Safety concerns are emerging, and it is possible that resin 3D printers may be subjected to future bans.

Share this story

Is a ban on desktop resin 3D printers on the horizon? The possibility may not be as outrageous as it sounds. MSLA 3D printing has boomed in popularity in recent years, particularly among gamers seeking figurines for their activities. This high demand has led to a surge in the number of these machines being installed in homes worldwide. However, there is a significant issue with these machines: they are not particularly safe.

As we have reiterated numerous times before, 3D printer resins are toxic and exposure to them can have severe health consequences. Skin, eyes, and the respiratory system should not come into contact with resin or its emissions. Accumulation of these toxic molecules in the body can lead to a range of reactions, from mild annoyance to intense pain. The problem is that individuals can be exposed to resin for years before any visible reaction occurs, and by then, the damage is already done. Once your body becomes compromised, it will react strongly whenever near resins.

To ensure safety, resin 3D printer operators must strictly adhere to personal protective equipment (PPE) rules when dealing with wet prints and resin. Adequate ventilation is essential to vent away harmful resin emissions. However, even with these precautions in place, there is still the issue of disposing of uncured toxic resin, which often ends up in landfills without proper curing or disposal measures.

Complying with these safety measures can be challenging for many people, and proper ventilation may not always be possible due to the location of the printer. Many buyers believe that operating a resin 3D printer is as simple as pressing the “print” button, but in reality, it involves a series of meticulous steps to ensure safe operation. Unfortunately, it is likely that a significant portion of resin 3D printer operators do not follow these rules diligently.

In some cases, I have observed resin 3D printer operations where a thin layer of toxic resin coats everything: the tools, the table, the printer touchscreen, and so on. This is clearly a hazardous situation.

Given these circumstances, it is reasonable to expect an increase in the number of people suffering from resin sensitivity in the coming years. This will continue to grow, as sensitivity to resin does not subside over time. Eventually, someone will raise concerns about these machines and the resins used, leading to official investigations. The potential outcomes could range from an outright ban on inexpensive and unsafe MSLA devices to stricter regulations requiring more significant warnings and instructions for buyers.

However, there is another possibility that could benefit all involved. MSLA manufacturers could take proactive steps to address safety concerns by designing improved equipment. Current MSLA printer designs prioritize achieving a high-quality print, often overlooking safety features such as proper air filtration. Some machines seem to be designed in a way that maximizes the chances of resin drips during print processing. The inherent issue with MSLA 3D printing is that it involves more than just printing; there is also a washing and curing step that usually occurs outside the printer. This introduces the added risk of handling wet, drippy toxic prints, increasing the likelihood of exposure.

To mitigate these risks, MSLA machines should undergo fundamental redesigns that completely isolate humans from toxic resin throughout the entire production process, including printing, washing, and curing. Operators should be able to safely remove completed prints, similar to how it is done with FFF 3D printers. This is not an unreasonable expectation, but rather a necessary step in ensuring the safety of users.

In conclusion, the potential ban on desktop resin 3D printers may seem far-fetched, but it is not entirely implausible. The widespread use of these machines, coupled with the hazardous nature of resin, raises legitimate concerns regarding user safety. While a ban may be one outcome, the preferable solution would be for MSLA manufacturers to proactively address these safety concerns by redesigning their equipment to prioritize user safety. Only then can we truly enjoy the benefits of resin 3D printing without compromising our health.

Why Prioritizing Safety in 3D Printing Matters

3D printing technology has undoubtedly revolutionized various industries and captured the imagination of countless individuals. The ability to bring concepts to life with a few clicks and be rewarded with a tangible, physical object is undeniably appealing. However, there is a critical aspect that often gets overlooked or downplayed – safety.

While it is true that the cost of machines has significantly decreased, trading safety for affordability raises concerns that cannot be ignored. The mesmerizing allure of 3D printing may blind some users to the potential dangers it carries. Lack of knowledge and awareness about the toxic hazards associated with certain materials and inadequate safety measures can lead to serious consequences.

It is crucial to understand that not all 3D printing processes are created equal. For instance, MSLA (Masked Stereolithography) printers, which operate by exposing liquid resin to ultraviolet light to form objects layer by layer, have been widely adopted due to their affordability. However, these machines often neglect the safety protocols necessary to ensure user well-being.

The toxic nature of certain resins used in MSLA printers demands meticulous precautions that many operators simply do not grasp. Without proper understanding and adherence to safety guidelines, users are left vulnerable to harmful fumes and substances that can have severe health repercussions.

Prioritizing safety should never be compromised merely for the sake of cost savings. While affordable 3D printing equipment may initially seem tempting, it is essential to consider the potential long-term effects on health and well-being. By investing in safer machinery, operators can minimize risks associated with toxic exposure and safeguard their own health and that of those around them.

Unfortunately, the lack of affordable MSLA printers that prioritize safety remains a significant challenge. While some users may argue that cost reductions make the current machines more accessible, it is crucial to acknowledge the long-term implications. Sacrificing safety for affordability sets a dangerous precedent and ignores the need for responsible manufacturing practices.

To bridge this gap, stringent regulations may be necessary. Implementing industry standards that focus on safety protocols and ensuring manufacturers comply with them could be an imperative step forward. Such regulations could serve as a safeguard, protecting users from unwittingly exposing themselves to toxic materials.

In conclusion, safety must not be overlooked or undermined in the pursuit of cheaper 3D printing machines. While the current low cost of equipment may be enticing, it is vital to prioritize well-being over short-term affordability. Raising awareness about the potential risks and encouraging users to invest in safer equipment will contribute to a healthier and more responsible 3D printing industry.

Original source

Share this story

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *