Analog & digital photography and our environment

[Andy K]

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.

 

[Gary Holliday]

I'm sure Mother Nature would agree, she needs money. I hope those new carriers will keep the Argies at bay!

 

[AgX]

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.

 

[film_guy]

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.

 

[removed account4]

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 ...

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

 

[Photo Engineer]

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

 

[removed account4]

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 ...

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

 

[removed account4]

ari

you rock!

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...

 

[Photo Engineer]

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

 

[copake_ham]

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!

 

[removed account4]

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

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

 

[Photo Engineer]

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

 

[copake_ham]

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.

 

[Lee L]

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

 

[copake_ham]

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"!

 

[AgX]

That toner cartridge: Even about 7 or 8 years ago at the local Staples shop I could choose between a new (Canon) or a used (from a refurbishing company) cartridge for my Canon Copy Mouse.

Yes, there will be many Apug members around who have no acccess to any kind of recycling or breakdown service. But the same time I learn that there are more and more facilities arising even in the USA which here is considered a synonyme for throw-away.
Yes, that system of waste separation with already a dozen heaps or so in German homes costs a lot of money. But the German Joe has no legal way to evade this and thus has to pay. Thus as a German Joe I use this system to get rid of my lab waste.
I imagine that fewer people would do so in case they had to pay per item they deliver. Here, in many cases one has to pay extra for even very small amounts of building debry, thus still seeing it dropped illegally somewhere.

 

[Andy K]

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.

The total percentage of CO2 in the planet's atmosphere is 0.054%. Human activity makes up less than 1% of that 0.054% (or 0.00054% total atmospheric CO2). If you want to slow global warming you would be better off boiling less water: 95% of greenhouse gas is water vapour.
I am more concerned about billions of households using billions of mercury containing lightbulbs and the future disposal/pollution problem this will cause.

 

[wclavey]

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

Are there plans that you could reference or point us to that show how someone could construct such a 'scrubber'? ...something that someone with an access to a local or virtual Home Depot could construct?

 

[removed account4]

westly,

the filtration system PE mentioned --- he also suggested was inefficient.
a waste hauler can sell you a "ironcore" trickle tank.
it will last for several years, and get you down to between 1 and 3 parts / million which is where you want to be.
don't look for anything but "ironcore" filters because the other ones channel.
that means, if you don't run liquid through the filter all the time, the filter dries out, and doesn't work right.

a trickle tank is basically a big filter, not a double bed filter that PE suggested, but
a simple metalic filter. you pour your spent fixer and washwater
into it, and it removes the silver, replacing the silver with iron. when it is "spent" you can bring it to your hauler for replacement.

 

[Kino]

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

(this should land me on a few more ignore lists)

I always find it fascinating that "Joe" is someone else and not the poster.

Fact of the matter is, either you are responsible and treat the World properly, instructing by example, or you don't.

Sorry, don't mean to pick on you specifically, but the automatic assumption that "common" people don't care is, frankly, an elitist viewpoint that is also defeatist.

In the the USA, people are saturated with the culture of convenience. but it seems to me that if you give them a convenient way to be environmentally responsible, most at least try to be responsible.

Yes, a lot of recycling bins probably wind up in a landfill and mismanaged, but the alternative is automatic and absolute pollution without those potential processes. Were "Joe" so incredibly apathetic as you state, the programs would hardly exist at all.

I think a lot of blame for irresponsible pollution should be laid at the feet of consumer advertising; they spend 99% of their advertising time telling you, you "must have and use this" and 1% of their time urging you to use their products "responsibly".

Yes, the consumer should have some knowledge of the product and the consequences of their misuse, but when corporations place profit margin above and beyond public safety, you wind up with flashy commercials of grinning socialites promoting toxic chemicals to be sprayed on dandelions (rather than bend their lazy ass over and pull it out) and all caution buried in impenetrable leagaleeze and tiny print disclaimers on the container.

That is why you find a toxic witches brew of chemicals no rational chemist would store next to one another in garage and garden shed cupboards across the USA, and I would assume to a lesser extent, the rest of the World.

Yet, because you don't have Kodak or Illford on the TV every 10 minutes showing a socialite plucking a fiber print from an archival washer just prior to "hitting the town", most people I know who are not photographers make the automatic assumption that photochemicals are just short of biological warfare in your basement.

It all comes back to the ignorance of the public on basic physical and chemical properties of everyday objects and solutions.

Just today, the TV "news" shows (and I do say that tongue in cheek) here in the USA are jibbering and pointing their fingers at a fire in Dallas, Texas where they are astounded and shocked at a fire in a propane dealer that caused massive damage in a inner city area. Sadly, it seems several people lost their lives when natural gas cylinders were somehow ignited and started to explode, but it seems their shock and dismay is reserved little for the victims, but much for the fact that such a facility would be located inside the city limits of a large metro area.

Yet, these are undoubtedly the same people who will complain bitterly if they cannot run down to the local quickie mart and pick up a bottle of natural gas for their home grill.

Yeah, that rack full of 40 x 15 gallon LPG tanks are totally inert until you transport home to grill then it becomes magic burger juice...

In the end, traditional photochemical practice appears to only survive through inertia and the apathy of the public; certainly NOT because of an educated opinion.

It would seem the only way we could ever win the right to exist is through education of the general public and easy availability of reasonably convenient methods of environmentally sound chemical disposal.

PE is that resin bed a trade secret?

 

[Jim Jones]

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.

Sometimes reusing is better than recycling. I've refilled my HP laser toner cartridges for many years. Refilled cartridges suffice for most uses. Likewise, instead of recycling tin cans and plastic and glass bottles and buying them back as remanufactured products, they can be used or adapted in many applications. Sixtyfive years ago, when America didn't have the option of dumping our waste overseas, we said, "Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without." That saves money and the environment today, too.

 

[Photo Engineer]

westly,

the filtration system PE mentioned --- he also suggested was inefficient.
a waste hauler can sell you a "ironcore" trickle tank.
it will last for several years, and get you down to between 1 and 3 parts / million which is where you want to be.
don't look for anything but "ironcore" filters because the other ones channel.
that means, if you don't run liquid through the filter all the time, the filter dries out, and doesn't work right.

a trickle tank is basically a big filter, not a double bed filter that PE suggested, but
a simple metalic filter. you pour your spent fixer and washwater
into it, and it removes the silver, replacing the silver with iron. when it is "spent" you can bring it to your hauler for replacement.

It is inefficient due to the cost of the units sold commercially vs their capacity. They are designed for low levels of salts. But basically, you just run the chemistry through a standard carbon/resin filter available from the local hardware store for removing (filtering) material from your water. It is a deionizer in essence.

The one I designed at EK was high capacity and used a mixed bed ion exhchange resin to remove both positive and negative ions and also an organic resin to remove all organics. It was much more efficient, but the store bought ones can do the job in a pinch.

PE

 

[Photo Engineer]

Kino;

The resin I used is commercially available, but I've forgotten the names of the 3 resins used. I may be able to dig them up. It is not a trade secret.

PE

 

[removed account4]

(this should land me on a few more ignore lists)

I always find it fascinating that "Joe" is someone else and not the poster.

i just used the name instead of typing in "what's his face"
i mean no disrespect to any of the joe's out there

 

[Kino]

Kino;

The resin I used is commercially available, but I've forgotten the names of the 3 resins used. I may be able to dig them up. It is not a trade secret.

PE

We used a cation exchange resin on the Lipsner Smith Film Cleaning machines; wonder if that was one of them?

Found this: http://www.massengineers.com/Documents/PDF/ion excangers.pdf
any relevance to our topic?