Cancer.Photo chemicals. Are they linked?

Gerald Koch · Oct 20, 2006

All the common darkroom chemicals can be used safely with a bit of care. This involves wearing protective gloves when necessary, having good ventilation, etc. There are numerous books and other materials with information. Published MSDS's are invaluable. Of course, if you are a klutz then perhaps digital photography was meant for you.

Photo Engineer · Oct 20, 2006

Alessandro Serrao said:
Yes, I agree if we are speaking about the common chemicals only.

I use a LOT of uncommon chemicals and I still feel that use of proper safety equipment will prevent problems. At Kodak, very few chemicals were treated with extreme caution. They include selenium compounds, mercury compounds, cadmium compounds, cyanides and the current hardener.

All of them have been eliminated from current usage except the hardener, and it is consumed entirely during the coating operation.

I believe that A&T state that Pyro is the most toxic chemical that is currently in broad use.

PE

MikeSeb · Oct 20, 2006

This thread reminds me of my ongoing amazement at the woeful ignorance of the general public in assessing relative risks. Nothing personal meant towards the original poster.

Pyro is the most toxic chemical in general use in a darkroom; it has been associated with kidney and liver disease, not specifically cancer to my knowledge (haven't seen the MSDS). Handled carefully, it's not an issue.

As an anesthesiologist, I talk to people every day about risks and benefits of surgery and anesthetics. The same people who are insensate with fear at undergoing an anesthetic (for which their mortality risk is on the order of 1/100,000-1/250,000) think nothing at all of smoking, drinking to excess, carrying 50-100 extra pounds, avoiding exercise like the plague, or driving cars (sometimes all at once.)

It's enough to make you weep.

john_s · Oct 20, 2006

Photo Engineer said:
........ At Kodak, very few chemicals were treated with extreme caution. They include selenium compounds, mercury compounds, cadmium compounds, cyanides and the current hardener.

All of them have been eliminated from current usage except the hardener, and it is consumed entirely during the coating operation.

PE

Is selenium eliminated? There are some formulas for selenium toner which we might have to start using if KRST disappears.

I notice that the vitamin and mineral tablet that I take daily includes 25mcg of selenium. Maybe a splash or two of toner on the skin might be a useful adjunct to a deficient diet?

Photo Engineer · Oct 20, 2006

john_s said:
Is selenium eliminated? There are some formulas for selenium toner which we might have to start using if KRST disappears.

I notice that the vitamin and mineral tablet that I take daily includes 25mcg of selenium. Maybe a splash or two of toner on the skin might be a useful adjunct to a deficient diet?

Just to reaffirm this, selenium is an essential chemical for body well being. It is the least toxic of the ones I list. It is useful in small doses, but rapidly becomes toxic. Just as many chemicals, it is good in one range and a poison in another.

FYI, Tellurium, the next analog on the periodic chart was abandoned by EK due to its exreme toxicity. It was just introduced by Fuji as its new sensitizer and in answer to Kodak's 2 electron sensitization. In my opinion, this is worse than selenium, as tellurium is not an essential chemical and far more toxic. In fact, it is toxic at all concentrations in a manner similar to cyanide, which is never safe.

One smart thing EK did!

PE

Aggie · Oct 20, 2006

pyrogallic acid is one of the components of red hair dye, (I'm screwed). It is toxic if it is breathed in in the powder form. When mixed into solution it is not dangerous. Don't drink it, it still has effects, but splashing it on yourself or being in the same room with the solution will not harm you. Selenium is a trace mineral we need for healthy bodies, especially if you are diabetic. Most and I mean a big part of the population does not get enough in their diet. The amounts you would be exposed to in the darkroom and how you would be exposed is not anough to even compensate for the general defieceny most people have.

What is disturbing is that most of the chemicals we deal with are toxic if you are in a room with mass quanities day in and day out for years. Some again are more nasty and it only takes a short exposure. We do not work with toulene. Proper precautions and good common sense are best. Hell one of the additives to Dr. Pepper sodas was anitfreeze. A more dangerous activity chemcial wise is cooking.

copake_ham · Oct 20, 2006

Shakti V. said:
I mix my own chemicals now. It just worries me, because as of the recent
reports, the rates of cancer are rising. Would you know if exposure to
photographic chemicals, from the raw chemicals to the pre-packed chemicals
that we use, could trigger, or contribute to the development of cancer- -any
kind of cancer?

How old are you? Exposure to certain carcinogenics will depend on age.

Oh, and I do not know what you mean by saying "rates of cancer are rising".

Which ones? And where?

Once rising, rates of lung cancer incidence in the USA are now declining because more and more people have stopped (or not started) smoking tobacco and the oldies are dying off.

Beginning in the 1970's in the USA, the rate of breast cancer among women was rising - but much of that was attributable to awareness and increasingly successful early detection.

Statistics can be useful or foolish.

Petzi · Oct 20, 2006

Cancer is related to computer manufacturing:

http://www.ehjournal.net/content/5/1/30

Alex Bishop-Thorpe · Oct 21, 2006

If you're not completely reckless in a darkroom you should have no problems at all, as others have mentioned. I have an increased sensitivity to most things because of a weak immune system early in life, but I've been able to develop my own film and so on without issue, even without gloves, mask or goggles on hand. I didn't have any reaction at all, but that doesn’t mean I don’t still wear them regularly. It's also just silly not to when dealing with powdered chemicals. Common sense seems to be the major part of it, really.

I posted a similar topic a few months ago with my own concerns, and got basically the same replies. The community knows what it's talking about or they'd probably all be rather dead from downing a liter of exhausted fixer on a dare, and no one wants to give up their cameras just yet.

benjiboy · Oct 21, 2006

Why worry, in the final analysis we all have to die of something,

Uncle Bill · Oct 21, 2006

Considering my dad passed on from lung cancer last year and colen cancer runs in my mom's family, the disease is sort of top of mind for me.

I am not worried about photo chemicals, I am more worried about my exposure to second hand cigarette smoke when I was younger (I didn't smoke, my parents did), household chemicals and pollutants in the atmosphere. I work out 4 days a week, get a good night sleep and I watch what I eat, so I am not too worried.

Bill

Papa Tango · Oct 21, 2006

Bottom line on cancer. Some individuals are genetically predisposed to certain types of cancer, or are "sensitive" to certain types of chemicals that are known to be carcinogenic. Not only is cancer on the rise, but so is juvenile diabetes and any number of behavioral disorders that statistically may be linked to changes in the American food processing and preparation cycle, as well as increases in chemical usage in everyday life.

Better living through chemistry has disrupted our environment, our diet, and the metabolisms of many of the food animals and plants that we eat. Many of the implications are buried in endless scientific debate and pressure from a variety of industries. What a surprise. BTW, all of this is also linked to obesity and a variety of allergic and immune suppression disorders.

Photographers have been in the darkroom now for over a century and a half. Early on, things like mercury were a real hazard. For the past 50 years, the photographer that did not mix up specialized reducers and intensifiers has been at little risk of any chemical health issues. Yes, some people become sensitized to certain chemicals. This is not unusual, for even farmers become sensitized to fertilizers and other chemicals they use. Again, bottom line, the rates of cancer for the photographic industry are not historically increased over the general population. Todays stock chemicals are even more harmless than the custom stuff many mixed up a generation or so ago. Most photo chemicals break down to elemental salts, and are relatively harmless in the environment. Silver recovery is easy, see some threads here.

Quit worrying. There is some evidence that continued stress sets up certain physiological conditions that can lead to opportunistic diseases...

Aggie · Oct 21, 2006

The real kicker is that we all carry the cancer genes. What activates them in each of us is as different as each of are to the next person. The sun is the worst contributor to the increase in cancer. When you think of increase in cancer's, also remember so has the population increased. Or is there just better detection now to identify what was the real cause?

Buster6X6 · Oct 21, 2006

Aggie said:
The real kicker is that we all carry the cancer genes. What activates them in each of us is as different as each of are to the next person. The sun is the worst contributor to the increase in cancer. When you think of increase in cancer's, also remember so has the population increased. Or is there just better detection now to identify what was the real cause?

I agree with Aggie. No one in my family had cancer. In March of this year after regular PSA test I was diagnosed with prostate cancer,( no symptoms prior the test) Which is coming out in December. So you really never know and I think a little bit of chemicals that are diluted and splashed on your hands are minimally going to affect if you going to get a cancer or not.

Cheers Greg

Photo Engineer · Oct 21, 2006

Alessandro Serrao said:
Just because YOU take care in handling toxic compounds doesn't automatically mean that EVERY photographer will do the same.

I countinue to repeat: why use certain chemical compound while there's a safer substitute for them (the example of dichromates).

And, no, the dichromates are the most dangerous chemical compounds around in a darkroom (along with everything that can release cyanide gasses).

Allesandro;

I did stress the point "with proper protection" in my comment, so I agree that safety must be a consideration.

As for Dichromates, my current information lists them as corrosive poisons rather than systemic poisons. A corrosive poison is one that causes ulceration or dissolution of skin and membranes with which it has contact. A systemic poison is one that disrupts our chemistry of life.

Cyanide is a systemic poison. Table salt in high concentration is a systemic poison. Asprin is a corrosive poison in high concentration. It causes stomach ulcers first and foremost, and then it is a systemic poison inhibiting blood clotting and causing extreme bleeding. So, there are chemicals that are both.

Dichromate dust burns nasal passages and will burn the hands and eyes. With good preventitive measures, harm in the darkroom can be prevented. For years it was used as a bleach in reversal B&W and color processes without severe consequences.

Chrome in the environment is a concern though in and of itself. Dichromates were eliminated mostly from an environmental standpoint to eliminate the contamination by chrome itself and the oxidizing power of the dichromate, but not the dichromate per se. Most of the chrome salts I looked up had rather moderate LD50 doses.

I have seen your statement about dichromates abound in the photo literature on the internet, but I can find no authoritative source for such statements about its toxicity.

PE

haris · Oct 21, 2006

Do you people talk about raw chemichals or ...?

For example, I have very small and prety much useless ventilation in my bathroom, that is my darkroom. No window, only small (20x30cm) "hole" on the wall, which is ventilation. (I live in apartement building). When mixing chemicals I wear gloves and mask, and try to mix them on my balcony. But, when I am developing film, or process papers, I do not wear them. If I accidentaly split chemicals on me (mostly on my hands) I imidiately wash that part of body with running water.

So, do you talk about raw chemicals or you talk also about mixed working solution of film/paper developer, fixer, stop batw and washaids.

How dangerous are already mixed working solutions of b/w chemicals, used in developing tank or paper trays?

Photo Engineer · Oct 21, 2006

haris said:
Do you people talk about raw chemichals or ...?

For example, I have very small and prety much useless ventilation in my bathroom, that is my darkroom. No window, only small (20x30cm) "hole" on the wall, which is ventilation. (I live in apartement building). When mixing chemicals I wear gloves and mask, and try to mix them on my balcony. But, when I am developing film, or process papers, I do not wear them. If I accidentaly split chemicals on me (mostly on my hands) I imidiately wash that part of body with running water.

So, do you talk about raw chemicals or you talk also about mixed working solution of film/paper developer, fixer, stop batw and washaids.

How dangerous are already mixed working solutions of b/w chemicals, used in developing tank or paper trays?

I use rubber gloves when processing, to prevent contact with solutions in the trays or tanks. I wear a lab coat to prevent contamination of clothing.

We wash all darkroom related clothes, rags and labcoats in a separate run of laundry at my home.

PE

DeanC · Oct 21, 2006

Aggie said:
The sun is the worst contributor to the increase in cancer.

And, interestingly, there's some evidence that vitamin D (which the skin manufactures in the presence of sunlight) deficiencies may be implicated in certain kinds of cancers. So, like some of the chemicals in the darkroom, no sun is probably bad, some is probably good, too much is probably bad...

Alex Hawley · Oct 21, 2006

Ryan McIntosh said:
Pretty much EVERYTHING causes cancer today. Just by being outside in the sun you can get skin cancer! So, yeah...just dont be bathing in your chemicals and make sure your darkroom in vented.

For some odd reason, I've seen several products labled "Causes cancer in California"; latex wall paint being one of them. Makes me a liitle more happy to not live in California.

Photo Engineer · Oct 21, 2006

Alessandro Serrao said:
Dichromates (Cr in its +6 oxidation number - hexavalent chromium) are carcinogens. This site explains it well... http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/hexavalentchromium/recognition.html
Anyone has seen the film "Erin Brockovich"?

Thanks for the information.

My source only had the bottom part of that page, not the information above it.

PE

Aggie · Oct 21, 2006

Alessandro Serrao said:
Dichromates (Cr in its +6 oxidation number - hexavalent chromium) are carcinogens. This site explains it well... http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/hexavalentchromium/recognition.html
Has anyone seen the film "Erin Brockovich" lately?
It's a good film to see, about cancer and Cr6+.

Before this fear goes much further, 6 molecules of chromium will make a benzene ring. This is and has always been known to be a carcinagin. 2molecules of chromium do not a benzene ring make as an example if you have 6 tinker toy round woo pieces you can usually make a ring linking them together with the little sticks. With two wooden sticks, you are missing two thirds of the structure. Now it seems what is being touted here is that chromium is dangerous no matter what. No it is not. In fact we need Chromium picolate in order for our pancrease to properly work and insulin to be manufactured. As for cyanides, they are dangerous if you mix them with acids. That is when the lethal gas is give off. Cyanide's with out the presence of a acid are not lethal. Again people use precautions. Do not stand knee deep in the stuff. Do not breathe in the powdered forms by snorting it. The amounts we use are small. We are not in the manufacturing of film bases, nor the manufacturing of the papers. Those are the industries that have constant prolonged exposure that the OSHA guidelines talk about. Notice if you read it all that it states prolonged exposure. That exposure is like the people in the Movie Erin Brokovich that has been mentioned that were inside of tanks without proper clothing and ventilation scrubbing that crap out of the insides. They were the ones that sufered. Also in that movie the Hexavalent form of chromium not the dichromate form was found to have been massively dumped into the water supply which the people were drinking. Fear of chemicals and passing on fear of a word is just going to make people scared needlessly. Learn about what you fear so that you can be better informed. Before I took 3 years of college level chemistry I too believed the fear. Then I found out a lot of it is needless and things we should fear, are being covered up ie in the food industry.

For the darkroom use gloves if you deal with nasty stuff or have sensitivities. As we age we have a lessened ability to ward off those sensitivities. That is why we develope allergies later in life. Use a respiratior when handling any powdered chemical. Wear a nice apron when doing the darkroom. If for no other reason you won't end up with nice brown stains on everything. Most of all enjoy your photography. Tomorrow you might step off a curb and be hit by a car or metorite, or a passing train, or your neighbors kid on their bike. Who knows.

copake_ham · Oct 21, 2006

I think it also important to keep the perspective that in many instances, cancer only develops later in life.

In earlier eras, when life expectancy was shorter, cancer was not as great a cause of death as it might now be.

People died of communicable diseases that we now control with vaccines (e.g. smallpox). Or, in a more labor-intensive era they died in industrial or agricultural accidents etc.

Now, as people live longer, they are more likely to die of diseases of older age groups such which cancer, stroke and heart disease.

Finally, the truth of the matter is simply that we are all going to die - no one escapes that fate. Concern and precaution about exposures are wise - but fear and preoccupation is dangerous too.

Photo Engineer · Oct 21, 2006

Aggie, dichromate is hexavalent CrVI. Count the charges yourself.

There is a lot of disagreement over this though. It seems that the counter ion is very significant here such as nickle chromates vs potassium chromates.

I'm still pondering this.

PE

Papa Tango · Oct 22, 2006

Then Don't!

Once upon a time back in the stone age, dichromate intensifier components were right on the shelf next to Farmer's Reducer. Many times, this solution of dichromate and hydrochloric acid did not give the desired result, because it is a proportional intensifier, meaning that it acts on the heaviest silver deposits first and then the thinner parts. Usually, we are wanting to get the thinner parts up to snuff in the first place. All we ended up with was a really contrasty and almost lith like negative.

The alternatives were mercury and silver intensification. The silver nitrate method always worked better, because it affected the entire negative. Still, one cannot get detail out of a seriously underexposed negative. Selenium toning is always an option as well. If all you are trying to do is eke a little more overall density out of a mildly underexposed neg, use the selenium and forget about the rest. Go shoot it over or forget about it...

Some even used the dichromate to intensify prints. This worked best on AZO and some of the great doubleweight chlorobrom papers that are now long gone. Again, either print it over or selenium tone to achieve greater depth. I can think of no real reason anymore with today's films to use chromium for any purpose except toning. Wear gloves, dont drink the solutions, and quit worrying...

Ole · Oct 22, 2006

Aggie said:
Before this fear goes much further, 6 molecules of chromium will make a benzene ring. This is and has always been known to be a carcinagin.

Aggie - please.

There is no chromium in benzene rings, not does chromium form 6-atom rings. A benzene ring is a ring of six carbon atoms with a special type of bonds between them. No other element than carbon can form these bonds. There are other 6-atom carbon rings too which are not benzene, due to the lack of covalent bonds.

Also in that movie the Hexavalent form of chromium not the dichromate form was found to have been massively dumped into the water supply which the people were drinking. Fear of chemicals and passing on fear of a word is just going to make people scared needlessly. Learn about what you fear so that you can be better informed. Before I took 3 years of college level chemistry I too believed the fear.

Let's count the charges: Potassium dichromate is K2Cr2O7. Each K is 1+, each O is 2-. That's 14- + 2+ = 12- . So each of the two Cr must be 6+ to balance the charges. Hexavalent = 6+!

I'm tempted to suggest you retake your college level chemistry...

Cancer.Photo chemicals. Are they linked?

haris

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency