Printers Could Pose a Similar Risk to Smoking

[HellasVagabond]

HP ridicules Queensland study

Below is the response from Tuan Tran, HP's vice president of marketing for supplies, to the Laser Printer Emissions Study released by Queensland University of Technology:

After a preliminary review of the Queensland University of Technology research on particle emission characteristics of office printers, HP does not agree with its conclusion or some of the bold claims the authors have made recently in press reports. HP stands behind the safety of its products. Testing of ultrafine particles is a very new scientific discipline. There are no indications that ultrafine particle (UFP) emissions from laser printing systems are associated with special health risks. 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. However, many experts believe that many of the UFPs found in common household and office products are not discrete solid particles, but may be condensation products or small droplets created during thermal processes. HP agrees more testing in this area is needed, which is why we've been active with two of the world's leading independent authorities on this subject: Air Quality Sciences in the United States and the Wilhelm-Klauditz Institute in Germany. Vigorous tests are an integral part of HP's research and development and its strict quality-control procedures. HP LaserJet printing systems, original HP print cartridges and papers are tested for dust release and possible material emissions and are compliant with all applicable international health and safety requirements. In addition to meeting or exceeding these guidelines, HP's design criteria for its laser printing systems incorporate guidelines from both the Blue Angel program in Germany and the Greenguard program in the United States. Based on our own testing, HP knows that many variables can affect the outcome of tests for ultrafine particle emissions. Although HP is not aware of all of the specific methodologies used in the Queensland study, based on what we've seen in the report – as well as our own work in this area – we do not believe there is a link between printer emissions and any public health risk. Specifically, HP does not see an association between printer use by customers and negative health effects for volatile organic compounds, ozone or dust. While we recognize ultrafine, fine, and coarse particles are emitted from printing systems, these levels are consistently below recognized occupational exposure limits. HP hopes to learn more from the study authors about how products were chosen for the study, how ranges were determined given no standards exist, and many other factors that could have influenced the results.

Go HP !

 

[lemonadesoda]

Oh dear. Some BIG US firm is about to sue some SMALL scientist for defamation.

 

[Chewy]

Screw HP, Cannon full the way/for the win! I just bought a Cannon ofc

Well hopefully the scientist was wrong but I doubt it.. hp will hire thier own scientist who says thier printers are ok... lol

 

[HellasVagabond]

Actually i tend to believe HP more since they do have more scientists working with them. Besides if it were true everyone could sue HP so......

 

[anticlutch]

All the more reason to stay away from HP printers... good thing I have a Samsung color laserprinter at home

 

[Chewy]

ah the scientist did pick on/out hp I forgot.

 

[surfsk8snow.jah]

pshh, Propaganda! Seriously, come on, you don't expect that HP, such a hugely grossing company the world over, isn't going to actively counter something so heavy and serious as this with ALL their might and action? Agreed with Chewy that HP will of course hire their own "independent" scientist/analyst, who will undoubtedly claim that the findings of this University are False in their entirety... Propagandistic BUREAUCRACY!

Note This Highly Political, Bureaucratic Piece of the Response:

While we recognize ultrafine, fine, and coarse particles are emitted from printing systems, these levels are consistently below recognized occupational exposure limits.

MUTHA WHAT COARSE PARTICLES?!

This is their legal way of making sure they admitted to the reality of the findings, however, AT CURRENT RECOGNIZED LIMITS, under existing regulation which doesn't have much on this, they are fine. Well, that's what a University is for, challenging currently recognized standards without commercial ramifications. I will be eXTREMELY disheartened if this scientist has any recourse for this, because he noted mANY other brands besides HP also. Granted, he may have over exaggerated, I don't know his technique nor the science behind his study, but, I doubt he would've just made this stuff up on the fly.

EVEN STILL, as long as he was precise & consistent, no matter his methodology, this still means that those printers have the highest emissions in comparison with others on the market.

 

[russianboy]

bullshit, dust is flowing around the air, and so is skin stuff. Cause humans get a "new" epidermis every 4 weeks, and all the old epidermis ends up in the air, and settles to the ground..creepy.

 

[surfsk8snow.jah]

incongruent analogy. You should go breathe yourself in some Portland Cement then, lol.