• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Flammable developer?


The people that he interviewed could be brain washed with a thimble full of water. One thimble full for all of them!

Steve
 
Photo Engineer said:
Well, there are totally uninformed people writing about the hazards of chemicals. Here are some writings and facts.

[...]

I have found all of the above in various textbooks or articles. So what causes this overreaction?
Click to expand...

But, PE, your facts are relative facts. The ones you found are that too.

They use all sorts of stuff that's not good for you to try to counteract the stuff that is also not good for you, or stuff that happens to you that is not good for you. Doesn't mean that it's good for you after all.
They used to think that radium was good for you.
And take your no. 6. It is no good in a cream to treat wounds if it was so difficult to get in a state that is harmful. They use it just because it is harmful.
Etc.
 
Yes, of course, but there are people conducting active campaigns to ban or limit chemicals based on "facts" like those I mentioned and they are scaring the average person into a bad attitude about chemistry and chemists in general. The amount of chemical education in High Schools and Colleges in the US is decreasing quite radically. Many Chemical curricula in the US is directed now towards Pharmacy or Forensics instead of Physical or Organic Chemistry.

And, many chemicals that "people" worry about are quite harmless. OTOH, many that people think are harmless should be worried about such as table salt.

So, in a way, very sadly, you missed my point.

PE
 
I don't think so. PE.
The point is, my point is, that you can't juxtapose such 'facts' the way you do: either side is as bad as the other.

It's not whether something is or is not harmfull, but when it is and when it is not.
Not about knowing whether a chemical is safe or unsafe, but when it is safe and when it is unsafe.

Silver is used as an disinfectant, because it can kill. Salt is pretty safe when you don't overuse it. Etc.
You can find such perfectly true opposite sides to any "is harmfull" and (!) "is not harmfull" position.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Again, you are correct.

However, the textbooks that I have and the posted information that I have found over the years only present the left hand side of the arguments above in my post. They cast it as absolutes. I am showing that there are two sides. There is a balance that must be maintained just as I am trying to present.

PE
 

QG, I suggest you stay out of barber shops and beauty parlors because you will go nuts splitting all the hairs!
 
BTW. I myself urge extreme caution when using Selenium in any form, including toners and sensitizing dyes. OTOH, there is no documented case (AFAIK) of any photographer using these chemicals ever becoming ill or dying of their use.

But, then how would we know if they go unreported? At Kodak, we were tested every 6 months for any possible odd traces in our blood or other body reactions. We were trying to establish a database of chemical usage and actual physical problems.

So, I say again that there must be balance in all of this. There should not be a one-sided presentation which some fear mongers prefer. Look at the poor woman from the US Govt who was fired due to a posting of excerpts from her speech. Things taken out of context or given a one-sided slant can be very misleading and harmful.

PE
 
I agree.
A balanced approach, balanced education, balanced reporting, is what we must have, and alas, rarely get these days.
 
You know, something strange just happened on TV. I was watching NBC nightly news. The Clintons have said that they did not want the location of their daughter's wedding to be revealed, but Brian Williams said that all flight plans for this weekend over a certain spot in NYS have been altered. Just before he could go on and give details, the entire segment was frozen, and then resumed with a commercial.

I wonder?................

Unbalanced or censored reporting? Sorry if you feel this OT, but I thought it interesting in light of some of this exchange.



PE
 
I have always been amazed at the people who talk about those horrible chemicals, then buy their recreational drugs from some shady character they hardly know. I mean cocaine, LSD, ecstasy, amphetamines, etc.

Just as puzzling are those who buy unregulated plant extracts and think they're getting something "natural" not "chemical".

Many people think what they want to think, and logic is not helpful to their supposed thought processes.
 
If toning prints in LSD were legal i'd probaby do it. %-)

As far as selenium goes I don't deal with it in powdered form but when in liquid form I only allow contact with 1+10 and above. I usually keep the water running and just rinse it off. Never had any noticable symptoms of Se poisoning.
 
lxdude said:
Many people think what they want to think, and logic is not helpful to their supposed thought processes.
Click to expand...

This observation is a sad fact about humanity - and it can not be stated too many times...
 
I think though, that as analog photographers, we must be aware that it involves chemistry and the depth to which you are involved is directly proportional to the amount of chemistry you should know. If you mix prepackaged chems. then you don't need to know as much as a scratch mixer, and if you design.... Well then, that takes a lot more.

And, as you move up, you must be aware of lab safety and the safety of others if you give out your chemistry or your formulas.

PE
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register