I'm most concerned about the harm to health. Particle emissions that trigger attacks in people with asthma, and may harm the health of others over the long term, mean that this is a potential health time bomb in the making unless something is done.
People don't worry about things that cause harm long-term, only short-term. Not much would get done unless people were getting sick within, say, months of using 3D printers a lot, instead of, say, years. The longer it takes, the harder it is to pinpoint the cause.
Well, the energy consumption can only get better as the technology develops. Hey, cars from last century is far more polluting than cars today.
Also, I'd think the possible health problem is because at the moment people are using plastic: once metals and other materials get popular it shouldn't be too bad.
Yes, there will indeed be improvements and changes. They just need to happen sooner rather than later. I feel bad about investing in something that seems like a big health risk to other people, even if it'll improve and become safer later.
edited 6th Mar '14 1:06:14 PM by BonsaiForest
Well, the bit about moving on from plastics is already happening, given that people are developing techniques for metals. Also, the fact that they are doing bioprinting means that they are developing far less toxic materials as cells are very, very sensitive to anything that is harmful.
-cues memories of biologists in my unit screaming "my cells died noooooooo..."-
Good point about bioprinting. However, that would mean that the cells can't come into contact with toxic metals or plastics. It doesn't mean that, separately, a 3D printer could use toxic metals or plastics.
And metals can be toxic too - lead, mercury, cadmium, antimony... but not all metals that are toxic when ingested are toxic to touch or smell.
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
Even using metals can prove an inhalation hazard. There are fumes and particulates involved. The problem is pretty easily solved though with a basic ventilation system with a filter to keep the air scrubbed.
Who watches the watchmen?
The Wanderer
Squeezing light into metals: Engineers control conductivity with inkjet printer
And metals can be toxic too - lead, mercury, cadmium, antimony... but not all metals that are toxic when ingested are toxic to touch or smell.
Well, apart from lead which is very rarely used all of those toxic metals are not engineering materials. You haven't seen a cadmium bar or a antimony fraome, and mercury is a liquid (not that have stopped us, but my engineering brain is twitching its eyebrows at the thought of using mercury anything).
And my point is the 3D printing is well on the way to play with other materials that could potentially be less harmful. If you can use plastic that is not toxic (as in the one that can be used for bioprinting), why would you use a toxic plastic?
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Yeah, it's not like the problem's not solvable. Even current playing with woodwork and spray painting/house renovations have their dangers (inhalation of harmful fumes), but that doesn't stop people from DIY them at home safely.
edited 8th Mar '14 3:20:56 AM by IraTheSquire
The Wanderer
Artificial Heart 'Jacket' Made on 3D Printer
The Wanderer
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
I have to say I am liking the medical field use of 3d printing especially when used with cybernetic prosthetics.
edited 13th Mar '14 4:12:06 PM by TuefelHundenIV
Who watches the watchmen?
The Wanderer
Is it time for a standard 3D printer spool size?
Mobile Fab’s bike brings 3D printing to Taipei’s streets
The Wanderer
More materials sounds great.
However, I question the idea that 1/3 of Americans are interested in having a 3D printer in their house. That sounds like absurdly inflated numbers. If that happened, my stock would explode! But I doubt it.
The Wanderer
That seemed a bit odd to me too, but eh.
Eating a Vanilluxe will give you frostbite.
It sounds like sampling bias to me.
Back on topic, one of the reasons I'm excited for 3D printing is its possible effect on tabletop wargaming. Depending on how Games Workshop reacts to it, I may just have a reason to get into 40K (the game, not the fiction) again.
Direct all enquiries to Jamie B Good
A procrastination in of itself
Plus there's a difference between "would like" and "will buy at the current price". Though I agree that the number sounds funny, probably just 3 people out of a ten person focus group or something.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
The Wanderer
I'm waiting for 3D printers to have a greater variety of materials, and not give off toxic fumes or risk harming the health of people who use them.
HP has been talking about getting into the 3D printing business. Since they're not publicly traded, and since 3D printing isn't their only or core business, that worries me since I own stock in the major publicly traded 3D printing companies.
Neurosurgeons successfully implant 3D printed skull
Also, hi thread! Been following a little bit of the home-user trend of 3D printing recently (or rather, been interested).
Totally jealous of Bonsai Forest's stock in 3D printing...
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
The 3d skull is incredible. I love the medical use of this tech.
The invest link is a very thinly veiled sales pitch.
Oh look more exaggeration with "disrupting".
They undermine it with their Nike example. The second the competition adopts the tech it is no longer disruptive. Nike wasn't disrupted by the tech they have a temporary leg up. The second the competition adopts and adapts it isn't disruptive to the competition. A single company having the only access to such a device, method, or technology for a few years is disruptive. Nikes competitors may already have such devices and are rapidly catching up.
Small scale business will not be able to compete with the big companies so no disruption there. Same for home businesses. They are not really going to disrupt the big companies. I can see 3d printing tech being a boon to assorted small businesses making them possibly more viable in some areas but they are unlikely to unseat big companies using the same tech.
The Space Ship 3d printers is over hyped and sounds like more sales pitch spin divorced from reality.
Ready made food in assorted packaging would not only be less space but it is one less thing to break, less mass, doesn't need ships power to run, and more room for other things. Any sort of carefully balanced meal packs are hands down more efficient. Same for carrying the majority of spares you need often that are ready made. Especially spares you need the quickest. Now it can be handy for printing uncommon or rarely carried parts but for things you use a lot or need in an emergency hands down ready made beats 3d printed.
You are not saving any mass or improving efficiency by carrying both the machine and the materials to make the spare parts. You could replace the needs time to be made materials in a ship with ready to use assorted parts and tools. Again one less thing to break use power, and less extra crap to have to carry around.
Who watches the watchmen?
I think you're missing part of what makes it so disruptive. While big companies will be able to make things more easily, the thing is, now regular people could use a computer file containing the 3D model needed to print out, say, a Nike shoe or one just like it but with slight modifications, and therefore compete. Not at a huge scale, but small local businesses could actually compete with big ones if they can make enough interesting stuff. And they will be able to individually tailor things to specific people's desires. There will likely be less reliance on big brand names.
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
That really isn't competition at all. Especially keeping in mind an individual users access to materials vs Nikes. Unless you are going to spend a fair bit of money to buy the raw materials to make a pair of shoes, a printer, and likely the software to make it work the same way Nike does you are not going to get very far. In fact on a per shoe basis Nike still has the upper hand quite very easily. That isn't disruptive at all. People can build shoes in a way similar to Nike does now and it doesn't disrupt them one bit. Why? Because Nike's access to resources and ability put out shoes and the time to do so is far greater then a private individual doing the same. 3d printers are not going to change that. That is a fantasy.
The amount of tech you can own in your garage that can do on par work with big industry exists now and can be bought now yet it does not disrupt. 3d printers are not different. They are not magical super machines.
edited 27th Mar '14 5:42:28 PM by TuefelHundenIV
Who watches the watchmen?
No, but small businesses can still disrupt big business industry with original ideas, the ability to rapidly create something tailored specifically to the customer, and finally, there's the fact that private individuals can simply download a CAD file and use that as a blueprint to make something that, say, is copyrighted. So there's several avenues of attack against the big companies.
Wow those are some good points to examine. Almost Human touched on the 3d printed drugs one.
Who watches the watchmen?