jsmithphoto1
Allowing Ads
Where is the real danger, here? That is my question.
The danger is not necessarily chemical. The danger is hysteria and overreaction by the uneducated. It's a paralyzing fear of everything in an era of willful ignorance, where such ignorance is celebrated online as a justified sense of righteous indignation.
Stop bothering me with facts. I already KNOW the answer...
Ken
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.
where such ignorance is celebrated online as a justified sense of righteous indignation.
Ken
I would then ask how a pill or capsule could be made without chemicals. He would get pissed off and throw me out of the store.
They haven't stopped, but as you know they are finding things much more difficult to source and more expensive. Lots of examples here
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
What kind of photo chemical restrictions would you propose that would prevent morons from being morons? I'm all for making sure people dispose of their chemicals safely (I like the idea of photo stores taking spent chemistry, with certain caveats) but restrictions on access, price and shipping won't accomplish that. It punishes the innocent and doesn't affect the guilty at all. I agree with the intent, but I don't trust politicians to do it right without industry input (including us). They will cater to the least common denominator of fear, and phrasing that of the bill that will get the most likes on Facebook that will be most burdensome but won't be the most effective.
...
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. ...
...
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. ...
In Europe I get the impression that they try to go after the more significant problems but seem to recognize that users of small quantities of photochemicals are not one of them.
http://echa.europa.eu/
For example, cadmium is no longer in papers, presumeably because of hazard to production workers,IDK, but it is still possible to get hydroquinone,dichromates, borates etc if you know where to look, although they are on ECHA list.
I'm 100% with you on this. What can be done? It may not be possible to defeat the bill, but maybe it can be amended so that it doesn't hurt photography. Are there any leaders in industry that could influence this?
We do a half decent job regulating gasoline - and it is both dangerous and widely available.
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
If the law banned cosmetics entirely, I'd be really enthusiastic about it.Today in Melbourne Australia a newspaper had an article that mentioned one item that many people are trying to ban in this country that will be aided by the new laws in the USA against unwanted chemicals in everyday life.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/a...-microbeads-environmentalists-20151220-glryvb...
In the US states of Oregon and New Jersey, those regulations flatly prohibit dispensing one's own gasoline. Only highly skilled 16-year-old pump jockeys are permitted to engage in such a dangerous activity....We do a half decent job regulating gasoline - and it is both dangerous and widely available...
Today in Melbourne Australia a newspaper had an article that mentioned one item that many people are trying to ban in this country that will be aided by the new laws in the USA against unwanted chemicals in everyday life.
That refers to a different piece of recent legislation but glad its helping. Damn beads...
I think the third paragraph in that article was quite clear, or am I missing something?
Mick.
Quite right. It's part of this whole contemporary notion that everything is debatable, and that all sides have merit. It's a convenient way for people who know nothing to be taken seriously. This is dangerous, and is running rampant.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?