Harmful Emissions from 3D Printing - Prusa Recommendations  

Re: Harmful Emissions from 3D Printing - Prusa Recommendations

I'd say Nikolai's post is not useful at all.

1) The reason for this topic is that these findings are recent and new. Current regulations for workplaces would not take this new information into account. Even if they do eventually, we have to consider that people use printers in their homes where they sleep and eat, whereas industrial regulations would would be tailored towards use in shops.

2) Comparing this to a plastic fork is over-simplistic and misleading and he's trying to use it to make a bad "slippery slope" point. I suspect he doesn't fully understand the nature of the recent research or the information provided about UFPs , because his statements certainly don't reflect it.

The biggest problem right now is that we don't have a "how much" factor attached to the research. I'd like to continue printing in my tiny apartment with no way to exhaust, but I'd also like to know if the printer is the cause of my respiratory distress.

Hello Benjamin,
You can refer to me directly and ask me directly. No need to try to interpret what I might mean with my post.

1) No, they are not new. Plastic is harmful to human bodies. We just don't know which type of plastic and in which way. This is something only studies will tell in couple decades. Fact is that burning plastic is toxic. I don't have access to this regulations but 3D printing with plastic and other toxic materials is not new to the industry. It's just new to end customers. If somebody is working 40 hours a week near this devices, It's pretty close to the usage at home. Based on that my common sense tells me to apply at least the same regulations at home (like good ventilation and some filters).

2) We are heavily exposed to plastic. I'ts well known that heated plastic releases particles. Like plastic cup of coffee, PET bottle left in the hot car and yes even plastic cutlery expose it and we are consuming it directly and also over the air. It starts already as a baby/toddler/child. How many plastic things do we had and our children have in their mouth. Most people don't care about this. My point is that the current plastic which we are printing is chemically not new. We are just increasing the dosage in our homes of not healthy plastic fumes. But I think some people are raising awareness of this situation only after they got a 3D printer.

Sorry to hear about your respiratory distress. I would highly recommend to stop printing at home in this case. All the studies and tests which you're maybe referring to are clearly stating particles increase which pollutes the air. Especially if you're sensitive to this, I would try to increase the air quality in my home at all costs.

I spoke "about" your post instead of engaging with you, as I figured you would dig in your heels and it would be a waste of time to argue with you, especially since you have already used the "slippery slope" argument. I also doubted that anything I could say would change your mind. Let's see what happens.

And I guess I'm sorry I read your words and interpreted them. I must be the only person who does that. I guess my only other option is to read your words and let them sit there with no interpretation and no examination of their meaning or whether they are accurate or reasonable. (There might be a language barrier here and if that is the issue then I am sorry and I will gladly work with you on this.)

1) Your post indicates that you are either an extremely highly trained expert in plastic particulates and biology and physiology (and you haven't explained the vast amount of detail that you are using in order to come to your conclusions), OR that you aren't a scientist and you are trying to use common sense to make a case but you don't have enough information to know what you don't know. I'm going to go with the latter.

No, they are not new. Plastic is harmful to human bodies. We just don't know which type of plastic and in which way.

This is gross oversimplification. Here we have a new "which kind" and "what way" and you want to shrug your shoulders and assume it's happened before and not address it? I've personally never burned any plastics in my home or my workplace, and I'm pretty sure most 3d printer hobbyists haven't either. You think you can use your "common sense" to address this issue? The only reason this is even news is the fact that UFPs were found and this wasn't expected. Maybe they should have just asked you and you could have said "probably, but we already eat a lot of PLA so it's no biggie" and they would have saved a lot of time and money?

A) UFPs are different
B) Burnt PLA is different.

A) When have you dealt with exposure to new and unusual UFPs enough to have developed a "common sense" about them? In this case, "some filters" don't cut it, as UFPs are small enough to bypass HEPA. It looks like "common sense" didn't work. That's because this is a new and exotic thing that hasn't been studied enough, apparently, or there wouldn't be research about it.

So this is not the same as putting a fork in your mouth or hot coffee in a cup, and this shows that you don't understand the problem enough to make a judgement. UFPs can enter directly into cells through their membranes. That's really quite something. Do the bits of plastic we ingest from a fork penetrate directly into our cell membranes? Do they get absorbed through our digestion system and enter our bloodstream even? These things make a big difference.

B) My point is that the current plastic which we are printing is chemically not new.

Is burnt PLA chemically the same as PLA from your plastic fork? I don't want to teach you chemistry, but the answer might blow your mind and maybe you'll know enough to not place so much faith in your assumptions in the future? (So much faith as to have the arrogance to recommend your conclusions to other people based on your assumptions?)

Getting into the science, PLA mostly just melts, but VOCs are released. Ah-ha, now we are not talking about PLA any more. There goes the "fork" reasoning.

Furthermore, it looks like VOCs react and change over time, so once again, this kind of exposure is DIFFERENT from the kind of exposure that you are trying to make a case with. You would have to have the same VOCs being released at the same time and vicinity to your body in order to experience the same effects as you do from your printer.

2) More of the same problems with your logic and generalizations that make it sound like you don't understand how materials work. It's okay to not understand how materials work, but don't go around spreading recommendations and arguing your case when you don't have that knowledge. Burning a plastic is very different from heating plastic. How much plastic do you burn in your home? In your neighborhood even? This is NOT THE SAME as leaving a bottle in a hot car.

But I think some people are raising awareness of this situation only after they got a 3D printer.

No, it's because a new report was released that found new information. And if this was already known and accounted for in industrial situations, I'm not sure why the report would exist. Either way, my concerns stand.

The respiratory distress note isn't about me, it's about the kind of situation this "new and unknown" research creates. It is about the difficulty in determining cause and effect in the human body (another reason not to use "common sense"), and it is only tangentially related to the issue at hand. If the UFPs released by printers don't cause a detectable physical response, that doesn't mean they aren't harming you in other ways.

Edit: fixed quotes

Re: Harmful Emissions from 3D Printing - Prusa Recommendations

[...] Edit: apparently my <quote>quote</quote> markup isn't recognized because I saved a draft.
Looks like you got it. Bbcode varies a bit.

Quoting quote tags is tricky too I'm finding.

Re: Harmful Emissions from 3D Printing - Prusa Recommendations

...

With all the long explanations you still didn't get my point. I will try to break it down:
1. FDM is being used in the industry since 90s
2. ABS and PET is the main to go material in most of consumer products for decades. Same like we are doing with 3DP.
3. The industry is using (melting with FDM or injection molding technics) this plastic heavily across the world. Same process what we are doing with 3DP
4. Means we are all exposed to UVP, Microplastic, VOC's and all the other particles already since decades (depends how old people are) either direct (at work or indirect (through the air/water)

Yes, there are many new researches/studies on the way to determine the health risk of the 3D printers in our homes. But to me it's just a research of the increased dosage of already existing exposure.

I have my opinion and view on things. If you don't like it or don't agree, it's fine to me. But please don't try to make my post look less valuable.

Re: Harmful Emissions from 3D Printing - Prusa Recommendations

Every time I visit London, and every time I blow my nose, I am horrified to see what comes out. I will not go into any more detail than that, but suffice to say it aint pretty.

Re: Harmful Emissions from 3D Printing - Prusa Recommendations

...

With all the long explanations you still didn't get my point. I will try to break it down:
1. FDM is being used in the industry since 90s
2. ABS and PET is the main to go material in most of consumer products for decades. Same like we are doing with 3DP.
3. The industry is using (melting with FDM or injection molding technics) this plastic heavily across the world. Same process what we are doing with 3DP
4. Means we are all exposed to UVP, Microplastic, VOC's and all the other particles already since decades (depends how old people are) either direct (at work or indirect (through the air/water)

Yes, there are many new researches/studies on the way to determine the health risk of the 3D printers in our homes. But to me it's just a research of the increased dosage of already existing exposure.

I have my opinion and view on things. If you don't like it or don't agree, it's fine to me. But please don't try to make my post look less valuable.

I knew this would happen. Not everything is open to interpretation and due for a compromise, especially when one party is uneducated.

Your opinion is worse than not valuable, it is actually HARMFUL to leave it for people to read without refuting it. You don't understand and you are not showing any attempt to understand what I am trying to explain.

1) There is new information. People didn't used to think smoking caused cancer, then research showed that it does. We didn't used to think FDM released UVPs, now we do.

2) Because we are surrounded with ABS and PET does not mean that this is the same kind of exposure from them as we get from printing things during FDM. Are you crazy? Try this: Smell the plastic around your monitor. Them smell your printer while it is printing ABS. Can you tell a difference? Do you know that smell comes from tiny particles going into your nose?

(Even if you couldn't smell the difference, it wouldn't matter. Lots of things don't smell. UFPs which can enter directly through your cell membranes probably don't get picked up by your sense of smell anyway.)

3) You can't possibly think that Industry practices for injection molding (and maybe FDM but this is highly unlikely) produce the same byproducts and expose workers to the same things as desktop FDM. If you don't believe me, do a google image search for "industrial injection molding machine." Do you know how the process goes for melting plastics for injection molding machines? No? Then stop saying that it is the same as for FDM. Stop acting like you know enough to make a judgment.

4) We are all exposed to the sun for decades, so it is perfectly safe to sit naked in the sun all day and night. And also to stare at it.

Facts still exist. You have an opinion and it is wrong. It is misinformed. It is delusional. Sorry about that. You can try to educate yourself and/or change your opinion since I'm trying to cram information into your head, or you can dig in and maintain that you can say anything and it is useful and valuable. It's just a thought, let it go. You might have once believed in monsters. Now you don't because you have more information. Let it go.

This isn't a matter of agreeing or liking. Facts still exist, and your opinion is based on false assumptions. Your opinion is wrong and it steers people towards a potentially harmful conclusion. Your post is worse than not valuable, it is actively harmful. Get over it.

I'm not going to respond directly to anything more you say unless you show some kind of attempt to understand what I am telling you.

My default will be to discredit everything you say, but I'm done trying to talk to you unless you show some effort to listen. That's the best I can do.

Re: Harmful Emissions from 3D Printing - Prusa Recommendations

...

No idea why you think you can personally attack me or educate me. I tried my best to stay objective on this topic. -> Reported.

Re: Harmful Emissions from 3D Printing - Prusa Recommendations

Guys,

I think we can all agree that 3d printing is a developing technology, and that there is little control of the operating parameters that we all use differently.

I will hold my hand up and say that I have unintentionally printed PLA at ABS temperatures and PETG at PLA temperatures, both of which are outside the guidelines, these situations are only a tiny proportion of the differences that individual users can invoke with their printers.

Nobody knows the full potential harm that may arise from operating 3d printers.

we are all responsible for our own safety, and should take whatever precautions we believe are necessary to maintain our well being.

I am donning my flame proof overalls, hard hat, eye shields, gloves,steel toecap boots and ear defenders and using a long ESD safe rod to press the Lock button on this thread, because it's getting personal