Chemical safety bill

[Sal Santamaura]

Unfortunately, no existing or proposed legislation in any of the regions this thread discusses does anything to control environmental degradation's root cause, namely, our planet's pollution by vastly too many of the species Homo sapiens.

 

[Jim Jones]

There is a dangerous element that is present in fairly high levels in the air we breath, but there are few attempts to restrict or eliminate it. In high concentrations it is dangerous to human health. It is also flammable and reacts dramatically with many other elements. We should all spread this warning on the internet and encourage our government representatives to regulate this element, whose symbol is O. I do have faith that sooner or later our government will act upon this matter.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I've seen so many artistes manage to poison themselves over the years that I don't think anything the EPA will or won't do can legislate common sense. Besides, I can't believe that this present congress is interesting in anything other than emasculating the EPA with some sort of Trojan horse shenanigans, even if it means cutting the enforcement funding as usual. The EU has far stricter rules, but that still doesn't stop boneheads there from outright smoking heavy metals salts that even most alt printmakers cast a wary eye at. Stupid is as stupid does.

 

[Wallendo]

A quote from the article linked in the first post:

“Most people assume that the chemicals in the products and materials they encounter every day have been thoroughly tested and shown to be safe,” Denison said. “In fact, only a handful of chemicals have ever been reviewed for safety.”

What bothers me is whether or not there is enough profit in photochemicals for manufacturers to pay for studies of this sort.

 

[winger]

I don't remember now what chemical it was, but there was a move to limit the use and sale of something about 15-20 years ago that was stopped by the paint industry. The politicians were trying to ban the use of something that if it were gone, certain types of paint would be either 10 times the cost or impossible to make. The politicians were (as usual) grossly under-informed and were reacting to a single event or something stupid. It didn't get far in committee, luckily.

Part of the problem is that mass hysteria gets as much credit as logic and scientific knowledge. Movements to ban things come about because of social media campaigns rather than by scientific research.

My supervisor always used to laugh at me and shake his head when I was trying to find logic in something the state was doing. It only gets worse at the federal level and involving politicians seems to trump all logic.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

...and involving politicians seems to trump all logic.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Gosh. Some blatantly uninformed opinions here. I've been in that industry. Many of the paint solvents which were banned were outright carcinogenic. Lots of commercial painters were dead before their mid-50's, just like cropdusters. Many others have permanent nerve damage. Some of these things easily exploded. Several massive explosions occurred right in this neighborhood, big enough to level entire industrial building and shatter windows miles away. Cancer rates were about twelve times the national average in vicinity of the factories. Hysteria is not what drives control. In fact, politicians are basically "deniers" who are extremely reluctant to to tamper with industries who routinely grease their palm. Air quality rules are a bit different, since that is not something generally governed by the EPA but by regional districts. Some rules are silly and counterproductive, simply because the agencies cry wolf so often that nobody listens, or because alternative products might be even worse. But overall, the EPA has saved a lot of lives.

 

[removed account4]

DREW!!

I couldn't agree more with you!!



john

 

[Sirius Glass]

Gosh. Some blatantly uninformed opinions here. I've been in that industry. Many of the paint solvents which were banned were outright carcinogenic. Lots of commercial painters were dead before their mid-50's, just like cropdusters. Many others have permanent nerve damage. Some of these things easily exploded. Several massive explosions occurred right in this neighborhood, big enough to level entire industrial building and shatter windows miles away. Cancer rates were about twelve times the national average in vicinity of the factories. Hysteria is not what drives control. In fact, politicians are basically "deniers" who are extremely reluctant to to tamper with industries who routinely grease their palm. Air quality rules are a bit different, since that is not something generally governed by the EPA but by regional districts. Some rules are silly and counterproductive, simply because the agencies cry wolf so often that nobody listens, or because alternative products might be even worse. But overall, the EPA has saved a lot of lives.

+1

 

[Wayne]

I hope people will substantiate their claims, otherwise they are just unsubstantiated claims. I've known you to claim for instance, that Edward Weston got Parkinson's Disease from pyro, and there is no proof of that. There is no proof pyro causes Parkinson's. I've also known you to make similar claims of causation about other deaths/illness of people you've known, but you never supported it with any actual facts. You made assumptions, that may or may not be correct

There's no doubt some very nasty chemicals in paints and other products, but please substantiate your claim that "Lots of commercial painters were dead before their mid-50's, just like cropdusters." and show the research that concludes lots of cropdusters and painters died early deaths from chemical exposure. I can think of at least one fairly obvious reason cropdusters die early deaths, but it's unrelated to chemical exposure.

But really, these groups are definitely exposed to higher levels of toxic chemicals so it shouldn't be too hard to prove your claim, and I wouldn't be surprised if you can...or can't.

Gosh. Some blatantly uninformed opinions here. I've been in that industry. Many of the paint solvents which were banned were outright carcinogenic. Lots of commercial painters were dead before their mid-50's, just like cropdusters. Many others have permanent nerve damage. Some of these things easily exploded. Several massive explosions occurred right in this neighborhood, big enough to level entire industrial building and shatter windows miles away. Cancer rates were about twelve times the national average in vicinity of the factories. Hysteria is not what drives control. In fact, politicians are basically "deniers" who are extremely reluctant to to tamper with industries who routinely grease their palm. Air quality rules are a bit different, since that is not something generally governed by the EPA but by regional districts. Some rules are silly and counterproductive, simply because the agencies cry wolf so often that nobody listens, or because alternative products might be even worse. But overall, the EPA has saved a lot of lives.

 

[Wayne]

To be fair, this sounds like you heard a gross exaggeration someone made up to earn political points. It just smacks of "exaggeration" to me, but there's usually a grain of truth in these things too. I'm sure you're just honestly reporting what you recall, but maybe you can dig up something more exact on this.

I don't remember now what chemical it was, but there was a move to limit the use and sale of something about 15-20 years ago that was stopped by the paint industry. The politicians were trying to ban the use of something that if it were gone, certain types of paint would be either 10 times the cost or impossible to make. The politicians were (as usual) grossly under-informed and were reacting to a single event or something stupid. It didn't get far in committee, luckily.

Part of the problem is that mass hysteria gets as much credit as logic and scientific knowledge. Movements to ban things come about because of social media campaigns rather than by scientific research.

My supervisor always used to laugh at me and shake his head when I was trying to find logic in something the state was doing. It only gets worse at the federal level and involving politicians seems to trump all logic.

 

[winger]

Gosh. Some blatantly uninformed opinions here. I've been in that industry. Many of the paint solvents which were banned were outright carcinogenic. Lots of commercial painters were dead before their mid-50's, just like cropdusters. Many others have permanent nerve damage. Some of these things easily exploded. Several massive explosions occurred right in this neighborhood, big enough to level entire industrial building and shatter windows miles away. Cancer rates were about twelve times the national average in vicinity of the factories. Hysteria is not what drives control. In fact, politicians are basically "deniers" who are extremely reluctant to to tamper with industries who routinely grease their palm. Air quality rules are a bit different, since that is not something generally governed by the EPA but by regional districts. Some rules are silly and counterproductive, simply because the agencies cry wolf so often that nobody listens, or because alternative products might be even worse. But overall, the EPA has saved a lot of lives.

The situation I remember, I was told in around '95-'96 and it was something like methylene chloride - yes, dangerous, but not the end of the world when used with proper precautions. I was told when another forensic chemist and I did a short talk for a paint chemist group in central MA. They were mainly guys who came up with new formulations for their particular applications - I don't remember the name of the group, but they met in the Lexington, MA area. At the time, they had been told about the pending legislation (which might have been state, not federal) and were worried about its ramifications.

They still do cropdusting in SW IA.

 

[DWThomas]

In the case of products like paint and solvent based products in general, sloppy handling practices can greatly exacerbate problems. Drew mentions paints -- a friend of my parents was a house painter back in the 1940s, 50s and 60s in the hey day of oil paints, some with heavy metals therein. He was still climbing ladders and working into his seventies, and singing bass in their church choir into his early 90s! Maybe he was genetically tough -- or more likely he was meticulous in handling the stuff and setting up ventilation.

 

[RattyMouse]

The EPA is currently about to phase out a chemical in my industry, one that we rely on for quite a lot and has well over 70 years if not more of heavy usage (millions of tons per year). The EPA freely admits that the "science" that they base their decision on is neither publicly available, nor has it been peer reviewed. Everything has been done in secret.

Even though there's not even a shred of oversight, I'm sure everything is on the straight up.

 

[removed account4]

proper precautions.

that's like grounding out a metal gas can before filling it,
or not smoking cigarettes or talking on the cellphone while pumping gas LOL
or smoking / andy capping a cigarette while dragging tanks of propane by the valve into the blue rino bin ...
people know the proper precautions but don't bother ... and if you say
" excuse me can you not smoke while you are pumping gas next to me ( pointing to the no smoking sign ) "
they get allup in your face say nasty things to you and give you dirty looks ...
( kind of like apug when you ask how someone is disposing of their photo waste ... )

the funny thing about this conversation about photochemicals is
that the photographer's formulary includes paperwork that says
the end user will dispose of their photochemical and use them safely
sort of an unspoken unbinding contract ... and i would venture to guess
that 90%+ of the people who buy their products think disposing of safely is
just dumping it down the drain, whether it is selenium toner, TF4 fixer,
radioactive toner (uraneeium ) HQ, or other stuff ...

if it ends up that the epa makes it harder for people to obtain photochemistry
and have a paper trail that they disposed of it safely because it is on a safe disposal list that's fine with me ..
locally they took silver-fixer off of the hasmat list and now it is on a lesser-hasmat list, so i have a feeling
it really doesn't matter too much.

 

[guangong]

In my youth

My state required all small landlords to attend a program that presented exagerated “science” on the dangers of lead . When we were 8 years old we traded old newspapers for lead at the junk yard to make lead soldiers and later，at 12 years， to cast bullets. Also，when 13，I was able to buy hydrochloric，sulphuric，and nitric acid from the local scientific supply house and metalic sodium from the local drug store （in the days when pharmacists actually made up prescriptions）. Now，65 or so years later，I am considered incompetent to handle such products.The same with artist supplies. The cadmium colors and such colors as naples yellow（arsenic）and lead white are banned. While such outfits as the EPA and the liberal goal of controlling our lives play a role， the impact of slip and fall lawyers should not be overlooked.

 

[Wayne]

But you would be guessing. I would guess that the true numbers are about the reverse of your guess, IOW that 90+% of people dispose of their chemicals legally and responsibly. But I would be guessing too. I don't think regulations of small-time chemical users should be based on guesses, I think it should be based on facts and science. And it should address real problems. There are many real problems this legislation will address and that's a good thing, but as far as I know (feel free to correct me with evidence) home photochemical use is not causing any significant health or environmental problems outside of the rare irresponsible/stupid user. What exactly is the real problem that restrictions/paper trails would fix?

Of course industry should be required by law to be responsible in their manufacturing and processing and disposal of large quantities, to protect workers and the environment. That's where the (only) real potential for risk lies.

Why do you have an issue with disposing of HQ down the drain? HQ is biodegradable and does not bioaccumulate. It is a perfectly legal and acceptable way of disposing of it in my area. When I bring used developer to my local treatment plant they pour it into the same tanks that the residential drains in town run into. I wouldn't dispose of large quantities of it in my septic system, but small quantities are likely to be entirely harmless.

Should we also have the EPA track coffee purchasing and disposal with paper trails? Coffee contains hydroquinone. I think we should keep a much closer eye on potentially irresponsible coffee lovers. And you know who you are.

and i would venture to guess
that 90%+ of the people that buy their products think disposing of safely is
just dumping it down the drain, whether it is selenium toner, TF4 fixer,
radioactive toner (uraneeium ) HQ, or other stuff ...

if it ends up that the epa makes it harder for people to obtain photochemistry
and have a paper trail that they disposed of it safely because it is on a safe disposal list that's fine with me ..
locally they took silver-fixer off of the hasmat list and now it is on a lesser-hasmat list, so i have a feeling
it really doesn't matter too much.

 

[Wayne]

and the liberal goal of controlling our lives

Lets keep politics out of it. I'm more liberal than not (don't really follow any one ideology) and I don't want to control your life and I don't want mine controlled without good cause.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

...but as far as I know... home photochemical use is not causing any significant health or environmental problems outside of the rare irresponsible/stupid user. What exactly is the real problem that restrictions/paper trails would fix?

One aspect usually lacking in the argument of the alarmists is a sense and appreciation of scale.

An often overlooked fact is that because the market for home film use has essentially collapsed, so has the prevalence of home enthusiast darkrooms. Enthusiast darkrooms were always a very minor slice of the overall amateur film market to begin with, even during film's heyday. If one assumes a proportional reduction in darkrooms matching the collapse of the film mass markets, then they too have now likely also been reduced by 96-98% (the percentages often quoted by film industry insiders) from their one time peak.

Put another way, the problem of home darkroom effluent—if there ever was a significant problem to begin with—has essentially solved itself. The geographic density of home photo darkrooms has today become so exceedingly thin that online venues like APUG are now required so that the very few remaining practitioners can even locate and communicate with one another.

Ken

 

[removed account4]

yikes ... if coffee contains more than trace amounts of HQ,
I'm guilty of poorly disposing in my rubbish and thinking of putting it in compost

.. with regards to disposal of photo waste ... over the years I've done polls here ( they aren't hard to find )
regarding waste disposal ( fix and other stuff) .. they were't large polls but small ones.
the results have never been promising regarding proper disposal
.. folks rersponded .. a lot of passive aggressive nonsense, NIMBY stuff
( I also got not so nice emails & pm messages from folks in the threads and people too shy to post / poll )
off of apug in other places people have actually threatened me .. and again passive aggressive BS ..

in their drain or yard is where people think it is OK to dispose
( as I mentioned I know someone dumping cyanide waste in his yard
because he was told my his mentor it was OK )

according to some things I have read metol, HQ and other things
are not trace amounts in the amounts in photo waste ..
the amount of selenium in Brazil nuts versus toner ...
if you eat 40 brazilnuts a day for 40 days you will get selenium poisoning
you need a little less exposure with the toner.
if this stuff didn't really matter
i am guessing the formulary wouldn't include the paperwork,
or have trouble shipping a variety of "stuff" other than "ground"

I could be wrong ... I usually am ...
So, I have always suggested whoever has ?s to contact local water sewer authorities
or the state environment dept .. they will have the actual regulations on hand
about safe disposal ...

 

[DREW WILEY]

Except for a strange turn of events, I would have probably ended up in the EPA. Sure glad I didn't. Close friends died relatively young from the mere
incidental exposure of monitoring hazardous chemicals. And I don't really give a damn if someone like Wayne here wants to see published statistics.
I've seen so many people slowly dying right in front of me that it would be redundant. Right now I am highly involved in the sales of EPA certified lead
poisoning prevention gear. Of course, you do have some jackass types in congress denying the hazards of lead paint. But almost every week I see someone deathly ill due to it, and not just children. Stupid painters or unfortunate neighbors inhaling their dust. Try going through 250K chelation therapy and see how much fun it is. Over thrirty-five years ago when I started here, I got chewed out by the company owner for strongly advising customers to wear rubber gloves and have good ventilation when handling Pentachlorophenol, which was a standard wood preservative of the day. New exterior door were still wet with it from pretreatment when shipped in. It was a very big plant. Every single person who worked there - yeah, 100% - died prematurely of cancer, right down to the office staff. I could tell hundreds of stories like that. I can even remember people cussing at the "damn liberals" for demanding they wear dust masks when using power saws to cut asbestos sheeting! The wives of some of those people died from exposure to asbestos
doing their laundry. So while some of you misinformed types might still want to soak your hands in pyro to save 20 cents per session on throwaway gloves, just stop to pause and think if your "art" is really worth gambling your health over.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...Of course, you do have some jackass types in congress denying the hazards of lead paint...

As with most aspects of the US government scene lately, it's at the state level, not federal, where the biggest jackasses are. And, among those, Michigan's "Emergency Manager" dictator law (that suspends democracy), the most radical policy in the country, has caused this lead fiasco:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...lood-create-state-of-emergency-in-flint-mich/
​

That article really treats Governor Snyder with kid gloves. The "Emergency Manager" who unilaterally made all decisions leading to this catastrophe, as well as other officials who should have advised of its consequences and against proceeding in the first place, all report directly to Snyder. He and his suspended-democracy policies are completely responsible. However, I suspect that linking to any articles which more fully explain that would lead to charges of bias, so WaPo it is.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Yeah, I've been dealing with poorly thought-out headaches at the state level for decades, which have overall made things worse; but that
primarily with the Air Resources Board and not EPA. The overall problem is political reality. The really big polluters are too powerful to control, so the state picks on minor sources which they can monitor. For example, by far our biggest source of smog here in the Bay Area
isn't even refineries, but all those huge diesel cargo ships coming into port. Since those are outside state juridiction, they squeeze everything from backyard BBQ's to cans of enamel paint to try and clean up the 5% of things they do control. But there is also a great deal of interagency rivalry and infighting which greatly complicates things. Each has their own priorities and little interest in working with others. Then there's like just plain silly... can't even walk into the produce aisle of a grocery store with a warning sign that eating vegetables might cause cancer. Sure, vegetable and fruit need to be washed, but starvation isn't exactly good for your health either!

 

[pentaxuser]

I'd imagine that in the days of every chemist's(pharmacy) shop in every town offering B&W film processing in the U.K. in the 50s, 60s and probably some of the 70s the amount of effluent must have been much greater than today

pentaxuser

 

[DREW WILEY]

Back in the heyday of chemical printmaking, home and institutional darkrooms weren't even on EPA's radar. Big commercial labs and especially hospitals were. They were mainly concerned with selenium, though large quantities of sulfuric acid were also monitored when Cibachrome became a dominant color process. Small quantities of Ciba bleach were extremely easy to neutralize with common baking soda; but not hundreds of gallons of it. If true Technicolor were still around I'm sure they'd be watching those chemicals, if not outright banning the process for enviro reasons. But all of that put together doesn't even come close to the contamination footprint of the computer chip industry. They use some really nasty things. And before them, bootleg pesticides were a major issue, and apparently as risky to monitor as illegal drugs now are. A 55-gallon drum of Parathion could cost a couple hundred thousand dollars, and a drop of the concentrate
kill you in twenty minutes. The EPA would find cropduster flaggers dead in the fields - illegals of course, so that there was no paper trail
of their existence in the first place. DDT was another illegal product that didn't stop until all the production in the Western hemisphere was itself shut down. It wasn't as toxic to mammals, but did of course, ruin bird hatching and basically breed superbugs, esp cotton weevils,
that nothing seemed to kill.