Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 74,007   Posts: 1,633,620   Online: 1152
      
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 62
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Sarajevo
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,801
    Well, I went to pharmacy stores, medical institutions, municipality offices and places like that with question where I can drop my photo chemistry waste. Answer was nowhere. So, I asked in clinics can I drop that waste with them and they to deal with it when they deal with biological and other waste they have, that is to process it into theire bilogical waste processing infrastucture. They told me I can't.

    So, my options are:

    1. Drop my photo chemistry waste through toilet,

    2. Collect waste year after year and waiting for waste processing plants to start working here,

    3. Export my waste to other countries to process it, and

    4. Get hands up of photography.

    So, answer is obvious, and yes, I sleep well...
    Bosnia... You don't have to be crazy to live here, but it helps...
    No things in life should be left unfinis

  2. #22
    Gary Holliday's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Belfast, UK exiled in Cambridge UK.
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    825
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy K View Post
    At the moment 'recycling' is more a salve to people's conscience than it is an environmental boon.

    About half the UK's 'recycled waste' is shipped abroad. It is all part of the big Green con. We get taxed for recycling, charged for bin collections, told that we are helping to save the environment, and it's all lies.
    A silmilar story in Northern Ireland found that the council were paying a processing plant to sort and recycle, when in fact they were sending lorry loads up to a nearby mountain and beauty spot to be buried.

    I'm still trying to figure out why taxation helps the planet???

  3. #23
    Andy K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sunny Southend, England.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    9,422
    Images
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by Gary Holliday View Post

    I'm still trying to figure out why taxation helps the planet???
    Well, a politician would say higher taxes on fuel encourage careful use and less pollution. They get the added bonus that they can levy those taxes on almost anything and claim it is an environmental tax. Then they can go use those taxes to improve society with socially beneficial, and environmentally friendly items like this.

  4. #24
    Gary Holliday's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Belfast, UK exiled in Cambridge UK.
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    825
    I'm sure Mother Nature would agree, she needs money. I hope those new carriers will keep the Argies at bay!

  5. #25
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    9,541
    Quote Originally Posted by Andy K View Post
    At the moment 'recycling' is more a salve to people's conscience than it is an environmental boon.
    I agree. So far as that recycling is not necessarily a cycle.
    We consumers have been made to separate those renown plastic bags to have made those renown park benches from. But what comes after the park bench? In this recycling discussion it is often overlooked that a downgrading is involved, which means that the cycle cannot be closed and the whole thing means merely postponing the incineration.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    258
    There are city-funded recycling places where I live where I can drop off junk like building materials, ewaste, motor oil, batteries, etc. but after I drop them off I'm not sure what happens to them. I know a lot of my friends are into recycling and re-using plastic bags but when I asked them what happens to their recycling after it's dropped into the recycling bin, none of them could give me an answer.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    17,503
    Blog Entries
    5
    Images
    24
    PE -

    you mention that computer-stuff uses selenium, so do a lot of photographers.
    where does their wash water go? into the environment, just like their silver.
    while silver is a benign element, it is still illegal in many places to just pour
    it down the drain. if someone makes money off of their photographic work,
    often times they have their waste hauled away ( i do, or i get fined ), and if someone is a
    hobbiest, often times the believe their little amount of whatever toxic
    chemical they pour down the drain doesn't matter, the sewer system will
    take care of it, or their septic system can handle it ... every little bit
    matters.

    yes, silver is used in the medical industry as a ointment for burns and with
    newborns ... just as selenium is an mineral found in seawater and vitimins,
    but just the same, we keep dumping this stuff we are only making our
    environment toxic. and we all know, we reep what we sow ...



    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    Here we are in the midst of getting rid of tungsten light bulbs and introducing the spiral lamps which use mercury. We talk about the reduction in mercury in the atmostphere from power plants offsetting the mercury in the lamps.

    The problem is that dropping a spiral bulb in the home releases a concentrated form of a mercury salt. And that is similar to the problem with digital. Digital this and that contains mercury, arsenic, selenium and a host of other things that are concentrated in the device. These cannot be eliminated. They can go to a dump and be recycled (we hope), but see the article in last weeks Time magazine about the problem of waste dumps in China. Digital products use heavy metals both in the device itself and in the manufacturing process of the device.

    Analog photography uses organic chemicals along with silver. Silver is a very benign metal, used medically for years as an antisceptic. The organic chemicals can be easily disposed of. Any heavy metals present are used at such low concentrations they are difficult to detect and present no significant problems.

    Developers can be evaporated and burned safely with a good environmentally correct incinerator and color bleach and blix, when desilvered, can be used dilute as an approximate substitute for miracid on some plants. We worked long and hard to insure that photographic chemistry is as harmless as possible.

    And now, digital printers want to use pigment inks. Well, some pigments rely on the use of heavy metals. I think this is another potentially harmful item to be aware of.

    This same type of question keeps coming up over and over and over.

    PE

  8. #28
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    24,189
    Images
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post
    PE -

    you mention that computer-stuff uses selenium, so do a lot of photographers.
    where does their wash water go? into the environment, just like their silver.
    while silver is a benign element, it is still illegal in many places to just pour
    it down the drain. if someone makes money off of their photographic work,
    often times they have their waste hauled away ( i do, or i get fined ), and if someone is a
    hobbiest, often times the believe their little amount of whatever toxic
    chemical they pour down the drain doesn't matter, the sewer system will
    take care of it, or their septic system can handle it ... every little bit
    matters.

    yes, silver is used in the medical industry as a ointment for burns and with
    newborns ... just as selenium is an mineral found in seawater and vitimins,
    but just the same, we keep dumping this stuff we are only making our
    environment toxic. and we all know, we reep what we sow ...
    You are correct about selenium toning. That is the only source of selenium in processing except for burning selenium toned prints. That generates selenium vapors which are toxic. The selenium toner itself contains toxic selenium compounds. I personally have stopped using it.

    However, to expand on my point, properly disposed of photographic solutions (minus selenium toner) can be evaporated and burned in a special incinerator and the only products are carbon dioxide and water. In burning, any silver residue can be found in the ash. Yes, I realize that the CO2 is ungood, but the organics can be used in this case as fuels for electrical generation, as they are all flammable in their solid states and are easily handled in the proper incinerator. Kodak does just that with scrubbers in the flue of the incinerators.

    Unused blix or bleach (or ones with the silver removed to a safe level) are so nearly totally non-toxic that they are capable of being usable as fertilzer on flowers and shrubs. I don't recommend this, I merely point it out.

    This level of recylability cannot be said of any electronic product. They are sources of concentrated heavy metals which leach out in rain and water in dumps. The alternative, burning, releases the toxic gases. And, when the US converts to the HDTV standard soon, there will be a lot of lead containing tube tvs out there to be disposed of on top of the old junk computers.

    By comparison then, the toxic nature of photographic processing solutions world wide is far lower than that of electronic equipment by some estimates that I have seen. Read the Time article for more.

    I have run (and have recorded in my EK notebook) a color process that uses recycled wash water over and over again, having cleaned it totally of all chemicals by a special process. All overflow chemicals and removed chemicals went into a small pack using this process, and that was then easily destroyed by any one of several benign methods leaving no significant toxic residue. As you point out, Selenium would be the exception. This process produced drinkable water by analysis, and a disposable pouch.

    I emphasize that this cannot be done with heavy metals or non-metal ingredients that are toxic to the environment.

    PE

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    17,503
    Blog Entries
    5
    Images
    24
    aside from a lab,
    who has the ability to incinerate
    their spent, dried out photochemistry ?

    in a lab, yes, these things are possible, but in reality,
    the "everyday photographer" doesn't have an incinerator
    (with a vapor hood ! ) and an epa permit to do use it ...





    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    You are correct about selenium toning. That is the only source of selenium in processing except for burning selenium toned prints. That generates selenium vapors which are toxic. The selenium toner itself contains toxic selenium compounds. I personally have stopped using it.

    However, to expand on my point, properly disposed of photographic solutions (minus selenium toner) can be evaporated and burned in a special incinerator and the only products are carbon dioxide and water. In burning, any silver residue can be found in the ash. Yes, I realize that the CO2 is ungood, but the organics can be used in this case as fuels for electrical generation, as they are all flammable in their solid states and are easily handled in the proper incinerator. Kodak does just that with scrubbers in the flue of the incinerators.

    Unused blix or bleach (or ones with the silver removed to a safe level) are so nearly totally non-toxic that they are capable of being usable as fertilzer on flowers and shrubs. I don't recommend this, I merely point it out.

    This level of recylability cannot be said of any electronic product. They are sources of concentrated heavy metals which leach out in rain and water in dumps. The alternative, burning, releases the toxic gases. And, when the US converts to the HDTV standard soon, there will be a lot of lead containing tube tvs out there to be disposed of on top of the old junk computers.

    By comparison then, the toxic nature of photographic processing solutions world wide is far lower than that of electronic equipment by some estimates that I have seen. Read the Time article for more.

    I have run (and have recorded in my EK notebook) a color process that uses recycled wash water over and over again, having cleaned it totally of all chemicals by a special process. All overflow chemicals and removed chemicals went into a small pack using this process, and that was then easily destroyed by any one of several benign methods leaving no significant toxic residue. As you point out, Selenium would be the exception. This process produced drinkable water by analysis, and a disposable pouch.

    I emphasize that this cannot be done with heavy metals or non-metal ingredients that are toxic to the environment.

    PE
    Last edited by jnanian; 07-25-2007 at 06:40 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    17,503
    Blog Entries
    5
    Images
    24
    ari

    you rock!

    Quote Originally Posted by arigram View Post
    I use completly mechanical cameras to last me a long time and take special care with water waste, so I don't print FB.
    Furthermore, the enlarger wastes a lot less energy than my computer workstation.
    If you are careful with chemical disposal and water waste (which it seems our privileged brothers and sisters care little about), you are set.
    Now if you could get the enlarger running with solar power...

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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