dancqu
Allowing Ads
While dilution is no solution to silver as a pollutant,
isn't diluting any stuff that you do dump a way to
minimize corrosive impact on plumbing etc?
I can't imagine dumping straight solutions down the
drain. I always dilute. C
hi bob
thank you for your response.
here where i live the clean water commissions
will do the same thing, shut you down and fine you until
you are compliant. i know of someone fined 10K / day
it was not a pretty site.
the reason why the copper pipes rotted out is because the
silver plated out onto the copper, and the copper went into the fixer
solution as it was going down the pipes. less and less copper remained
on the pipe and eventually it ate threw.
i know you do a fair amount of toning &C for your clients. do you put your
grey water and spent toners into the same system as your other chemistry?
john
From a UK perspective, I've never heard of/seen copper sewer pipes, I must say, but I don't doubt they're used somewhere.I would think you would need to be dumping a heck of a lot of fixer in order to rot out pipes, there is also a lot of other stuff that gets dumped into drains that is likely to do more damage, such as drain cleaners. Not sure about the UK, but in North America there are three kinds of sewer pipes, lead, plastic and concrete, usually used for very large pipes such as street sewers.
From a UK perspective, I've never heard of/seen copper sewer pipes, I must say, but I don't doubt they're used somewhere.
At the domestic under-sink level, I have only ever seen lead (old), ductile iron (old,) or plastic.
From the house to the foul sewer would most commonly be clay (old) or plastic I would think.
The foul sewer itself will be brick (thank the Victorians) or concrete.
I can't imagine copper ever having been cheap enough to be widely used for sewerage piping; then again, copper shortages after WW2 are the reason the British standardised on an electrical ring-main for household electrical distribution - you can use significantly less copper that way than with a radial distribution - and since noone else seems to use ring-mains, avoiding the use of copper generally could be a local peculiarity...
One thing though, there really is very little silver in fixer.
The highest silver capacity of fixer is 8g per litre (rapid film
fixer, it's less for non-rapid and paper fixers) to get 1kg of
silver you need to dump 125L of untreated rapid film fixer
down the drain.
That 8 grams per liter is for film in film strength. Ilford's
FB paper limit is 2 grams and for greatest longevity 0.5
grams. Those paper limits are independent of dilution.
When I toss my one-shot very dilute FB paper fix it
has at most 0.3 grams silver on a liter basis. Dan
Just to get this straight... Do you mean that the 2g and 0.5g,
etc. given here is dissolved into the fix/ wash/ assorted other
chemistry to be considered as efflluent?, ...
I would think that the amount of silver removed would depend
on the white (clear)/ black area and density ... ??
Those silver limits are fixer dissolved...
... Ilford and likely other suppliers average prints when
specifying a fixers capacity; a mix of prints. A series
of high key prints will load a fixer more quickly than
a series of low key prints do to the greater amount
of silver to be dissolved. Dan
... "Load a fixer.."?
Then, "2 to 0.5 grams"? refers to the amount of silver ... where? Removed from each (size?) print? Or contained in "x" amount of working?/ saturated? fixer?
Then, "2 to 0.5 grams"? refers to the amount of silver ...
Refers to the amount of silver dissolved per liter of fixer. ...
As I understand this - these are the MAXIMUM amounts that would be carried by the fixer at the point of exhaustion. Not especially helpful ... I do not flirt with absolute limits - by far my processing is "one-shot", through the JOBO CCP2 with all chemistry. Wasteful? Possibly, but I do not have to struggle with storage and continual accounting - or risking images fading away in time.
A better parameter -for ME - would be an average measure of silver removal per print - or per film, Information that is difficult to nail down.
[QUOTES=Ed Sukach;736458]
"As I understand this - these are the MAXIMUM amounts that
would be carried by the fixer at the point of exhaustion."
Not at all. As has been pointed out the silver limit for films
is 8 grams silver per liter, that likely for fixer at film strength.
The same liter of fixer used with FB paper has limits of 2 and
0.5 grams, WAY below the "MAXIMUM amounts that would be
carried by the fixer at the point of exhaustion". There are
two limits for fixer, the chemistry's capacity, and the
silver limits. Ilford mentions silver limits. Kodak?
"Not especially helpful ... I do not flirt with absolute limits - by
far my processing is "one-shot", through the JOBO CCP2 with all
chemistry. Wasteful? Possibly, but I do not have to struggle
with storage and continual accounting - or risking images
fading away in time."
I too use all chemistry one-shot although I use a tray for
prints. Very dilute developer and fixer give good chemical
mileage. I don't bother with ANY stop. The fixer is not
used enough to load up with carry over developer.
Consistent results with fresh chemistry is one
more + to add to your list.
"A better parameter -for ME - would be an average measure
of silver removal per print - or per film, Information that
is difficult to nail down."
Worst case for film and paper is unexposed. FB papers
average 1.6 +/- some little grams silver per square meter.
I pre test paper and film for their fixer requirements
using worst case as the minimum amount to be
used when processing. It is possible to use
solutions so dilute as to bring them to
chemical exhaustion. Dan
not only that, these soaps are more than likely compromising our immune systems[Heck for toxicity the bacteriological soaps that millions of people use every day are probably more toxic then a couple of ounces of silver.....
Uh ... I think you left me somewhere between
"Fixer at Exhaustion" and "Silver Limits" ... but...
Eight grams is not a whole lot - a new American Nickel
(5 cent coin) weighs close to five grams...) but still, it is
a good thing to think about and take PROPER action.
What is a "backflow device"? I'm just thinking this through, based on what it *sounds like* to me - if I don't have a faucet of tube that runs into anything chemicals are in do I still need that? Are you talking about chemicals backing up into the pipes that bring water into the darkroom sink?
Indeed; they're not particularly exotic concept - the building codes over here for example, if I recall correctly, prohibit putting a shower assembly in close proximity to a toilet (i.e. close enough that you could put the shower head into the toilet) unless some kind of backflow prevention is incorporated.janet
i think a backflow device prevents water to be syphoned
back through the pipes into the water supply.
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?