Tuesday, November 13, 2018
New Study Details Toxic Particles Spewed by 3D Printers
gizmodo.com: Researchers have that found that 3D printers spew tiny particles into the air as they operate, though the quantity and nature of these potentially toxic aerosols are poorly understood. A new study identifies a startling variety of these emissions, and the conditions under which they’re produced.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I think humans have a tendency to get excited about and adopt new technologies before we fully consider the consequences. That is how we ended up with lead poisoning from makeup, asbestos in the walls, and lead in our pipes. It doesn’t surprise me that 3D printers started becoming cheaper, more popular, and available for average consumers before we collectively decided to check to see what we were actually breathing. I imagine this finding will lead to a change in 3D printers to make it safer or lead to new protocols for operating them to prevent people from breathing in the particles. I’m just glad someone noticed it now rather than in 20 or 30 years we realize that a spike in certain types of lung disease was caused by previous exposure to 3D printing particles. This does make me wonder if we should be looking at ventilation or additional PPE for operating our 3D printer in the building.
I'm a little surprised that no one was able to guess that this might create some sort of dust. Just like when we cut wood there is a kerf, it seems a no brainer that they knew that something similar would happen with a 3D printer. Personally, as the average consumer, I just expected that this had been researched and accounted for. The fact that they were not aware about these potential hazards until now is concerning, because people have been using these printers for a few years now. I wish that we could find a balance between extensive testing and also not holding back progress. I can understand that they might have wanted to roll out the printer as soon as they figured out how to make it, but I do think that with a little more research this could have been discovered and accounted for. I don't think it's productive to retain life saving technology until you've tested it into the ground, but enough testing to reasonably assert that it is safe and to know what is necessary to operate it in a safe way would have been useful. It's clear that they didn't really test this too much before releasing it, and without knowledge of the long term consequences of this exposure, a lot of people could be hurt by that.
Post a Comment