Cancer.Photo chemicals. Are they linked?

nick mulder · Dec 30, 2006

Well,

I've been diagnosed with Lymphoma ... Biopsy results back in the new year.

Over the last 3 years I have exposed myself to a few chemicals by accident or out of impatience, I usually wear gloves and masks especially when dealing with powder forms of chemistry, I use potassium dichromate regularly for reversal bleach but have no specific memories of inhaling it or getting it on myself but it probably has happened on at least one occasion...

Do any of the following processes, especially the alt processes not already discussed here have any known carcinogens involved ? (aside from the dichromates):

B+W film reversal
Pt/Pd (a B&S kit)
Cyanotype ('new' process)
B+W film neg and paper printing
Gum Dichromate
Photopolymer Gravure

sheesh theres even dichromate involved in the screen-printing I've done

I'm not saying that its the cause, I just want to be sure I'm not exposing myself to a steady amount of the same chemical that potentially gave me the cancer in the first place if I were to keep up my reversal developing which involves powdered dichromate

...along with all the other potential baddies in my diet and environment that is...

I'll try and be more specific as to the exact chems involved as I know there are many variants in the processes I've listed, but the page would be quite long, Its just a general query at this stage ...

thanks all for any help

Photo Engineer · Dec 30, 2006

Nick;

Very sorry to hear of your illness.

I've used dichromate since I was about 12 in the old color processes. I used it on and off ever since. Thousands of EK workers have used all of the standard B&W and color chemicals and many of the alternate process chemicals with no high incidence of cancer.

PE

nick mulder · Dec 30, 2006

hmmm,

I know its wikipedia but quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromate

"They are carcinogenic. All hexavalent chromium compounds are considered toxic and carcinogenic."

and... "it is the preferred compound for cleaning laboratory glassware of any possible organics."

Last time I smelled, I'm an organic !

I'll still use it, (I just got a new 16mm tank from Russia) but I'm going to be a hell of a lot more careful from now on ... I'll build a robot to do it for me...

Photo Engineer · Dec 30, 2006

Nick;

Yes, I'm aware of all of that information, but all I can say is that there are no unusual cases of cancer at Kodak. Just the normal distribution. In fact, most of us in research had a complete physical every 6 months as part of their surveillance program.

PE

gainer · Dec 30, 2006

Let's see: I started when I was about 12 and am now 79 going on 80. So far all my life threatening ailments have been attributable to age or microscopic organisms. There are too many other factors involved. If I develop cancer, I could just as well attribute it to living in Morgantown, WV for a number of years near a chemical plant and many coke ovens, but more of my life was spent in Webster Groves, MO. The most damaging thing I encountered there was my mother's Polish cooking, but all 5 of us kids thrived on it.

When someone dies sooner than we would like, we look for a cause and have a hard time accepting luck of the draw as a reason. Why should a curmudgeon like me live to be 80? My Polish grandfather lived to 83, that's why, and he was a glass maker most of his life. I used to play in his glass factory as a kid. Maybe I inhaled some of the same hazardous materials that let him live to that age.

nick mulder · Dec 30, 2006

Its all statistical, it really is interesting how polarizing cancer can be for peoples beliefs this way or that... I'm getting in the ear from all all directions regarding causes and remedies (which is not to infer I'm 'getting in the ear' from APUG users) - but one thing I've noticed, is that people tend to be %100 sure of things based on their experiences and observations and I suppose I cant blame them for that, a sort of WYSIWYG approach to life ...

Heres my experience:

I am 30
I have never smoked or drank regularly - there maybe have been teenage binges of drinking and a late 20's renaissance of such behaviour but they were few and far between
I have been active and fit as a rule in the type of work and fun that I partake in
I live in New Zealand - 'clean green New Zealand' they call it in tourism propaganda...

My chief concerns are this:

I have been dabbling on and off in known photography related carcinogens for 3 years now
I have eaten a lot of processed foods as a child through to adult and only in the last few years have I started learning about eating correctly

Believe me, I'm also active in other such forums (not net based tho) regarding healthy eating and its relation to cancer and I understand there is likely over a million other life factors I have just ignored but regardless of what I am being told here I'm going to keep the photo chems one on the list for now. The fact is I'll probably never know, and I'm not going to lose any sleep over it but I feel somewhat 'duty bound' to investigate at the moment

I'm still interested in hearing about Pt/Pd and the other alt processes...

(I might start another thread in the alt process forum)

jstraw · Dec 30, 2006

I'm no expert but last year my mother lost her battle with non-Hodgkins lymphoma. I know that sometimes there are direct, environmental causes of lymphoma. It amazes me how often lymphoma is listed as a possible side effect in pharmaceutical advertisements. Especially having lymphoma in my family history, I'm curious about what chemical exposures increase the risk. For me, a "luck of the draw" approach makes no sense.

DBP · Dec 31, 2006

It is human nature to look for patterns and causality in random events, which is why people play the lottery, among other things. As a cancer survivor, I spent my energies as a patient on getting better, not trying to guess which of the many possible risk factors in modern life was the cause. There are the obvious things to do to avoid certain cancers - don't use tobacco, avoid too much sun, stay fit, etc. - but beyond that, sometimes these things just happen. Hang in there, lymphomas are a lot more curable than they used to be. I have a colleague who is more than ten years past treatment for his (non-Hodgkins) and going strong.

nick mulder · Dec 31, 2006

I haven't got the biopsy back yet, but the CT scan indicated 'possibly Hodgkins type' which I believe of all the possible cancers is one of the most curable ...

It sure is an interesting time of my life keeping myself in a kind of stasis until I can find out exactly what I'm up against (some of the Lymphomas aren't so great) - I only just realized it was new years eve !

Your comment re avoiding too much sun is another one of the potentially confusing things that as a patient I find myself up against - take a look at this: http://www.mercola.com/2002/feb/23/vitamin_d_deficiency.htm

I understand that you specifically say 'too' much sun - which is also alluded to in the video as being bad also. But my point is we have people saying that sun is bad (melanoma) and people saying that sun is good ...

The distinction is clear as we are talking about two different things but I could imagine that having being diagnosed with cancer it would be easy to fall into a kind of hysteria with the flood of info coming from well meaning friends and experts that the cancer was caused by this and that, and you are wasting your (precious) time and money on this and that therapy (or not)...

Anyway, like I said - interesting times, thanks for all the comments

jstraw - sorry about your mother, so far I've only found that '(di)chromate' chemicals have a long term cancer risk, I'm not up all night flicking through medical books in a crank-fueled desperation, I'm just doodling around the internet, either way I could be wrong - Still, you might want to look into the makeups of any powder form chems you use, I suppose if your careful with gloves, mask and goggles then the chances are pretty minimal indeed, and we have plenty of anecdotal references to people having spent near a lifetime around these molecules - Nevertheless I'm investigating the use of permangenates instead of the dichromates for my reversal developing

srs5694 · Dec 31, 2006

DBP said:
It is human nature to look for patterns and causality in random events, which is why people play the lottery, among other things.

Indeed. Cognitively speaking, people are pattern-recognition machines. This is a very useful trait, but when presented with random data, we see patterns that aren't there -- like looking at clouds and seeing bunnies or rockets or whatever. There have been psychological experiments in which people rate the randomness of patterns, such as those formed by white and black marbles in glass jars. People rate the truly random patterns as being less random than certain types of non-random patterns (such as jars with fewer "clumps" of a single color of marble than occur randomly).

Statistics lesson aside, best of luck for a speedy recovery, Nick.

Photo Engineer · Dec 31, 2006

Interestingly enough, one of my technicians for years is still going strong and completely healthy after mixing and working with many chemicals over her lifetime. She has several healthy children as well.

OTOH, her husband has Hodgkins and spent his entire life as a carpenter and never even lived anywhere near Kodak.

Neither of them smoked.

Genetics, lifestyle and environment play a large part in this, I'm sure.

PE

jstraw · Dec 31, 2006

DBP said:
It is human nature to look for patterns and causality in random events, which is why people play the lottery, among other things. As a cancer survivor, I spent my energies as a patient on getting better, not trying to guess which of the many possible risk factors in modern life was the cause. There are the obvious things to do to avoid certain cancers - don't use tobacco, avoid too much sun, stay fit, etc. - but beyond that, sometimes these things just happen. Hang in there, lymphomas are a lot more curable than they used to be. I have a colleague who is more than ten years past treatment for his (non-Hodgkins) and going strong.

I'm glad you're a survivor and I don't mean any disrespect but I can only agree with you to a point. There are known carcinogens out there. The list grows. Acceptible exposure levels is an area where knowledge increases as well. You know that smoking will kill you because the link to cancer was esablished and the information was publicized. If my fixer, toner or heck, my breakfast cereal is going to give me cancer, and someone knows this...then *I* want to know this too and I want to make an *informed* decision about how I shall proceed. Shrugging and continuing in ignorance is not something I'm willing to do.

gainer · Dec 31, 2006

Who said "Life is a pre-cancerous state of existence."?

Roger Hicks · Dec 31, 2006

jstraw said:
You know that smoking will kill you because the link to cancer was esablished and the information was publicized. QUOTE]

No you don't. You know there's a statistical link. That's another matter entirely. My dear old great-granny smoked until the day she died in her late 80s, and the oldest woman in the world (a Frenchwoman who died at 120+ a few years back) was a smoker. I'm not defending smoking -- I think it's a mug's game -- but you can't GUARANTEE it will kill you.

No-one gets out of here alive: we all die of something. Cooking food creates carcinogens you don't get in raw food; the smoke in barbecues is more dangerous still. On the other hand, eating 'safe' crap (safety being based on imperfect current knowledge) may well generate enough stress and misery to kill you sooner.

All you can do is -- as you suggest -- make a REASONED guess at your own chances. I have yet to see any evidence that photo-chemistry adds significantly to the risks of cancer.

Cheers,

R.

Shelly Grimson · Dec 31, 2006

I think its a good idea to pass on helpful hints to others on how to minimize exposure to chemicals in Photography. One tip that was once mentioned was to mix powdered chemical by cutting the package open while immersed in the water and avoiding the air borne powders that would inevitable by ingested in minute quantities. I had the privilege of taking a Lith printing course with Dr. Tim Rudman and the subject of toxicity came up. He was very reassuring. Using common sense together with gloves and ventilation will more than do the job. His opinion was that the selenium in solution- then diluted was so minimal as to be of no concern if gloves were worn and disgarded before they lost their effectiveness. In his class we used latex gloves for a procedure then disgarded them after a we got to the stage of doing the 'dry' part of the work ie. selecting negs and adjusting enlargers etc. It gave me a lot of confidence that we have little to fear in the ordinary developing and enlarging processes. I didn't ask about pyro and others can give more info on that potential for toxicity but I assume that the doctor would just prescribe the same regimen for their use as all other photo chemicals.
I would like to get an opinion about one matter though. How do assure yourself that small spills in the darkroom are properly cleaned up. Its not as though you can use some kind of fluorescent light to spot stain on the floors or cabinets.

nick mulder · Dec 31, 2006

Roger Hicks said:
I have yet to see any evidence that photo-chemistry adds significantly to the risks of cancer.

Potassium Dichromate:

http://www.ilo.org/public/english/protection/safework/cis/products/icsc/dtasht/_icsc13/icsc1371.htm

"This substance is carcinogenic to humans"

It is used as an oxidizing agent in various processes. Everyone has a different interpretation of evidence, so I'm not sure if this is of interest or not.

Roger Hicks · Dec 31, 2006

nick mulder said:
Potassium Dichromate:

http://www.ilo.org/public/english/protection/safework/cis/products/icsc/dtasht/_icsc13/icsc1371.htm

"This substance is carcinogenic to humans"

It is used as an oxidizing agent in various processes. Everyone has a different interpretation of evidence, so I'm not sure if this is of interest or not.

Sure. I am aware of this. The operative word is "significantly" -- in the amounts/frequency it is used in photography. That's why I quoted the food examples too.

To quote Mike Gristwood,

"There are some things you worry about doing yourself, and some things you worry about your children doing."

I should perhaps add that my own mother died of cancer in 1974; that my wife Frances Schultz had breast cancer in 2000; and that earlier today (New Year's Eve) I was talking with one of my oldest friends, whose mother died of cancer on Christmas day. I am not unsympathetic...

Cheers,

R.

nick mulder · Dec 31, 2006

Further Reports From the Anti-Dichromate League ! (spoken in comic news-reader voice)

As an operative word 'significant' isn't very effective - I think many of the latest entries in this thread are people attempting define what is significant for them ... And you see there are many different points of view

Personally I have a big pottle of powdered pot dichromate downstairs I spoon it out regularly and mix it with water and %98.5 sulphuric acid to make a B+W reversal bleach - I have also attempted some of the rather hands-on process of Gum Bichromate printing... the name of the process in itself may lead to some clues as to what is involved here - screen-printing uses sodium dichromate - Mike Wares 'new' cyanotype process uses Ammonium Dichromate (or the oxylate which is another nasty oxidant) etc...

I haven't found any reference of dichromates used in standard B+W neg and print chemistry - but from these few examples you can see at least some alternative processes do use them, there are more...

But here. alternative is another one of those words that hard to define exactly when it comes to the distinctions people will draw for any given subject (say, photography)

I personally believe that reversal neg development isn't 'alternative' - but you may ...

btw, I'm often a 'debater' but usually more in talk than in type (afraid to be seen as an ass after the fact when it cant be retracted!) - but please understand that I am in no way offended by any comments re. cancer because I've been recently diagnosed ... Thats my bag, and I certainly cant expect anyone to not express their opinions fully because of that

Gerald Koch · Jan 2, 2007

Soeren said:
Tried on Mice and Rats.
Cheers
Søren

They developed a special breed of lab rat that develops cancer more easily to use for testing. At least for me, this reduces the objectivity of the testing.

RobertP · Jan 3, 2007

If you excersize proper darkroom and lab techniques such as, eye protection, proper respirators, protective clothing and gloves. Then all of these chemicals can be used safely. Proper chemical storage is also important. If you are not sure about something then don't attempt it and get the proper training on how to handle a specific chemical. One mishap with something like potassium cyanide that is used in the wet plate process and cancer will be your least worry. Why even use potassium cyanide when you can use Hypo instead? Just compare plates fixed with both and you'll see the difference. Sure there are alternatives to a lot of chemicals if you're willing to sacrifice what it does to the image.

Harrigan · Jan 3, 2007

Perhaps to the careful user you stand no ill effects if you use proper methods and technique, however if you live near EKC you may want to read the following. Of course every area has its own problems but I certainly wouldn't look to buy a house near Kodak Park. I dont have any association with these sites I simply present them as I found them as food for thought.

Dead Link Removed

2002 Rankings: Major Chemical Releases or Waste Generation

Photo Engineer · Jan 3, 2007

Harrigan said:
Perhaps to the careful user you stand no ill effects if you use proper methods and technique, however if you live near EKC you may want to read the following. Of course every area has its own problems but I certainly wouldn't look to buy a house near Kodak Park. I dont have any association with these sites I simply present them as I found them as food for thought.

Dead Link Removed

2002 Rankings: Major Chemical Releases or Waste Generation

Harrigan;

The private groups collecting data near Kodak Park have been largely discredited. Here are two examples that you might want to research since you point out the bad parts.....

1. They claimed a certain level of methylene chloride emissions all around Kodak Park using an amateur collection device from a company that supplies equipment to citizen watchdog groups. It turns out that the equipment used was made using methylene chloride in the polymeric collection device and was skewing the results. Pure air was turning up with methylene chloride contamination. So, the results are invalid.

2. They claimed that a red effluent from an embankment near Kodak was sludge from the Park leaking out over I-390. Analysis did show a mix of odd chemicals. When they looked more closely, it turned out it was a bloom of bacteria growing on the output of an underground spring that was near the Park and contained no effluent.

This is not to say that there is no contamination, there is. This is not to say that chemicals don't cause cancer, they can. It does say that this group has been so discredited that the Rochester public do not pay attention to them much anymore.

There is no significant rate of cancer among Kodak employees and there has not been anything above the norm detected, except a small concentration of cancers among children in one area of Rochester.

Blaming this on Kodak is a reach as there are other chemical companies in Rochester such as Xerox and some medical research companies, and we also are down wind from Buffalo. Who is to say what is what.

So, the article you cite has been acknowledged but rather ignored as being inaccurate and perhaps a bit hysterical in nature.

PE

Harrigan · Jan 3, 2007

Ok i just did a quick search on the subject, I have no association with any of it. You are probably right about the hysterical part and the amateur collecting of data. I'm only tossing in some other point of view and its not even my point of view.

I use tmax film and I am not tryiing to make some anti EKC point or anything but I was also raised in Rochester and have knowledge of the relatively poor enviro record of EKC.

The 2nd link isn't one that can be discredited is it? I beleive that is data provided by EKC themselves to be within their permitted emissions.

Photo Engineer · Jan 3, 2007

Harrigan;

I worked in and lived by Kodak Park for over 30 years. IDK what one might consider toxic or a 'bad' level of any of these chemicals. The data is from Kodak to be sure, but the 'rating' placed on them in the second URL is done by another amateur watchdog group.

Buffalo had "LOVE CANAL" where a large chemical company just dumped chemicals into the ditch out back which bordered on a housing area, and I grew up in Pittsburgh where it was dark at noontime, and you could cut the air with a knife.

So, everyone in Rochester raves about Kodak, in Buffalo they rave about Hooker and the other chemical companies (now mostly extinct) and in Pittsburgh the steel industry (now mostly extinct).

Yes, there are problems. How severe? No one acutally knows. The result is that our infrastructure in manufacturing is falling apart as the costs of doing business are increasing as controls tighten and manufacturing goes to China.

In the end, we end up with a service economy with no goods produced domestically and we end up with a declining standard of living. So, whatever the problems are with cancer, we must identify them and solve them in a manner which is economical, sane, and permits industry to survive without hysteria from a minority who think that they know what they are doing.

So, Kodak got that data, but who said the asessed values were valid? This is core to some of the problems facing industry today.

PE

uraniumnitrate · Jan 3, 2007

Just a little reminder

Now, isnt this something?

Yes, its very dangerous to be a analogue photographer so go over to digital! That is what you want dont you? Chicken!

By the way nobody wants you to live for a hundred years! They hate it. Your pension cost a lot's of money to the society! Dont you understand it?

I figured that Im more like to be dying in the hit and run car accident when composing my image in the middle of the street or falling from something in my urge to get higher to get just that picture. Or somebody hit me on the head or shut me because I just took that picture that, that somebody doesnt want me to take and so on!

To the guy who is started this!

Living in the Philippines I would rather be worried about a thousand of different other things than getting cancer of the photographic chemistry. ;.)

To others, just a little reminder!

Dont the eat fish because its poisoned.
Dont eat vegetables because they suck up hazardous chemicals from the soil or come with the acid rain from some where else as its got no borders.
Dont eat meat because the animal eats the green grass and the vegetables which are poisoned.
Dont drink the water and never take a bath either indoor or outdoor.
Move out of your house because the material they use might be dangerous for your health. Just remember asbestos.
Dont get wet because the rain contains acid. And the list is long!

But, the most important thing is dont breath! Ever! Because air is so polluted that it can really cause cancer!!!!

Now, how about that?

Cancer.Photo chemicals. Are they linked?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency