Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Laser printers as bad as cigarette smoke

TENILLE BONOGUORE

Globe and Mail Update

Latest comment posted at 11:23 PM EDT 06/08/07

Australian researchers have found that some laser printers are releasing toner into the air at health-endangering levels ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Gavin Neil from Toronto, Canada writes: Still beats working in the coal mines.
  2. Combative American from Minneapolis, United States writes: Guess we'd better get ready for the onslaught (once again) of "the Health Police." Hell, everywhere you look there is something out there that we all use every day that is decidedly bad for us. Be it the air we breathe, the food we eat, the places we frequent, the 'risks' we take, the vehicles we drive, or the past-times we engage in. Have no fear though - the 'nanny-state' is fully prepared to rid us, via legislative means, of all that is wrong or bad for us. Shortly after that, once we're all used to Nanny exercising her increasing control over us, Nanny will move on into other area's of our collective existence and renew the process of continueing to erode our personal freedoms of expression, speech, and other area's that used to be off - limits to them.

    Don't you feel better now?
  3. Mr Fijne from Calgary, Canada writes: Here is another everest of science... the original story coming from Australian Broadcasting Corp. not the Globe and mail... "(...) Potential effects range from respiratory irritation to effects on the cardiovascular system and cancer, said Prof. Lidia Morawska of the Queensland University of Technology. The researchers do not know the chemical makeup of the particles and how they are released. But they recommend good office ventilation to minimize the chances of particles entering the airways. Morawska and colleagues will publish their results online later this week in the American Chemical Society journal Environmental Science & Technology.(...)" So they do not know anything about the chemical nature of the stuff but they know it'll cause Cancer... "(...) Her research team is calling on governments to consider regulating emission levels from laser printers. But Morawska said more research is needed into the chemical makeup of the emissions and how the particles are released to back any such move.(...)" Here we go: government regulation means a constant source of milking funding for this researcher to find out what she should have found out before even publishing or being accepted in the so called peer review system. This is an example of bad research -anyone can put an air filter around a darn printer and see which one is the dirtiest!- and a self serving one to boot! The Globe could really exert a bit more editorial savvy before printing this kind of non sense.
  4. keith stringer from Cincinnati, United States writes: The person from Minneapolis is more and more resembling a troll when it comes to public safety. Setting aside whatever is in this news report for a moment, any reasonable person can see that public safety is not a left-wing or right-wing issue. Do you want your car to have seat belts? Do you want your drinking water to be free of lethal levels of arsenic? Do you want your cough medicine to be free of lethal levels of chemical antifreeze? If your answer to any of these questions is "no", then you are neither right wing nor left wing, rather you are simply stupid or insane. If your answer to these questions is "yes", then you are going to have to face the adult fact that in order to have those pre-emptive safety features there is going to have to be government involvement, in the form of regulations and inspections. And spare us the meaningless, paranoid hyperbole about this somehow being a slippery slope to where "they" will take away freedom of speech and expression - if you listen carefully, you will actually NOT hear clerks at the Transportation Department diabolically chanting "Today their seatbelts belted, tomorrow their tongues cut out of their mouths!".
  5. D McAnn from Canada writes: I totally agree that the story conclusion does not match the headline...the sensationalistic press (ie the G&M) has once again editorialized a "news story" while presenting it as news.
    "Laser printers as bad as cigarette smoke" is misleading at best, and maybe downright false. The story clearly states that one printer of sixty-two may have produced similar levels of toxins as cigarettes...that's less than two percent of the total. I would expect two percent of printers to be faulty in their operation...could this be the cause? The headline draws a conclusion not evidenced by the data, and I despise "journalism" of this type. I thought naively that the purpose of the news media was to present the facts. Clearly this concept has been lost in an effort to promote panic and sell more "news".
  6. Rick Drysdale from Calgary, Canada writes: "The study, to be published in the online issue of the American Chemical Society's semi-monthly journal Environmental Science and Technology, found that indoor particle levels in office air increase five-fold during work hours thanks to printer use"

    An increase of 5 times from what level?????? 0 x5 = 0

    If they have figures lets see them untill then this story is nonsense.
  7. C M from Toronto, Canada writes: What are businesses going to do when we ban laser printers from all public places, like cigerettes? Need to grab your print job - go outside to the "designated printer area" - it's beside the smokers... Oh yea, how about the taxes? We better increase taxes on printers to about 1500% to match the sin tax of cigerettes. Why not tax the paper that goes in the printers the same - after all you can't print without paper - kinda like you can't make a cigerette without tobacco. We'll also have to get in touch with all the manufacturers of printers to tell them that printers must have a warning label on them that takes up 2/3rds of the surface.

    I made this same suggestion about exhaust fumes from cars, trucks etc. and was laughed at. Why is smoking such a huge concern (20% of Ontarians smoke) vs. exhaust fumes, printers, etc. which affect a much higher percentage of the population?

    And yes, I read that very few of the printers actually emit toxins into the air, but still, my point is the same - we have very strict legislation about smoking but not on other toxins being spewed into the air - why??
  8. Roller Giraffe from Canada writes: So the effects of toner aren't really known... so what? We know that junk is being deposited into our lungs, and we don't know the effects of it. However, we also know how to make a copier that doesn't emit that stuff (as stated in the article). So why not stick to brands that don't emit stuff and eliminate any potential risk?
  9. Rick Drysdale from Calgary, Canada writes: keith stringer
    Your comments show to me that you are a bit naive.

    There are people who want nothing more than to control what we do. Their motives range from a belief that they know what is best down to the pursuit of money .

    It is not the public safety things but the incidious things that are prefaced by some statistic or comment that an activity is just as bad as a known bad thing but they do not or cannot present solid evidence to back their contention . But since they say it is bad it must be because they are the experts.
  10. C M from Toronto, Canada writes: One last thought - owning a "dirty" printer is the equivalent of smoking a joint! A dirty printer increases the toxicity of the air by 5 times normal and a joint has 5 times more crap than a cigerette. Therefore, by my twisted logic, anyone working in an office with a dirty laser printer has the equivalent health risk as a pot head. Pot's illegal but printers are everywhere... hmm...
  11. John Percy from Halifax, Canada writes: Does the study indicate whether the researchers used OEM cartridges or refills? In order to refill a toner cart, it has to be cracked open and resealed. They are never resealed as well as an original factory seal, hence they tend to leak in a large percentage of cases. If these are OEM carts, then imagine what the emissions must be like with refills.
  12. Rick Drysdale from Calgary, Canada writes: John Percy from Halifax
    I have been using refills here on about 15 printers for years and a "large percentage" do not leak. They are not "cracked open" to refill.

    I could tell you how it is done but you should make a few calls and find out for yourself.
  13. Will Partridge from Delhi, Canada writes: Yes, "Combative American", we've all heard before your nonsense about how it's not the government's job to protect the citizens it represents. We've also seen the results of this philosophy south of the border ranging from everything to air and water quality to the Katrina "relief" effort. It amounts to a massive transfer of power to corporations who then get to evade all regulations and responsibility for any harm they might cause.

    Now, in your country, you can't run for office without massive funding by groups who directly benefit from the philosophy that the government shouldn't make them follow any rules or standards. And you're brainwashed 24 hours a day by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, etc, to the point where many so-called conservatives will act, speak, and vote directly against their own interests.

    Luckily, we don't quite have that problem here. Yet, anyway. Canadians tend to be a bit more rational about such things. As Keith Stringer said above, it's really not a left vs right issue as much as it's a sanity vs insanity issue. So while you have my sympathy to a certain degree, please keep your insanity in your own country where it belongs.

    As for this particular story, you need a lot more study before any regulations are passed. Reproducible results from multiple sources is a good way to go. But you guys don't trust science either, do you? You're told not to believe scientists by the same people, and for the same reasons, who tell you it's not the government's job to actually govern.
  14. Combative American from Minneapolis, United States writes: Keith Stringer, I'm simply exercising the same right you have to opine on a given subject, and what I did was to extoll my dislike of the continuance of regulatory control that news like this always seems to bring about. Now if you find that "troll-like," then you must put yourself in the same category as I've seen you hoist some hefty opinions of your own. Further, I do see a slippery slope when it comes to news items of this ilk, which you yourself alluded to with your comments about all the regulations concerning seat belts, helmet laws, smoking, and a myriad of others that have all come down the pike as a net result of so-called, "research." As one who grew up without a bike helmet, seat belts, or any of a thousand other regulatory restrictions - I- and the others of my generation did just fine, thank you. As a gun owner and an outdoor enthusiast, Springer, I see the legions of those that think nothing of ignoring my rights, or suppressing them to the point where they are worthless to the average individual, all the while working behind the scenes in their political settings to ensure that me, and others like me, are either 'banned' or outright 'restricted' from doing what has been considered 'normal,' or a 'hobby', or 'fun' for generations now. So please don't tell me that the sum total of my comments boil down to "trolling," okay? Like you, I have an opinion, and also like you, I chose to share it.
  15. S Li from Toronto, Canada writes: Though I find the article's title to be merely attention-seeking, laser printers and photocopiers do emit toner particles and ozone during operation. The toner is made up of ultra-fine carbon particles and resin.
    They do irritate the respiratory track, to say the least.

    I used to work in an office where my group worked in a under-ventilated
    area office. And the laser printer and photocopier is right next to us. I always had itchy eyes and dry throat, and my colleague kept having a dry cough all the time she was in the office.

    For me, I try not to have laser printout if I could, both for my health and help conserve resources by reducing paper wastage.
  16. Michael Sharp from Wsanec, Canada writes:

    Funny.

    The article above says one joint is equivalent to 5 cigarettes.
    This article says one laser printer is equal to one cigarette.

    Therefore, one joint is equal to 5 laser printers.

    I tried smoking a laser printer once.

    Hard to keep lit.
  17. Rick Drysdale from Calgary, Canada writes: Will Partridge from Delhi

    The feds are rational?????

    The latest , this is off topic , they have enacted new regs about toilets on boats. They come into effect now for new boats and 5 years from now for older boats. The head must have a holding tank or a a marine sanitization system.
    It must be pumped out at a shore facility or while underway at least a mile from shore.

    There is no pump out here , there are few places that are a mile from shore in the islands around here.

    The city of Vancouver pumps more effluent into the strait in one day than all the boats on the west coast will ever pump out.

    The regs were developed after "public consultation" among boaters , probably from downtown Ottawa.
  18. On Edge from Ottawa, Canada writes: I think the copiers should be out on the sidewalk now and banned for use near children. Those who use photocopiers are irresponsible losers and slobs who care nothing about thier health, should pay for their own medical care. Your right to use a copier ends where my lungs begin. I have a right to clean air and I insist you not use a copier anywhere near me, and I will fight to have you kicked out of my building if you use one there. The toner and gases seep into my unit through the walls. Sound familiar?
  19. old Curmudgeon From Ottawa from Canada writes: Ban printers! Levy a huge tax on them, at least 1000%! Move them outdoor. And lets not forget to ban them in the home too!

    Ban the selling of printer cartridges to young people. Enforce the use of ink jet printers!

    If you get lung cancer from the printers, tough! Pay for you own health care. After all , You made a choice...

    Oh, if you use a printer near me, I shall consider it a licence to verbaly abuse you!

    Let's start a pressure group against printers in office spaces.
  20. Broken Record from Victoria, B.C., Canada writes: I used to work in an office back when they used noisy dot -matrix printers and each one was in a noise-dampening enclosure which was equipped with an exhaust fan and foam filter. These filters would require regular cleaning as they would quickly turn black with ink particles that came from the printer ribbons. Modern laser printers, as well as copiers and multi-function units, are nearly as noisy as their predecessors and emit invisible clouds of toner and a lot of heat into the often-sealed atmospheres of offices. This can't be healthy, regardless of one's opinion of this study. I would bet that when offices are designed and equipped, no thought is given to the effects these machines have on the working environment. Perhaps it's time we brought back enclosures or separately vented printing rooms.
  21. Buck Harvey from Calgary, Canada writes: So if my cube is surrounded by 5 laser printers can I just ask my boss to remove them because it's the same as smoking a joint?
  22. keith stringer from Cincinnati, United States writes: Will Partridge, it is interesting that you hurl at your Minneapolis opponent the accusation of being "brainwashed 24 hours a day by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Fox News" (end quote). And the reason your "brainwashing" accusation is interesting is that you yourself try to smear America's government as a "failure to protect the citizens it represents... from everything to air and water quality" (end quote) and also to smear America itself ("keep your insanity in your own country where it belongs"). Could it be that you have been "brainwashed" about America by the likes of the CBC and the Toronto Star? Because, in reality, America has had its share of successes in public safety (seat belts and car safety innovations in the wake of Ralph Nader's activism, and California air quality and vehicle emmissions regulations years ahead of Canada's regulations in those areas) - and Canada has certainly had its own share of recent failures in the public safety area(look at drinking water, for example, as in Walkerton Ontario water supplies, and northern Native Indian water supplies, and the urea formaldehyde foam insulation touted by the government there decades ago). When it comes to public safety, it is foolish to try to paint America as satan and Canada as an angel: They both have very mixed report cards in this area.
  23. J Broomer from Toronto, Canada writes: Any Saturday I wash my vehicles at 10 in the morning by mid-afternoon you can run your finger across the roof and it is already coated in a fine, grimy dust. Presumably the same stuff is being breathed in by myself and my children, running around playing in the yard. I don't even know what that stuff is but I bet I'm safer sitting in my office, about 7 metres from the HP laser printer, regardless of how much "emissions" it has.
  24. Combative American from Minneapolis, United States writes: Will Partridge - I've never allocated NOT having government "govern." Neither did I put this issue into the conservative or liberal realm. You and Keith Stringer did that all by yourselves. Nor do I see where "corporations" were involved in the mess that transpired in New Orleans. That debacle was fraught in so many ways by the people 'behind' the rescue efforts - namely local, state, and federal 'governmental' agencies. These are the same people you want to leave important life and health decisions up to, yet they are the same folks you wouldn't trust to do your laundry. For people like you, Will, it will always be about the 'nanny-state' and what Nanny can do for you. You freely abdicate your rights and your individual freedoms to people who claim to have a better grasp on your life than you do. For you, there is no shame in being wholly under the 'care' of some non-descript governmental agency - who tells you what you can do in the privacy of your home - or car - or elsewhere, who regulates your life in such a manner as to suggest that you don't really have the power over 'you' that you think you do. In your sheltered existance, there is very little in the way of self reliance or in the will to forge your own pathway with minimal intrusion from some a-hole in Ottawa. You are merely another taxpayer who has a minimalistic voice in his own self-governance - and you like it that way. So be it. This is the path you've chosen. Don't get upset with me because I haven't. Pursuant to the matter of some other American maladies (pollution, air quality, etc.) - you would be wise to heed the old adage, my friend - "Let He who is without sin cast the first stone." Last time I checked, your waterways weren't without their problems. Your congested city freeways weren't free of gridlock and resultant pollution problems, and your own corporations were just as guilty of some of the same offences that ours were, Smug boy.
  25. Dennis X from Canada writes: You are obviously not a gun owner. Flippin' gov't has made that such a mess. Glad to see someone else is taking some heat for a change...
  26. keith stringer from Cincinnati, United States writes: Contrary to his denial, the person in Minneapolis absolutely and obviously did "put this issue into the conservative or liberal realm", and he did so right in his first post where he complained about the "nanny state" imposing its policies in the areas of the environment, public health and social past-times. His use of the term "nanny state" in that way is what did it: Politically conservative groups in America use the term "nanny state" in objection to what they see as the left's excessive desire to protect consumers through state regulations of business, safety and social activity.
  27. Patrick M from Orangeville, Canada writes: Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm!! Do I hear "Class Action"?
  28. j c from Canada writes: This must be disturbing news for schools that issue politically correct print outs on the evils of smoking. Would someone ask the teachers' pension fund to sell its shares in tobacco companies before pursuing job hazard benefits over this.
  29. Prairie Boy4 from Saskatoon, Canada writes: Given the other "news" item in this section, shouldn't this headline read "Laser printers worse than marijuana"? Of course, my risk of schizophrenia may not go up from one in a gazillion to 2 in a gazillion because of my laser printers but they sure drive me crazy some days!
  30. Combative American from Minneapolis, United States writes: Will Partridge, if the only things you can spew forth are derogatory comments concerning the overall acceptance level of Fox News in this country, then you are in even greater need of governmental assistance than I previously thought. For if this one broadcast channel among the hundreds of choices on the dial can elicit this much hatred and scorn, then I truly feel sorry for you. It just happens to be the one (ONE) right-leaning TV network in the entire country out of the likes of PBS, ABC, NBC, CBS, and a host of others. ONE! One TV station in the whole of America, and you can't stand that it even exists! There is something profoundly telling about your anger and loathing though. It just goes to show how open and acceptant of other viewpoints you are. After all, it's all about the "diversity" of programming, isn't it Will? If this was the "All-Black" channel or the "Al Arabia" network, chances are you'd have no problem with either of 'em. But to have one centre-right TV station amongst 300 million Americans, why, this is tantamount to a 'vast right-wing conspiracy' right? This isn't surprising to me - as it seems to be the same reasoning you use when you read a post from me or someone else who disagrees with your stance on governmental regulation and intervention? Or, for that matter, any other subject. You go all postal and call their opinions 'nonsense," right? As though you, and only you, have the market cornered on what should and shouldn't be agreed upon opinion-wise or intellectually. As though anyone who disagrees with your limited knowledge on a given topic is automatically dismissed as "a loser?" Do you try to make your points with your friends in the same way? From where I'm standing Will, you DO need all the help you can get and hope you continue to welcome the government into all facets of your life, unapologetically. Just don't ask me to or to agree with you on every subject.
  31. Combative American from Minneapolis, United States writes: No Keith, there was no implied nor implicit political direction to any of my comments. I had no such agenda in mind when I wrote those comments. Nor do I now. Though true that there are not as many 'nanny-staters' on the Right as on the Left, that doesn't mean, however, that they don't exist on that side as well. My diatribe against more governmental intrusion into the private lives of its citizenry had more to do with my feelings concerning what laws or regulations would be forthcoming as a direct result of this study or others like it. We are 'over-represented' in this country by lawyers hell bent on redefining and reshaping every law and regulation ever put on the books. We are bound by so many laws on so many levels based on faulty research (many of which have brought about ever more faulty legislation, and therein, legal chicanery and misuse of the same legal statutes we're obliged to respect and abide by) - that it is no longer a running joke. We are the most litigious society in the world. Period. We have the right to sue anyone, anywhere, at any time, about anything - and most of this incredible waste of human resources, money, and time - has been brought about by the ever increasing bureaucracy of our legal governmental components. Only occasionly are any of these laws utilized in the proper manner for the intended purpose. More often than not, they are put into existence solely for the pleasure they bring to charlatan public officials drunk with power, in the hope that they can now legislate some control over the lives of others. Sad, but true. Do yourself a favour and look up "governments' from around the world, and look at the wretched excesses spawned by these people. You can go anywhere on this planet and people all over this world CRINGE when the word 'government' is even mentioned in polite company. Now why do you think that is? Because they've done such a great job in governing? And you want to see more of it?
  32. Bob . from Canada writes: This does seem to be evolving into a battle between the Bengals and the Vikings...aside from some cute hyperbole...it would seem that I owe nothing to my laser printer manufacturer and will be changing printers soon. Ounce of prevention, pound of cure.
  33. Just trying to make sense of it all from Canada writes: Nanny state:
    L: You must pay taxes to support people who won't or can't work
    R: You must not grow or smoke marijuana in the privacy of your own home.
    L: Education and Health Care are rights, provided by the government
    R: Your taxes will be used to fund useless, counterproductive, and lie-justified wars (eg we will protect you from the likes of Saddam Hussein)

    Which nanny is more intrusive?
  34. keith stringer from Cincinnati, United States writes: The person from Minneapolis is quite mistaken if he is trying to suggest that my post in any way implied that only the left wing contains folks who could be called "nanny-state" supporters. My post did not imply any such thing. My post simply pointed out, correctly, that the particular WAY that HE used the term was the way that the RIGHT wing uses the term in America. In contrast, when the left wing in America uses the term "nanny state", they refer to economic policies that affect large and state-favored corporations (as they view the government as being excessive in its protections of businesses and the business class against the public good). He did NOT use the term "nanny state" in that (left-wing) manner - he used the term in the right-wing manner (where "nanny state" means a government that is seen as excessive in imposing its policies in the areas of the environment, public health and social past-times). Short summary: My post of 5:06 stands.
  35. John L. Murlowe from Colony of Vancouver Island, Canada writes:
    COMBATIVE AMERICAN -- DIFFERENCE

    I have to agree with you. Too many Canadians bow to the state. It is part of the system of ENVY many of my countrymen adopt in blindness.

    Canadians show their envy of USA by harping on and on about the US's evils and its failures, while they -- Canadians -- rest in a false sefl-righteousness that Canadians are somehow better. But we prove time and time again that we're often worse than anyone.

    Don't be dismayed by these jerks. We're not all that way. Many of us despise the attitude government and its minions -- Canuck, Yankee, Brit -- take in their "we-know-what's-best-for-you."

    Today, the University of Toronto decided to close its on-campus gun range. Not for safety reasons, mind you, but because, they admit, it's politically correct because the City of Toronto wants all handguns banned in Canada because of two recents very tragic handgun kilings in Toronto. Toronto can't keep order, so it blames the rest of Canada.

    The difference between Canada and the US can often be summed up as this: In the US the people hate the government, in Canada the government hates the people.

  36. Bill Grigg from Kelowna, Canada writes: This is a stupid story, and is unsupported by facts. Words like "Some" & "Could" don't belong in a scientific study. Either present facts or keep it to yourself.

    I have been around for almost five decades now, and somehow have survived asbestos curtains, playing with fireworks, being driven in cars that didn't even HAVE seatbelts let alone wearing them, etc. etc. etc. Yet I'm to be spooked by this story and avoid certain brands of laser printers. I wonder when the unsubstantiated report on ink-jets will be released. What toxins lurk in the heart of my OfficeJet!

    Good Lord, I just realized that I work in a print shop and we have numerous high-speed laser copiers working 16 hours a day. I'M DOOMED!
  37. John L. Murlowe from Colony of Vancouver Island, Canada writes:
    HEADLINE

    Another lieberal headline, blanketing all printers with "j'accuse" when the actual story indicates only one of 62 printers showed levels matching cigarette smoke.

    G&M's headline editors are masters of the misleading head -- without shame.
  38. Michael H from Edmonton, Canada writes: mr fijne, asbestos is chemically inert but causes cancer. The chemical composition may be irrelevant-if it causes chronic inflammation it can cause cancer.
  39. george mcflew from Canada writes: Well, the obvious course of action for a responsible civilised society is to ban lasers from all indoor areas including pubs, and to ban the use of lasers within 9 meters of doors or windows.
  40. Combative American from Minneapolis, United States writes: Keith Stringer - call it what you will. You have just as much a right to find it a "right wing" comment as I have in denying it.

    In my mind, nanny-state refers to government intrusion into the more private aspects of my life where the opinions and thoughts of the law-making class determine the direction of my inalienable rights to choose as I see fit. If that is "right wing thinking"- then so be it. Colour me then as a free-thinking and devoutly expressionistic American. I do not apologize to those that label me as such. On the contrary - I am proud to wear the title.
  41. Paul S from Niagara Region, Canada writes: Dear media:

    In the future, please list the things which ARE NOT killing me. This will save much time. Thank you.
  42. The Great Gazoo from Toronto, Canada writes: .

    Miniscule synthetic particles that are supposed to stick to stuff not recommended for your lungs. Who would have guessed.

    G&M: taking investigative journalism to another level.

    *
  43. Zaphod Beeblebrox from Canada writes: For the love of God would the Health Gestapo give it a break! Is there anything on the surface of the earth that isn't going to kill us? To listen to these people running around yelling "the sky is falling" all the time leads me to believe that living is bad for my health.
  44. Nickstar One from Canada writes: How did this "grant junkie" Lidia Morawska get her Ph.D?

    With idiot studies like this, it probably took her 6 years.

    If you listen real carefully, you can hear the power and control crowd
    rubbing their hands together to cure the "itchy palm" syndrome of unlimited government "grant largesse" in order to introduce "Ban the Laser Printers" and create a brand new "epidemic of laser particulate toxic poison".

    Further, the president of the OMA will declare that "hurricane force winds" will be required to ventilate any venue(including beaches and parks) where laser printers may or can be used.

    The "health scare workers" and their bobblehead, nodding buddies in the media are obviously in the grips of suffering the worst "epidemic" of all, an epidemic of unbridled insanity.
  45. Randal Oulton from Canada writes: When, oh when, will reporting in the Globe in the Mail consist again of something other than what they've read on the web?
  46. M W from Canada writes: A question for the author -- Just who believes the RESEARCHERS to be Toner? :/

    In a study to be published on Wednesday, researchers from the Queensland University of Technology show that 17 of the 62 printers tested were “high particle emitters”, sending an ultra fine powder that researchers – believed to be toner – into the air.
  47. myIQismy weight from Canada writes: Another reason to get rid of open plan offices, in addition to being noisy and unhealthy for other reasons, the strategic placement of distracting printers is also poisoning us! Class action, anyone? Sign me up!
  48. Randal Oulton from Canada writes: When, oh when, will reporting in the Globe in the Mail consist again of something other than what they've read on the web?
  49. D K from Canada writes: Combative American from Minneapolis, United States writes:.......

    Ha ha!. This from a country who gov took 4 days to get water to the superdome. Don't worry if anything happens in your country you can be sure that you are on your own. Watch out it's a purple alert today!
  50. Dr Demento from Canada writes: For once (the only time I can recall) I completely agree with keith stringer. This study has identified a "potential" hazard that was previously unknown.

    It only makes sense to study these devices further to determine if indeed they pose a threat to our health, and if they do, to ensure that they are designed to eliminate that threat. Since most of the printers tested emitted no fine particles, then obviously a solution (if needed) already exists.

    Thirty years ago we didn't understand that urea formaldehyde insulation or asbestos were health hazards.

    If the world were run by myopic idealogues like the Combative one, we would still be subject to those hazards.
  51. Rae Vandenberg from Canada writes: I think a lot of people talking about personal freedom in this conversation are missing the point of news like this. If people want to have dirty printers in their homes, that's one thing. However, when people go to work in an office, their employers have a duty to make sure the environment is a safe one.

    I'm glad printers are being studied for their emissions and the results published. Then manufacturers of laser printers will be under pressure to improve their product as a result of such scrutiny.
  52. Craig Cooper from Toronto, writes: We're all going to die! We're all going to die!
  53. Paul Hume from oakville, Canada writes: I agree with the Combative American. Your first post was similar to my first reaction when reading the story. You speak the truth my friend.
  54. Anne Gammage from Canada writes: Thanks, Rae Vandenberg. This is exactly the crux of the issue. Ontario banned smoking in public places primarily as a workplace health issue. Employees had no control over their indoor air quality. Many years ago, I was a smoker and recall several of my co-workers suffering through the clouds of smoke emitted by us, their fellow workers. Did we stop, even when they complained? No. Voluntary compliance does not work in these scenarios, therefore, unfortunately, regulations are eventually a necessity. Definitive research should already be available for toners, solvents, and other workplace hazards - see "Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System - WHMIS", already in place. Just find the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for the toner and any hazards present will be evident. In my experience, individuals can't generally be trusted to respect the health of others - it all goes back to the adage about "not peeing in the pool" - sadly crude, but true.
  55. L F from Canada writes: Combative American I will not apologise for the rude and close-mindedness of some Canadians, rather I will tell you how it is to have to live among them. This once wonderful country full of a variety of peoples has turned into a mess. If you have any opinion contrary to what the general big-mouthed public deems correct you will pay a price. I have experienced this for the last twenty years and it’s getting worse. We used to live in a Canada where it was healthy to think and feel differently and as long as you had facts to back up how you felt you were encouraged to discuss said issues. Now you cannot open you mouth if you are not on board with the powers that deem what is acceptable. Anything considered conservative is evil and heaven help you if you are a traditionalist. But there is hope. Most of the new immigrants are traditionalist. It is only a matter of time before they begin to lobby for exactly what the so-called non- judgmental Canadian’s judge as being unacceptible. In this country they run the show because of the media and it’s unbalanced reporting. When we lived through a Prime Minister calling us UN-Canadian if we don’t vote a certain way you know we have hit rock bottom. From here I hope we can regain the dignity of knowing what true democracy really is. In this country for the last twenty years people actually started to HATE one another because of their political feelings. Isn’t that a bit severe? After all we are all human beings. These open-minded people teach their children not to judge but then take them out to protest and judge people who have a different opinion. How confusing for the children. Next up. We are all evil people if we purchase bottled water. Can’t wait to be judged by the non-judgemental once again.
  56. Roland Neissinger from Latteville, Canada writes: So are the ex smoke 'addicts' now starting to crowd the printer room?
  57. Hank M from Hamilton, ON, Canada writes: I see it as a marketing opportunity to introduce new " Laser Light". The quality of Laser without the aftertaste! What do you think?
  58. Anne Gammage from Canada writes: Followed by, "It's coming to your office supply store soon - Laser Maxx - all the carbon with bonus THC!". Even better, "Free respiratory mask in every box!" The big brands had better get R&D on this before the competition gets wind....
  59. Alistair McLaughlin from Ottawa, Canada writes: I used to smoke HP Laser Jet King Sized Filters, but I've since changed my brand to Toshiba Studio Light 100s. Eventually I hope to quit altogether.
  60. Terry F from Edmonton, Canada writes: Just set the print setting to "lighter." Problem solved.
  61. Brad B from Canada writes: Thank goodness for these pointless studies and for the mindless "journalists" that now need to find 24 hours of news a day. Cant wait for the next study that says that toner helps your skin and coupled with daily glass of red wine and an office affair will lengthen your life by two years.
  62. Brad B from Canada writes: L F stop coming onto opinion boards like this one and put your rose coloured glasses on and all will be well.
  63. Jen Donnelly from Canada writes: I'm not sure where all the furor on this board is coming from. Having worked in offices over the years with a lot of laser printers, I'm glad this study has come out, that I have a foundation upon which to bring legitimate concerns I've already had to my employers. Considering half the things they're printing off, constantly, are useless attempts at a print job that end up in the shredder an hour later anyway, it's even more frustrating that it might be presenting a grave health risk. People can joke - and it IS funny, in a sad, scary way that this is as bad for you as smoking - but the reality is we need to take clearer stock of the side effects of these billions of objects we produce to make life "easier".

    I'm waiting for the study to come out to prove the other thing that has been concerning me as of late (concerned because my human instinct is reacting) - that of sitting with multiple monitors, TVs and other electronic and/or wireless devices surrounding me for 8-10 hours a day, 40-70 hours a week. Past incidences of high numbers of people in such environments getting similar tumours has yet to warrant wide-spread concern, yet the numbers are more frightening than the smoking numbers. One case in particular was a Bell building near Toronto several years ago where 8 women and 2 men got breast cancer within a 10 year period, and this was in the days before multiple monitors - just one monitor, printer, fax, and computer around all in a closed area with recycled ventilation. Coincidence I'm sure.
  64. On Edge from Ottawa, Canada writes: Anne Gammage writes: "Ontario banned smoking in public places primarily as a workplace health issue. Employees had no control over their indoor air quality. Many years ago, I was a smoker and recall several of my co-workers suffering through the clouds of smoke emitted by us, their fellow workers. Did we stop, even when they complained? No. " Anne, I have been in the workplace since the '70's in various venues and do not recall even one instance where any of us were made to suffer from smoking colleagues. And there is certainly no issue there if someone smokes in a separate office away from others. What really happened was mass hypocondria. Interestingly, much of the rest of the world continues to go on without these bans and the poor nonsmokers do not realize how sick they could feel if they were told to...
  65. Nickstar One from Canada writes: What does the title "Dr." in Lidia Morawska's case really stand for?
    Most persceptive readers of this idiocy have correctly surmised that this clearly stands for "Dunderhead(or Airhead for those so inclined)".
    Another meaningless "junk science" study to rile up the health paranoids into such a frenzy that soon enough they will eventually live in fear of the toxic effects of their own shadow.

    Lidia is just a "researcher" climbing on the Smoker Ban Wagon to gain attention and notoriety. Her "study" belongs on the dung heap
    of "junk science" that the media is shovelling out at full speed.

  66. Christopher Kiely from Canada writes: Well I guess somethings going to kill you. Stop smoking, the printer will get you, stop using laser printers and the next day you get hit by a bus...
  67. Anne Gammage from Canada writes: To On Edge from Ottawa: When we share the air in a workplace, especially those in buildings with windows that don't open, we truly share whatever is in that air. You can believe that no one suffers or suffered from exposure to shared particulates, whether from printers or smoke, but it's a false assumption. If you check reputable web sites, such as the Lung Association, it is clear that there are many sources of indoor pollutants that circulate throughout a building, whether you are in a separate room with a closed door or not. As a result, you receive the privilege of breathing it all in. Back to the point - given a little research on the internet, there are previous studies indicating that printers aren't likely cause for concern about increased occupational disease (search for "X370-Ewers.pdf" for one such study from Germany). Finally, I would argue that there's actually little point to this discussion if you work in Ontario, given that the outdoor air quality in this province is usually worse than that of the indoor air.
  68. Alex Yaxmos from Canada writes: The report only stated that about half of the laser printers were releasing fine toner particles into the air and the main emitters were HP printers. So i guess HP needs to talk with their suppliers/vendors to see what's wrong with their toners. So in the meantime, if you care about your lungs, don't breathe near HP laser printers.
  69. John V from Toronto, Canada writes: I don't see this as a political issue. It's simply about public health and people should be aware of toxic emissions from laser printers. I happen to have a closed office with a small HP Laserjet in it and I'm a little concerned now that it may not be all that good for my health. Hopefully our company will do some air quality assessments.
  70. Combative American from Minneapolis, United States writes: John L. Murlowe, L F, and Paul Hume - thank you very much for the different perspective on a number of levels. It does my heart good to see that the government indoctrination policies introduced under Pierre Trudeau didn't quite get to everyone. Not that they didn't try...
  71. Anupam Mishra from Bangalore, Canada writes: Incomplete research report! The scholar did not mention the elements of the toner particles. How it could effect. Please belive in HP, most of the products are Environment friendly.
  72. jeff franklin from Canada writes: Combative American USA:

    'Gov't indoctrination policies introduced under Pierre Trudeau'.

    C A USA.

    The extreme faith based, PNAC signing, War Mongering Rapturists currently running the USA, who tarnish a living document, waste American Lives and materiel, engage in brutal torture and rescind Habeas Corpus are much more of a danger to you and I CA than Pierre Trudeau ever was.

    What would Pat Tillman do?

    Peace.

    Good Luck to the people of Minneappolis USA.
  73. Canuck In_HK from Hong Kong, Hong Kong writes: Interesting how the people concerned about the 'nanny state' are a bit dogmatic themselves. Their line seems to be: don't trust consumer studies and no need to take a precautionary approach to consumer matters since it is just another 'sky is falling study' whose science can't be trusted...

    Ironically, there is a market for eco-friendly offices and a market niche for eco-friendly products. How is it that these apparent critics of precautionary science and informed consumerism seem to so blindly trust that new technologies/products are automatically eco-friendly as they soon as they emerge from the factory production lines ??

    There is a strong body of historical evidence to show us why we need "expert" scientific debate, non-expert public discussion, testing, industry standards and even, god forbid, public regulations/third party auditing to ensure health, food, home and workplace safety.

    The market, too will respond. I know, for example, that green architects are re-tooling to create energy-efficient offices with natural light and building materials and fresh air circulation. This will be a long time coming in some places but it is happening in places. That we have additional information on p o s s i b l e risks to our health is a good thing, since it is better to make informed decision than not. So what is the real point of the critics of precautionary science?
  74. Philip B from Vancouver, Canada writes: I have a HP Deskjet 5550 on my desk. I print about 20 pages a day, but I could stop anytime if I wanted to. I print because of the printing satisfaction that I get, and also the Hewlett Packard commercials show that studly cowboys print with Deskjets and get the babes.

    The government should probably step in and regulate, but our politicians are sadly in the pocket of Big Toner.

    I should probably discontinue my habit of putting toner cartridges in my mouth and huffing on the tonery goodness inside. What was I thinking?
  75. On Edge from Canada writes: To Ann Gammage, I am one who believes proper ventilation is and always has been the key to healthy work environments. That makes a lot more sense than banning this and banning that. We seem to like to create fears about specific things and then get draconian, when the real issue is staring right at us: exchange the air in the workplace frequently enough to reduce the levels of particulates and so on. We cannot know what the dangers are in every substance in office air - carpets, cleaning products, etc., so ventilate well to ensure the dirty stuff is flushed away.
  76. H H from Canada writes: Paging Dalton McGuinty..please add printers to your list of "Things that make look like I am doing something...aka "THE BANNED LIST"....pit bulls, hand guns, light bulbs, etc etc.
  77. M K from Canada writes: If you read the Globe and Mail forums you would think that the vast majority of Canadians are utterly insane. One study in an Australian journal which no one here read and everyone is in an uproar about Nanny State and conspiracies. Example, Rick from Calgary:

    "There are people who want nothing more than to control what we do. Their motives range from a belief that they know what is best down to the pursuit of money ."

    Yes Rick. All scientific research and academia is a giant conspiracy to control your behaviour. Ooooooh... better get on that tinfoil hat so the professors can't read your mind!

    Only in Canada can we insult people who may just want to point out that there are aspects of our lifestyle that may be harmful. I agree that the title is sensationalist because the study is very preliminary, but come on people, show an open mind for once in your life.
  78. A C from Lasercreek (without a paddle), Canada writes: I think this is an important topic that needs to be shared with your friends and neighbors. My suggestion: make a few hundred copies to circulate at work and in the neighbors' mailboxes. Er. . . , just be sure to write out all those copies by hand. Tomorrow: the study on blackboard chalk affecting kids about to go back to school. Anyone try smokin' chalk? Don't start; it's hard to give up.
  79. L F from Canada writes: Brad B I would ask that you qualify your statement. I have no idea why you think I am wearing rose coloured glasses. Perhaps you could take the time to enlighten me or do you just want to prove my point. You somehow don't like what I say so you belittle me and then disregard the message. How typical this is in today's world and what a great way to expand ones mind.
  80. Simon Garth from istanbul, Turkey writes: Catchphrases should also be logical.
    "Second hand smoking is worse than smoking."
    No, it cannot be. When you are smoking in a given environment, the smoke amount you breath, is the ambient smoke plus the amount you smoke.
    If you deliberately inhale the particles from an inch while your A3 laser printer prints 100 pages of pictures, maybe this can be worse than one cigarette. I could not notice any tangible information about this comparison in the article.
  81. Devil's Advocate from Canada writes: dmn it! I knew there was a reason I had asthma. Class action anyone?

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.