Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,700   Posts: 1,548,405   Online: 1045
      
Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 80
  1. #31

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    939
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerald C Koch View Post
    Have you considered using a barrier creme? There are two types you want the one that protects against water soluble chemicals. You can get it at most large drugstores. It's sort of like wearing invisible gloves.
    Wouldn't that leave barrier-cream residue on everything touched?

    The industrial and cheap answer is simply nitrile gloves. Note that latex gloves DO NOT protect against some ingredients of photo chemistry (and I completely admit I have forgotten precisely what ingredients, as I had the lectures nearly thirty years ago while in the industry). The latex absorbs and passes the materials through in a short time and definitely shouldn't be re-used.

  2. #32

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    New Jersey, US
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    452
    I believe some of the chemicals have been modified to be less toxic. One example is the film stabilizer. Also, on all the chemicals packaging, there is health/safety information.

    This is clearly more important to the folks who have direct contact to the chemicals on a regular basis.
    A photo amateur
    Sinar P2/F2/Nikon F100/Bronica ETRSi/GS/Saunders 4550XLG/Jobo CPP2/CPE+/Colorline 7000

  3. #33
    Poisson Du Jour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Geelong & Castlemaine, Victoria, Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,595
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    A couple of comments here then. I have never heard of anyone getting dermatitis if they wear gloves and use safety glasses. I both use gloves and do not use gloves from time to time and have never gotten dermatitis and so that aspect depends on the individual. I have sever allergies but not to photographic chemicals it seems, and so this is a case by case basis.

    I don't know how the chemicals in a darkroom can flatten a town! HQ? Metol? Carbonate? Hypo? Normal photographic darkroom chemicals are not explosive nor are they prone to catch fire.

    Photographic chemicals caused skin cancer and cancer of the esophagus? This was determined how?? At Kodak, IDK of any concrete diagnosis of any cancer directly linked to photographic chemicals. The main things were allergic reactions, and liver and kidney problems, but not cancer. To this end, all of us working with chemicals had blood tests every 6 months where they looked for a variety of markers for liver and kidney damage and for cancer.

    PE

    PE, you would have to have asked his doctors, but he had presented with all manner of problems. Sodium nitrate was something he kept in the room; I don't know what it was used for. Since no other members of his family were predisposed to cancer, or with a history of it any any form, his many long years of exposure to darkroom chemicals, many of which he formulated and mixed himself (and also sold off at weekend markets) was the prime consideration of his doctors. Everything else about his life was relatively benign: he didn't smoke, but he did drink. If he was not in the shop everybody knew where to find him: in the darkroom, often from daybreak to nightfall. His interest was in getting the work done for his wedding and function customers, and he did get it done. Colour, B&W, Cibachrome (he had at one time one of the biggest custom Ciba printing outfits ever seen in a small country town)... anything requested, he did it, any size, any time.

    You do have a valid point about liver and kidney problems, but pathologically the effects are much more widespread than that.
    I have been prohibited from working in a darkroom for 20 years because of a long-standing renal allograft (kidney transplant) as part of a broader risk stratogem.
    .::Gary Rowan Higgins

    A comfort zone is a wonderful place. But nothing ever grows there.
    —Anon.






  4. #34
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,069
    Images
    65
    Gary;

    I wish you well with your transplant.

    I can say that I know of few cancers among photo lab workers at Kodak. I know of a few among the synthetic organic chemists though, but it seems not too far above the norm.

    They expect skin rashes, then kidney and/or liver problems next in heavy and careless (I stress this point) darkroom workers who work closely with the chemistry. I've been a bench chemist, a photo lab worker, and an emulsion maker, and my health problems come from other sources, not chemical. I have discussed this with at least 3 doctors and they all agree that chemical exposure generally turns up earlier in life than my age!

    There is no firm basis for ascribing the cancer you cite to photographic solutions or raw chemicals unless he ate or drank them! Nitrites, as found in processed meats could cause cancer of the esophagus as could a variety of other foods and drinks (such as alcohol). The mother of a friend of ours died of this type of cancer, and she did not smoke or drink to excess. Her daughter now has it. No one else in the family has any sort of cancer.

    I really don't know what else to say except that with proper protection, there is a very low risk factor. The case in point is Grant Haist who is about 92. He did all in the lab that I did, and more!. He is still going strong.

    As an added note, go here: http://www.allsafetyproducts.biz/pag...election-chart

    You will see that latex gloves are no better or worse than many other glove materials for safety. Lets not start another myth - that latex is worse than other types of glove for safety. In any event, our contact should be under one hour in normal usage.

    Another note is that Sodium Nitrate, found in the darkroom, is an ingredient in gunpowder, but not in any photographic chemical that I know of.

    PE

  5. #35
    Sirius Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,153
    Since you have a problem, why take a chance? Buy a box of disposable nitrile gloves. Use a pair once and then throw them out.
    Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!

    Nothing beats a great piece of glass!

    I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.

  6. #36

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    339
    Images
    11
    I have to agree with PE. If these chemicals were that dangerous we'd hear of early deaths from these problems among the great photographers. Ansel Adams, who spend loads of time in the darkroom in an age of even less environmental care, lived well into his 80's. (And I doubt he kept a box of disposable gloves around.) That being said, it's probably a good idea to use the gloves. I try to...probably not strict enough.

  7. #37
    Diapositivo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,844
    As far as I know meet consumption is considered to be the primary cause of cancer in western society. That means eating meat is more "risky", cancer-wise, than smoking or whatever else. Vegetarian people have a cancer occurrence which is something like 1% of that of carnivorous people. (I suppose that 1% are the people exposed to chemical substances etc.).

    Our society has a probably subconscious habit of looking for cancer culprits where it is comfortable to find them. It's easier to say or think "he got cancer because of his decades in the darkroom" than "he got cancer because of his nasty habit of eating roasted steaks".

    As a side note: I am mildly-almost-quasi vegetarian, I do eat meat at least once per week due to various circumstance, I eat a lot of fish which nowadays is not very healthy (mercury, antibiotics, etc.), even a lot of canned fish (all that cadmium, yum!) and I am not embarking on an animalist crusade. I'm just saying what I know about what is the main cause of cancer. And I do drink wine and grappa.
    Fabrizio Ruggeri fine art photography site: http://fabrizio-ruggeri.artistwebsites.com
    Stock images at Imagebroker: http://www.imagebroker.com/#/search/ib_fbr

  8. #38
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,069
    Images
    65
    Diapositivo;

    Where did your 1% statistic come from?

    And also your note implies that canned fish is high in Cadmium. If that were so, then regular fish should be as well unless there is something wrong with the canning process. Any reference for that?

    Thanks.

    PE

  9. #39

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Daventry, Northamptonshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,999
    Quote Originally Posted by Diapositivo View Post
    As far as I know meet consumption is considered to be the primary cause of cancer in western society. That means eating meat is more "risky", cancer-wise, than smoking or whatever else.

    .
    Your last sentence is, I feel, a very shaky conclusion. Can we expect to see notices on meat soon that says "meat kills" or at least "eating meat can damage your health"

    Maybe the meat lobby is too powerful as was the tobacco lobby for many years

    I respect your heart-felt conclusions on the matter you mention and your right to take action appropriate to you but where is the evidenced based studies to back up the general conclusions.

    We all of us may have our own theories on darkroom chemicals' propensity for harm, including me, but I don't think any of us would be happy to take medicines if they had been approved and released to the market on such little evidence.

    Anything less than a properly conducted randomised control trial which involves thousands of people and a great deal of money to conduct remains suspect in terms of any conclusions reached.

    pentaxuser

  10. #40
    Diapositivo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    Diapositivo;

    Where did your 1% statistic come from?

    And also your note implies that canned fish is high in Cadmium. If that were so, then regular fish should be as well unless there is something wrong with the canning process. Any reference for that?

    Thanks.

    PE
    1%: Personal knowledge spread a bit everywhere. You will certainly find similar data if you look for the relation between cancer and meat consumption, or lack of cancer and vegetarianism. That is repeated in TV documentaries from time to time and is very old knowledge. Adolf Hitler (there! ) was vegetarian and abstemious because he had fear of getting cancer. Maybe you'll find statistics saying 2% or 3%. You get the point. Vegetarians "don't" get cancer and substances in meat (putrescina and cadaverina, in Italian, are those I remember) are not good for you and I presume are also implicated in cancer. Besides, animal fat cooked at high temperature is carcinogenic etc. (some grills, now, are made in such a way that the fat dripping from the meat does not fall on the flame to come back as toxic fume to the meat). You'll certainly find many studies about that.

    Cadmium: it's the "can" which releases cadmium. That's why lately there is a widespread recourse to "white inside" cans. "White inside" cans have a film of something which should not release harmful substances. In general, metal packages release metal particles. Only glass is really inert. Regular fish fished in nature doesn't contain Cadmium, only Mercury

    Many packages, as you know, deliver substances to the food. For instance PET bottles deliver phthalates (said to cause impotence). Well, cans are said to deliver Cadmium. There are norms which dictate how much is not too much. I personally drink glass-bottled water.
    Fabrizio Ruggeri fine art photography site: http://fabrizio-ruggeri.artistwebsites.com
    Stock images at Imagebroker: http://www.imagebroker.com/#/search/ib_fbr

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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