http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/03/hp-ridicules-queensland-study-linking-laser-printer-particles-to/ Engadget Comments for HP ridicules Queensland study linking laser printer particles to potential health issues http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/03/hp-ridicules-queensland-study-linking-laser-printer-particles-to/http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/03/hp-ridicules-queensland-study-linking-laser-printer-particles-to/Aug 3rd 2007 8:44AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/08/03/hp-ridicules-queensland-study-linking-laser-printer-particles-to/http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/03/hp-ridicules-queensland-study-linking-laser-printer-particles-to/Aug 3rd 2007 8:54AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/08/03/hp-ridicules-queensland-study-linking-laser-printer-particles-to/http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/03/hp-ridicules-queensland-study-linking-laser-printer-particles-to/Aug 3rd 2007 8:59AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/08/03/hp-ridicules-queensland-study-linking-laser-printer-particles-to/http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/03/hp-ridicules-queensland-study-linking-laser-printer-particles-to/
You should fall into the category of the same people believing the earth is flat if you truly believe there is an issue with the ozone layer. That hole has been there for millions of years whether we are here or not.

Anyway,

So what about this. If you think a laser printer is the only thing in your life that emits ultra fine particles, you've got issues. You're more likely to have a health issue from entering a public or office bathroom and just breathing in the air. ]]>Aug 3rd 2007 9:21AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/08/03/hp-ridicules-queensland-study-linking-laser-printer-particles-to/http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/03/hp-ridicules-queensland-study-linking-laser-printer-particles-to/
kjb434, your making up things that John didn't say makes me wonder if you work for HP as well.

Hey, this making things up stuff is fun! ]]>Aug 3rd 2007 9:35AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/08/03/hp-ridicules-queensland-study-linking-laser-printer-particles-to/http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/03/hp-ridicules-queensland-study-linking-laser-printer-particles-to/Who took a crap in your Cheerios?
And until YOU CAN bring proof that laser printers cause health problems, you're the douche bag.

@Cameron Campbell:
I guess you missed kjb434's point about as badly as your spell check missed "your" for "you're".
]]>Aug 3rd 2007 9:53AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/08/03/hp-ridicules-queensland-study-linking-laser-printer-particles-to/http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/03/hp-ridicules-queensland-study-linking-laser-printer-particles-to/Aug 3rd 2007 11:56AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/08/03/hp-ridicules-queensland-study-linking-laser-printer-particles-to/http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/03/hp-ridicules-queensland-study-linking-laser-printer-particles-to/
@kjb434: Your reading comprehension is severely lacking. John Doe said nothing of the sort.

What could be the problem with you two? Are your machines incapable of playing Doom?

]]>Aug 3rd 2007 2:10PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/08/03/hp-ridicules-queensland-study-linking-laser-printer-particles-to/http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/03/hp-ridicules-queensland-study-linking-laser-printer-particles-to/Aug 10th 2007 1:27PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/08/03/hp-ridicules-queensland-study-linking-laser-printer-particles-to/http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/03/hp-ridicules-queensland-study-linking-laser-printer-particles-to/Why would HP take the low road and start ridiculing the study. Instead, HP, could've come up with something more eloquent and say "we're taking the time to read their studies/finding a bit more carefully, and at the present time find ourselves unable to provide a public response we'd be satisfied with. However, we do ensure the public that we have full confidence in the quality and safety of our products."

This clown that came out talking all that garbage should get fired.]]>Aug 3rd 2007 9:05AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/08/03/hp-ridicules-queensland-study-linking-laser-printer-particles-to/http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/03/hp-ridicules-queensland-study-linking-laser-printer-particles-to/
They will deny this is causing any problems right up to the day where they introduce new laser printers with "now does not cause lung cancer" stickers. Well they'll wrap it in marketing speech but you know what I mean.

It's such BS.]]>Aug 4th 2007 1:11AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/08/03/hp-ridicules-queensland-study-linking-laser-printer-particles-to/http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/03/hp-ridicules-queensland-study-linking-laser-printer-particles-to/
You think there's a serious difference between the two? ]]>Aug 3rd 2007 10:48AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/08/03/hp-ridicules-queensland-study-linking-laser-printer-particles-to/http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/03/hp-ridicules-queensland-study-linking-laser-printer-particles-to/Aug 3rd 2007 11:00AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/08/03/hp-ridicules-queensland-study-linking-laser-printer-particles-to/http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/03/hp-ridicules-queensland-study-linking-laser-printer-particles-to/Aug 6th 2007 4:59AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/08/03/hp-ridicules-queensland-study-linking-laser-printer-particles-to/http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/03/hp-ridicules-queensland-study-linking-laser-printer-particles-to/
Ozone is dangerous cause it's a bit corrosive.
]]>Aug 3rd 2007 12:28PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/08/03/hp-ridicules-queensland-study-linking-laser-printer-particles-to/http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/03/hp-ridicules-queensland-study-linking-laser-printer-particles-to/Aug 3rd 2007 11:04AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/08/03/hp-ridicules-queensland-study-linking-laser-printer-particles-to/http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/03/hp-ridicules-queensland-study-linking-laser-printer-particles-to/
1. Ozone from a copier/printer is not the same as ground level ozone.
2. Toner is a fine particulate that if you do accumulate it in your lungs will have the same effect as black lung which a coal miner can contract.
3. You would have to really be working these toners to get large amounts.
4. If toner was truely safe, why does it burn out motors in regualur vaccuum cleaners HP spin doctors? There are modified vaccuum cleaners with specialized canisters to remove toner.
5. Check the exhaust area for toner particles(wipe with White cloth)as they will show up if venting toner. Most cartridges are a closed system with recycling going on internally so you may not find any.]]>Aug 3rd 2007 11:30AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/08/03/hp-ridicules-queensland-study-linking-laser-printer-particles-to/http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/03/hp-ridicules-queensland-study-linking-laser-printer-particles-to/Aug 3rd 2007 2:25PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/08/03/hp-ridicules-queensland-study-linking-laser-printer-particles-to/http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/03/hp-ridicules-queensland-study-linking-laser-printer-particles-to/Aug 3rd 2007 12:55PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/08/03/hp-ridicules-queensland-study-linking-laser-printer-particles-to/http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/03/hp-ridicules-queensland-study-linking-laser-printer-particles-to/Aug 3rd 2007 11:52AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/08/03/hp-ridicules-queensland-study-linking-laser-printer-particles-to/http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/03/hp-ridicules-queensland-study-linking-laser-printer-particles-to/
Yes, yes, I know, HP is a big company and is therefore evil, but having worked in research settings throughout college, I know firsthand that many research labatories will make a mountain out of a molehill if they think it can get them publicity. Money follows publicity, and research labs are so obsessed with money it's scary. Questionable statistics aren't a fluke; they're very often the norm. ]]>Aug 4th 2007 12:03PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/08/03/hp-ridicules-queensland-study-linking-laser-printer-particles-to/http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/03/hp-ridicules-queensland-study-linking-laser-printer-particles-to/
Comparing toner particles measuring from 15 to 710 nanometers, or 0.015 to 0.71 micrometers to the particles emitted by a toaster is a bit of a mockery don't you think?

Thomas]]>Aug 3rd 2007 1:09PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/08/03/hp-ridicules-queensland-study-linking-laser-printer-particles-to/http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/03/hp-ridicules-queensland-study-linking-laser-printer-particles-to/
- Will

]]>Aug 4th 2007 12:13PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/08/03/hp-ridicules-queensland-study-linking-laser-printer-particles-to/http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/03/hp-ridicules-queensland-study-linking-laser-printer-particles-to/http://www.lbl.gov/today/2007/Aug/02-Thu/indoor-air.html.
]]>Aug 3rd 2007 8:18PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/08/03/hp-ridicules-queensland-study-linking-laser-printer-particles-to/http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/03/hp-ridicules-queensland-study-linking-laser-printer-particles-to/Aug 3rd 2007 3:38PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/08/03/hp-ridicules-queensland-study-linking-laser-printer-particles-to/http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/03/hp-ridicules-queensland-study-linking-laser-printer-particles-to/
Standards were recently tightened substantially, because it turns out that the smaller the particle the greater its effect - the concern is now with particles at 2.5 microns in size, previously 10 microns. Many of these particles are the result of diesel and auto emissions. This is not visible soot or dust. If you can see it, it's big enough for your lungs to filter it out.

Whether or not laser toner particles behave similarly to combustion emissions, it sounds like you ought to be cautious about use of laser printers until more data is generated.]]>Aug 5th 2007 9:33AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/08/03/hp-ridicules-queensland-study-linking-laser-printer-particles-to/http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/03/hp-ridicules-queensland-study-linking-laser-printer-particles-to/
1. The title of the Engadget write-up is very, very misleading (borderline dishonest). The cited study doesn't "link laser printer particles to potential health issues." All the study did was identify office printers as a significant (statistically speaking) source of ultrafine particles in a given office setting.

2. In scientific parlance, this paper aids in the formulation of a testable hypothesis. But no statement whatsoever is made in the article that I can find where the authors assert a connection between the observed increases in ultrafine particle counts and health effects. They couldn't do that at this point; it would be intellectually dishonest.

3. The HP dude (who commented above) said "Currently, the nature and chemical composition of such particles – whether from a laser printer or from a toaster – cannot be accurately characterized by analytical technology." This is not correct. It sounds as though he is asserting that analytical chemistry in its current state is not able to assess the chemical composition of ultrafine particles. That is not true. Perhaps he needs to revise or make a more nuanced statement if he intended to say something else.

4. The authors used a relative (and somewhat arbitrary) definition of printer emission to categorize printers into "no, low, medium, and high" emissions categories. Although this is somewhat useful for comparisons of particle emissions between printers, it has no meaning in terms of 1) health risk (if any), or 2) when comparing particle emissions to any sort of objective standard. So, although some printers emit "high" amounts of ultrafine particles, that must really be revised to "high compared to other printers we tested."

5. I'm not familiar with any "bold claims" made by the authors of the article in the press relating to their findings, so I have no opinions on those.

6. Based upon the information presented in the journal article, one could run through some scenarios with many (too many) assumptions and do some dose calculations to conjecture whether these particles may or may not be hazardous, but that would probably be irresponsible at this point. Too little is known.

7. Interesting article. If you've access to Environmental Science and Technology, it's recommended.]]>Aug 4th 2007 4:22PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2007/08/03/hp-ridicules-queensland-study-linking-laser-printer-particles-to/http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/03/hp-ridicules-queensland-study-linking-laser-printer-particles-to/
Hmmmm....curious.....]]>Aug 6th 2007 9:12AM