Cancer.Photo chemicals. Are they linked?

Three pillars.

D
Three pillars.

  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
Water from the Mountain

A
Water from the Mountain

  • 2
  • 0
  • 30
Rijksmuseum Amsterdam

A
Rijksmuseum Amsterdam

  • 0
  • 0
  • 29
Lotus

A
Lotus

  • 4
  • 0
  • 47
Magpies

A
Magpies

  • 4
  • 0
  • 83

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
197,520
Messages
2,760,490
Members
99,394
Latest member
Photogenic Mind
Recent bookmarks
0
Joined
Oct 31, 2006
Messages
105
Format
35mm
I don't think Digital is any more friendly. Think about all those inkjet printers that are going to be thrown out once the new fandangled one that can print in ZYTP with 32CYMP comes out. There already has been a few generations to throw out. It certainly takes a lot longer for an ink cartridge to decompose than chemistry does.
 

walter23

Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2006
Messages
1,206
Location
Victoria BC
Format
4x5 Format
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?

You can probably look up the MSDS information for the components in your developer, fixer, etc.

I'm not too worried about B&W chemistry. But there are tons of historically unusual chemicals all around you that are probably in some minor way contributing to this cancer "epidemic".

There are pollutants in the atmosphere, stuff sprayed on your clothing and furnishings (fire retardents, fluorescent dyes), in your laundry (fabric softeners, fluorescent whiteners, etc), plugged into your wall or hanging in your house (air fresheners with synthetic scent molecules), sprayed on your lawns (green drop, dandelion killer, mosquito killer, etc), in your drawers and cupboards and cars (controversial preservatives like BHT, byproducts of plastics manufacturing, etc), in your cosmetics, etc. One hypothesis I've heard is that there can be complex relationships between all of these environmental factors that may not show up in individual testing of the compounds (which are necessarily limited anyway - you can't do a 30 year comprehensive study on a compound that you've developed and have to put out on the market next year to recoup your R&D costs, nevermind consider all the possible interactions with other environmental or genetic factors).

Of course one other reason for higher cancer rates is that, thanks to medicine, people aren't dying as often from diseases that used to kill us much earlier.

In any case, I'm more worried about my constant exposure to things in laundry detergent, antibacterial soaps, air fresheners, various additives and preservatives, pesticides, atmospheric pollution (I live a few blocks from a major trucking route through the city, so I'm sucking benzene and particulate soot and all kinds of awesome stuff all the time), plastics byproducts, etc, than I am worried about my odd exposure to B&W chemistry.
 

Photo Engineer

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
29,018
Location
Rochester, NY
Format
Multi Format
BTW, I have personally read the Kodak reports testing color chemistry for allergic reaction and carcinogenicity. These were extensive laboratory tests that showed little effect other than some tendancy to skin rash from some tests of certain developing agents. These are no longer used by Kodak.

Injestion tests are another matter and are best left to formal medical journals or sites. The data is there. HQ is known to cause kidney problems for example, on injestion. But, who out there is going to drink it on purpose?

PE
 

gainer

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 20, 2002
Messages
3,699
We should have learned by now that life is bad for one. The longer you are exposed to it, the more likely you are to have cancer.
 

nick mulder

Member
Joined
May 15, 2005
Messages
1,212
Format
8x10 Format
About 3 weeks ago I had an interesting photo taken of myself in Melbourne ... A PET scan ('positron emission topography') - I had radioactive glucose injected into me then rested for about an hour before being shoved into a human-sized front loader washing machine (quite like the space machine thing in 'Contact' ...)

Anyhoo, results - negative, no more fireworks in the cancer zone !

I'm off chemo and physical energy levels are at about %90 - still got some nerve pain and wotnot but its damn awesome to be away from that crap. Doc has asked to see me in a couple of months, which is a hell of a lot longer than the fortnightly visits I used to have.

So I guess now I'm a 'cancer survivor' - does that make me a good presidential candidates wife > ? :wink:
 

dlin

Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2003
Messages
2,634
Location
Illinois
Format
Multi Format
What a wonderful and inspiring personal story. Congratulations, thank you and stay well.

All the best,
Daniel
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom