Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by serpentor 3875 days ago

  But the precise identity of these substances 
  is often unknown to researchers and printer 
  users because the printer manufacturers don’t 
  disclose this information.
That's not entirely honest. That statement conflates the idea that there is no information available to end users, detailing how 3D printing technology works, when the truth is that the information is out there, and most of the materials involved in consumer-grade plastic 3D printing kind of HAVE TO BE well-understood from a chemical perspective in order for the printers to be designed around them.

FormLabs does publish material safety data sheets:

http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0183/2285/files/MSDS_v7.pdf

So does Stratsys:

http://m.stratasys.com/ig8del/lnk000/=usglobalimages.stratas...

The larger companies DEFINITELY force you into using THEIR proprietary plastics, when open-source printers permit the use of commodity ABS or PLA.

ABS - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acrylonitrile_butadiene_styren...

PLA - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polylactic_acid

But, realistically speaking, just based on the fact that it's possible to cobble together open-source 3D printers from commodity parts and commodity expendable plastic, should inform the reader that the materials used by 3D printers are not so mysterious. In most cases the materials are acrylic/styrene based polymers, and not so exotic that they haven't been used for decades. Whether they've EVER been safe is another question altogether.

The article neglects and glosses over these details.

2 comments

The devil is mostly in the details, and enough pigment is in the PLA to somewhat alter printing characteristics. I believe different color PLA has different smells but that is right on (or past) the detection border.

Raw "natural" uncolored PLA is probably about as toxic as a corn cob or piece of wood, in other words it can probably mess up some embryos but its not a serious problem. Its polymerized lactic acid, not exactly biochemically exotic, we're not talking about organometallics here or arsenic chemistry or something exotic like that. It "should" be very biochemically boring.

On the other hand there is a VERY long history of pigments in general being toxic. Add in legendary Chinese safety standards and I would not be surprised if there is a problem with chromium-VI tinted orange PLA. Or white lead pigment in white PLA. Oh I'm sure the press releases will say its all lead free and gluten free and organic free range plastic, but on the other hand I'm sure we all know strange things get shipped and they're not using FDA approved food dye for everything over there.

I was very displeased with the tone of the article claiming ABS (which stinks) and PLA (which is nearly odorless) are very superficially both dangerous and only later in the article do I read that PLA's effect was barely statistically measurable although the other plastic is a highly effective mass murderer. Oh just a slight bias in the article until it comes time to report results, just a tiny little bit of bias. Perhaps they patented that too.

The article neglects and glosses over whether the "melted plastic" objects were ABS or PLA (or something else), which quite readily indicates the useful content in the article. (I suspect the research clearly defined that, but the article comes across as "I need to reach my word limit for the next 20 minutes, so I'll just copy-paste a few scary sounding sentences from a research paper, then make up some filler to go between without bothering to understand anything.")
You appear to be jumping from 'the article is missing some details' to 'the article must be completely wrong'. Impressive!