Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,699   Posts: 1,549,170   Online: 1239
      
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 49
  1. #21
    BradS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    S.F. Bay Area, California
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,059
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by PhotoJim View Post
    That's not a small dose. I'd need to eat about 3 kg (6 1/2 pounds) of hydroquinone to equal that dose. I can't eat a steak that big.
    Hmmm, yeah. Good point. It just looks small. I'd have to eat 2.3 Kg...LOL! :o

    OK. calm is restored. But, I think I need some print tongs just the same...it's is a hassle trying to wash and dry my hands between each print.

  2. #22
    Sparky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,100

  3. #23
    Sparky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,100

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Los Alamos, NM
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,055
    NIOSH did extensive toxicology studies on hydroquinone in the early 1970s, and they published an excellent report. It concluded that although there was some long and short term toxicity, that it was not significant for the usual uses, of which photography was most significant. In any case, the long use of hydroquinone in photography without any epidemiological evidence of adverse affects should argue well for its continued use.

  5. #25
    m. dowdall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Toronto
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    177
    Images
    11

  6. #26
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,068
    Images
    65
    All of the pyro developers are more toxic by far than HQ. HQ is known to cause dermatitis in some people and kidney problems if injested. It has not been known as a carcinogen.

    OTOH, table salt is a carcinogen if applied repeatedly to open skin wounds. Remember the old adage "rubbing salt into a wound?" This comes from the pain it causes, but a secondary effect is repeated irritation which can lead to cancer.

    EDTA is listed as very toxic and a potential carcinogen by some, but it is used as a remedy (intravenously) for heavy metal poisoning. We use it in color processes, and as a sequestrant in many process chemicals.

    Arsenic and selenium used in digital equipment is far more toxic than HQ in all ways. Where are the comments about them?

    PE

  7. #27
    Sparky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,100
    yeah- funny- I watched a chemistry show on tv the other night (very late at night, i might add!) - and they actually mentioned the arbitrary nature of selenium dosing.... in so far as it is considered an ANTI-carcinogen at a low enough dose (i.e.. we NEED it) and a carcinogen at higher doses... all compounds/elements are like that though... the body prefers a similar environment to that which it evolved within.

  8. #28
    BradS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    S.F. Bay Area, California
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,059
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    Arsenic and selenium used in digital equipment is far more toxic than HQ in all ways. Where are the comments about them?

    PE
    We'll have to wait a 150 years or so for the government to decide.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Saskatoon, Sask, Canada
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    36
    Given the speed with which the Canadian Gov't moves on most things, I think the advice about don't worry is appropriate.

    Hell, if the rumours of another Federal Election come true, this will get put away in some remote corner of some unused room to collect dust for years.

    Or, am just cyncial?

    John

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by notmatt View Post
    The draft report already notes that hydroquinone isn't bioaccumulative, and that human activity isn't responsible for the release of any significant amount of HQ to the environment.

    I think the worst we can expect is some increased handling and reporting requirements for industrial use (they're already subject to this, so it'd be a change in degree, not in character), and for consumers and hobbyists, some extra warning labels, and at worst, a restriction on dumping to untreated sewage systems.

    i.e. don't panic.
    I agree with your analysis. Hydroquinone was already listed to some class of hazardous chemicals in many regions, including the US, EU and Japan. How did it affect our darkroom life?

    If they would significantly tighten the regulation for hydroquinone, they would ban RA-4, C-41 and E-6 developers first.

    Also, even if the worst thing happens to hydroquinone, that's not the end of the story, except for the classic lith developers. If Phenidone and its derivatives (Dimezones) are banned, that would be a much bigger damage.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin