environmental impact

keithwms · Apr 14, 2010

The inkjet pigments are (as far as I know) now almost all synthetic, rather than mined like some of the old pigments used in painting. So there is some environmental impact, just from the chemical processes involved, but I expect that it's not as problematic as mining in general. The main waste product for inkjetting is the cartridge that people throw away... that is a petrochemical product that really should be re-used.

Silver mining used to be really awful, environmentally. There are some better processes now, but there used to be pools of acid and heavy metals etc. just sitting around, associated with the historical processes for silver mining. Nowadays I think most silver is isolated from mines that work on other metals, and there are some better refining processes.

Shadowtracker · Apr 14, 2010

I think, today, that digital, overall, has a larger impact on the environment. The illusion some people have is that because they aren't using film or chemicals, and therefore do not see the environmental impact of their choice in photo form or formats, that they are not impacting the environment as much. This illusion is part of the sales pitch of digital technology in general. The impact is there, just not in our immediate water and soil - it's in someone else's back yard and not seen, therefore not a problem to an 'end user' of a product. Yes, we are all at fault for impacting the environment, there is no way to not have an impact on it and live. But, we can choose to learn our local laws about pouring certain things into our drains when developing and see if there is a way for us to lower our impact regardless of whether digital or film has the bigger footprint. Some of the recovery methods may not be the least expensive route, but if anyone here is a good entrapenuer (sp?), then get cracking and design something that is small, affordable and recyclable for us to use... please. I do what I can, but would like to do more. In the meantime, I don't worry too much about the computer-rage people saying what they do; I just chalk it up to them not being as aware of their environment as I hope I am about our environment.

keithwms · Apr 14, 2010

Shadowtracker said:
I think, today, that digital, overall, has a larger impact on the environment.

Yes, no question about it. The larger net impact.

However, that does not absolve us of the responsibility to keep silver from going down the drain, or of disposing of chemicals properly.

wclark5179 · Apr 14, 2010

Don't take pictures.

That'll solve it.

Ya, sure.

Humans aren't social creatures. Most of us aren't independent thinkers.

Ya, sure, some have the answers. But maybe none.

nickandre · Apr 14, 2010

You can't expect me to believe that dumping 2 36 exposure 35mm rolls worth of spent fixer every other month into my septic tank is doing any significant harm compared to the bleach and detergent we use every day diluted with thousands of gallons of poop. If I want to save the world, there are more significant problems than my septic tank pollution or global warming to think about like people dying from starvation in Africa.

nickandre · Apr 14, 2010

keithwms said:
The main waste product for inkjetting is the cartridge that people throw away... that is a petrochemical product that really should be re-used.
.

Yet many inkjet companies realized they were losing money on refills so they inserted digital protection chips to prevent this grievous infraction.

scottmj · Apr 14, 2010

Most properties that have a septic system will also have well water. I just hope that the people that do dump into their own septic system, know how far their well is from where their chemicals end up getting absorbed! Dumping in your own septic isn't really about the rest of the world, more just about what the inhabitants of that land will recieve in return!!

nickandre · Apr 14, 2010

I probably have no idea what I'm talking about anyways.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/332438/Laurentide-Ice-Sheet

removed account4 · Apr 14, 2010

tiberiustibz said:
I probably have no idea what I'm talking about anyways.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/332438/Laurentide-Ice-Sheet

http://www.narragansett-tribe.org/history.html

Marco B · Apr 15, 2010

keithwms said:
The inkjet pigments are (as far as I know) now almost all synthetic, rather than mined like some of the old pigments used in painting.

Keith, almost all pigments nowadays are created synthetically, even if they have the molecular structure of a naturally occurring pigment, like for example the ultramarine blue color, that used to be ground up from very expensive stone, but is now being produced synthetically.

But being synthetic, doesn't mean that all pigment nowadays are fully organic. Some, like cadmium yellow or cobalt blue oil paints, still use their name giving metal... and thus need mining.

But yes, there is now also a class of fully organic synthetic pigments, and it is likely the source of some or all of the colors in inktjet inks, but I don't know for sure.

lxdude · Apr 15, 2010

jnanian said:
http://www.narragansett-tribe.org/history.html

Reading how they were paid tribute by other tribes for "protection", I'm thinking they should have been called the Narragangsters.

removed account4 · Apr 15, 2010

lxdude said:
Reading how they were paid tribute by other tribes for "protection", I'm thinking they should have been called the Narragangsters.

not much different than what nations to today
to protect their friends + interests ...
$ trade weapons its the same thing ... isn't it ?

keithwms · Apr 15, 2010

Marco B said:
But being synthetic, doesn't mean that all pigment nowadays are fully organic. Some, like cadmium yellow or cobalt blue oil paints, still use their name giving metal... and thus need mining.

But yes, there is now also a class of fully organic synthetic pigments, and it is likely the source of some or all of the colors in inktjet inks, but I don't know for sure.

I know they aren't all derived from organic chemistry, but that hardly matters. Organic chemistry is not necessarily any kinder to the environment. Methylmercury comes to mind, as an extreme case in point.

Is 'organic' kinder to the environment? Organic vegetables, sure... but not organic chemistry

Don't get me started on 'bio'-diesel, which isn't bio at all.

jp498 · Apr 15, 2010

Based on what's here, as long as it's not going into the ocean or air, small amounts of silver are not a health/environment concern.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050329132712.htm

keithwms · Apr 15, 2010

But the bigger concern, jp498, is the mining and refinement of silver (and other metals), which have their own environmental concerns. Concluding that a bit of fixer going into the septic tank will not raise the risk for fish in the bay is technically correct, but it also completely ignores the bigger picture. Where does the silver come from? And what are the local consequences of that industry?

There are still some really awful practices being used for metals mining (as documented by our noted colleague Salgado) and that raises not only environmental but also broader social questions. Whatever products we use, we share some responsibility for how they are produced and how those products are disposed.

It is no suprise to me that the concentrations of various toxics are looking better in the U.S. now. Because of tighter environmental regs in the U.S., many of the nastier processes are simply being outsourced to less developed nations that need the money. It reminds me of Bhopal, perhaps the most tragic example of the way the developed world has exported grave environmental risks.

Marco B · Apr 15, 2010

jp498 said:
Based on what's here, as long as it's not going into the ocean or air, small amounts of silver are not a health/environment concern.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050329132712.htm

Next time I want to do liquid emulsion, I'll order a bucket of San Francisco Bay mud for my silver instead of buying it expensively commercially... and I will probably get a free lunch of cockles and clamps as an added bonus

nolanr66 · Apr 15, 2010

Here is a some information on darkroom chemicals. Basically what Kodak is saying is:

Most photographic chemicals can be sent
to the sewer. They include:
• Developers
• Stop baths
• Fixers (after silver recovery)
• Wash waters
Do NOT send:
• Selenium toners
• Solvents
• Other materials that are
prohibited, i.e., flammable
materials

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/corp/environment/kes/pubs/pdfs/j300.pdf

Darkroom chemicals are really the least of our worries however. Massive pollution is coming from many places such as electronics, autos, water bottles and even our prescription drugs along with countless other areas. The good news for planet earth is we are going to run out of oil. Every drop will be sucked out of this planet and then the world will start cleansing itself. The bad news is most of the people living will be up the creek without a paddle.

John Koehrer · Apr 16, 2010

Re: The Narraganset being descended from aboriginal peoples living on the East coast 30k years ago is doubtful. It could be a misprint for 3k years.
I believe that most recent development shows that the Americas weren't populated until 15-20 thousand years ago. The dates are being pushed back on the West coasts of North and South America but to live in an arctic like atmosphere being hunter/gatherer/farmers is not very likely.

Just sayin

Minilabs had silver recovery tanks in shop so weren't pouring silver down the drain. It was too expensive to dump.

lxdude · Apr 18, 2010

I would be most concerned about my impact on the environment if I were a skydiver.

Q.G. · Apr 18, 2010

John Koehrer said:
[...] but to live in an arctic like atmosphere being hunter/gatherer/farmers is not very likely.

People have done so elsewhere. Still do in parts of the world.
I can't understand why either.

bobwysiwyg · Apr 18, 2010

lxdude said:
I would be most concerned about my impact on the environment if I were a skydiver.

But it would be a one time only impact.

Q.G. · Apr 18, 2010

But just because you don't get to see the consequences, leave others to clean up behind you, it doesn't mean that it's not serious.

nolanr66 · Apr 18, 2010

I would be most concerned about my impact on the environment if I were a skydiver

Make sure you have a good return policy in case it does not open.

removed account4 · Apr 18, 2010

when i was a teenager
i saw someone drop like a rock from a plane.
i watched as 4 jumped out first, then another and then another.
the first 5's chutes opened and then the 6th's just fluttered,
and the safety wasn't there ...
i don't think a return policy would have mattered much

lxdude · Apr 18, 2010

If I ever take up skydiving I'll be sure to join SPLAT-the Society to Prevent Losing Altitude Terminally.

environmental impact

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency