Chemical safety bill

Wayne · Dec 19, 2015

The Senate has passed a much-anticipated bill proposing broad reforms to an existing chemical safety law one which environmentalists have long argued puts the American public at unnecessary risk of exposure to toxic substances.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...y-early-next-year-heres-what-you-should-know/

I hope this doesn't have trickle-down effects on photographic chemicals if it passes. I have not read the bill because my brain would go numb before finishing it. I just worry knowing the general paranoia of anything "chemical" in today's world and knowing that things that are easy to get now in the US (hydroquinone, for example)are impossible to get in other countries due to restrictions.

Hopefully someone can look into this bill more thoroughly and dispel my concerns. There's more on it here:

https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/114th-congress/senate-report/67/1

Gerald C Koch · Dec 19, 2015

Some years ago a young man with a clip-board was canvassing the neighborhood for signatures to a petition to ban chemicals. When asked what chemicals would be banned he replied "ALL chemicals."

Wayne · Dec 19, 2015

Gerald C Koch said:
Some years ago a young man with a clip-board was canvassing the neighborhood for signatures to a petition to ban chemicals. When asked what chemicals would be banned he replied "ALL chemicals."

And he was never seen again because he was banned.

Ken Nadvornick · Dec 19, 2015

Gerald C Koch said:
Some years ago a young man with a clip-board was canvassing the neighborhood for signatures to a petition to ban chemicals. When asked what chemicals would be banned he replied "ALL chemicals."

An ex-coworker of mine was once musing before her child's upcoming birthday about gift possibilities. I happened to mention I had received a chemistry set when I was about the same age as her daughter. I told her it was a wonderful learning experience hidden inside of lots of safe fun.

The look I got back was pretty much the same as the flashlight portrait from The Blair Witch Project.

"Are you crazy? I'm not trying to kill my little girl!"

I do worry...

Ken

AgX · Dec 19, 2015

Well "The Senate" is not my Senate... but Europe's photochemical industry already got problems due to restrictions on the use of some chemicals.

Wayne · Dec 19, 2015

Europe is precisely why this bill worries me. But I want to emphasize again I have no reason yet to believe this will affect us photographers in the USA, just a nagging worry that it may. I want to be proactive so if its determined this could affect some of our commonly used chemicals that we can register our objections in bulk before it becomes law.

AgX said:
Well "The Senate" is not my Senate... but Europe's photochemical industry already got problems due to restrictions on the use of some chemicals.

Wayne · Dec 19, 2015

I had to order some chemicals at work this year and my young supervisor with a science PhD held up the order for weeks. The assumption was that they were chemicals and were therefore assumed dangerous until proven otherwise; it was up to me to prove otherwise, despite the complete lack of evidence that they were dangerous. A completely back-assward way of thinking. But that's exactly the kind of thinking that will go into this bill I'm afraid. We've already seen the ridiculous restrictions some have placed on shipping small quantities of not-that-dangerous photo chemicals.

I'm sure the bill has much good in it, but its these little known things like photo chems that may get lumped in with the real hazards.

Ken Nadvornick said:
An ex-coworker of mine was once musing before her child's upcoming birthday about gift possibilities. I happened to mention I had received a chemistry set when I was about the same age as her daughter. I told her it was a wonderful learning experience hidden inside of lots of safe fun.

The look I got back was pretty much the same as the flashlight portrait from The Blair Witch Project.

"Are you crazy? I'm not trying to kill my little girl!"

I do worry...

Ken

Gerald C Koch · Dec 19, 2015

Ken Nadvornick said:
An ex-coworker of mine was once musing before her child's upcoming birthday about gift possibilities. I happened to mention I had received a chemistry set when I was about the same age as her daughter. I told her it was a wonderful learning experience hidden inside of lots of safe fun.

The look I got back was pretty much the same as the flashlight portrait from The Blair Witch Project.

"Are you crazy? I'm not trying to kill my little girl!"

I do worry...

Ken

Parents of today will tell you endlessly how concerned they are that their children attend a prestige school. How they must get an advanced degree to be successful in life. Yet they will deny their children the very things that they need to become interested in such a future. I seriously doubt that I would have ever become interested in chemistry if I had not received a chemistry set for my birthday.

removed account4 · Dec 19, 2015

nevermind

AgX · Dec 19, 2015

A permit won't help if a chemical is banned complety.

removed account4 · Dec 19, 2015

AgX said:
A permit won't help if a chemical is banned complety.

sure won't ... couldn't agree more

Theo Sulphate · Dec 19, 2015

Wayne said:
...
We've already seen the ridiculous restrictions some have placed on shipping small quantities of not-that-dangerous photo chemicals.
...

Are you ready for this?...

Earlier this year I ordered a little bottle of touch-up paint for one of my cars and the dealership said they couldn't send it to me through USPS because it was considered hazardous material. I had to drive over there to get it.

The dinky bottle is tightly sealed, in a box, with padding.

The day will come when toothpaste will have to be delivered in a van with armed guards.

paul_c5x4 · Dec 19, 2015

Theo Sulphate said:
Earlier this year I ordered a little bottle of touch-up paint for one of my cars and the dealership said they couldn't send it to me through USPS because it was considered hazardous material. I had to drive over there to get it.

An awful lot of stuff shipped by USPS and other postal services around the globe is done by air. As a consequence, what they can carry is governed by FAA & ICAO regulations. Agreed, some of the restrictions seem daft when the package is just being sent across town and is not likely to go anywhere near an airport.

gone · Dec 19, 2015

A couple of things to keep in mind. This still has to go to the House, it still has to be signed by the prez, and this article is in the Washington Post. So don't worry too much.

It's not really about the E.P.A. in this country when it comes to chemical exposure, it's about O.S.H.A.. Many years ago I worked on a study for a satellite of O.S.H.A. that reviewed and modified the P.E.L. standards (permissible exposure limits to toxic and hazardous chemicals and materials in the workplace). We surveyed 5,000 businesses in the US in order to update and improve those standards, and I and one other person tabulated and put together those results. It literally took an act of Congress to get it done, as that's required by law. The E.P.A. and F.D.A., unlike O.S.H.A., are basically owned by the food, drug, and chemical companies (who are often one and the same, which should give everyone pause).

Hey, if people are allowed to consume Roundup on a daily basis in large amounts, which is a known cancerous chemical that is genetically installed in most foods, along w/ being sprayed onto the crops that run off directly into our ground water, do you seriously think these folk are going to go against the wishes of huge players like Monsanto, Dow Chemical, G.E., and other multinationals? It's a Brave New World out there compared to the one way back when we made things safer. Now it's all about the money. When you have lived and worked in D.C. for a while (I escaped a long time ago), you soon realize that all this stuff in the media is just spin, and no matter what rules the E.P.A. dreams up, they are incompetent at enforcing. Not to mention uninterested.

Ken Nadvornick · Dec 19, 2015

Gerald C Koch said:
Parents of today will tell you endlessly how concerned they are that their children attend a prestige school. How they must get an advanced degree to be successful in life. Yet they will deny their children the very things that they need to become interested in such a future. I seriously doubt that I would have ever become interested in chemistry if I had not received a chemistry set for my birthday.

I never became a chemist. But that little chemistry set, along with the microscope my parents gave me a couple years later, along with the telescope I bought even later instead of a first car, helped instill in me a love of intellectual curiosity that has persisted to this day. At age 15 I was a regular subscriber to Scientific American because it explained to me how things in the universe really worked, even if those explanations were not always fully accessible to me at that age.

The thing I worry about most is that with the advent of the Internet, "facts" are now expected to be crowd-sourceable commodities like everything else. The uneducated with agendas (like your petition signature gatherer) can claim the mantle of legitimacy and authority simply by amassing more thumbs-ups (or signatures) than can peer-reviewed acknowledged experts in a field of knowledge.

Sadly it's a phenomenon with current wrenching examples in science, religion and politics. It even sometimes rears its ugly head within a small minority here on APUG. The long-term overall result is a less educated, less analytically-capable citizenry that often can't keep from hurting itself.

Ken

eddie · Dec 19, 2015

Ken Nadvornick said:
I never became a chemist. But that little chemistry set, along with the microscope my parents gave me a couple years later, along with the telescope I bought even later instead of a first car, helped instill in me a love of intellectual curiosity that has persisted to this day.
Ken

I never had a telescope (wish I had) but the rest of your story is close to mine. The chemistry set... the microscope... I had an Erector Set, Lincoln Logs, and Girders and Panels, too. While I never pursued any of them professionally, they did help open my eyes to the world. My early experience with the chemistry set probably had a great deal to do with my initial interest in photography. The Erector Set/ Lincoln Logs/ Girders and Panels probably influenced my interest in architectural photography.

Wayne · Dec 20, 2015

momus said:
A couple of things to keep in mind. This still has to go to the House, it still has to be signed by the prez, and this article is in the Washington Post. So don't worry too much.

I disagree. Now is the time to worry, once the President signs it it will be too late.

The House has already passed a different version of this bill 398-1. All the remains is to reconcile the two versions. Passage and signing of the bill is all but guaranteed.

The bill will undoubtedly be a good thing in many ways. There are all sorts of toxic substances in common use today that haven't been adequately studied or are known to be harmful, and there probably a lot of abuses taking place in industry that takes advantage of this fact.

But this bill seems to be also aimed at household usage of common chemicals, and preventing them from getting into household circulation. It's exactly the kind of thing that will generate massive feel-good support among the social media susceptible and chemically ignorant, which is just about everyone these days.

https://www.edf.org/health/where-are-toxic-chemicals-your-home

"Time for change

Americans are exposed to an untold a number of chemicals every day, and almost none of them have ever been adequately tested for safety. Our primary chemical safety law, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), is badly broken and hasnt been updated since 1976almost 40 years. Members from both parties in Congress are working to update the Toxic Substances Control Act. Much work remains to ensure that we have strong federal reform.

Join more than 105,000 EDF members who have voiced their support for safer chemicals in household products. By signing up, you can be part of the solution."

Sounds good on the surface and some of it certainly is, but look at the things being targeted on this page, everything from CDs to soap to the paint I used to coat my darkroom sink (with toluene in it). There is no way photographic chemicals are going to escape the sweep of this bill, given the general ignorance detailed above. If anything they will be even more demonized than household chemicals, given how green the masses think digital technology is and how filthy and out-dated wet darkrooms are considered to be even by former practitioners.

I'm definitely going to be worried about this. I'm all for holding industry or any irresponsible users accountable for actual damages to people or the environment, but I'm worried that a proactive campaign by users and the industry will be needed to prevent European-type restrictions on common photo chemicals.

removed account4 · Dec 20, 2015

i've no problem with regulations, because unfortunately people read stuff
and believe everything they read on the internet ( about how things
are harmless. ) ... there isn't much that is harmless.

most people lack common sense i'd make a laundry list
of out-there things i have seen/read on the web or heard in conversations over coffee that would make
anyone who has a respect for chemistry --- cringe

galacial acetic acid can only be shipped by ground for a reason ..
the PO doesn't want people shipping lithium ion batteries for a good reason too.

if people used to certain chemicals need to upgrade their system to make
or find something different that they can get and use i am sure the "serious photographers"
will find a way to make their photographs. other folks will do something else
because it is too much of a hassle to dispose of their chemicals properly or get what they need.

Wayne · Dec 20, 2015

While there are some like those you mention, they are a small minority and if they want to poison their family through their ignorance they will still do so if the chemicals are legally available. The only way to stop morons from being morons is to make it impossible to obtain the chemicals. You're not going to forcibly educate them through regulations on purchasing and shipping. Few photographers are that ignorant though.

Unfortunately it's the people on the other end of the spectrum who also lack "common sense" who are going to be most blindly supportive of this bill, because they don't know any better and frankly (and understandably) they don't give a damn about people like us. I don't oppose the intent of the bill, which is to provide a mechanism for regulating industry and protecting the environment and innocent people from INADVERTENT exposure to chemicals. But unless it incorporates provisions to take into account those of us who are willing, knowing, intentional users of chemicals I worry its going to be a major PIA and and possibly an impediment to the practice of traditional photography.

Here's a link about the previously passed house bill
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/06/us_rep_pallone-sponsored_chemical_bill_passes_hous.html

jnanian said:
unfortunately, the majority of people have no common sense and they need a little help
its why the post office asks you to tell what you are shipping ( liquids, perishables, fragile lithium ion batteries &c )
every time you mail something. and from time to time here on apug people email me about how to make silver nitrate
in their kitchen, or its not hard to go to you tube and see peole doing color development and dumping dichromate bleach or whatever it is
down the sink after they do it on the kitchen counter( people here on apug used to claim they did this
and they just wiped the counter down so the other people in the family could use the kitchen a few hours later to make food )
.. how becuse trace amounts of selenium in in multi vitamins it is a conspiracy that it is toxic cause it's not &c ( said by someone here on APUG who claimed she was trained as a chemist )
and a local guy who thinks it is OK to dump his KCn in his backyard because somebody told him it wasn't really as bad as people say.

i've no problem with regulations, because unfortunately people read stuff
and believe everything they read on the internet about how things
are harmless. galacial acetic acid can only be shipped by ground for a reason ..

eddie-
i also had a chemistry set, microscope, and a telescope , and when i was in high school took college level microbiology and genetics courses
with people who were allegedly involved with the manhatt. proj. and wats+crik and ... probably would have ended up in one of those fields if i didn't have such a terrible college biology professor
who was so bad, i decided i had to fulfill my interests in the outer and inner worlds through studying art and architecture.

railwayman3 · Dec 20, 2015

eddie said:
I never had a telescope (wish I had) but the rest of your story is close to mine. The chemistry set... the microscope... I had an Erector Set, Lincoln Logs, and Girders and Panels, too. While I never pursued any of them professionally, they did help open my eyes to the world. My early experience with the chemistry set probably had a great deal to do with my initial interest in photography. The Erector Set/ Lincoln Logs/ Girders and Panels probably influenced my interest in architectural photography.

I could have written that same thing word-for-word ! (except, in the UK, it was still the chemistry set and microscope, but a Meccano construction kit, and a Hornby electric train set. Then a Brownie Cresta camera, followed by Johnsons of Hendon developing kit on my birthday. )

I despaired recently, when I was told that it's fine to let children play games on the PC or playstation all day, "because it increases their computer literacy". No, it doesn't, if you really want to help, buy them a Raspberry Pi, help them learn by wiring it up and then start them on writing simple programa.....believe me, they'll be so delighted when they can programme a sequence of colored lights, or a simple timer. We didn't have this as kids, but I learned a lot about simple physics through my Dad helping me wire up a battery, a few torch bulbs and a toy motor and dynamo.

Reminiscences over, sorry a bit OT.

railwayman3 · Dec 20, 2015

Wayne said:
I had to order some chemicals at work this year and my young supervisor with a science PhD held up the order for weeks. The assumption was that they were chemicals and were therefore assumed dangerous until proven otherwise; it was up to me to prove otherwise, despite the complete lack of evidence that they were dangerous. A completely back-assward way of thinking. But that's exactly the kind of thinking that will go into this bill I'm afraid. We've already seen the ridiculous restrictions some have placed on shipping small quantities of not-that-dangerous photo chemicals.

I'm sure the bill has much good in it, but its these little known things like photo chems that may get lumped in with the real hazards.

If photo chemicals are treated as hazards, it's only logical that many household chemicals should be included. Thinking round my house and garage at random, we have bleach and cleaners, paint, glue, several medicines, lighter fuel, gas for the barbecue, petrol for the mower, and a bottle of dilute alcohol (aka vodka) ready for Christmas.....it's a wonder we're still alive !!

(Forgot the lead oxide in the crystal glasses for drinking the vodka.....)

removed account4 · Dec 20, 2015

Wayne said:
While there are some like those you mention, they are a small minority and if they want to poison their family through their ignorance they will still do so if the chemicals are legally available. The only way to stop morons from being morons is to make it impossible to obtain the chemicals. You're not going to forcibly educate them through regulations on purchasing and shipping. Few photographers are that ignorant though.

Unfortunately it's the people on the other end of the spectrum who also lack "common sense" who are going to be most blindly supportive of this bill, because they don't know any better and frankly (and understandably) they don't give a damn about people like us. I don't oppose the intent of the bill, which is to provide a mechanism for regulating industry and protecting the environment and innocent people from INADVERTENT exposure to chemicals. But unless it incorporates provisions to take into account those of us who are willing, knowing, intentional users of chemicals I worry its going to be a major PIA and and possibly an impediment to the practice of traditional photography.

Here's a link about the previously passed house bill
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/06/us_rep_pallone-sponsored_chemical_bill_passes_hous.html

from what i have read there seems to be heavy regulation on chemicals in the EU
and it doesn't seem that many of our EU photography friends have stopped making traditional photographs
( traditional going back to arcane and dangerous and toxic practices of the mid 1800s ) .. i know when i went to a
photography store a handful of years ago when i was looking for fixer, all i had to do was find a photo-store in a big city
and they had paper, film and chemistry, and like in the states, finding a store that sold chemistry seemed a bit hard to find.

with regards to the ignorance of photographers and morons, there are plenty of them, and it just takes a couple blurting out nonsense
about how xyz isn't bad for you, its ok to dispose of abc any way you want blah blah blah for people to see the words
not look any further and mix bad-stuff in the kitchen make their family sick, or polute the stream behind their house, or their well ..
on the same note, it isn't hard to find people who have no idea how to do wiring or plumbing to "code" and find that their house full of CO or burned down because
of bad wiring either ... some may claim we don't need regulations or code &c and those folks werne't meant to survive ( darwinian evolution and all that )
but as i said, im all for regulations and sometimes i wish there MORE Of them, for example, photo stores that sell darkroom chemistry should be required by law
to accept used/spent chemistry for reclamation and disposal, like stores were required to do when they sold CF bulbs to assure mercury wouldn't end up in the landfill.

DWThomas · Dec 20, 2015

It is difficult to read this thread without thinking about the hazards of dihydrogen monoxide.

But in general one is left to think the lunatics have taken over the asylum and may well get us left behind the rest of the world. I certainly favor some regulations for safety, but think it would be nice if there were some nuance and thoughtful work by people with actual expertise involved in the process.

removed account4 · Dec 20, 2015

DWThomas said:
It is difficult to read this thread without thinking about the hazards of dihydrogen monoxide.

But in general one is left to think the lunatics have taken over the asylum and may well get us left behind the rest of the world. I certainly favor some regulations for safety, but think it would be nice if there were some nuance and thoughtful work by people with actual expertise involved in the process.

you mean like a "consultant" / "lobbyist" ?

i know, what you mean about DHMO its the silent killer ..

Ken Nadvornick · Dec 20, 2015

railwayman3 said:
.....it's a wonder we're still alive !!

Heh, heh...

Ken

Chemical safety bill

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency