ACCforum: laser printers, xeroxes, solvents - ACCforum

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

laser printers, xeroxes, solvents office equipment, indoor air

#1 User is offline   bygeorge 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 11
  • Joined: 24-April 11

Posted 28 December 2012 - 10:12 AM

Product Use: XEROX Phaser™ 4400 Laser printers

SECTION 2 - INFORMATION ON INGREDIENTS

Ingredients (percent by weight)
Styrene/n-butyl acrylate copolymer (45-60%)
Iron Oxide (40-50%)
Polypropylene wax (2-3%)
Silica treated with dimethylsilicone (<2%)

SECTION 3 - HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION

ROUTES OF EXPOSURE: Toner powders are encased in a cartridge. Minimal exposure through inhalation or skin
contact is expected when used as intended.

POTENTIAL HEALTH EFFECTS: Health effects from this product are expected to be negligible, when product is used as intended. See Section 11, Toxicology Information. - Yes, yes and that includes well ventilated and in Germany it means also, against a window left ajar.

CAS number
25767-47-9
1309-38-2
9003-07-0
67762-90-7

This material has been evaluated by Xerox Corporation. The toxicity data noted below is based on test results of similar toners.

Oral LD50: >5 g/kg (rats), practically non-toxic ,yes story every industry not going to die does not equate to being healthy.
Dermal LD50: > 5 g/kg (rabbits), practically non-toxic. Many medications work at this range, don't think small quantities equate to safety - theres a lot more to health and life: its the action on the body of the chemical that is the concern in question. (50% are dead at this level is that practically non-toxic??)
Inhalation LC50: > 2 mg/l (rats; 4 hour exposure), practically non-toxic whats this rubbish, like cigarettes eh?
The results obtained from a Xerox sponsored Chronic Toner Inhalation Study
demonstrated no lung changes in rats for the lowest (1 mg/m3) exposure level (ie., the level most relevant to
potential human exposure). A very slight degree of fibrosis was noted in 25% - one quarter , of the animals at the middle (4 mg/
m3) exposure level, while a slight degree of fibrosis was noted in all the animals 100% - everyone at the highest (16 mg/m3)exposure level. The findings are attributed to “lung overloading”, a generic response to excessive amounts of any
dust retained in the lungs for a prolonged period. This study was conducted using a special test toner to comply with EPA testing protocol. The test toner was ten times more respirable than commercially available Xerox toner and would not be functionally suitable for Xerox equipment.

NB. This toxicity data is only referring to toner. The gases are not discussed further other than being mentioned. In addition, ozone
is produced and is like butane - an oxygen substitute on inhalation. Note too the inhalation is for 4hrs only, not day in day out and per litre - how much air do you breathe a day, each breath you take at work., and
there is no mention of whether ventilation is also occurring. That is, is it a scenario where with poor ventilation the compounds are building up by the hour in the room and oxygen is a lessening percentage or inadequate as in stuffy rooms.

Also, don't be lulled be LD50's. Lethal Dose 50% dead is what LD50's measure. 50% of the animals have died at or before the LD50 measured
chemical quantity. They never tell whether it is a steep and rapid decline like carbon monoxide would produce or a slow flat, widespread decline where death occurred maybe a 1/100, 1/1000 the LD50 measure indicating a lot of differing susceptibility in a population. They of course
have this data but neither the company/industry ethics nor any government authorities makes them disclose it or even publish the origins of their LD50 established figure. It is basically the range I am talking about, and they do not disclose this. oh no! lets kill 50% of the population before we imply, at LD50 there might be the
start of some concern
. This exactly the stuff people who don't do toxicology don't comprehend: aka OCCUPATIONAL PHYSICIANS are not toxicologist and the NZMC show for the ones I've looked including some professors - NO toxicology specialisation study.

And its killing that is the measure - not ill-health, not near anything relating to neurological effects, no measures there to have availabe for consideration.

https://docs.google....1ajxQsDanJSYyPg
0

#2 User is offline   bygeorge 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 11
  • Joined: 24-April 11

Posted 18 January 2013 - 09:34 PM

Every breathe one takes in an office...

70 percent of employees in Germany may be affected
Every day, employees at offices in Germany inhale large quantities of particulate matter emitted by laser printers. When they do so, they may be jeopardizing their long-term health. The latest research findings no longer rule out particulate emissions from laser printers as a health risk. And yet, the percentage of workplaces using laser printers continues to rise. More than 70 percent of German employees now use a laser printer, and 82 percent of them sit just three meters or less away from the device itself.3 What many people don’t know is that with every page printed, laser printers emit tiny particles of dust, invisible to the naked eye, that can find their way into the lungs and even the bloodstream. Some models of printers even emit as much particulate pollution as a major traffic artery.


http://www.tesa-clea..._dust_particles
Source: Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (BAuA), 2006.
Brüning, Thomas et al. Assessment of the Health Effects of Toner Particles on People in the Workplace. BG Research Institute for Occupational Medicine. 2006, pp. 14 et seq.

The health effects of particulate emissions depend on the size of the particles. The larger particles emitted by cars do not find their way into the body as easily as the very fine particles emitted by laser printers. The smaller the particles, the more frequently adverse health effects on the entire organ system are observed.

Where are the NZ occupational physicians eh? Silent yet again!
0

#3 User is offline   bygeorge 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 11
  • Joined: 24-April 11

Posted 11 March 2013 - 08:52 PM

VOCs are numerous, varied, and ubiquitous. They include both human-made and naturally occurring chemical compounds. Most scents or odors are of VOCs. VOCs play an important role in communication between plants. [1] Some VOCs are dangerous to human health or cause harm to the environment. Anthropogenic VOCs are regulated by law, especially indoors, where concentrations are the highest. Harmful VOCs are typically not acutely toxic, but instead have compounding long-term health effects. Because the concentrations are usually low and the symptoms slow to develop, research into VOCs and their effects is difficult.

A man spray painted with 2 paint mix on Thursday, his colleague watched him carefully the next day. He's not well, having trouble breathing. His colleague says its neurological and the warnings are on the tins. He went to his doctor and back at work
on Monday. Why? Because NZ medical people are not trained in VOCs symptoms, the medical system deny the effects of VOCS.

These are the health effects of VOCs
Health effects include:

Eye, nose, and throat irritation; headaches, loss of coordination, nausea; damage to liver, kidney, and central nervous system. Some organics can cause cancer in animals; some are suspected or known to cause cancer in humans. Key signs or symptoms associated with exposure to VOCs include conjunctival irritation, nose and throat discomfort, headache, allergic skin reaction, dyspnea, declines in serum cholinesterase levels, nausea, emesis, epistaxis, fatigue, dizziness.

Doctors and ACC deny these symptoms as belonging to any medical condition and therefore are pyschological.
You will be lucky to find any literature on VOCS in New Zealand yet the world is very aware of them. Australia, Europe, USA
all are concerned. Vocs are also associated with moulds and laser printers.

Some VOCs, such as styrene and limonene, can react with nitrogen oxides or with ozone to produce new oxidation products and secondary aerosols, which can cause sensory irritation symptoms.[34][35]. These are well known in laser printer emissions.

Why do we insist on making people very unwell. Because the silence is golden for ACC and deadly for some. The NZ government doesn't care, medical profession muffled at best, silent at worst. Occupational Physicians deny existence - they not taught
but would not admit that, demi-gods. I challenge an occupational physician to speak up and put their job on the line, and honour the workers of New Zealand.

Since people today spend most of their time at home or in an office, long-term exposure to VOCs in the indoor environment can contribute to sick building syndrome.[16] In offices, VOC results from new furnishings, wall coverings, and office equipment such as photocopy machines, which can off-gas VOCs into the air.[17][18] Good ventilation and air-conditioning systems are helpful at reducing VOC emissions in the indoor environment.[17] Studies also show that relative leukemia and lymphoma can increase through prolonged exposure of VOCs in the indoor environment.[19] Heard of leukemia and lymphoma?, like liquifaction you didn't hear these words until recently. Ever wonder why?

http://en.wikipedia....rganic_compound

Oh dear, another scenario of wikipedia knowing what medical professionals in NZ say does not exist.
0

#4 User is offline   bygeorge 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 11
  • Joined: 24-April 11

Posted 13 August 2013 - 08:12 PM

Laser printers, Heat pumps, office equipment all emit and have flame retardants.
THAT WORD AGAIN - the one the medical profession knows nothing about and any Occupational Physicians condemn workers by silence
THAT WORD IS: ORGANOPHOSPATE organophosphate flame retardants (OPFRs), organophosphates in your home, in the workplace but don't worry experts
say not a problem. Yeah right. These work by lowering cholinesterase in people - people differ and there is probably several genetic phenotypes
that have greater susceptibility. They only talk of the acute toxicity, like the Fonterra dude that took some chemical on TV, nitrite reducer, no understanding
that the real concern which is repeated exposure, chronic continuous exposure, and long term effects. NZ doesn't teach toxicity to medical profession and nor
agrichemicals, nor just workplace/home chemicals - the virtually sole focus is on pharmaceuticals. Be very aware, very, very aware - your government, your medical professional and your
occupational physicians and the ACC use of pseudo toxicologists have little to no training of toxicology. NEVER believe any organophosphate is safe - these
are the nerve gases amongst the most toxic chemicals known to man. Let anyone on this forum deny that and swallow some or even better get a lungful, repeatedly, 40hrs a week.

Occurrence of alternative flame retardants in indoor dust from New Zealand: indoor sources and human exposure assessment.
Ali N, Dirtu AC, Van den Eede N, Goosey E, Harrad S, Neels H, 't Mannetje A, Coakley J, Douwes J, Covaci A.
Source

Toxicological Centre, University of Antwerp, Universiteitsplein 1, 2610 Wilrijk, Belgium.
Abstract

Due to worldwide restrictions on polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), the demand for alternative flame retardants (AFRs), such as organophosphate flame retardants (OPFRs), novel brominated FRs (NBFRs) and hexabromocyclododecanes (HBCDs), has recently increased. Little is known about human exposure to NBFRs and OPFRs and that their levels in dust have been scarcely evaluated worldwide. To increase the knowledge regarding these chemicals, we measured concentrations of five major NBFRs, ten OPFRs and three HBCD isomers in indoor dust from New Zealand homes. Dust samples were taken from living room floors (n=34) and from mattresses of the same houses (n=16). Concentrations (ngg(-1)) of NBFRs were: 1,2-bis(2,4,6-tribromophenoxy)ethane (BTBPE) (<2-175), decabromodiphenyl ethane (DBDPE) (<5-1430), 2-ethylhexyl-2,3,4,5-tetrabromobenzoate (TBB) (<2-2285) and bis(2-ethylhexyl)-3,4,5,6-tetrabromophthalate (TBPH) (<2-640). For OPFRs, concentrations (ngg(-1)) ranged between: tri-ethyl-phosphate (TEP) (<10-235), tri-n-butyl-phosphate (TnBP) (<20-7545), tris-(2-chloroethyl)-phosphate (TCEP) (<20-7605), tris-(1-chloro-2-propyl) phosphate (TCPP) (20-7615), tri-(2-butoxyethyl)-phosphate (TBEP) (50-27325), tris-(2,3-dichloropropyl)-phosphate (TDCPP) (20-16560), tri-phenyl-phosphate (TPhP) (20-35190), and tri-cresyl-phosphate (TCP) (<50-3760). HBCD concentrations fell in the range <2-4100ngg(-1). BTBPE, DBDPE, TBPH, TBEP, and TnBP showed significant positive correlation (p<0.05) between their concentrations in mattresses and the corresponding floor dust (n=16). These data were used to derive a range of plausible exposure scenarios. Although the estimated exposure is well below the corresponding reference doses (RfDs), caution is needed given the likely future increase in use of these FRs and the currently unknown contribution to human exposure by other pathways such as inhalation and diet.
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users