Wouldn't that leave barrier-cream residue on everything touched?
Originally Posted by Gerald C Koch
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.
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
Originally Posted by Photo Engineer
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.
“The photographer must determine how he wants the finished print to look before he exposes the negative.
Before releasing the shutter, he must seek 'the flame of recognition,' a sense that the picture would reveal
the greater mystery of things...more clearly than the eyes see." ~Edward Weston, 1922.
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.
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.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
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.
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.
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?
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"
Originally Posted by Diapositivo
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Photo Engineer
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.