Health risks of darkroom chemicals

Mr. McCurry is paid by the digi-companies to say what pleases them.
He wants to get the next best thing in D-world to be free for him.

I've seen many "professional" photographers turn into digitographers just because someone pays them to do so. And to say conflicting statements when one drops out and another company pays more.

I suggested, in another thread where this subject came up, that it might be useful to have a sticky on the subject of how to handle the more toxic chemicals (selenium, dichromates, concentrated acids and so forth) in the home darkroom.

Responses were "read the MSDS" and "read about it in the common photographic books" ... MSDS are really intended for industrial users, and the recommendations therein are really not very useful for the home user making up (e.g.) a litre of bleach using a few grams of dichromate and a few ml of acid.

The photographic textbooks I own tend to say "care must be taken" "use sensible precautions" without outlining what level of care and what constitutes a sensible precaution.

As Matt King pointed out, photochemicals have been used safely for tens of decades by hundreds of thousands - millions, I suppose - of people without using fume hoods and respirators.

So, a small plea again therefore from me for a thread with contributions from those with professional background in lab work to advise on best practice for the home darkroom in handling and storing photographic chemicals.

McCurry is vaccinated with way more toxic stuff, yet he doesn't brag about vaccines

If somebody is so worried about stuff he doesn't have a clue, then hop into the Caffenol bandwagon or other “eco” stuff.

I promise to pet your Metol, Hydroquinone etc.

mporter012 said:

In a Steve McCurry interview I was reading, he said, ''we don't have to breath all those chemicals," as an advantage of digital over film. It got me to thinking: are there any known or documented health risks from exposure to the chemicals used in analogue photography? Topically or airborne, ect.

Just curious...

Mark

Click to expand...

Yes there are known and suspect hazards eg cancer, Parkinsons, dermatitis.

Lab coat, nitrile gloves, goggles, dust mask as appropriate to each chemical.

Don't spill liquids where you cannot mop up or rinse.

I keep stock bottles tanks and trays in bath tub when in use.

The mini lab final bath was changed to avoid formalin after it was appreciated that workers were at risk of cancer.

bad chemicals

The use formaldehyde to embalm people and they put it in hair shampoo, too. Dangerous chemicals are all around us. I worked for a small newspaper and the EPA came around and said they could fine the newspaper $15,000 a day for dumping the dangerous chemicals they used in the film darkroom down the sewer pipe. There is nasty stuff used in many darkrooms and if you sense a problem you should take steps. Use a face mask. Arrange for better ventilation. Take breaks. Investigate the chemicals you are working with. Common sense. A lot of the very bad chemicals are no longer sold for use in darkrooms like hydrochloric acid to clean trays with. It sure cleaned the trays up real good, though.

Many people have said it, its all about common sense, lots of information available, you should certainly have clear ventilation, use protective gloves / garments etc, read and understand the MSDS sheets, lots of information on the websites, ours included.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

Loaded guns are 100% safe locked in a gun vault. Not as safe sitting on a coffee table. Much less safe in a persons hand. Deadly in an idiots hand. It's like most things that have a certain about of risk to them, "Use it wisely" attitude goes a long, long way. Be stupid and you'll usually pay a price. The trouble with certain chemicals, compared to a gun, is that you can see the gun and know that dangers is there. How many people have died from inhaling fumes they didn't even know were there? Or absorbed them accidentally through their skin? Just because one person can do something for 40 or 50 years doesn't mean the next person will be so lucky. I was exposed to Poison Ivy many times growing up and never even broke out with as much as an itch. Now, I'm 65 years old and found out last summer that I better stay clear of it or I'm in big time trouble. Don't ask me what or when that change happened, but all I know is it did and did in a big way. I ran into a problem sometime back and learned a good lesson from it. I was mixing some developers and a batch of fixer in my, what I thought was a well vented darkroom. I had a reaction that was not pleasant. About a day or so after mixing I noticed my nostrils seemed or felt dried out. Then shortly after that each side had sores/blisters/scabs form in them. This lasted about two days and then I could tell things were getting better. I knew right away what had happened and now mix everything outside or in the garage with the doors open and a mask on. The fixer I mixed was TF2 and the two developers were a Pyro type and a Pyrocatechin/Phenidone type, both with a number of other chemicals in them also. Don't know which chemical caused the nasal problem and don't really care. All I know is I learned my lesson. My father used to mix chemicals(herbicides and pesticides) on the farm with his bare hands. He was one of the toughest man I have ever known in my life. He died of kidney cancer much to young. Another lesson learned I guess. Better to be safe than sorry I guess. Or smart than stupid? Or cautious than brave? Or a complete idiot? John W

StoneNYC said:

The well documented connection between pyro developers and Parkinson's disease if you don't use precautions.

Don't get scared away, just be smart about it.

Click to expand...

If there is a genuine scientific link substantiated by several studies properly conducted by those eminent in such fields and not denied by other studies conducted by other eminent experts then there might well be reason to be "scared away"

However is there such a link in the same way that a link was established and now not denied by any medical authority between lung cancer and smoking?

There are lots of studies and papers produced, most of which do not satisfy the "proof test"

As there are many pyro users here not all of whom may exercise all the right precautions, whatever those are, you might want to cite the studies for their sakes

pentaxuser

RattyMouse said:

Safety is absurd? Wow............

Click to expand...

Ah, but you must read into the absurdity and satire of the post. No lies, though. Dihydrogen monoxide is incredibly dangerous and more people die from it than almost any other chemical on the planet.

snapguy said:

The use formaldehyde to embalm people and they put it in hair shampoo, too. Dangerous chemicals are all around us. I worked for a small newspaper and the EPA came around and said they could fine the newspaper $15,000 a day for dumping the dangerous chemicals they used in the film darkroom down the sewer pipe. There is nasty stuff used in many darkrooms and if you sense a problem you should take steps. Use a face mask. Arrange for better ventilation. Take breaks. Investigate the chemicals you are working with. Common sense. A lot of the very bad chemicals are no longer sold for use in darkrooms like hydrochloric acid to clean trays with. It sure cleaned the trays up real good, though.

Click to expand...

They don't use formaldehyde anymore...

It's not the chemicals they use that are a concern it's the Prions in the dead bodies you should worry about...

they never really found the cause of e weston's parkensen's disease and some folks suggest it might have been caused by pyro developers.

there are plenty of things that are dangerous in life, some people don't mind taking risks, some do.
chemical photography has always been about risk ( mercury, explosives, blindness, cyanide poisoning, insanity, autocombustion, dihydrogenoxide poisoning &c )
its best to know what darkroom chemistry you are using and treat the chemistry with respect.
me? i am probably going to eventually use a pot of coffee ( no vit c or soda ) and stabilizing my images in salt water .. none of it matters anyways ...

StoneNYC said:

I always wear a breathing mask and heavy gloves as I'm one of the people highly sensitive to it all.

At school they always laughed at me wearing a mask, apron, goves, but better safe than sorry.

The well documented connection between pyro developers and Parkinson's disease if you don't use precautions.

The biggest thing people forget is that if you still chemicals on the floor, they dry, and then the powder residue gets kicked up by your shoes if you don't clean it up and that goes airborne which can be very unhealthy for you. A lot of people forget about that part. It's not just the floors any splashing whatsoever that doesn't get cleaned up will dry cake up and then eventually flake off and become dust in the air.

Don't get scared away, just be smart about it.

Click to expand...

Where is the "Well documented" connection between parkinson's and pyro? Who did the study? Where is it on file? Did the study also examine the close cousin of pyrogallic acid, caffein? Which type of pyro is involved, pyrogallol or pyrocatechin?

Jim Noel said:

Where is the "Well documented" connection between parkinson's and pyro? Who did the study? Where is it on file? Did the study also examine the close cousin of pyrogallic acid, caffein? Which type of pyro is involved, pyrogallol or pyrocatechin?

Click to expand...

Ok, I retract my statement "well documented" as I only know specifically of the heavy case of Weston and his use of pyro without gloves etc. the point is use precautions and be smart about it, don't put yourself at risk for potentially having neurological issues which aren't still fully understood even by the medical community. The world is stupid, even the new pillows sold today are coated with a flame retardant material that is also known to cause neurological issues. You can't avoid it all but you can certainly take steps to be more careful. Just like the OP I'm "paranoid" to use his words and I can't see that being smart and safe about it (even if overboard to some) is a bad thing. Better safe than sorry.

Jim Noel said:

Where is the "Well documented" connection between parkinson's and pyro? Who did the study? Where is it on file? Did the study also examine the close cousin of pyrogallic acid, caffein? Which type of pyro is involved, pyrogallol or pyrocatechin?

Click to expand...

Suggest you don't need a 5xsigma significance test study before being cautious.

One of my acquaintances needs to use a VR lens and cannot put things back in his pockets at all easily.

Wear gloves, don't stand over an open tray and breathe deeply, mix powders w/ the necessary cautions, and don't drink them. Read the MSDS sheets and pay attention to them. You'll be fine. If they were that hazardous, people would have been falling over dead like flies eons ago. They haven't. Just exercise normal safety protocols. I've worked over four decades as a painter and printer (litho, etching, etc), and trust me, artists chemicals are much more dangerous. I'm in my 60's w/ no problems from any of that. You just have to know which end of the brush to hold in your mouth. Most people have stuff under their sink or in the pantry that is much more deadly than darkroom chemicals.

As for loaded guns, every gun ever made is loaded, all the time. That's the first rule of gun safety. The second rule is, by the time you find the keys and get a gun out of a locked gun safe, you're probably dead. A self defense weapon is useless if it's not readily available.

Xmas said:

Suggest you don't need a 5xsigma significance test study before being cautious. One of my acquaintances needs to use a VR lens and cannot put things back in his pockets at all easily.

Click to expand...

But you do need a demonstrable and plausible causal connection between two events else one falls prey to the post hoc ergo proper hoc fallacy.

It is absurd to be cautious unless one has a sound basis for that caution.

Unless you can be reasonably certain your friend would not have developed a neurological disorder without using photographic chemicals (which is what I assume you are suggesting) - and supporting evidence for that would be a well-documented and reasonably large population of similar cases - it adds nothing to your reason to be cautious.

It's not unreasonable, however, to be cautious about using chemicals which ARE documented as causing specific problems.

Relying on personal anecdote and jumping to conclusions that are unwarranted by the anecdotes is not a sound basis for risk assessment ...

pdeeh said:

But you do need a demonstrable and plausible causal connection between two events else one falls prey to the post hoc ergo proper hoc fallacy.

It is absurd to be cautious unless one has a sound basis for that caution.

Unless you can be reasonably certain your friend would not have developed a neurological disorder without using photographic chemicals (which is what I assume you are suggesting) - and supporting evidence for that would be a well-documented and reasonably large population of similar cases - it adds nothing to your reason to be cautious.

It's not unreasonable, however, to be cautious about using chemicals which ARE documented as causing specific problems.

Relying on personal anecdote and jumping to conclusions that are unwarranted by the anecdotes is not a sound basis for risk assessment ...

Click to expand...

Noel??

Geez, my nephew's wife has Parkinson's at 42, and never set foot in a dark room or even used anything other than a P&S camera and sent the film out. Gosh, maybe she caught it from being around me, I use Pyro developers all the time, does that make me a carrier? Lemme see.... I've been to their home a couple of times, she's sat across the table from me at family functions, never hugged her, she's never been to my house(so no way exposed to my chems), hmm.......... Last I knew, some folks are just genetically predisposed to get it.

Half the people in this town seem to be either "artistes" or research chemists. Lots of them are either conspicuously very sick or outright dead
by their 50's. I've heard it over and over again.... "I've worked with this for years and it hasn't hurt me". But one of those guys said it with
a big permanent grin goose-stepping: "Ishe vurked vish hit shirty yearsh, and it hasssshn't hurt me a-a-a-a- bit!" Most are worse, trembling,
gone blind, lungs partially removed. I know several photo lab owners who ended up debilitated. Nearly all of this nonsense can be avoid by
a few simple rules. 1) You aren't Van Gogh or Carravagio, and nobody a generation later will admire your "art" just because you cut off an
ear or killed somebody else; it ain't worth it! 2) Disposable gloves and dust masks are cheap. Use em. 3) Always have efficient ventilation.
4) The most important tool to have in any photo lab is a brain. Use it. There is no substitute for common sense, as well as reading labels
and MSDS sheets.

(momus) As for loaded guns, every gun ever made is loaded, all the time. That's the first rule of gun safety. The second rule is, by the time you find the keys and get a gun out of a locked gun safe, you're probably dead. A self defense weapon is useless if it's not readily available.[/QUOTE]



As for loaded guns??? No, it's always treated as if it were loaded. I also know my gun(guns as in many) is safer in the vault than in an idiots(child's) hand. I spent a couple of years, a while back, in the USMC (one of those years in Vietnam) and do know guns and safety. Have also seen first hand exactly what they can do. I also know very well that they can be a real lifesaver when needed and a security blanket when not. The USMC also, very quickly, taught me the difference between my rifle and a gun. That difference is still drilled into my brain, "My rifle is for killing and my gun is for fun"! The DI would make you point to your rifle and then point to your gun as you said that. I was only using the "gun" thing as an example of a "common" sense required tool. But, as Ralph has said already, "Common sense isn't always that common"! John W

pdeeh said:

But you do need a demonstrable and plausible causal connection between two events else one falls prey to the post hoc ergo proper hoc fallacy.

It is absurd to be cautious unless one has a sound basis for that caution.

Unless you can be reasonably certain your friend would not have developed a neurological disorder without using photographic chemicals (which is what I assume you are suggesting) - and supporting evidence for that would be a well-documented and reasonably large population of similar cases - it adds nothing to your reason to be cautious.

It's not unreasonable, however, to be cautious about using chemicals which ARE documented as causing specific problems.

Relying on personal anecdote and jumping to conclusions that are unwarranted by the anecdotes is not a sound basis for risk assessment ...

Click to expand...

Your logic is only valid for legislators.

Im always careful pyros never in my house.
When I asked my chum had anyone in his family got it he said "That was the first question the consultant asked.
The second question 'had you done any photo processing' "

So my question is are you a legislator?

DREW WILEY said:

Half the people in this town seem to be either "artistes" or research chemists. Lots of them are either conspicuously very sick or outright dead
by their 50's. I've heard it over and over again.... "I've worked with this for years and it hasn't hurt me". But one of those guys said it with
a big permanent grin goose-stepping: "Ishe vurked vish hit shirty yearsh, and it hasssshn't hurt me a-a-a-a- bit!" Most are worse, trembling,
gone blind, lungs partially removed. I know several photo lab owners who ended up debilitated. Nearly all of this nonsense can be avoid by
a few simple rules. 1) You aren't Van Gogh or Carravagio, and nobody a generation later will admire your "art" just because you cut off an
ear or killed somebody else; it ain't worth it! 2) Disposable gloves and dust masks are cheap. Use em. 3) Always have efficient ventilation.
4) The most important tool to have in any photo lab is a brain. Use it. There is no substitute for common sense, as well as reading labels
and MSDS sheets.

Click to expand...

Drew, we agree on something... +1

Xmas said:

Your logic is only valid for legislators.

Im always careful pyros never in my house.
When I asked my chum had anyone in his family got it he said "That was the first question the consultant asked.
The second question 'had you done any photo processing' "

So my question is are you a legislator?

Click to expand...

I really have no idea what you mean by the question, Xmas.

Nevertheless, extrapolating from a single anecdotal case to a generalisation that "photo processing causes neurological disease" doesn't stand up to a moment's scrutiny.

Darkroom chemicals can definitely be injurious to your health.
I can't tell you how many times my wife has threatened me with bodily harm if I didn't put the bathroom back in order after finishing with my printing.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)


every year someone asks similar questions ...


OP you should realize asking how dangerous darkroom chemistry is you will get
a wide range from its harmless to its deadlydangerous and everyone stands their ground
firmly.. ( the reality is usually somewhere in the middle )

years ago i posted a poll about fixer disposal and it was the same sort of thing.
some folks said it was harmless and dump their silver rich spent fixer down the drain ( they said it was their RIGHT )
or pour it in their garden or shrubs &c and say people who do otherwise are kooky
and others are not so cavalier and take steps to not dump their spent fixer down their drain...

there was even someone here a few years ago that insisted selenium toner was harmless because
selenium is in multi vitamins and the ocean ... she said she graduated university with a chemistry degree ..
unfortunately it seems she failed to understand the difference between grams and trace amounts.
she also championed the idea of dumping used photochemistry in your garden, shrubs &c
im glad i never was invited to her house to have fresh garden salad ! ( <<< wishing it was blue )