Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 73,878   Posts: 1,629,469   Online: 986
      
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 28 of 28
  1. #21
    Aggie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    So. Utah
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,925
    Images
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by Annie
    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)
    Going through the full article and study it would be interesting for each of you who have a scale at your disposal to measure out 700mg of a substance and see what volume the study is talking about that was administered daily. Granted it did not cause a problem at 22 weeks, only did it start to cause problems at 58 weeks.

    How many remember the scare about sacchrine (sweetner) and it causing cancer? the study was done similary to this. In that study (sacchrine) mice were fed massive unreasonable doses daily. It took from a year to 2 years and each rat did develop cancer. What was the dose they gave the rats? It was the equivelent of giving each rat 1000 cans a day of artificially sweetened soda. No one is going to ingest that much let alone a rat.

    Yes there is a risk for workers in in an environment where they are massively exposed on a continual basis day in and day out with no precautions at all. When that study is viewed as to what the protocals were for exposure it becomes ludicrous. We as photographers are not going to be swimming daily for long extened periods (10 or more contstant hours) to pyrogallol. The study also avoided saying what form they used to test with. Only the oinments administered were cited, and those did not until covering the enitre rat cause a problem. It senstized, or caused a rash after nearly a year. in conclusion, wear gloves if you are going to have your hands submersed for hours on end each day.

  2. #22
    DeanC's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Mill Valley, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    342
    Quote Originally Posted by mobtown_4x5
    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...
    I don't know where Steve's heart is, but his knee is in its usual place.

    Brian made the comment that the author of the article asserts some facts and provides no evidence to back them up, an observation that any thoughtful reader could have made. Steve's response was what it usually is when someone is at all critical of his publications or his postings: He disallows the possibility that the other person has a valid viewpoint and attacks them or the whole forum structure as being un-reasonable. People are harsh on Steve because that's all he hears whether they're trying to be or not.

  3. #23
    garryl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Fort Worth, TX
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    542
    Images
    2
    Well, I blame this whole thing on Howard Bond.
    "Just because nobody complains doesn't mean all parachutes are perfect."

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    368
    Herte is a quote from te posting on our eb sites

    "Pyrogallic acid is toxic but one must be careful in interpreting MSDS: mostly they are written for industrial users of substances who use and store them in very large quantity. Pyro is a sensitizer and can cause very strong skin reactions. It should be kept out of the eyes for the same reason. It is capable of causing life threatening damage if ingested in fairly large quantity. It will irrate the lungs and respiratory system if inhaled. Pyro can penetrate the skin but so can many other substances used in photography.

    There have been NO studies of the chronic effects of Pyro exposure. Pyro is no more hazardous than several other developing agents. It should be treated with respect but there is no unusual hazard in using it. Since airborne Pyro is dangerous to breath in its wise to mix Pyro developers while wearing a dust mask and facial protection. You should wear nitrile gloves. Try to avoid getting the stuff into the air. It is in light flakes which become airborne easily so some care is needed."

    Since there have been no studies on the longterm effects those posting/writing about the health hazards are just blowng smoke and trying to appear to be an expert when in fact there is no evidence to support their theories. This was the point of my posting this article on our web sites. If my critics have evidence to the contrary then please share it so we can all learn something.

    To repeatedly come on and criticize a constructive effort and yet admit to not having any evidence the post on our site is wrong seems a little hollow.

    I am sure someone will come on and crticize this post as well. I hope that when they do so they will add new info to the question of pyro's health hazards rather than just be negative about my efforts to clear things up.

    ste simons

  5. #25
    jovo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Jacksonville, Florida
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,098
    Images
    202
    Wow Steve. Just reading what you posted above begs clarification. In one sentence it is stated there are "NO studies on the chronic effects of pyro." and in a subsequent sentence it is asserted: " Pyro is no more hazardous than several other developing agents." Without a study of the chronic effects, how can that claim be made??

    I have no position pro or con regarding pyro...I started a veeeery long thread that has addressed my concerns extensively. But your article seems tautological and not much more than an opinion. In other words it does in behalf of pyro what it's detractors did against it. The most indisputable statement in the article reports NO STUDIES ON THE CHRONIC EFFECTS OF PYRO. That doesn't help much at all.
    John Voss

    My Blog

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    368
    Since there have been no studies on the longterm effects those posting/writing about the health hazards are just blowng smoke and trying to appear to be an expert when in fact there is no evidence to support their theories. This was the point of my posting this article on our web sites. If my critics have evidence to the contrary then please share it so we can all learn something.

    To repeatedly come on and criticize a constructive effort and yet admit to not having any evidence the post on our site is wrong seems a little hollow.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>

    If you have info that this statement is wrong please share it.

    Once again the point of this aricle is to counteract the doomsayers who have no evidence to support their scare tactics.


    stev simmons

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,529
    Quote Originally Posted by steve simmons

    If you have info that this statement is wrong please share it.

    Once again the point of this aricle is to counteract the doomsayers who have no evidence to support their scare tactics.


    stev simmons
    If you have any information that his statements are right, please share it!

    Or what, are we supposed to beleive him just because the article was placed in your web site?

    Sorry but both, the toxicity claims as well as the article to counteract those claims are only opinions if they are not backed by facts or data, neither one does.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by steve simmons
    There have been NO studies of the chronic effects of Pyro exposure. Pyro is no more hazardous than several other developing agents.
    Don't you realize that the first statement provides no basis for the second?

    Quote Originally Posted by steve simmons
    Since there have been no studies on the longterm effects those posting/writing about the health hazards are just blowng smoke and trying to appear to be an expert when in fact there is no evidence to support their theories.
    I think you just insulted your author.

    Quote Originally Posted by steve simmons
    If my critics have evidence to the contrary then please share it so we can all learn something.
    The article provided no affirmative evidence to support its conclusions. When/if you do so, readers can give it a fair evaluation. As of now, there is nothing to evaluate.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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