Cancer.Photo chemicals. Are they linked?

jstraw · Jan 3, 2007

To those of you that feel that any attention to safety plays right into the evil clutches of those on the digital dark side...and those of you that take the "I-could-be-hit-by-a-bus-tomorrow-so-who-cares" attitude, go ahead and thrive on your good genes or die young, as you see fit. Be sure that you teach me a really good lesson by dumping all your darkroom waste into the watershed while you're at it.

Me, I'm going to expend a little effort to choose potentially safer darkroom chemistry and processes over that which is less so, when I can. I'm just an alarmist...or a pinko...or a quisling...or something, I guess.

uraniumnitrate · Jan 3, 2007

jstraw said:
To those of you that feel that any attention to safety plays right into the evil clutches of those on the digital dark side...and those of you that take the "I-could-be-hit-by-a-bus-tomorrow-so-who-cares" attitude, go ahead and thrive on your good genes or die young, as you see fit. Be sure that you teach me a really good lesson by dumping all your darkroom waste into the watershed while you're at it.

Me, I'm going to expend a little effort to choose potentially safer darkroom chemistry and processes over that which is less so, when I can. I'm just an alarmist...or a pinko...or a quisling...or something, I guess.

We all try but not getting anywhere and what I wanted to point out is that the problem is so enormous that the getting cancer of my photochemistry not really a big issue here which Im concerned about!

I mean its funny to hear this from you as if I remember right the only so called developed country who is notoriously refuse to sign the global treaty is the USA.

As the ozone is disappearing and the fact that Im living not that far from leaking Russian atomic power plants and all those countries poisoned the earth with DDT and the acid rain from England kill our forest so believe me my little photographical chemistry is the last thing Im really worried about!

uraniumnitrate · Jan 3, 2007

Alessandro Serrao said:
Nope,
I will not use digital, I will use potassium permanganate instead.
Did you know that permanganates are way less toxic than dichromates?
Chicken!!
The remaining of your post doesn't even deserve to be answered.

PLONK.

No because you don't see the global thing of it you only worry about some patassium dichromates! I've got leaking Russian atomic power plant's just behind my back!

Roger Hicks · Jan 3, 2007

nick mulder said:
As an operative word 'significant' isn't very effective

Sorry, don't agree. It's the ONLY operative word in this context.

Alongside cancer from photo chemicals we also run a risk of being struck by meteorites. Most of us, not all, dismiss the latter as an insignificant risk. Smoking, we probably regard as a significant risk, though this does not necessarily stop us from indulging.

Cancer from photo chemicals is somewhere between meteorites and smoking. Do all the research you can; see if you regard it as significant. For obvious reasons, I know a fair number of both amateur and professional makers of photographic chemistry, and all of them, on the basis of the best knowledge available to them, do not regard the risk of cancer from photo chemicals as being significant.

You are entitled to a different opinion -- but your opinion differs only in terms of significance, which brings me back to the point that this is the only operative word.

Cheers,

R.

Photo Engineer · Jan 3, 2007

I have to agree with Roger, having been in photography since I was about 12, and being a heavy user of chemicals since then as a photographer and an organic chemist, well, risk is a chancy thing to assign.

Smoking is more risky than photographic chemistry. Studies and my own life experiences teach me that.

PE

nick mulder · Jan 3, 2007

Roger Hicks said:
Sorry, don't agree. It's the ONLY operative word in this context .... You are entitled to a different opinion -- but your opinion differs only in terms of significance, which brings me back to the point that this is the only operative word.

Maybe I'm not sophisticated enough or something but the discussions are getting a bit contentious when the reality of my personal situation with regards to this thread is the same as my first post:

Does any body have any info re. alt processes and possible carcinogens involved ??

The thread has stepped into a moral debate which would be better suited in the correct forum (I may even join in!)

Still, if I may paste the rest the sentence that you quoted from me:

"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"

...it seems like we are saying around-about the same thing ?

But since when did only = effective ?

...and if you'll excuse the histrionics - but I'm off to hospital today to have a needle ground through my hip bone to extract some marrow, I may not be able to reply until tomorrow...

Roger Hicks · Jan 3, 2007

nick mulder said:
...and if you'll excuse the histrionics - but I'm off to hospital today to have a needle ground through my hip bone to extract some marrow, I may not be able to reply until tomorrow...

Dear Nick,

Don't trouble to reply. It's not that important compared with getting well. We are, as you say, saying pretty much the same thing.

Cheers,

R.

nick mulder · Jan 3, 2007

well, I'm still here - appointment is in 3 hours

I feel a little guilty about the last post, what makes it worse is that I am fully aware of the 'no go zone' when it comes to debate, peoples health situations and the possible offense that so often results from misinterpretations - or proper interpretations I suppose, which you might hope happens to a lesser extent among us 'civilized' analog photographers... heh

off topic again but my ex-lady-partner-friend and I get into all sorts of tangles when we attempt to communicate via instant message services, arguing in CAPS about things that it turns out were never said, a phone call usually irons out the jumble of circuitous type into a script that reveals that we are agreement - I have friends were the phone/txt message problem is reversed, we are better in type ... alert the grad students!

anyways - I apologize for pulling that card ... sheesh

Roger Hicks · Jan 3, 2007

nick mulder said:
anyways - I apologize for pulling that card ... sheesh

No need to apologize. I'd be freaked as hell in your situation. Frances had breast cancer 7 years ago -- the classic HRT-linked version.

Everything is a LOT more important when it happens to you or to someone you know. But as she said, knowing what she knows now, and having had the cancer, she'd (probably) still have gone for the HRT (hormone replacement therapy) at the same age, and today would advise others the same way.

Cheers,

Roger

nick mulder · Jan 4, 2007

well,

I've been given a Hodgkins Lymphoma phamphlet (potent symbols those phamphlets) and a tentative diagnoses that this is the disease I have with me at the time...

Bone marrow biopsies are f*$%ing diabolically painful, I can laugh about it now but at the time I was swearing like a sailor (make my father proud) - Most references to the procedure that I have found so far mention 'discomfort', I think I'm a bit tired of the big needles ...

Hodgkins though - its 'the good one' ... I'm mentally tired, but content :rolleyes:

MikeSeb · Jan 4, 2007

Nick, Godspeed

Nick:

I've been following this thread with interest and concern. I'm a physician so I have some knowledge of Hodgkin's lymphoma, though I'm not an oncologist (cancer specialist.) My best friend IS an expert--he's an oncologist, and is also about twenty years out from his treatment for Hodgkin's. His experience with the disease is what led him to his specialty.

I know the natural impulse is to try to understand the "why" of your situation, when in fact that is probably unknowable. You've received a lot of well-meaning misinformation here, and ill-informed speculation about "cancer" and its causes, when for the vast majority of cancers there is no specific cause that can be identified and "blamed" for the disease.

People here, as is typical of lay people, speak of "cancer" as if it is some monolithic entity, when actually it is many different diseases, each with its own characteristics and "natural history." Some cancers have strong associations with environmental exposures--the classic examples are bladder cancers in people with industrial exposure to certain dyes and chemicals, or lung cancers in smokers--but the vast majority arise from some genetic defect in the cell that gives rise to the tumor (for Hodgkin's that origin cell is not known--some immune-system cell probably) after being triggered somehow. There's a lot we still don't know.

I urge you as much as possible not to waste your resources focusing backward, but to look forward to focus your energies on your treatment and on getting well. If there is any silver lining to your situation, it is that Hodgkin's is highly curable--we're talking 90% or better, probably. Arm yourself with information from the right sources--your doctors can point you in the right direction. That way you can be a partner in your treatment, and ask informed questions--which your doctors should welcome. (There is no conspiracy in the medical community to withhold information for some sinister purpose, despite what you might hear from some fringe whackos on the web--after all, doctors' families suffer from these same diseases.) Hodgkin's treatment is pretty standardized based on the "staging" of your disease, which will come after diagnosis is confirmed, and this information is available worldwide to all oncologists.

I wish you godspeed in this battle. It's a fight you can win--don't lose heart, we're all pulling for you. You WILL make it.

nick mulder · Jan 4, 2007

thanks for your thoughts michael

I've since learned that it was 'likely' caused by the two bouts epstein-barr I have had over the last two years anyway ... But as you say, its no use really for me in particular to dwell on this possibility or any other for that matter.

There aint no time but the present

Maybe its the way I come across in type but I did and still do understand this, I just felt a certain sense of duty to look into it, if not for me but for the others who could be potentially advised against the use of this or that chemical, especially if it was easy to do so as in the example of dichromates and permagenate ...

But I wouldn't want to set myself up as some sort of yardstick in which to compare 'exposures' which people if they wished could easily justify in the way that people do... (or dont, as many here have expressed opinions pretty much exactly the opposite)

Its unfortunately easy as I have been so idle lately to become a little obsessed with things (this thread for example) - but fear not, I wont dwell, I'm just interested cos thats who I am...

But thanks for your words, the net sure still amazes me in how it connects people like it has here

nick

p.s. As an aftethought I'd say maybe thats that for 'my little cancer discussion' I've hijacked this thread for three or so pages now.. Time to concentrate on other things (I want an 8x10 field camera so I can do larger photogravures than my 4x5, so many different types... must research)

Antje · Jan 4, 2007

nick mulder said:
well,

Bone marrow biopsies are f*$%ing diabolically painful, I can laugh about it now but at the time I was swearing like a sailor (make my father proud) - Most references to the procedure that I have found so far mention 'discomfort', I think I'm a bit tired of the big needles ...

Oh yeah... I donated bone marrow (only for science, sadly) once, and it was more than a bit discomfort. It wasn't so much the pain for me, but the drilling you can feel in every bone, and this strange sensation - as if, well, as if someone sucks your marrow out. I was amazed that the pain wasn't kept in check by the painkillers they gave me. On the first day, it was worse than the foot I broke earlier.
But it was cool to see the bone marrow cells grow and differentiate. Some of them were driven to differentiate into muscle, and they actually moved when stimulated. To see something that used to be part of my body thrive and move outside of it was very strange. Not a new experience for you guys, I wager.

And yes, hang in there. If it has to be cancer, yours is probably the cancer of choice. I did my PhD at the German Cancer Research Center and I've seen quite a few patients. You'll make it, no doubt.

Antje

noseoil · Jan 4, 2007

Nick, a dear friend of mine had Hodgkins in about 1970. He is doing well now (although still a PITA) after 35 years. Since his cure was back in the "dark ages" of treatments, your prognosis should be pretty good. Do your best to keep a positive attitude and reflect on your new-found gift of perspective. It may make the saying "don't sweat the small stuff" a simple rule to follow. Most of us choose to ignore questions of our own mortality and don't always appreciate how fortunate we are to be alive and to love.

My hope for you is that you will see more clearly into things you can photograph (oh, and that your remission will be for many, many years). Chin up buddy and please keep us posted. best, tim

nick mulder · Mar 10, 2007

lil' update:

Was admitted to hospital recently with chest pains ... X-Ray revealed that in 4 weeks of chemo my tumor had decreased in size so rapidly that the shrink itself could have caused the pain (either that or indigestion) :rolleyes:

Its amazing, I went from suffering from cancer (no sleep, fever, persistent cough etc...) to suffering from chemo exclusively in two days (barf inducing foodstuffs, sore bum, hair balls and ulcers + my white blood count is a tenth of the average - still yet to get ill (heh))

Truth is I'm really enjoying the time off, shooting, in the darkroom and/or building camera bits pretty much everyday. I think I'm more productive now than I was sans-cancer

Getting over it with the pure power of indifference

Roger Hicks · Mar 10, 2007

Dear Nick,

Great news mate -- and Frances (breast cancer in 2000) says 'all the best' too.

Cheers,

R.

nick mulder · May 19, 2007

For those of you interested...

Quick 'cancer' fact update:

Tumor # 1 has shrunk from 12cm to 6cm
Tumor # 2 has shrunk from something small to something smaller by the
same factor as tumor # 1

These are just linear measurements - the volume I don't know exactly,
but with the cube factor and wotnot it means they are well smaller
than half the original size ...

I have another CT in 2 months - if the results show no further
shrinkage then doc's will airmail me to Australia to have a
sugar-coated PET photocopy/scan made of my insides to confirm its just
scar-tissue left over ...

If that come out all fancy and 'dark' in the right spots then my chemo
will be reduced to a 6 month treatment and that means I will have no
more from that point on (and the 8 month trial I'm on to be compared with another chemo regime (BEACOPP) will become void, but the doc
is happy with that for my sakes).

As for me, as opposed to my insides which to a major extent really have
nothing to do with my daily existence... Well it aint all so rosy, but
certainly not dire:

Veins: pain, pain, pain from the D of ABVD I think (I've lost
interest in finding out to tell you the truth)

Brain: I seem to have developed a bit of a fog for small details
(usually trivial) - and on occasion jumble up saying things - I
referred to someones degree in set design the other day as having
'first ass honors' - This case and in general usually results in
laughter so I'm ok with it and I dont seem to have lost any creative
or 'mechanical' thinking ability - I just get odd looks from people a
little more often than I used to ...

Poo's : take a while

Nausea: off and on - more off than on - sense of smell and taste
augmented to super-hero levels which goes hand in hand with the associative nausea/yuckiness I get with alcohol and disinfectants

Mouth: Ulcers gone! got them for a month, now I have zero - get funny
tastes all the time tho, not pleasant

General: shooting pains all over my extremities and associated loosing
sleep over it

Hair: Still fully intact ! a little thinner, but only those who
really know me notice that - Doc has noted I am on the outer limits of
the 'normal curve' for more than a few factors the most pleasing being
the cancers response to the chemo

Me: working 40-50 hour weeks - pretty much 7 days though so there is
usually relaxy timeys involved in each day - many projects on the go, film, sound and theatre related ... Spending much more time on my own lately though after having had a very social periods recently

end cancer fact update*********

Neal · May 20, 2007

Dear Nick,

It is good to hear that the arrow is generally pointing up. Good luck for your continuing recovery.

Neal Wydra

Changeling1 · May 20, 2007

Back in the day-

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?

15 or 20 years ago. There was a rumor that photo chemicals prevented the on-set of AIDS. Supposedly contact with "all those chemicals" did a number on the HIV virus. Never heard exactly which chemical contained the medicinal miracle or if it was a combination of several.

A good rule of thumb though is to make sure your darkroom is well ventilated and that you wear gloves when working with photo chemicals.
Metol poisoning can be very unpleasant.

Jim Noel · May 21, 2007

I have been mixing my own chemistry for 70 years. I am knowledgeable and careful about my mixing procedures. I wear protective gear especially when working with powders which are likely to emit a lot of dust. In the past I made my own selenium toner by boiling the selenium powder slowly for hours outdoors.
I am still pretty healthy for person nearing 80.

If a person is knowledgeable and uses good work habits with chemicals they can be handled and mixed safely. If not - watchout!

radiantdarkroom · May 21, 2007

Color chemicals are more cancer causing than B&W, except for the B&W bleach if you do trans. Opt for permagenate rather than dichromate. Doesn't work as well as dichromate but is less damaging to the ecosystem. Do all you can to minimize exposure, wear gloves, glasses, and use ventilation. Of course the least exposure is to not do it yourself.

But you may be getting cancer form a photo lab effluent or photo manufacturer any how, so I suggest doing it yourself since you will be missing out on the fun.

Photo Engineer · May 21, 2007

radiantdarkroom said:
Color chemicals are more cancer causing than B&W, except for the B&W bleach if you do trans. Opt for permagenate rather than dichromate. Doesn't work as well as dichromate but is less damaging to the ecosystem. Do all you can to minimize exposure, wear gloves, glasses, and use ventilation. Of course the least exposure is to not do it yourself.

But you may be getting cancer form a photo lab effluent or photo manufacturer any how, so I suggest doing it yourself since you will be missing out on the fun.

Can you quote a reliable source for this?

I have worked with color chemicals and R&D for over 30 years and would be quite interested in learning something new.

Thanks.

PE

Photo Engineer · May 21, 2007

Nick;

I'm so glad to hear that things are on an upturn for you.

All the best.

PE

radiantdarkroom · May 22, 2007

I most likely didn't say this properly, I have inferred a lot of info from what I have read in material safety data sheets. There are way more ugly, nasty chemicals in the E6 process than a standard B&W chemistry, in particular the Bleach, Reversal and Color Developer. I know a lot can be done to lessen the affects on the environment, but eventually the effluent has to go somewhere especially when a pro lab has to dump the Reversal and Pre-Bleach every two weeks in dip and dunk machine. And if the Fix has to be dumped(I think holly F***, poor fishes, I hope your kidney's are working well today)

I have no direct quotes except my own experience working in a pro-lab and as a photographer/artist.

Photo Engineer · May 22, 2007

radiantdarkroom said:
I most likely didn't say this properly, I have inferred a lot of info from what I have read in material safety data sheets. There are way more ugly, nasty chemicals in the E6 process than a standard B&W chemistry, in particular the Bleach, Reversal and Color Developer. I know a lot can be done to lessen the affects on the environment, but eventually the effluent has to go somewhere especially when a pro lab has to dump the Reversal and Pre-Bleach every two weeks in dip and dunk machine. And if the Fix has to be dumped(I think holly F***, poor fishes, I hope your kidney's are working well today)

I have no direct quotes except my own experience working in a pro-lab and as a photographer/artist.

Just FYI, the E6 bleach, C41 bleach and RA blix have many of the same ingredients used in Miracid, a plant fertilzer but in higher concentration and missing the copper used by many plants.

Therefore, before silver removal, the bleaches, blixes and fixes are actually usable in dilute form as plant fertilizer and are quite friendly ecologically. The big problem is BOD and COD (the amount of oxygen consumed from water as they decompose, which thereby affects aquatic life.

Color developing agents are similar in effect to Metol or Hydroquinone. E6 uses a less toxic form of 2 developing agents.

So, overall, color chemistry is basically higher in BOD and COD, and not much more. Now, I will add that the E6 reversal bath is not too good as it contains stannous chloride which is not one of the best things to handle, but it is not that bad when handled correctly. Tin, after all, is an essential metal for all life and is just harmful if present at high concentrations.

So, I believe that the eco friendly people have a point but only up to a point. You can't accuse wet photography without pointing an admonishing finger at digital. The inks used in digital printing are certainly not benign, nor are the chemical processes which manufacture them and the digital equipment.

I could go on, but why bother. We are subject to so many unpleasant environmental influences. A new carpet could put out more toxins in your home than any photo chemical you might use. That 'new car smell' is the excess plasticizer and vinyl chloride present in the upholstery. You probably inhale more of that luxuriating in your new car, than you inhale of your photographic chemicals.

PE

Cancer.Photo chemicals. Are they linked?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency