• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Chemical safety bill

People like Wayne? Lol! People like Wayne who is friends with EPA scientists, supports the EPA mission, clean air, clean water, and has worked in environmental protection his whole life? You couldn't work in EPA because you lack the ability to distinguish correlation and causation.

This hysterical ad hominem post could earn you a quick thousand Facebook likes though...you could quickly be a social media darling!...but you can't be bothered to provide supporting evidence for any of your claims because it would be redundant? So are these unsupported claims of yours. And you can tell us hundreds more stories like them? Please don't. We already know that many industries have been irresponsible in their chemical use causing health and environmental harm, which seems to the only point behind your rant. Nobody is denying or defending that, certainly not me. It's kind of a no-brainer.

What's the name of the place where "everyone" died of cancer due to exposure to PCP? As usual with hysterical rumors there is a morsel of truth in there somewhere but I seriously doubt your story happened as you told it. EPA does consider it a "probable" carcinogen. PCP has been linked to increases in certain types of cancer rates (from very small to very small times 2, for example) but not any total payroll wipeouts. Surely its documented somewhere? You seem like a knowledgeable person in many areas but in this area you are fond of drawing broad hysterical conclusions from morsels of truth.

So anyway what is your point as it pertains to this topic? Does this mean you're in favor of additional restrictions, red tape and/or costs on home photo chemical users if they were to occur under this law (and we don't know that they would), and if so, why and what kind? That's what this thread is about, not whether some chemicals are toxic and that industrial abuses have taken place. We all know that.




 
Certainly the cumulative effect of home use is non-existent because of this decline in general use. I still think small point source problems could develop by irresponsible use. A heavy home user could potentially impact a local site, though I've not heard of it happening. That doesn't mean I take the possibility lightly though. There are people who dump fairly large quantities into home septic systems and don't think twice about it simply because they see no damage or the "grass is really lush on my septic field so it can't be doing any harm" kind of thinking which makes intuitive sense but not scientific sense. Those people scare me because its hard to tell what's happening in the ground if you aren't specifically testing for impacts. And you're using large amounts of water you could be flushing the chemicals out of the system and into the environment before they biodegrade. I'm looking into biodegradation rates and toxicity levels to better gauge what I think is a safe amount for my own septic system. For now I just limit myself to a few liters of B &W developer per week, but if I start using gallons per week I collect it and take it to the treatment plant. I'm probably being overly conservative but I want to be.

I take fix to my one remaining local photo lab.


 
Gosh Wayne, you're starting to embarrass yourself. All this is old old hat to everyone in the industry. I'm talking about real people here, faces, not rumors, people we here interacted with, day to day business, dead. The stuff has been outright outlawed for years. Common sense. It routinely made people terribly sick. I know a local artist who went blind merely absorbing the vapors by sealing wood sculptures with it in her studio. Affected eye tissue directly. Plenty of contractors ended up in the hospital with an accidental spill. Gosh. Where have you been all these years? That argument was settled decades ago. Only a fool would go near that stuff nowadays, just like asbestos. Septic systems are a different subject. Anybody with one of those learns pretty fast not to pour just anything down the drain!
 
... but that correlation versus causation thing? At a certain point, it's easier just to read the label, don't swallow crystal Drano. In the darkroom that might translate into reading an MSDS sheet implying hydroxide is potentially hazardous if improperly used. One only has to make that mistake once to know the facts, maybe with permanent damage. You don't always need a phD dissertation. There is something
called common sense. Some things are self evident. If it kills people you know, or routinely makes them extremely sick, take notice!
You don't have to understand exotic mycological physiology in order to know not wander in the woods picking just any kind of mushroom
for your salad. People learned about that the hard way millennia ago.
 
Well the quantities of HQ in coffee are quite small, but based on my (possibly flawed) calculations you'd have to dilute 1 cup of coffee with about 100 to 200 liters of water to render it safe to aquatic life (from the standpoint of HQ only. The other nasties in coffee might still be toxic at that level ). But since it biodegrades you're probably fine dumping it in your compost pile.

KCn also biodegrades, but I'm not going to get into the business of encouraging backyard disposal of something like that. Because before it biodegrades, its uh... kind of deadly to anything that might encounter it. Like the neighbor's dog or kid.



 

thank goodness about the Java, I was feeling kinda guilty
yeah .. the guy has wet on his property
(he lives near a few locally fished ponds ) as well as kids ...
not sure about pets .. kinda freaks me out ..

i've had conversations with state epa and env. commission people
and they all say the same thing, they don't want it dumped down the drain
whether it is harmful, or harmless for one reason or another they don't want it in the system...
they also say that 100 low volume dumpers is the same as big volumes ...
i live near the coast / wetlands, frogs, turtles that lay eggs nearby
turkey other birds and a whole bunch of other wildlife, the powers that be don't want anything dumped
into the septic tank ( or sewer system ) other than grey water and septic waste
... and they are adamant about it ...
obviously not everyone lives in the same strict-rule area i do, and as i have said
people should check locally about what is and isn't allowed down the drain ...
rather than take the advice of the wiki, websites, much quoted out of date kodak publications,
organic/inorganic chemists, water scientist, internet human encyclopedias &c who might dispense sound advice.
seeing, in the end they probably are not familar with the local laws that might govern your effluent discharge ...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

I think it's important to apply the same lessons of scale here as well. Large scale regional or national (or international) regulations are never imposed with a goal of addressing every single member of a statistical population. They are imposed to mitigate the problem over the regional or national (or international) scope they are designed to address.

Thus, an effective 96-98% worldwide reduction in home darkroom effluent, regardless of what motivated it, really is by any stretch of one's imagination or meaning, a success. Would that a similar reduction have occurred in the emission of greenhouse gasses, regulating authorities around the world would be doing backflips of joy right now.

And if someone then quietly informed them that somewhere in the world there were still a handful of power plants exceeding the recommended standards, they wouldn't even notice or care, as the primary regulatory goal would have been met.

It's always an admirable thing to strive for perfection. But as they say, never let the perfect become the enemy of the very, very good.

And as far as septic disposal of spent fixer is concerned, the aggregate wisdom of the online literature I have read, also backed by professional chemists here on APUG, is that septic systems are such severe reducing environments that upon introduction of spent fixer the harmful silver is quickly reduced to harmless, insoluble (non-reactive) silver sulfide, to be pumped out at cleaning time. I have also read that this process mimics that which is provided during standard sewage treatment processes in regional facilities.

This would be the same silver sulfide intentionally introduced into brown-toned b&w prints to preserve them. And to my knowledge no regulating agencies have rules in place for the hazmat disposal of brown-toned reject work prints. I know of no instances of such prints causing environmental degradation after being tossed in the trash at the end of a printing session.*

Ken

* As I've cautioned before, I am not a chemist. So I read the papers and listen to the opinions of those who are (instead of depending on Facebook or APUG "likes"). So if anyone reading the above has the relevant education and credentials, and disagrees with any of this, please speak up.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nice dodge. You make very specific claims and always refuse to support a single one of them. You've done it for years. We know PCP and some other chemicals are toxic. Thanks for that tidbit. That doesn't mean any of the claims you have made about it, or your EPA friends, or Edward Weston, or any of your many other wild speculations and unfounded conclusions have any merit. Your entire argument always amounts to " well we know these things are toxic therefore everything I say about how many people they've killed is true and gosh you're an idiot if you can't see that". Talk about embarrassing. I respect your photography knowledge but on this topic you are hysterical and irrational.



 
Maybe time to step out of the make-believe, Wayne, and talk to some real people. I've only been involved in the kind of thing professionally for almost forty years, and there are no doubt tens of thousands of pages of academic documentation on any of these hazardous chemicals, not to mention a massive parasite industry of class-action ambulance chasers associated with each noxious ingredient that has obtained notoriety. Billions of dollars have come and gone. I've seen all of this with my own eyes, over and over again. So have thousands of other people. I have been directly involved in EPA licensing for at least two thousand people, have sold many millions of dollars with of abatement equipment, had many years of industrial paint experience prior to that (mostly on the supply side), saw the effects of that. Everybody in the game knows the consequences. The last almost completely unregulated industry out there involves nail
polish. But talk to any emergency medic about that stuff. One told me he had done CPR to six women in nail clinics in just one month. They
still put solvents in nail polish that are utterly outlawed in any US industrial coating. I remember the last time the owner of a particular
local mfg plant using volume toluene walked in here to visit me, taking high goosesteps with a permanent grin on his face: "Ishe been workin wish hit shirty yearsh, and it hashn't hurrrt me a bit". The next week when some thirty-something research chemist from UC walked in here and told me toluene was harmless, well, you can guess why everyone did repeat that line about research chemists never
living past 52. I prefer my fume hood and nitrile gloves to a macho attitude.
 
More general truths that have no real bearing on your very specific unfounded conclusions. Yep, there are toxic chemicals out there and some have killed people and some need more regulation and we should be careful with toxic chems. Thanks again for that, nobody is disputing that. None of that makes your very specific claims about very specific deaths in very specific people in very specific locations anything more than speculation/unfounded rumor. 40 years in the industry and you can't support a single one of your specific claims in this thread with facts, names or citations. There's nothing more to see here...



 
This is co-sponsored by James Inhofe. Anyone who thinks James Inhofe is going to err on the side of environmentalism must be unfamiliar with his views. That it's supported by chemical trade groups and criticized by environmental groups also gives some indication about how this law will work in practice.

Oh, and for the person who was complaining about confidential EPA studies, this bill actually fixes that.
 
Welcome to APUG kanamit
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register