Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,745   Posts: 1,515,639   Online: 812
      
Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 65
  1. #31
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,870
    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

  2. #32

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    15,783
    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.
    if my apug gallery looks empty you might check these places

    website
    blog
    sell-site

  3. #33

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    15,783
    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...
    if my apug gallery looks empty you might check these places

    website
    blog
    sell-site

  4. #34
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,870
    Images
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post
    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 ...
    Well, quite frankly, you are right in one sense, but in another it is a simple matter to set up a mixed bed resin and an organic resin, and then run your 'effluent' through that. Out comes clean water, and what is left is a burnable residue which can be given to the recovery center that incinerates such trash.

    Kind of like a water softener. In fact, the resin would be a mixed bed water sofener cartridge. Simple and clean and efficient.

    You have a dry cartridge when done instead of buckets of glop to dispose of.

    PE

  5. #35
    copake_ham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    NYC or Copake or Tucson
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    4,092
    Images
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by film_guy View Post
    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.
    You bring up a key point in that different items are recycled/reused in different ways.

    Here in NYC we have a very successful post-consumer based recycling program for ordinary metals and glass (e.g. cans and bottles), paper products and plastics (hey - you've got to get rid of those darn take-out soup containers).

    These items are collected by the City and delivered to a sorting/recycling center run by a company in New Jersey. [As an interesting sidebar - this company got its start after WWII breaking down Liberty Ships - they moved into waste recycling in more modern times].

    Most of these basic waste stream "commodities" are easily processed here in the USA [although some of the cardboard/paper may also go to China etc. - see my earlier post].

    That is presently the extent of NYC's recycling program and it removes a considerable percentage of total waste from landfill needs. Note: it is primarily a landfill and incineration elimination strategy - both of which "cost" the City whereas the recycling company "pays" the City for "raw materials".

    As to more hazardous items - the reliance remains on specific collection sites and voluntary compliance. That is why I think it is a bit of a specious argument to claim that because one's community has a recycling program - all is well.

    It really depends on what is actually being diverted from the waste stream and successfully re-used.

    As far as I am aware, the proper, non-environmentally damaging discarding of chemicals is probably more "advanced" at this point than it is for electronics.

    This is mainly due to the fact that chemicals (including petroleum-based products) can be readily rendered neutral or re-distilled etc. without requiring significant transportation.

    The new, massive presence of electronic waste as a result of the "digital revolution" is a very different situation. Little technology yet exists to effectively teardown a circuit board en masse and render it's remaining detritus into usable recyclables or neutralize it's deleterious effects. Hence the now well-known pictures of children in western China taking apart circuit boards by hand.

    Finally, as to those who continue here to complain about mercury-based flourescent house bulbs replacing tungsten incandescents - how may time do we have to go on about this? Obviously, the discarding of these new bulbs will require a change in thinking from the old "toss and forget". But the energy savings possible by a mass-migration to these bulbs will stabilize, if not reduce, electric generation demand substantially.

    Yes, there is no total win-win; but the damaging effect of increased carbon emissions is presently a much greater concern than is the risk of careless disposal of mercury carrying light bulbs.

    And besides, if you don't want to use them, then just don't use them!

  6. #36

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    15,783
    i guess so ..
    but unless "joe" can get that "stuff" and do it himself, and it is pretty much FREE
    seems like he is just gonna dump as he is already doing ... he doesn't see the costs related to his dumping

    not to be a pita PE, but "joe" doesn't wanna spend money on anything
    but gear, and building a "mixed bed resin and organic resin filter"
    seems like a lot of work ...
    having a waste guy come to the house every few years costs about $25 a year - it is painless and he doesn't
    even want to do that ...

    at least you are giving "joe" an option too bad he doesn't care

    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    Well, quite frankly, you are right in one sense, but in another it is a simple matter to set up a mixed bed resin and an organic resin, and then run your 'effluent' through that. Out comes clean water, and what is left is a burnable residue which can be given to the recovery center that incinerates such trash.

    Kind of like a water softener. In fact, the resin would be a mixed bed water sofener cartridge. Simple and clean and efficient.

    You have a dry cartridge when done instead of buckets of glop to dispose of.

    PE
    if my apug gallery looks empty you might check these places

    website
    blog
    sell-site

  7. #37
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,870
    Images
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post
    i guess so ..
    but unless "joe" can get that "stuff" and do it himself, and it is pretty much FREE
    seems like he is just gonna dump as he is already doing ... he doesn't see the costs related to his dumping

    not to be a pita PE, but "joe" doesn't wanna spend money on anything
    but gear, and building a "mixed bed resin and organic resin filter"
    seems like a lot of work ...
    having a waste guy come to the house every few years costs about $25 a year - it is painless and he doesn't
    even want to do that ...

    at least you are giving "joe" an option too bad he doesn't care
    I agree that the average person does not want or care to recycle photochemicals, but I can buy those cartridges at Home Depot for about $10 each. But it is inefficient.

    The overall picture is more complex.

    The outflow of toxic materials from all analog processes WW is much less toxic than the outflow from dumps of electronic equipment and their manufacture. The manufacture of organics for analog photography is about equal to the manufacture of dyes for inkjet printing. The pigment inks are probably more toxic.

    So, the balance we are looking for is effluent from photo processing for any reason vs the 'effluent' from manufacturing digital products and dumps for obsolete equipment.

    But then, we have argued this over and over and over in the last few years and it is becoming tiresome as no one can 'prove' anything. We always end up at the same point.

    PE

  8. #38
    copake_ham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    NYC or Copake or Tucson
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    4,092
    Images
    56
    As an aside - this evening I replaced the toner cartridge of the HP printer I use at home.

    It's relatively new (1-1/2 years) and hasn't seen too much use so this was the first replacement.

    I opened the box with the new cartridge and did the swap out. I was about to throw out the brochure inside the box when I realized that it felt "kind of heavy" for simple newsprint.

    So I opened it and found a prepaid UPS return label attached to a multi-lingual brochure explaining how to return anything from one to twelve cartridges for recycling.

    Who knows where they will wind up? But congrats are due to HP for at least trying to do the right thing.

    Oh, and yes, I realize that "built into" the price I paid for the cartridge was the UPS charge etc. - but, so what? If its disposal is handled "properly" it's a sunk cost anyway and both HP and I can feel better for having taken the trouble.

    It's the small steps that change the consciousness that are important.

  9. #39
    Lee L's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,239
    Quote Originally Posted by copake_ham View Post
    Who knows where they will wind up? But congrats are due to HP for at least trying to do the right thing.
    These are refurbed, refilled with toner, and sold. Many public schools in our area collect toner cartridges and get paid for them by the printer mfgrs. They do it as a fund raiser. Rather than sending it back for free, you might see if there's a good place locally that can make a couple of bucks off each cartridge you donate to them.

    Lee

  10. #40
    copake_ham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    NYC or Copake or Tucson
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    4,092
    Images
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by Lee L View Post
    These are refurbed, refilled with toner, and sold. Many public schools in our area collect toner cartridges and get paid for them by the printer mfgrs. They do it as a fund raiser. Rather than sending it back for free, you might see if there's a good place locally that can make a couple of bucks off each cartridge you donate to them.

    Lee
    Lee,

    Granted that - but I'm sitting in high-rise condo in the middle of midtown Manhattan. I'm just glad that I can get a freebie UPS pickup from the mailroom in the basement.

    And, yes, I could also schlep the thing to a Staples store on my walk to work or find a "worthy youth group" etc. But the whole idea is to make it "painless" to the end user no matter how it's done. And that's a good thing.

    One can hope that similar "ease of proper disposal" methods will be implemented for the CF bulbs as the burnouts begin to proliferate in the next few years*.

    * CF bulbs have an expected life of 10 years or so. We first started to switch over about seven years ago - replacing incadescents as the died. Given a 10 year expected life - we should start to see "burnouts" fairly soon. Then the issue of proper disposal will become "real"!

Page 4 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