Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,290   Posts: 1,535,397   Online: 773
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 28
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    368
    I'm not saying it isn't correct. I am saying it is yet another opinion article that is posted as "the truth". For what it's worth, I am a Pyro user (Rollo Pyro, and Pyrocat HD). I have no info that says what you have posted is incorrect, if I did, I'd let you know. My question to you was basically, Where is the truth in that article? So Mr Publisher, where is the backup to his opinion?
    __________________
    Brian McGuiness Photography http://bmacphoto.com>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


    Since you appear to be challenging the article I would expect you to have info that Mr. Knoppow's info is incorrect. If you don';t have any supporting evidence that Mr.Knoppw is incorrect I am not sure what your posts are all about.

    This is precisely the kind of thing I find so curious about these discussion groups. Peaple coming on challenging a previous post but not really having any good reason for doing so.

    Mr. Knoppow as not 'invented' any pyro formulae and does not have an ax to grind. His poice is well written and unbiased. He states very clearly that no long term reseach as been done showing pyro's harmful effects. This clearly flies in the face of the doomsayers who keep saying it is dangerous and needlessly scaring people.

    steve simmons

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    270
    Various effects of various types of exposure on poor wee beasties here.....

    http://ntp-server.niehs.nih.gov/htdo....html#humanexp

    One conclusion from the study... "Lifetime dermal exposure of mice and rabbits to low doses of pyrogallol did not induce toxic effects" however, those that bellied up to the pyro-buffet on a daily basis were doin' the big snooze in short order....... Be careful out there!

    (can't seem to get the link in right.... you will have to scroll to the top)

  3. #13
    bmac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    2,156
    Images
    9
    Steve, My sole intent was not to challenge the article. I am seeking clarification. I have no new information either way, and never presented myself as if I did. My intent was to get clarification / backup to the point of view of the author, and you. You open yourself up to this when you post on public forums.

    This may come as a surprise to you, but the purpose of these forums is to foster discussion on issues. People post a topic, members discuss it. I'm truly sorry if you are unhappy with my response, but like I said, I'm a member of this forum asking for clarification to something you posted here.

    Your prove me wrong then attitude is very disturbing to me. And for your information, I do have a very good reason to post this. As a member of this forum, and the Large format community, I want to learn as much as I can about the materials I use. I'm sorry if that isn't "a good reason" for you.
    hi!

  4. #14
    Aggie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    So. Utah
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,925
    Images
    6
    Pyrogallol is the main ingredient in topical ointments used to treat psorisis (direct contact with skin). It is a big ingredient in red hair dyes. both are in constant contact with the skin. Pyrogallol acid is also known as antiseptic. These references from the Merck Manual. As for pyrocatcachin (sp) all of us should know that when we urinate, we are peeing out a small portion of pyrocatachin (sp). When these substances are toxic to humans is when the DRY form is breathed into the lungs. It is immediately uptaken into the blood stream, and has a chance to reach the brain. It will cause nerve damage in this form (dry). That is the powsered form, NOT the liquid form or where it has been added to substances which are wet by nature. IN that form it has partially oxidized and reduced it's toxicity. The big thing you need to be aware of is proper ventilation when mixing the dry form. Use a chemical hood, do it outside, or wear a good face mask to prevent inhalation.

    Pyro will not turn your skin to rock, it will not cause serious diseases, it will not kill you if you take proper handling precautions. People who are senstive to chemicals on their skin, should always wear gloves no matter what chemical you are handling. Use common snese.

    As for this continued debate, it is getting silly. We are all capable of looking up the truth about the products we use here on line.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,530
    This is something I do know about and I agree with Brian, there is really no new information or toxicological analysis of the required doses for long term or short term harmful effects. It is not a bad article, but as Brian stated, is more an opinion than a definitive article with proofs or analysis.

    There is one small mistake, it is not pyrogallic acid. It is pyrogallol which is derived by heating gallic acid at high temperatures and pressures.

    Although your intentions are good, the article itself does not settle one way or another the health risks when one is exposed to pyrogallol.

    I agree with Don, Sandy's article is far more complete, and at risk of tooting my own horn, my analysis of the data response on the perils of pyro thread does more to explain the myth of pyro toxicity than the article presented.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    607
    Images
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by steve simmons
    Since you appear to be challenging the article I would expect you to have info that Mr. Knoppow's info is incorrect. If you don';t have any supporting evidence that Mr.Knoppw is incorrect I am not sure what your posts are all about.

    This is precisely the kind of thing I find so curious about these discussion groups. Peaple coming on challenging a previous post but not really having any good reason for doing so.

    Mr. Knoppow as not 'invented' any pyro formulae and does not have an ax to grind. His poice is well written and unbiased. He states very clearly that no long term reseach as been done showing pyro's harmful effects. This clearly flies in the face of the doomsayers who keep saying it is dangerous and needlessly scaring people.

    steve simmons
    If no long-term research has been done, why would Mr. Knoppow's opinion (and in the absence of research it is only that, an opinion) be in any way reassuring to a pyro user? And who are you to try to transfer the burden of proof from the author to the audience? Very disappointing.

  7. #17
    mobtown_4x5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Baltimore
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    244
    Jeez guys, Steve's heart is in the right place, why doncha go a little easy on him?
    Knoppow's assertion that the pyro toxicity fears might be a bit premature seems to be shared by most of the knowledgeable folks aound here...

  8. #18
    Alex Hawley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Kansas, USA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    2,895
    Images
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by steve simmons
    This is precisely the kind of thing I find so curious about these discussion groups. Peaple coming on challenging a previous post but not really having any good reason for doing so. steve simmons
    Quite so. I fail to see what use all this "celebrity bashing" is all about. Seems every time someone notable tries to help out, the bashing starts.


    Quote Originally Posted by steve simmons
    This clearly flies in the face of the doomsayers who keep saying it is dangerous and needlessly scaring people.

    steve simmons
    Junk science is just that - junk. Hydrogen Dioxide kills thousands of humans each year. Its hazards are well known and highly documented. Many, many workshops are conducted each year teaching people how to survive its hazards. Reading all the evidence, the only rightful conclusion that can be reached is there is a vast Government conspiracy misleading "the people" about the truth!! We are entitled to be protected from WATER!
    Semper Fi & God Bless America
    My Photography Blog

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,530
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex Hawley
    Quite so. I fail to see what use all this "celebrity bashing" is all about. Seems every time someone notable tries to help out, the bashing starts.




    Junk science is just that - junk. Hydrogen Dioxide kills thousands of humans each year. Its hazards are well known and highly documented. Many, many workshops are conducted each year teaching people how to survive its hazards. Reading all the evidence, the only rightful conclusion that can be reached is there is a vast Government conspiracy misleading "the people" about the truth!! We are entitled to be protected from WATER!
    Uh, you mean dihydrogen monoxide?....Frankly I dont see why Simmons got all upset about Brian's opinion. The article does not offer any hard data or backup literature, it is only the author`s opinion, Brian said this and Simmons got offended. There is no bashing here, only the freedom to express our own opinions.

  10. #20
    Alex Hawley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Kansas, USA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    2,895
    Images
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by Jorge
    Uh, you mean dihydrogen monoxide?....
    Uh, yeah. So much for my own junk science and junk opinion. Thanks Jorge.
    Semper Fi & God Bless America
    My Photography Blog

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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