You are forgetting the enormous environmental cost of transporting the water, espcially in order to support settlements in otherwise arid places.
Originally Posted by RalphLambrecht
RE waste: contaminated water might eventually evaporate and return to its origin in the grand cycle of nature, but it will no longer be viable for most uses, and has a detremental effect on nature. Don't you remember that dead fish icon on the bottles of rodinal, reminding you that discharging the liquid back to nature will have an adverse effect on marine life?
I do ;and you are right of course but, Iadmit that environmentalists are getting under my skin lately.a reasonable use of our resourcesis an admirable task, but there also needs to be a reasonable limit of saving for savings sake.slowlyrunning freshwater is the most thouroughway of washing film and paper;wrong place to conserve water for me.I'd rather skip a showernobody needs a hot shower twice a dayif it means under washed film.:confused:
Originally Posted by CatLABS
For those reasons i used to flunk students in my class who left the tap running over a tray with prints so they will be "washed" and then just left for hours or even over night.
As you say being reasonable or moderate is just fine, but there is absolutly no reason to "waste" water, when you can not waste it ;)
the true science of washing is rarely undertood.The Nisgra Falls wont do a better job than slowly running water in the same amount of time. volume is not the issue.