Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post
hi ron

im well aware that kodak was a gigantic polluter and has since cleaned up their act
( although their campus is a white elephant because of all the toxins )
what i was getting at was that since the first photographs made through chemical means
plenty of people have had health problems ( to say the least ) because of whatever process
or materials were used at the time ... and while analoggers want to always point the finger
and say how terrible electronic photography is, how the landfill is filled with
old cameras and printers and media involved with it, they forget the legacy of chemical photography
whether it is upfront-user based or back end, materials-based.

what i was getting at is both sides have a pretty bad record ...


Kodak kept very precises figures on the health of its workers and they kept statistics on us as well. I had blood tests every 6 months while doing chemical work in the lab. The results showed that there was no statistical difference between EK workers and those anywhere else. No bumps in cancers or in skin rashes! Yes, I have seen rashes in photographic circles, but I saw poinson ivy with boy scouts!

As for ecological impact, take a look at what can be done with a landfill with a little effort!