RattyMouse
Allowing Ads
Regarding chemical hazards, is Xtol significantly safer than D-76?
-
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
Is Xtol Significantly Safer Than D-76?
-
A
- Thread starter RattyMouse
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Want to Buy WTB: looking for a Voigtlander hand grip
- Started by dirkfletcher
-
For Sale Omega D5 Lift Lever Assembly
- Started by mgb74
-
For Sale Omega D5 Bellows Assembly
- Started by mgb74
-
Free Jobo Sheet Film Loader 2508 No Guides
- Started by Roger Thoms
-
Want to Buy 12x20 Film and Film holder
- Started by stray227
Forum statistics
Ian Grant
Allowing Ads
It's more environmentally friendly.
Ian
Ian
Gerald C Koch
Allowing Ads
Xtol is less apt to cause contact dermatitis.
Last edited by a moderator:
dorff
Allowing Ads
It is less toxic to fish and invertebrates as it contains no hydroquinone (a std ingredient of MQ and PQ developers) and no borate AFAIK. It doesn't contain metol, which is the culprit in darkroom dermatitis cases. Even so, it isn't fit for consumption.
OP
OP
RattyMouse
Allowing Ads
As a vegetarian for the past 15 years all I can say is EXCELLENT!
Jaf-Photo
Allowing Ads
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2014
- Messages
- 495
- Format
- Medium Format
Well, it's quite easy to read up on the active ingredients of XTOL and D76.
It's a well known fact that lab workers, in the old days, could develop problems with their skin or lungs or even get cancer. Today few people work in labs and health & safety awareness is much better.
I think XTOL produces better negatives than D76. And it's less harmful both to yourself and the environment, especially aquatic life.
Therefore, I would use XTOL even if it had been the other way around, ie. if D76 were the better developer.
As XTOL is better and safer, it's a win-win
It's a well known fact that lab workers, in the old days, could develop problems with their skin or lungs or even get cancer. Today few people work in labs and health & safety awareness is much better.
I think XTOL produces better negatives than D76. And it's less harmful both to yourself and the environment, especially aquatic life.
Therefore, I would use XTOL even if it had been the other way around, ie. if D76 were the better developer.
As XTOL is better and safer, it's a win-win
Well I don't think there is much if any evidence that since its inception D76 has had long-term ill-health consequences for the analogue community.
It is true that in recent forum years it may have increased the likelihood of repetitive strain injuries to fingers. Of course in terms of forum-years we may not yet know the health consequences of that seemingly innocent consumer good called the internet, anymore than we knew the consequences of the camel, the player, the woodbine etc. all those years ago when we all viewed such things as innocent fun
pentaxuser
It is true that in recent forum years it may have increased the likelihood of repetitive strain injuries to fingers. Of course in terms of forum-years we may not yet know the health consequences of that seemingly innocent consumer good called the internet, anymore than we knew the consequences of the camel, the player, the woodbine etc. all those years ago when we all viewed such things as innocent fun
pentaxuser
The main thing is that the nanny state has over-sensitized and caused near-paranoia about most everything. D--76 is fine. So are all the other photochemicals. Some are kinda nasty, but for the most part these film and supply companies market a very safe product. I'm not worried one bit.
From what I have read, yes XTOL is more environmentally safer.
brian steinberger
Allowing Ads
The OP has a question that is legitimate for him. Do not put him down just because of you personal political agendas. We are here to ask questions and learn.
OP
OP
RattyMouse
Allowing Ads
"Kinda nasty" is not a scientific term. My post was to try to learn more than this.
MattKing
Moderator
Any meaningful answer to your question needs to include something about volume.
If I am correctly guessing that the volume of your developing is such that have more concern about wasting chemicals because they spoil before you can use them (as compared to buying and using large quantities) than the answer is that neither developer is significantly safer because u need to use a lot of either before either will be unsafe.
This, of course, assumes you are using both normally and with reasonable care.
If I am correctly guessing that the volume of your developing is such that have more concern about wasting chemicals because they spoil before you can use them (as compared to buying and using large quantities) than the answer is that neither developer is significantly safer because u need to use a lot of either before either will be unsafe.
This, of course, assumes you are using both normally and with reasonable care.
mrred
Allowing Ads
It's all relative. XTol less toxic than D76 and is much safer, considering the rest of the stuff in the dark room. I just would not feel like taking a bath in it either.
OP
OP
RattyMouse
Allowing Ads
My volume is pretty low. I just want to have the least dangerous chemicals in my house. If Xtol is significantly less dangerous to human health than D-76, then that is a major plus in my eyes. On the other hand, HC-110 allows me to not stock large volumes of solution so that might be the way to go then.
Your reasons are your own. All the ordinary consumer-market chemicals are safer than most any household cleansers you might have. That, in a nutshell, is my "political agenda". Use your favorite photochemical in fun and good health.
Photo Engineer
Allowing Ads
Any meaningful answer requires a definition of safer.
In all aspects.
PE
In all aspects.
PE
OP
OP
RattyMouse
Allowing Ads
Safer in terms of carcinogenic, danger if 4 liters is spilled, and long lasting effects of residues left behind (no cleaning job is perfect).
OP
OP
RattyMouse
Allowing Ads
Photographic chemicals are not consumer chemicals.
Photo Engineer
Allowing Ads
Xtol is safer to you and the environment, but may give less satisfactory results based on prior reports. It is a balancing act.
Have fun.
PE
Have fun.
PE
MattKing
Moderator
The danger from one 4 litre spill in either case would be so small as to be un-measurable - with normal cleaning.
If you swallow or otherwise ingest either one, than the danger is real, but so similar as to be un-differentiable.
If you handle them in a reckless way, and do so regularly, over a significant length of time, involving a significant quantity of each of them, then X-Tol is most likely significantly less risky.
You are in far more danger when you fill your car at a gas station.
OP
OP
RattyMouse
Allowing Ads
I'm not worried about eating these chemicals. I've been a chemist for 20 years and havent eaten a chemical yet. Nor do I worry about skin hazards as I wear chemically resistant gloves at all times while working. I do think that fumes are a concern as well as spills. If, god forbid, a 1 gallon container of D-76 were to spill in my house, it would spread over an ENORMOUS amount of area. Area that my kids play in every day. Cleaning up such a spill would NOT be 100% perfect. Some residue would be left behind.
In my mind, even better than Xtol might be HC110. Working with a smaller container, for me at least, I am less likely to spill. Plus the viscosity is so higher than the spread of a spill would be much less, and the clean up a bit easier. Of course, no spilling at all is best.
Oh, and I dont own a car. Havent for 4 years. Too dangerous to gas up!
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |