?"
Tch. Everybody thinking that way means that no one will do the right thing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So basically your argument boils down to the teenager's "Well everybody else is doing it, so why can't I?"
No - but I do find it funny that no matter what story about air quality comes out, it invariably gets compared to the same thing - smoking.
In spite of this, we have industry belching out (in spite of progress) far more particulates and pollutants, and the average daily freeway load of cars pouring out far more in the way of toxic gases.
It's a proportional argument, IMHO.
Ozone and Toner (Score:2)
http://www.lhc.org.uk/members/pubs/factsht/76fact. pdf [lhc.org.uk]
http://www.safety.ed.ac.uk/resources/General/print ers.shtm [ed.ac.uk]
Certainly under United Kingdom health and
Re:Ozone and Toner (Score:4, Interesting)
Probably says something about why we have an obesity epidemic to boot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That may be the case, but at the last giantcorp(TM) I worked at, there were scads of LaserJet 4 and 5s with depleted ozone filters chugging away a ream at a time to make sure some PHB had a printed set of PowerPoint slides for people to ignore along with the crap on screen.
There are still a lot of old 1990-95-ish Fuji-Xerox engines out there, too - and I can guarantee those things are virtua
Nice to have something to point to (Score:2)
(They did listen, once I started using sick days.)
Is it really that bad? (Score:2)
The human body has a way of defending itself against all sorts of nasty stuff. Generally, things aren't bad for you unless you're exposed in excess. Apples contain cyanide, potatoes contain solanine, and cars emit carbon monoxide. Let's avoid all of them!
Re: (Score:2)
The idea with laser printers is not to ban their use, but simply to put them in dedicated places where no worker spends over 2000 hours every year.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the body has a way of defending itself against all sorts of nasty stuff that have been naturally occuring in our habitat during evolution. Humans have no defense against sub 10 micrometer particles and they can get straight down to the pulmonary alve
Re: (Score:2)
I was trying to say that somethings are harmful in excess but are harmless in small amounts (like the potatoes).
I am skeptical that printers exceed this threshold despite the scientists' claim. I would be interested to see the particulate levels of these printers as compared to those of candles, oil lanterns and the like.
For one, it is clear that the particulate levels from printers do not come close to those of cigarette smoke as you can see the latter and not the former in the
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So Asbestos isn't really a very
don't forget the effect on your blood pressure (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've gotten "PC LOAD A4" before in the US... when I had stuff set for Letter! (Ubuntu takes a few tries to get it to respect Letter settings.)
British Health Warnings (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then again this is exactly what evolution is all about and I'm all for Darwin's finest theory. If you want to breathe in toner, not wear a seatbelt or ride a motorcycle without a helmet etc Go For It.
~Pev
Re: (Score:2)
I am very skeptical of this... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dude. 30 seconds on Google.
Re: (Score:2)
But NO, it is NOT the same story.
The Australian paper has MUCH more information, most of which is VERY important. Things like the fact that a single pritner was at worst, as bad as a single ciggarette. Things like the fact that they admitted no knoweldge of whether the particles were bad for you. Things like most (more than 1/2) of the printers they checked did not emit any particles.
Re: (Score:2)
Printer rooms (Score:2)
solution (Score:3, Interesting)
Excellent (Score:2)
Good try, but... (Score:2)
First they blamed the cars, then smokers, then power plants, then trucks, now laser printers? Why don't we just throw up our hands a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's see... because, on 9/11 alone, more people died prematurely of cancer than of terrorism. Office pollution is the most dangerous thing around, but it is something that can be easily corrected (of course, if walking 5m to get a printout is a problem to you, odds are you already have a short life expectancy).
"Why don't we just throw up our hands and walk around with oxygen tanks and masks?"
Because, 1- in excess, O2 is toxic and 2- large scale bottled O2 produ
Re: (Score:2)
Try looking at the big picture. Laser printers, except for the controller circuitry and print interface, use the exact same technology of common Xerographic copy machines (first invented around 1938, almost 70 years ago).
Other than the control parts and the printing parts they're exactly the same? So in other words they're completely different? Or are you saying they use the same kind of toner? Even if that's true, it doesn't imply they pose the same health hazard, if everything else about them is different.
Re: (Score:2)
What about walking? (Score:3, Interesting)
Way to go Beeb... (Score:2)
Bad Science (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That fresh printer smell (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
For the record, that "fresh printer smell" is Ozone generated by the high-voltage corona wires charging the drum (and the air). Toner is just a really dry feeling in your nose.
I agree with the moderation, though...funny :)
Unlikely (Score:2, Informative)
Probably just another alarmist story from the UK...
FUD (Score:3, Insightful)
"ultra-tiny particles of toner-like material"
I don't know which is more obnoxious - the non-measurement-measument (ultra-tiny is not a size) or the mis-statement of hazards. The material is either toner or it isn't. If the material is toner, say it is toner. If the material isn't toner, tell me waht it is. There is no "toner like material" in a toner-based printer other than the toner itself.
FUD, indeed. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd like to further submit that such developer product quite plainly consists of "ultra-tiny particles of toner-like material."
FWIW, HTH, HAND, etc.
Printer Emissions are Tested! (Score:5, Interesting)
So everybody at Kinko's is dead. (Score:2)
Where Xerox copiers glow.
And ever dang millisec
another sheet gets flecked
Slathered with toner, the particulate kind
So in the air it should be easy to find
All kinds of glop, by the bucket and pail
for all bystanders to strongly inhale.
So everybody at Kinko's is dead.
So everybody at Kinko's is dead.
Ah, Yest! Empower those bureacrats! (Score:2)
(Really: not one person has EVER died from a cigarette....or even 200, unless there was an allergy discovered. To view second hand smoke (1/100 the real thing) as deadly is wrong and meant to steal rights. Smokers smoke for DECADES before th
Re: (Score:2)
BTW, I vaguely remember reading similar health warnings about matrix printers related to ink/ink-ribbon/paper dust generated by the pin impacts in high-speed departmental monsters from the 80's.
Inorganic fine particulates have been a health hazard for as long as we have known of their existence... that toner got five minutes of shame for being such a material today is not much of a surprise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
AFAIK, the toner particles in question are too small to be smelled.