Is my home color killing me? lol

I will throw in my two cents. I have never used gloves or any sort of protection apart from eye protection, although now I am moved i am going to get some cheap nitrile gloves.
Also, Metol Developers in particular are known to cause dermatitis. For B/W, I presume if one used no protection, using a Phenidone / Sodium Ascorbate film developer, and a PQ developer might be the way to go for prints, although hydroquione can be carcinogenic as well. I use my fixer for film 1 + 14 for 15 minutes for film, one-shot, so any contact i have had with fixer is dilute. Thiosulphates are not too bad, but the other things in it might not be pleasent, unless one used straight hypo?

I have done RA4 developing in a cupboard under the stairs last year when i lived in my home town but the chemical fumes gave me so much of a headache so i gave it a pass. I now do it in a large open room with ventilation, in this new flat the same will apply. I find RA4 chemicals worse than E6 and C41 in general handling and how irritant they are to my skin.

A couple of comments here then. I have never heard of anyone getting dermatitis if they wear gloves and use safety glasses. I both use gloves and do not use gloves from time to time and have never gotten dermatitis and so that aspect depends on the individual. I have sever allergies but not to photographic chemicals it seems, and so this is a case by case basis.

I don't know how the chemicals in a darkroom can flatten a town! HQ? Metol? Carbonate? Hypo? Normal photographic darkroom chemicals are not explosive nor are they prone to catch fire.

Photographic chemicals caused skin cancer and cancer of the esophagus? This was determined how?? At Kodak, IDK of any concrete diagnosis of any cancer directly linked to photographic chemicals. The main things were allergic reactions, and liver and kidney problems, but not cancer. To this end, all of us working with chemicals had blood tests every 6 months where they looked for a variety of markers for liver and kidney damage and for cancer.

PE

I have mentioned elsewhere that most "instructional" videos on Youtube make me cringe at the work-practices and technical explanations given. Absolutely normal precautions, used happily in every workplace or home, for handling hobby materials (whether photo-chemicals or other household products) are frequently ignored.

With appropriate minimal equipment and technique one does not come in to skin contact with photo chemicals and with reasonable ventilation for colour materials there is no problem there either. Repeatedly ignoring being sensible and prudent gives one entry to the Darwin Awards, but one would have to try very, very hard indeed to 'win' anything using only normal photographic supplies.

Terry Christian said:

I think have a low-level latex allergy: they're irritating to me if I wear them for more than a few minutes, so I can relate. I use nitrile or vinyl gloves instead, with no problems at all. Wearing gloves is cheap insurance that I'll be able to continue my photographic pursuits for a lifetime.

Click to expand...

Have you considered using a barrier creme? There are two types you want the one that protects against water soluble chemicals. You can get it at most large drugstores. It's sort of like wearing invisible gloves.

Thanks for confirming PE. I would hate to see anyone develop a severe allergy without KNOWING of the possibility, however slim.

Once you see someone who has the severe case, you appreciate what it would be like if YOU became sensitized, while realizing that this situation is probably preventable.

Gerald C Koch said:

Have you considered using a barrier creme? There are two types you want the one that protects against water soluble chemicals. You can get it at most large drugstores. It's sort of like wearing invisible gloves.

Click to expand...

Wouldn't that leave barrier-cream residue on everything touched?

The industrial and cheap answer is simply nitrile gloves. Note that latex gloves DO NOT protect against some ingredients of photo chemistry (and I completely admit I have forgotten precisely what ingredients, as I had the lectures nearly thirty years ago while in the industry). The latex absorbs and passes the materials through in a short time and definitely shouldn't be re-used.

I believe some of the chemicals have been modified to be less toxic. One example is the film stabilizer. Also, on all the chemicals packaging, there is health/safety information.

This is clearly more important to the folks who have direct contact to the chemicals on a regular basis.

Photo Engineer said:

A couple of comments here then. I have never heard of anyone getting dermatitis if they wear gloves and use safety glasses. I both use gloves and do not use gloves from time to time and have never gotten dermatitis and so that aspect depends on the individual. I have sever allergies but not to photographic chemicals it seems, and so this is a case by case basis.

I don't know how the chemicals in a darkroom can flatten a town! HQ? Metol? Carbonate? Hypo? Normal photographic darkroom chemicals are not explosive nor are they prone to catch fire.

Photographic chemicals caused skin cancer and cancer of the esophagus? This was determined how?? At Kodak, IDK of any concrete diagnosis of any cancer directly linked to photographic chemicals. The main things were allergic reactions, and liver and kidney problems, but not cancer. To this end, all of us working with chemicals had blood tests every 6 months where they looked for a variety of markers for liver and kidney damage and for cancer.

PE

Click to expand...

PE, you would have to have asked his doctors, but he had presented with all manner of problems. Sodium nitrate was something he kept in the room; I don't know what it was used for. Since no other members of his family were predisposed to cancer, or with a history of it any any form, his many long years of exposure to darkroom chemicals, many of which he formulated and mixed himself (and also sold off at weekend markets) was the prime consideration of his doctors. Everything else about his life was relatively benign: he didn't smoke, but he did drink. If he was not in the shop everybody knew where to find him: in the darkroom, often from daybreak to nightfall. His interest was in getting the work done for his wedding and function customers, and he did get it done. Colour, B&W, Cibachrome (he had at one time one of the biggest custom Ciba printing outfits ever seen in a small country town)... anything requested, he did it, any size, any time.

You do have a valid point about liver and kidney problems, but pathologically the effects are much more widespread than that.
I have been prohibited from working in a darkroom for 20 years because of a long-standing renal allograft (kidney transplant) as part of a broader risk stratogem.

Gary;

I wish you well with your transplant.

I can say that I know of few cancers among photo lab workers at Kodak. I know of a few among the synthetic organic chemists though, but it seems not too far above the norm.

They expect skin rashes, then kidney and/or liver problems next in heavy and careless (I stress this point) darkroom workers who work closely with the chemistry. I've been a bench chemist, a photo lab worker, and an emulsion maker, and my health problems come from other sources, not chemical. I have discussed this with at least 3 doctors and they all agree that chemical exposure generally turns up earlier in life than my age!

There is no firm basis for ascribing the cancer you cite to photographic solutions or raw chemicals unless he ate or drank them! Nitrites, as found in processed meats could cause cancer of the esophagus as could a variety of other foods and drinks (such as alcohol). The mother of a friend of ours died of this type of cancer, and she did not smoke or drink to excess. Her daughter now has it. No one else in the family has any sort of cancer.

I really don't know what else to say except that with proper protection, there is a very low risk factor. The case in point is Grant Haist who is about 92. He did all in the lab that I did, and more!. He is still going strong.

As an added note, go here: http://www.allsafetyproducts.biz/page/glove-selection-chart

You will see that latex gloves are no better or worse than many other glove materials for safety. Lets not start another myth - that latex is worse than other types of glove for safety. In any event, our contact should be under one hour in normal usage.

Another note is that Sodium Nitrate, found in the darkroom, is an ingredient in gunpowder, but not in any photographic chemical that I know of.

PE

Since you have a problem, why take a chance? Buy a box of disposable nitrile gloves. Use a pair once and then throw them out.

I have to agree with PE. If these chemicals were that dangerous we'd hear of early deaths from these problems among the great photographers. Ansel Adams, who spend loads of time in the darkroom in an age of even less environmental care, lived well into his 80's. (And I doubt he kept a box of disposable gloves around.) That being said, it's probably a good idea to use the gloves. I try to...probably not strict enough.

As far as I know meet consumption is considered to be the primary cause of cancer in western society. That means eating meat is more "risky", cancer-wise, than smoking or whatever else. Vegetarian people have a cancer occurrence which is something like 1% of that of carnivorous people. (I suppose that 1% are the people exposed to chemical substances etc.).

Our society has a probably subconscious habit of looking for cancer culprits where it is comfortable to find them. It's easier to say or think "he got cancer because of his decades in the darkroom" than "he got cancer because of his nasty habit of eating roasted steaks".

As a side note: I am mildly-almost-quasi vegetarian, I do eat meat at least once per week due to various circumstance, I eat a lot of fish which nowadays is not very healthy (mercury, antibiotics, etc.), even a lot of canned fish (all that cadmium, yum!) and I am not embarking on an animalist crusade. I'm just saying what I know about what is the main cause of cancer. And I do drink wine and grappa.

Diapositivo;

Where did your 1% statistic come from?

And also your note implies that canned fish is high in Cadmium. If that were so, then regular fish should be as well unless there is something wrong with the canning process. Any reference for that?

Thanks.

PE

Diapositivo said:

As far as I know meet consumption is considered to be the primary cause of cancer in western society. That means eating meat is more "risky", cancer-wise, than smoking or whatever else.

.

Click to expand...

Your last sentence is, I feel, a very shaky conclusion. Can we expect to see notices on meat soon that says "meat kills" or at least "eating meat can damage your health"

Maybe the meat lobby is too powerful as was the tobacco lobby for many years

I respect your heart-felt conclusions on the matter you mention and your right to take action appropriate to you but where is the evidenced based studies to back up the general conclusions.

We all of us may have our own theories on darkroom chemicals' propensity for harm, including me, but I don't think any of us would be happy to take medicines if they had been approved and released to the market on such little evidence.

Anything less than a properly conducted randomised control trial which involves thousands of people and a great deal of money to conduct remains suspect in terms of any conclusions reached.

pentaxuser

Photo Engineer said:

Diapositivo;

Where did your 1% statistic come from?

And also your note implies that canned fish is high in Cadmium. If that were so, then regular fish should be as well unless there is something wrong with the canning process. Any reference for that?

Thanks.

PE

Click to expand...

1%: Personal knowledge spread a bit everywhere. You will certainly find similar data if you look for the relation between cancer and meat consumption, or lack of cancer and vegetarianism. That is repeated in TV documentaries from time to time and is very old knowledge. Adolf Hitler (there! ) was vegetarian and abstemious because he had fear of getting cancer. Maybe you'll find statistics saying 2% or 3%. You get the point. Vegetarians "don't" get cancer and substances in meat (putrescina and cadaverina, in Italian, are those I remember) are not good for you and I presume are also implicated in cancer. Besides, animal fat cooked at high temperature is carcinogenic etc. (some grills, now, are made in such a way that the fat dripping from the meat does not fall on the flame to come back as toxic fume to the meat). You'll certainly find many studies about that.

Cadmium: it's the "can" which releases cadmium. That's why lately there is a widespread recourse to "white inside" cans. "White inside" cans have a film of something which should not release harmful substances. In general, metal packages release metal particles. Only glass is really inert. Regular fish fished in nature doesn't contain Cadmium, only Mercury

Many packages, as you know, deliver substances to the food. For instance PET bottles deliver phthalates (said to cause impotence). Well, cans are said to deliver Cadmium. There are norms which dictate how much is not too much. I personally drink glass-bottled water.

EASmithV said:

Cheap gloves and a fan outside the door blowing the air into a larger room... got it.

Click to expand...

Actually you want the fan blowing the air from the darkroom OUTSIDE, not into another room. The only time you want your fan blowing inside the house, is if it's blowing into the exhaust feed of a heat recovery ventilator. The reason is quite simple, if your blowing toxic fumes into another room, it's going to get into the cold air return and your getting toxic fumes throughout the house. You want chemical resistant gloves, and not all plastics are chemical resistant. Nitrile is chemical resistant, and those are the best to use, buy by the box, and don't try to reuse them.

pentaxuser said:

Your last sentence is, I feel, a very shaky conclusion. Can we expect to see notices on meat soon that says "meat kills" or at least "eating meat can damage your health"

Maybe the meat lobby is too powerful as was the tobacco lobby for many years

I respect your heart-felt conclusions on the matter you mention and your right to take action appropriate to you but where is the evidenced based studies to back up the general conclusions.

We all of us may have our own theories on darkroom chemicals' propensity for harm, including me, but I don't think any of us would be happy to take medicines if they had been approved and released to the market on such little evidence.

Anything less than a properly conducted randomised control trial which involves thousands of people and a great deal of money to conduct remains suspect in terms of any conclusions reached.

pentaxuser

Click to expand...

I dont believe that vegetarians experience cancer at such a low level. However, there are clear benefits to such a diet including lower rates of cancer (among other diseases).

The China Study is one of the largest studies that looked into dietary choices and health.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Study

Cancer is more of a genetic predisposition kinda thing and it could be triggered in various ways.
In the darkroom, the appropriate safety masks, gloves, clothes etc. etc. are recommended or necessary, depending on what You are doing.
Liver, kidneys, spleen etc, prophylactics/flush every now and then can help joyride Your bones above 100 years.

I doubt such lower % amongst vegan/vegetarians, unless they rely on biodynamic agriculture products, unfortunately most of them do not.

Diapozitivo, do You know Enzo Nastati?

No, I don't know Enzo Nastati

I was looking around yesterday for statistics about vegetarianism and cancer. Found recent statistics which give a marked correlation but not so marked as I remembered. Meat eaters are some say 2, some say even 10 times more likely to get a cancer, but they have not so dramatically higher probabilities as 40 or 50 times higher.

What I remember is statistics known let's say 30 years ago and based on studies which were, in turn, decades older.

I think that modern western life has greatly increased the possibility of cancer: formaldehyde in our furniture, preservatives in our underwear, fluoride in drinking water (greatly increased in respect to decades ago, because bacteria become resistant), and possibly higher number of people exposed to air pollution (urban drift) have probably increased the number of cancers favoured by extra-alimentary factors. Vegetarians are not any more so much at "advantage" because the other risks have increased.

Nonetheless I read a text saying some of those research don't examine real vegetarians. Vegetarian, or non-meat eater, is often defined somebody who eats meat less than once a week. Meat-eaters are those who eat meat at least once a day or so. They should be defined "strong carnivorous" and "mild carnivorous" in fact. I understand that an extensive study about "strict vegetarians" is more difficult to conduct.

One thing I remember having read is that in Britain during WWII when meat availability was severely restrained for several years the cancer rate dropped dramatically.

From Cancer.org:

Studies that look at people and their habits have linked vegetarian diets with a decreased risk of heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure, obesity, and colon cancer. A review of studies looked at the effects of vegetarian diets among Seventh-Day Adventists, whose religious doctrine advises against eating animal flesh. The review found that Seventh-Day Adventists had less heart disease and fewer cases of some types of cancer than most people. For instance, vegetarians tended to have lower rates of prostate and colon cancer. On average, Seventh-Day Adventist males had serum cholesterol levels and blood pressures that were lower than average. And, their overall cancer death rate was about half that of the general population. The overall cancer death rate of females was also lower. The report cautioned that abstinence from tobacco and alcohol was very likely responsible for some of the health effects that are often credited to vegetarian diets in Seventh-Day Adventists.

A study that looked at groups of people in Germany found the death rate for colon cancer was lower among moderate and strict vegetarians compared with that of the general population. The authors of this study also noted vegetarians tend to be more health conscious than average. In Great Britain, a 17-year study followed 11,000 vegetarians and health-conscious people. They concluded that eating fresh fruit every day was linked to a significant reduction in deaths from ischemic heart disease, stroke, and all causes of death combined. Another population study found men who ate a diet rich in grains, cereals, and nuts had a lower risk of prostate cancer.

In 1991, two nutritionists studying the benefits and risks of vegetarian diets reported that vegetarians are not necessarily healthier than non-vegetarians. They found that well-planned omnivorous diets (which include meats) can provide health benefits as well. The nutritionists also pointed out that many vegetarians adopt a healthier lifestyle, including more physical exercise and not smoking. These factors would likely improve the overall health of vegetarians and account for part of the health benefit that was first thought to be due to their diet.

To look at these other health factors, a study published in 2005 compared more than 1,000 German vegetarians with nearly 700 health-conscious non-vegetarians over a 21-year period. This study found that there were no major differences between the groups in terms of death and disease, although the vegetarians had slightly less heart disease. Both groups were healthier than the general population, in part due to less smoking and more physical activity.

Most human evidence about vegetarianism consists only of studies that observe people (observational studies) and their risk for various diseases such as cancer. These studies don't test different diets; they only look at what people are already doing. Because of this, the studies often can't control for non-food differences (like exercise and other healthy habits) between vegetarians and other people.

Very few clinical studies have been reported in which people are put on different diets and studied over time. A few studies of men with prostate cancer have reported that major life changes including vegetarianism, exercise, and stress reduction can slow the rise in blood PSA levels. How much the vegetarian diet contributed to these benefits remains unproven.

The bottom line then is, become a Vegan and then do home processing of photographic materials. They will counteract each other and you come out even.

My uncle, a life long photographer, is about to turn 92.

PE

Diapositivo said:

1%: Personal knowledge spread a bit everywhere. You will certainly find similar data if you look for the relation between cancer and meat consumption, or lack of cancer and vegetarianism. That is repeated in TV documentaries from time to time and is very old knowledge. Adolf Hitler (there! ) was vegetarian and abstemious because he had fear of getting cancer. Maybe you'll find statistics saying 2% or 3%. You get the point. Vegetarians "don't" get cancer and substances in meat (putrescina and cadaverina, in Italian, are those I remember) are not good for you and I presume are also implicated in cancer. Besides, animal fat cooked at high temperature is carcinogenic etc. (some grills, now, are made in such a way that the fat dripping from the meat does not fall on the flame to come back as toxic fume to the meat). You'll certainly find many studies about that.

Cadmium: it's the "can" which releases cadmium. That's why lately there is a widespread recourse to "white inside" cans. "White inside" cans have a film of something which should not release harmful substances. In general, metal packages release metal particles. Only glass is really inert. Regular fish fished in nature doesn't contain Cadmium, only Mercury

Many packages, as you know, deliver substances to the food. For instance PET bottles deliver phthalates (said to cause impotence). Well, cans are said to deliver Cadmium. There are norms which dictate how much is not too much. I personally drink glass-bottled water.

Click to expand...

Hitler was a vegan? No wonder he was crazy.

Photo Engineer said:

My uncle, a life long photographer, is about to turn 92.

PE

Click to expand...

He must be doing something right apart from photography but in terms of a randomised control trial is he statistically significant I bet the pensions actuary society are not best pleased

I like your dry humour. Great conclusions about the vegan correlation. There is clearly British genes somewhere in the family

pentaxuser

Thanks.

Scotch, Irish, French and Czech actually. But I like the Goon Show and Britcoms. Does that count?

PE

Old-N-Feeble said:

Hitler was a vegan? No wonder he was crazy.

Click to expand...

I never said he was a vegan. I said he was vegetarian and abstemious, besides inviting himself in every internet forum after his death