Disposing of used Pyro

jstraw · Feb 18, 2007

I'm going to run all this past the county health and environment guy.

I don't want to be a maniac about this but I'm willing to engage in a "best practice" around this disposal issue, even if that practice is A) barely of any significant value and B) does not represent a major inconvenience to me.

I hope my willingness to do whatever can be easily managed and is of even theorhetical merit, rather than the minimum that can be legitimately justified, won't be construed as a criticism of anyone that makes another choice. That was never my intent.

Alex Hawley · Feb 18, 2007

Mike, ask yourself this: If you live in an area that has a lot of oak trees, how much pyro gets absorbed into the local environment from the decomposition of those oak leaves? I bet its a heck of a lot more that what you're dealing with.

michael9793 · Feb 18, 2007

by the time it gets to your leach bed in the septic I don't even think it will even be close to the same chemical property that you bought it as. remember if it looks like ____ and smells like _____ then it isn't pyro.

rrankin · Feb 18, 2007

When I lived on a septic tank in Australia, I saved everything I thought might be a hazard and took it to the periodic hazmat disposal collection days. Was this a giant PITA? Yes? Did every chemical I saved and took need to be saved? Probably not. Did I sleep better at night knowing that I hadn't accidentally polluted my own groundwater, and that of my neighbors? You betcha. Do what YOU think seems reasonable and safe. If more people erred on the side of safety instead of 'what can I get away with without killing someone' the world might be in far better shape. And when I got onto sewer, I phoned the sewer guys and asked them about my chemicals. If you are uncomfortable dumping it in your septic - don't dump it.

Just my two cents.

Cheers,
Richar

jstraw · Feb 18, 2007

I'll be reporting back after I talk to the dept. of health and environment.

MenacingTourist · Feb 18, 2007

jstraw said:
I'm going to run all this past the county health and environment guy.

I have an uncle who oversees all the water systems for Provo, Utah. I asked him the same questions you asked (I use rollo-pyro) and he told me to dump it down the drain. I also have a best friend from college who is a waste water engineer and he told me the same thing. He also can tell you stories about the crazy stuff they find in the sewers

I'm not sure how often you develop film but I do it about twice a month on average. Your municipalities may also have different regulations than the ones I'm familiar with. Always good to ask. Let us know what you find out.

Alan.

JBrunner · Feb 18, 2007

Wayne said:
The problem is that every time this topic comes up people repeat the same anecdotal information, with the implication that it answers the question of proper disposal for the person asking, and it invariably doesnt. John says "this isnt intended to be logic", but thats how it will be taken by many people. After all, why are you replying if not to answer the question? Hmm, its found in urine so it must be OK to dump it wherever I'd take a leak. I think that people could be a little more responsible because people WILL take it that way. And its quite obvious most people INTEND their reply to be taken that way.

Because something is found in urine has little direct bearing on safe disposal of that substance.

Because something is found in nature has little direct bearing on safe disposal of that substance.

Because something is found in hair dye or or Hostess Twinkies has little direct bearing on the safe disposal of that substance.

Because Uncle Ned has been doing something for years and hasnt grown antlers yet has little direct bearing on safe disposal of that substance.

Because some other plant that we eat contains harmless amounts of potentially toxic substances has little direct bearing on safe disposal of yet another toxic substance.

It just isnt that simple. There are a lot more variables that go into determining what constitutes safe disposal of toxic substances, none of which are every mentioned.

Wayne

Ok, lets spell it out real s l o w. You can dump pyro down the drain in the concentrations and volumes mixed and used in a darkroom. It is a bactericide, and you may inadvertently kill some e coli in the sewer before it is too diluted to measure, and too oxidized to affect anything. Pyro is not particulary hazardous, unless it is ingested, inhaled as a powder or gas, or dermally absorbed (hair dyers take note). Indications based on its properties are that it does not accumulate in body tissues, but no definitive study has been done on that issue AFAIK.

It is hazardous to you as a toxin if poorly handled in the darkroom, but not the duckies in the lake. It doesn't make to to the lake, as it is a water soluble organic compound that oxidizes and breaks down almost immediately, posing no special disposal problems. This characteristic is well documented, and one of the challenges of using pyrogallol with high agitation developing methods.

Handle it safely. Wear nitrile gloves when your hands are in it. Avoid inhaling the dry form. Don't heat it up past working temps (no reason to anyway) and wash trays and tanks in cold water. There is good information on the toxicity in the Hutchings book. Don't smoke, wear sunscreen outside, and if you sleep around, use condoms. Common sense based on facts without belaboring them. It oxidizes rapidly. Whats so frikin difficult about concepting that? Or did you simply miss it? Tom Hoskinson nailed it in the fifth reply to this thread. The rest is for fun, unless you have difficulty for some reason with basic chemical premise. Yes Wayne, it is that simple. The end.

****ANECDOTE****
FWIW to septic users, Hutchings has drained his Pyro into a septic system for many years, causing no problems with the system, despite the bactericidal nature. There are many other reports of this nature, however no universities or government agencies have undertaken a controlled study on the effects of pyrogallol developers on septic systems. Gee, how did our taxes miss paying for that one? It may be deduced that dilution and oxidization render the Pyro too weak to have any effect on the system, in the hour or so before it is completely broken down. Sorry, its all we've got.
****END ANECDOTE******

From now on we will just issue edicts of nothing about how that is not this, and ignore the fact that the question was entirely answered 4 pages ago. (Anecdotes have their place as illustration, however most of what you seem take issue with are allegories, not anecdotes). The human monkey ( meaning all of us) is at once baffled, and baffling. Stupid chemical disposal thread #631 now goes on ignore. Pontificate away.

Alex Hawley · Feb 18, 2007

Wayne said:
The problem is that every time this topic comes up people repeat the same anecdotal information, with the implication that it answers the question of proper disposal for the person asking, and it invariably doesnt. John says "this isnt intended to be logic", but thats how it will be taken by many people. After all, why are you replying if not to answer the question? Hmm, its found in urine so it must be OK to dump it wherever I'd take a leak. I think that people could be a little more responsible because people WILL take it that way. And its quite obvious most people INTEND their reply to be taken that way.

Because something is found in urine has little direct bearing on safe disposal of that substance.

Because something is found in nature has little direct bearing on safe disposal of that substance.

Because something is found in hair dye or or Hostess Twinkies has little direct bearing on the safe disposal of that substance.

Because Uncle Ned has been doing something for years and hasnt grown antlers yet has little direct bearing on safe disposal of that substance.

Because some other plant that we eat contains harmless amounts of potentially toxic substances has little direct bearing on safe disposal of yet another toxic substance.

It just isnt that simple. There are a lot more variables that go into determining what constitutes safe disposal of toxic substances, none of which are every mentioned.

Wayne

Something about that logic escapes me. But I've been out of college for thirty years so I may have a deficiency or two to make up. People die from water every day. What's being done about that huge disposal problem?

Michel Hardy-Vallée · Feb 18, 2007

jstraw said:
I'll be reporting back after I talk to the dept. of health and environment.

You know, I did the same thing once because I was worried about my exhausted fixer and when I called them they frankly had no information of value whatsoever. It's as if they either forgot about it, or never cared. In the end, given that I'm in a big city, that my output is low, that I don't do anything more noxious than B&W, and that most of what I've read seemed to suggest that I'm not a criminal, I decided to dump everything down the toilet when it was done for. YMMV.

Wayne · Feb 19, 2007

JBrunner said:
Ok, lets spell it out real s l o w. You can dump pyro down the drain in the concentrations and volumes mixed and used in a darkroom. It is a bactericide, and you may inadvertently kill some e coli in the sewer before it is too diluted to measure, and too oxidized to affect anything. Pyro is not particulary hazardous, unless it is ingested, inhaled as a powder or gas, or dermally absorbed (hair dyers take note). Indications based on its properties are that it does not accumulate in body tissues, but no definitive study has been done on that issue AFAIK.

It is hazardous to you as a toxin if poorly handled in the darkroom, but not the duckies in the lake. It doesn't make to to the lake, as it is a water soluble organic compound that oxidizes and breaks down almost immediately, posing no special disposal problems. This characteristic is well documented, and one of the challenges of using pyrogallol with high agitation developing methods.

Great, now we're talking (potentially) real information. Can you provide a citation for it, since it is well documented? That would be everything I could ask for, so much better than anecdote.

Handle it safely. Wear nitrile gloves when your hands are in it. Avoid inhaling the dry form. Don't heat it up past working temps (no reason to anyway) and wash trays and tanks in cold water. There is good information on the toxicity in the Hutchings book. Don't smoke, wear sunscreen outside, and if you sleep around, use condoms. Common sense based on facts without belaboring them. It oxidizes rapidly. Whats so frikin difficult about concepting that? Or did you simply miss it? Tom Hoskinson nailed it in the fifth reply to this thread. The rest is for fun, unless you have difficulty for some reason with basic chemical premise. Yes Wayne, it is that simple. The end.

Gawd, I'm such a dumbass. Thank you so much for setting me straight.

****ANECDOTE****
FWIW to septic users, Hutchings has drained his Pyro into a septic system for many years, causing no problems with the system, despite the bactericidal nature. There are many other reports of this nature, however no universities or government agencies have undertaken a controlled study on the effects of pyrogallol developers on septic systems. Gee, how did our taxes miss paying for that one? It may be deduced that dilution and oxidization render the Pyro too weak to have any effect on the system, in the hour or so before it is completely broken down. Sorry, its all we've got.
****END ANECDOTE******

Great, this sarcastic endorsement of anecdote and disparagement of people who want something more substantial really helps your case.

From now on we will just issue edicts of nothing about how that is not this, and ignore the fact that the question was entirely answered 4 pages ago. (Anecdotes have their place as illustration, however most of what you seem take issue with are allegories, not anecdotes). The human monkey ( meaning all of us) is at once baffled, and baffling. Stupid chemical disposal thread #631 now goes on ignore. Pontificate away.

I guess that means I wont be seeing that citation.

jstraw · Feb 19, 2007

The pontification comes from those that...well...pontificate, and are dismissive of those who's comfort level depends on more than assurances, no matter how seemingly logical or well-worded.

The argumentative tone seems to come entirely from those getting defensive about this.

I have not once argued that dumping pyro down the drain is a bad practice. I'm just looking for a sourced bit of data. I would argue, that for me...dumping pyro down the drain in the absence of the information I'm seeking is an extremely bad practice. Obviously, others' milage varies.

If it pisses you off that I'm not satisfied with a bunch of pyro-using-peers getting together to craft a logical argument that suggests that it's safe for my septic system...you'll get over it.

My mistake was in asking about what people do and not what people know. That was my fault.

Wayne · Feb 19, 2007

jstraw said:
I'm now filling the third big jug of used 510-Pyro because I don't know what to do with the stuff. I'm on septic and I imagine I'll be taking it to the county's monthly, hazzardous waste disposal drop.

How do other people here deal with used Pyro?

Given the uncertainties, I take my developers to the nearest small town and dump them directly into the treatment ponds at the sewage plant. Its free. I dont currently use pyro but I would do the same thing with it. If I lived on a sewer I would flush them. Thats all hazardous waste is going to do with them, at least in my area. I have asked. You could call your haz waste and ask them where it would end up. If you cant take them directly to the plant maybe you can flush them at a friends or in the bathroom of your local gas station.

Your local health dept is unlikely to have anything more concrete or authoritative to offer than has been offered already in this thread. They will probably just recite rules, if there are any.

jstraw · Feb 19, 2007

Wayne said:
Given the uncertainties, I take my developers to the nearest small town and dump them directly into the treatment ponds at the sewage plant. Its free. I dont currently use pyro but I would do the same thing with it. If I lived on a sewer I would flush them. Thats all hazardous waste is going to do with them, at least in my area. I have asked. You could call your haz waste and ask them where it would end up. If you cant take them directly to the plant maybe you can flush them at a friends or in the bathroom of your local gas station.

Your local health dept is unlikely to have anything more concrete or authoritative to offer than has been offered already in this thread. They will probably just recite rules, if there are any.

I put my question to an environmental scientist with the Kansas department of Health and Environment. We'll see what response I'm given.

You can actually go to the treatment plant and dump stuff into the ponds? I had no idea.

If the monthly hazmat drop just pours all the stuff down the drain, what's the point?

dr5chrome · Feb 19, 2007

..I promised myself to stay away from these topics.....

Anything you dump into a septic system will eventually go into the ground water. If you have well water, do you want to drink that water after dumping chemicals? This would apply to household chemicals as well.

If your volume is low you can evaporate the water out of the mixtures and collect the dry waste and dispose it every few years.

dw

www.dr5.com

JBrunner · Feb 19, 2007

Wayne said:
Gawd, I'm such a dumbass. Thank you so much for setting me straight.

No problem.

Wayne · Feb 19, 2007

jstraw said:
I put my question to an environmental scientist with the Kansas department of Health and Environment. We'll see what response I'm given.

You can actually go to the treatment plant and dump stuff into the ponds? I had no idea.

If the monthly hazmat drop just pours all the stuff down the drain, what's the point?

The point is bureaucracy. I live 5 miles from the town of 3500 where I can dump it directly into the treatment ponds (tanks would be a better word). Of course I do this with their permission. They collect haz waste at a different site in that same town and haul it 25 miles to the next biggest town, where stuff like photo chemicals that CAN be processed in the wastewater plant, is treated that way. the larger city has a much bigger and better treatment plant, but they dont treat all haz waste in that way. I dont see any point sending my stuff 25 miles, since my tax dollars are paying for it. My local plant can handle my waste just fine.

Wayne · Feb 19, 2007

JBrunner said:
No problem.

So, was your "documentation" a bluff then? The only reason I chime in on these threads is because nobody ever provides real documentation or science. Nobody would be happier than me if someone finally produced it.

Wayne

lee · Feb 19, 2007

jstraw said:
I'm now filling the third big jug of used 510-Pyro because I don't know what to do with the stuff. I'm on septic and I imagine I'll be taking it to the county's monthly, hazzardous waste disposal drop.

How do other people here deal with used Pyro?

the above is post #1 in this thread. It seems that you didn't like the answers you got from your question or came to the post with a preconceived notion.

Then you said, "If it pisses you off that I'm not satisfied with a bunch of pyro-using-peers getting together to craft a logical argument that suggests that it's safe for my septic system...you'll get over it."

I have come to the conclusion that you really don't want anyone else's thoughts on this if they don't match the ones with which you came to discussion.

lee\c

Zach-Edwardson · Feb 19, 2007

I don't use Pyro, but if your concerned about it, dilute it in cold water, shake and let it stand, and then go water your garden with it.

jstraw · Feb 19, 2007

lee said:
the above is post #1 in this thread. It seems that you didn't like the answers you got from your question or came to the post with a preconceived notion.

Then you said, "If it pisses you off that I'm not satisfied with a bunch of pyro-using-peers getting together to craft a logical argument that suggests that it's safe for my septic system...you'll get over it."

I have come to the conclusion that you really don't want anyone else's thoughts on this if they don't match the ones with which you came to discussion.

lee\c

That's crap Lee, sorry but it is. I already copped to it being my mistake that I merely asked what people do, not what they know. I have no axe to grid about what the acceptible procedure is. It's just that those that espouse dumping it get very defensive when discussing the basis for that. I may well dump mine down the drain when this is said and done but like Wayne, I want to know the facts.

What I'm not accepting as a basis for my decision for my actions, is casual logic, anecdotes or unsupported assertions. My ultimate decision may be the same as someone else's but I'm looking for a basis, not a rationale.

I framed the OP poorly as a beginning of anything like a rigorous examination of best practices. I know that. It doesn't change my goal, information...not supposition.

I'm not willing to be shouted down by people that object to fact-seeking, whatever their motives.

avandesande · Feb 19, 2007

I did these mental gymnastics years ago, but instead of asking to be spoon fed the information I looked through the numerous threads on the subject. Sorry, but nobody hear is going to write a dissertation for you. If you look through the threads you will find among other things a link to a paper written by kodak on the subject.

jstraw said:
I'm not willing to be shouted down by people that object to fact-seeking, whatever their motives.

lee · Feb 19, 2007

jstraw I dont care what you think if it is crap or not it is the way it looks to me and to quote you if it pisses you off you will get over it.

lee\c

JBrunner · Feb 19, 2007

Someone asked a question and people who know, answered, and no, Wayne I'm not gonna write a goddamn dissertation on it for you. Do your own friggin research if you think its that complicated. You might start with a basic chemistry course.

Out.

Tom Hoskinson · Feb 20, 2007

Turns out the NIEHS/NIH, In Support to the National Toxicology Program, commissioned the preparation of a Pyrogallol Toxicological Literature review by Integrated Laboratory Systems, Inc., through NIEHS Contract Number N01-ES-65402.

The Pyrogallol-Review of Toxicological Literature Contributors included: Raymond R. Tice, Ph.D. (Principal Investigator); Bonnie L. Carson, M.S. (Co-Principal Investigator); Karen E. Haneke, M.S.; Maria E. Donner, Ph.D.; and Kristine L. Witt, M.S.

Link: Dead Link Removed

The Bottom Line(s):

7.0 HUMAN EXPOSURE
Workers in the dye (particularly hair dyes) and chemical industries, as well as those working in dying operations in the textile and fur industries, may potentially be occupationally exposed to pyrogallol. Photographers (Miller and Blair, 1983) and holographers are potentially exposed to pyrogallol in the developing process (McCann, 1992).
Hair coloring formulations containing pyrogallol are applied to or may come in contact with hair, skin (particularly the scalp), eyes, and nails (CIR, 1991). These formulations may be used on a weekly basis.
Ingestion of pyrogallol occurs from consumption of tea (Aeschbacher, 1991) and water derived from aquifers and/or wells in regions containing high quantities of coal and shale (Cooksey et al., 1985). Pyrogallol exposure also occurs from the ingestion of smoke condensates present in smoked fish and meat products (Ohshima et al., 1989). Inhalation of pyrogallol occurs from smoking tobacco products (Pettersson et al., 1982).
8.0 REGULATORY STATUS
Under 21 CFR 73.1375, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) listed pyrogallol as exempt from certification as a color additive. 21 CFR 73.1025 states that "ferric ammonium citrate may be safely used in combination with pyrogallol for coloring plain and chromic catgut sutures for use in general and ophthalmic surgery."

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Pyrogallol [87-66-1]
Review of Toxicological Literature
Prepared for
Errol Zeiger, Ph.D.
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
P.O. Box 12233
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709
Contract No. N01-ES-65402
Submitted by
Raymond Tice, Ph.D.
Laboratory Systems
P.O. Box 13501
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709
April 1998

Alex Hawley · Feb 20, 2007

Tom Hoskinson said:
Turns out the NIEHS/NIH, In Support to the National Toxicology Program, commissioned the preparation of a Pyrogallol Toxicological Literature review by Integrated Laboratory Systems, Inc., through NIEHS Contract Number N01-ES-65402.

GOOD JOB TOM!

Disposing of used Pyro

jstraw

Alex Hawley

michael9793

rrankin

jstraw

MenacingTourist

JBrunner

Moderator

Alex Hawley

Michel Hardy-Vallée

Membership Council

Wayne

jstraw

Wayne

jstraw

dr5chrome

JBrunner

Moderator

Wayne

Wayne

lee

Zach-Edwardson

jstraw

avandesande

lee

JBrunner

Moderator

Tom Hoskinson

Alex Hawley

Disposing of used Pyro

Moderator

Membership Council

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency