Chemical safety bill

[jsmithphoto1]

Weird thing is, though, I find more chemical kits sold through the EU than I do in the US! What I hate about any "chemical regulation" is that they are not regulating the medical industry and folks are dropping like flies from those chemicals. And what I mean by regulating the medical industry is the over-prescribing of medications and using them when they are not needed. Where is the real danger, here? That is my question.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

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

 

[jsmithphoto1]

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

I'm gonna have to meet you! lol. I couldn't have said it better myself!

 

[Wayne]

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.

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.

 

[Wayne]

This, unfortunately, is the truth. The more sweeping and severe the restrictions, the more "likes" it will get from people who flunked 7th grade (and apparently, those with PhDs from MTU).

where such ignorance is celebrated online as a justified sense of righteous indignation.

Ken

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Start stockpiling.

 

[Sirius Glass]

There used to be a Holistic [Half-Asstic?] pharmacy on the Santa Monica Mall that had a sign that stated that "Our products do not contain chemicals". I would go in and ask the pharmacist how he could package a vacuum in a pill or capsule. 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.

 

[paul_c5x4]

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.

Our local chemist store has a sign up saying "The responsible pharmacist is ..." - I ask for the irresponsible pharmacist when I want something a little dodgy

 

[removed account4]

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.

hi Wayne ..
sorry to be no help but I don't have any suggestions
and plan on just waiting until the actual law goes into effect
and figuring out what to do when the time comes...
aside from mr o'neil suggests not sure there is anything else ..
I'm guessing artcraft and the formulary and b&s will remain in business
and it might not be much different than it is now
I have to give my ID when I get cold meds at the pharmacy
maybe it will end up like that ...

 

[Alan Johnson]

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.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

...
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. ...

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?

 

[Mick Fagan]

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

I would think that the intent of the law is correct, however there will be collateral damage, which for us may be that some slightly hard to legally obtain chemicals, will possibly be harder to obtain or not allowed in the future.

When my sister in-laws husband in Germany obtained his medical doctorate, his family purchased as a gift a hard bound book with every known chemical, natural and synthetic, it was about the thickness of an Encyclopedia Britannica volume. A few years ago his son received his medical doctorate (chemistry actually), his family purchased as a gift, the current German book with every known chemical, that book is printed with smaller type and very light weight paper, it is larger than the thickest Webster's dictionary, over twice as thick as his fathers chemical book. In case you are wondering, he uses that book often as it is a known, peer reviewed resource.

The explosion of synthetic chemicals over the last few decades is nothing short of mind boggling, in some areas it seems, business is using stuff that may or may not be safe. I believe this is where your USA laws are coming from, I don't think it will by and large be reversible, or if so, any reversals will probably only very minor.

Mick.

 

[Lachlan Young]

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.

Just as it is possible to still get lead based solder, lead alloy letterpress type is still cast etc.

 

[MattKing]

It isn't as much a question about whether something is regulated as it is about how well the regulation is implemented.

We do a half decent job regulating gasoline - and it is both dangerous and widely available.

Not to mention cheaper than milk.

 

[Wayne]

I think the first thing to do is gather more information. Based on my reading (until my brain numbed) it would probably take a long time (maybe years?) before most photo chemicals are reviewed, because they aren't going to fall in the highest priority areas. And that period wouldn't start until the bill is signed, which could be months or longer. This bill would initiate a pretty monumental effort to document and assess every chemical manufactured and processed today, so its going to be a slow process. See the following summary of how S.697 would alter the existing TSCA law

http://src.bna.com/bCP

I haven't had a chance to read it thoroughly yet.

I think another good step would be to write to congresscritters and ask them exactly what might happen to photo chemicals of (our) concern under this bill, because that would guide any further response. I presume the industry would be interested in this and want to represent themselves in the matter, but if it seems like this could have a substantial effect on us end users we will want to make our voice heard too.




http://blogs.edf.org/health/2015/12/17/lets-savor-this-moment-senate-passes-legislation-representing-real-chemical-safety-reform/?_ga=1.256778947.93830138.1450587274

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?

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

We do a half decent job regulating gasoline - and it is both dangerous and widely available.

That's a good observation. And I think gasoline regulations work really well in part because there is a very low level of ignorance associated with the dangers involved in using that chemical. The regulations make sense and people follow them for good and well-understood reasons.

If we had that same lower level of ignorance for most photo chemicals, this thread wouldn't have a reason to exist.

Ken

 

[Arklatexian]

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

On the otherside, I was introduced to the wonders of photography after, while doing an experment not part of my chemistry set, I almost set fire to the house. It seems that I set fire to some oil and then poured water on the burning oil. All hell broke loose and my parents decided that photography was less dangerous. Little did they know. I was 10 or 11 then and will be 85 my next birthday. Haven't poured water on burning oil since so I did learn something....Still learning things about photography!.....Regards!

 

[Sal Santamaura]

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...

If the law banned cosmetics entirely, I'd be really enthusiastic about it.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...We do a half decent job regulating gasoline - and it is both dangerous and widely available...

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.

 

[Wayne]

That refers to a different piece of recent legislation but glad its helping. Damn beads...

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.

 

[Mick Fagan]

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.

 

[Wayne]

Its an understandable mixup, 2 different but similar bills passing within a few days of each other. The writer is mistaken.

I think the third paragraph in that article was quite clear, or am I missing something?

Mick.

 

[paul_c5x4]

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.

There is a factory within sight of where I live - It has a large chimney and emits copious quantities of white "smoke" which is particularly noticeable on a cold night. My local parish councillor tried to get the factory closed down because of the emissions and canvased the local residents to garner support. Unfortunately for her, I am familiar with this factory and know that the smoke she was complaining about was just steam from the boiler house - In no way did it pose a health risk !

Ignorance can be bliss for some, but in the wrong hands it can be a dangerous thing.

 

[removed account4]

the good folks who siracha rooster sauce in california
had to go through a battle a few years ago because
( according to an article in their local paper ) there was
a newly elected or dismissed town councilor flexing his muscles and getting work
for a friend who sells air quality "stuff" ( filtration systems )
counselor claimed all the neighbors complained of problems
so the factory had to install air filters and then he flexed his muscles
more and said they had to buy some sort of million dollar filtration system
( his friend sells ) ... a neighbor across the street was interviewed
( a former poliece chief ) who said he has never noticed what all
the problems were, this guy lived in the vicinity of the factory for a long long time
no smell, no strong-pepper eye problems &c and said if the counselor was FOS
just boosting business for his friend. and if he was really interested
in foul smells and things that need to be filtered he should be spending his efforts
at the dog food plant on the other side of town.
the sauce company is still making sauce, i think the law suit slapped on them was
dismissed or something after they installed filters not the millions dollar system
they were told they had to install ...

im not from california so i don't really know if any of the article is true / trusted source.
i tried to cut and paste the url from it, but couldn't figure out which one it was, seeing it was IDK 3-4 years back.

 

[Wayne]

Some think the bill is too weak:

http://www.uspirg.org/blogs/blog/usp/senate-passes-flawed-chemical-policy-legislation

It's comments like this that worry me:

" The (current) law is so weak that the EPA has only been able to require testing on less than 2 percent of the more than 80,000 chemicals that have been on the market at some point since TSCA was adopted. Of those that have been studied, approximately 1,400 chemicals with known or probable links to cancer, asthma, developmental disorders, reproductive impacts and other health problems are still in use today."

Maybe it's just a poor choice of wording, but it implies that any chemical with any link to any health problem should not be "in use", which of course would be a gross overreaction.