Anyone!! Printers Cause Lung Cancer???

[korenish]

the NEWS :
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/78455.phpmedicalnews
http://www.idiotbrain.com/printers-...xt-target-of-cancer-cause-lawsuits/2007-08-03Printers Cause Lung Cancer?

What do you guys think about this?
any solution ?

 

[fotofreek]

Don't inhale! Just kidding. This may be a serious issue that the laser printer manufacturers will have to address. Since some models do better than others I would guess that they can figure out how to contain the otherwise airborne particles.

 

[stratman]

In today's world EVERYTHING is bad for you. This is media hype of a basic research article that has little practical application concerning one's health at this stage. Look for key words like "possible", "could be" and "may", especially in conjunction with the ominous "there should be regulations". Umm, there should be science first with an established risk to health BEFORE regulations.

"... 17 out of 62 printers in the study as 'high particle emitters' because they released such elevated quantities of particles" and "Thirty-seven of the 62 printers, on the other hand, released no particles that diminished air quality. Six released only low levels, and 2 medium levels."

There are no particle emission standards as far as I know or that the research paper indicates. Saying something is a high emitter of particles is meaningless without a standard accepted quantity in place, and to discuss health risk is meaningless without epidemiological disease comparisons. What they call a high emitter may or may not be harmless in and of itself. You need to quantify and qualify this study against whether illness occurs due to the particles.

Of course we would all like to be laser particle emission free but science should provide the answers on the actual risks imposed by laser printers, not some hyped up story by the media from a group who's self interest is in a "green" environment. Funny how the grant money flows if you can find a problem. I'm not saying the study is bad, just that one needs to be aware of bias and overstatement in scientific literature and media articles.

To see the short an incomplete list of printers tested go to page 4 of http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/sample.cgi/esthag/asap/pdf/es063049z.pdf. Someone needs to proofread the article a bit better: The article states 17 high emitters yet Table 1 lists only 13 high emitters.

In honor of this article I intend to use my laser printer as much as I can today.

 

[stratman]

One last thing... I am suspicious of anyone that would register and post this story on this forum in the same day.

As Jack Nicholson said in the the movie The Departed: "I smell a rat."

 

[WhiteDog]

Well Stratman, we didn't even get into the ozone and aromatic hydrocarbon vapors emitted by these devilish machines. Not to mention that they spread dioxins from bleached paper through the office atmosphere as well. Oh well, there will be another time, even if it is from a new registrant.

 

[stratman]

Lions and Tigers and Bears, Oh My!

I made sure to take deep breaths while printing the densest, highest coverage pages I could find.

It smelled like... sublime.

Does this mean I'm going to end up like Dennis Hopper in Blue Velvet sniffing gas and crying out for "Mommy"?

I guess things could be worse.

 

[Simon R.]

What would they think of next...