• 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

Large Qontities of Methanol

Photo Engineer said:
When you drive through a construction area in which they may be blasting, you are warned to turn off radios and cell phones. So, there must be a serious question having arisen somewhere.
Click to expand...

In my youth, I read I.E. DuPont's excellent book, "The Blaster's Handbook". (Side note - And I wasn't surpised about the Oklahoma Courthouse Bombing having read that book. I think Timothy McVey must have read it too.)

According to that book, which was written in the 1950s, RF can cause an electrical current in the long lead wires that are connected to blasting caps. A radio with sufficient wattage, can make enough current to detonate a blasting cap, and then set off the dynamite or other explosive being used. For that reason, they are required to be off in areas where blasting is being used. Modern cell phones generate much less RF than old mobile phones and portable radio units do.

As far as the claim that cell phones can cause fires at gas stations, while it is theoretically possible, no fires have been attributed to cell phone use when thoroughly investigated and it is an urban legend. Static electricity can, but no cell phones have.
http://www.snopes.com/autos/hazards/gasvapor.asp
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/weekly/aa062399.htm
http://mythbustersresults.com/episode2

Kirk - out to debunk urban legends when I see them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Kirk;

Never forget that mythbusters can get things wrong as well. They said splinters from wood hit by cannonballs was harmless but these same splinters have been written up in many old books as the source of major injuries aboard seagoing ships of that era. There are others that come to mind, but you have to remember that RF can generate a current in a wire and if there is a gap in the wire a spark can jump. This is "can" not will. In fact, back in the old days, we were even concerned about the heat generated by radio tubes in radios in our labs. (we never did anything about it though )

I might add that we had special refrigerators at Kodak due to the propensity of commercial units to explode due to the small switches sparking when the door was opened and there was a solvent present. I saw a demonstration that blew the door off one unit.

PE
 
Explosion-proof refrigerators for solvent use is a known, and as you have witnessed, a real concern.

Certainly, Mythbusters can get it wrong - got to their website and they admit as much. They have revisited many of the episodes to try new variations on the hypotheses. But it has not been shown by actual investigators that these pump fires are caused by cell phones, despite what it claimed by the news or chain emails.
 
I remembered in the mean-time, one important fact!

We used special conductive clothing and shoes when working in the solvent coating area. Any spark could cause a severe fire or explosion.

And yes, no one is right 100% of the time. I just feel that it is better to be safe than sorry. Why sub your own film when it has been shown that you can buy it pre subbed.

PE
 
The "vibrate" feature of cell phones use small motor with non-concentric mount weight. My understanding is, a tiny spark created by the brush of that motor can possibly cause an explosion during fueling gas. Personally, I think, if that's a concern, door switch on cars that turn on/off dome light can do the same.....

I kind of understand it as a precaution, and to keep an watchful eye over the task at hand - fueling of gas, which basically is dispensing explosive and highly flammable liquid/gas in large quantity into a mobile container.
 
Photo Engineer said:
I just feel that it is better to be safe than sorry. Why sub your own film when it has been shown that you can buy it pre subbed.

PE
Click to expand...

I've tried to come up with a compelling rejoinder to your first sentence, but I just sputter. Better debaters than I have made very cogent arguments here for appropriate caution and care in any aspect of life, including photography. Actually, as far as our health is concerned, sitting in front of a computer all day is probably one of the most hazardous things we do.

So, instead, a question: Could you post a link to the pre-subbed materials you mention? Ideally with an example of emulsion coated on them. Thanks. I have tried a couple of graphics arts products that are primed for inks, but they didn't work at all. Melenex seems to be gone from the Photographers Formulary catalog, as is plain glossy baryta paper, and Formazo. They may yet come back. I don't know if the PF store 'remodel' is completed. Regardless, it does speak compellingly (to me, at least) of the advantage to learning how to make your own products.
 
Denise;

I do not rule out making ones own subbed film, I merely suggest being very safe in this procedure, like not doing it in the basement near a gas dryer, water heater or furnace for example due to the pilot light or flame if it starts while you are working, and also I suggest using an exhaust vent. Not everyone can do that though.

But, why sub film when it is apparently available subbed. I believe that post was made here by someone, and I just referred to it. They reported finding a subbed clear support that worked. I cannot find the reference, sorry. The Formulary still has a long roll of Estar (Melenex) subbed properly, but cutting it is difficult as it dulls blades and scratches easily, so until they can find a good method of cutting, it is not in the catalog. And, since the Baryta paper came from Kentmere, IDK what Bud will do for supplies now.

Unfortunately all of the subbing layers that I have found in Baker and Wall (yes, in my book it is on another page for some reason) contain a load of methanol.

Myself? I plan on doing glass plates! You can rely on them being available.

As for sputtering, relax, you seem to want to take offense that I suggest care and caution. I never really objected to doing it, but rather doing it with safe procedures in place beforehand rather than being sorry after the fact. I want you to remember that I was always careful in the lab but have suffered through quite a few fires and explosions even with all due care! Sometimes, as in many accidents, it is "the other fellow" or something you never considered. One of our accidents was a sudden gust of wind blowing the vapors from the exhaust hood back in an open window about 30 feet from the exhaust vent. Another took place when the hood sucked vapor across the room from 20 feet away and ignited it as it passed a hot plate. BTDT. Caution is my byword. In the latter accident I lost a lot of hair including eyebrows. I was lucky. You have to do more than rely on luck!!!

PE
 
Hi All,
I guess I done did it again. I asked an"innocent" question and sparked (pun intended) a factory fire. I agree with Denise in that I want to, at least, know how to do every step in my process(es) of making art.
Dose it really have to be methanol though. Solubility characteristics of ethanol and IPA are different from methanol. But is that crucial for laying down a good film? Note that I write out the whole word for methanol. If you guys keep writing about "meth", we are gonna attract the attention of the DEA.
Bill
 
Bill,

The reason for using specific chemicals is to get specific results.

Part of the point I want to make, is that we misjudge the risks we take in life because of cultural norms.

I work in Natural Gas production. I deal with more flammable gas in a second than your home uses in a year. I use liquid nitrogen to shrink parts for installation and I work around running machines where surfaces reach 1200 degrees.

On occasion I actually have to crawl inside some of the machines, literally and truly inside tip to toe, one mistake and I'd be in a variety of pieces.

But bar none the biggest risk I face in my industry is driving to work.

The risks of methanol are just as manageable as gasoline and hair spray, just be careful and read the MSDS sheet.
 
Bill;

I never use "meth"! If I abbreviate, I use the chemists term MeOH.

Do what you wish though and do what works and be safe. I have not found a substitute so far.

PE
 

No worries, Bill, and no factory fire. Just an expression of different takes on the worth of risk.

Just for you and those gorgeous turquoise eyes, I'll play with the subbing recipe next week. Perhaps instead of 1/2 methanol and 1/2 acetone, 1/4 ethanol and 3/4 acetone will do the trick. Maybe not. I'll let you know either way.

Mark,
Very well put.

Have a great weekend,
d
 
Methanol should only be used in a fume hood (i.e. you should avoid inhalation), and you should avoid skin exposure.

Here is a link to a fairly readable MSDS for methanol: http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/m2015.htm

Here are some excerpts from the MSDS.

Health Rating: 3 - Severe (Poison)
Flammability Rating: 3 - Severe (Flammable)
Reactivity Rating: 1 - Slight
Contact Rating: 3 - Severe (Life)
Lab Protective Equip: GOGGLES & SHIELD; LAB COAT & APRON; VENT HOOD; PROPER GLOVES; CLASS B EXTINGUISHER
Storage Color Code: Red (Flammable)

Potential Health Effects
----------------------------------

Inhalation:
A slight irritant to the mucous membranes. Toxic effects exerted upon nervous system, particularly the optic nerve. Once absorbed into the body, it is very slowly eliminated. Symptoms of overexposure may include headache, drowsiness, nausea, vomiting, blurred vision, blindness, coma, and death. A person may get better but then worse again up to 30 hours later.
Ingestion:
Toxic. Symptoms parallel inhalation. Can intoxicate and cause blindness. Usual fatal dose: 100-125 milliliters.
Skin Contact:
Methyl alcohol is a defatting agent and may cause skin to become dry and cracked. Skin absorption can occur; symptoms may parallel inhalation exposure.
Eye Contact:
Irritant. Continued exposure may cause eye lesions.
Chronic Exposure:
Marked impairment of vision has been reported. Repeated or prolonged exposure may cause skin irritation.
Aggravation of Pre-existing Conditions:
Persons with pre-existing skin disorders or eye problems or impaired liver or kidney function may be more susceptible to the effects of the substance.


Methanol is not as bad as some toxins, but it is still a significant hazard and if used it must be used with due regard to safety precautions.
 
wildbillbugman said:
75 years ago, it may simply have been a matter of availability, cost and traditional practice.
Bill
Click to expand...

That may explain how the process developed and why it continued. But, different chemicals do different things.

If you change the traditional recipe your results will differ. Good or bad? I don't know.
 
Methanol and Ethanol are not identical. The evidence is in the metabolic reaction of the two and the reactions of many of their derivatives. Both alcohols were readily available 100 years ago, one being wood alcohol and the other grain alcohol using their old names. I believe that the difference between the two might cause a problem, but without extensive experiments, I don't know. Try Ethanol or Propanol and see what happpens!

PE
 


Photo Engineer said:
Methanol and Ethanol are not identical...I believe that the difference between the two might cause a problem, but without extensive experiments, I don't know. Try Ethanol or Propanol and see what happpens!

PE
Click to expand...

Bill,

Information I have suggests EtOH will work, at least for the triacetate.
I suspect one reason MeOH is used is because of it's lower b.p.;

MeOH < EtOH < 2-propanol < 1-propanol

The difference btw. MeOH and EtOH is > 10 deg. C.
This is significant when drying must be kept as short as possible....

The ratio of components in the subbing appears to be somewhat critical.

Ray
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks Everyone,
I will order some glacial acetic acid and try the formula with ethanol in place of methanol. But I,like PE, prefer glass anyway. In fact, I actually love glass.
Bill
 
Bill -

Glacial Acetic Acid is quite poisonous!@!!

Health Rating: 3 - Severe (Poison)
Flammability Rating: 2 - Moderate
Reactivity Rating: 2 - Moderate
Contact Rating: 4 - Extreme (Corrosive)
Lab Protective Equip: GOGGLES & SHIELD; LAB COAT & APRON; VENT HOOD; PROPER GLOVES; CLASS B EXTINGUISHER
Storage Color Code: Red (Flammable)

OK, never mind. I know you know how to use glacial acetic acid and it's hazards...
 
Yes Kirk,
There are poisons, and then there are poisons. I have my expensive dyes in methanol. But I use them with an eyedropper. I also use ethanol and IPA in larger quantities. Perhaps my concern with coating with warm methanol is exaggerated (irrational). I cannot think of any other chemical that concerns me as much.
BTW. I have worked with glacial acetic acid.
Bill
 
I tried substituting Everclear for the methanol. I got a gloppy, goopy mess. I only tried once. If there was historical evidence of success, I'd try again. Heaven knows I've needed to try, try, and try again with some of the old recipes. But, since the safety protocols I follow will be the same either way, I'll stick with the methanol/acetone recipe. Once you've followed silver nitrate down the risk rabbit hole in search of Beauty, it's in for a penny, in for a pound (and worth every bit of it.)
 
Wow,,, methanol is at the top of your toxic concerns in a darkroom? What on earth have you decided to use as developers? I'm not sure what it took to get methanol up there, but if you look thru a darkroom and the MSDS sheets on most of our products, I'll bet the various alcohols are way down the list of bad things to be worried about.

I'd darn sure rather have my grandkids working with methanol under my supervision in a darkroom than doing a dilution of glacial acetic acid. There's some of the active developer chemicals that come to mind I really wouldn't want them working with in a pure state either. How about some of the toners and reducers?
If a your examination of the toxicology of methanol gives you reason to not use it, I'm thinking the whole darkroom thing is on shakey ground for you. (not a bad thing, your choice, but if you're consistant, you really need to reevaluate this as a hobby, and really good hobbies like this one, are hard to come by).

I hope this doesn't come across as an attack,,, not my intentions at all. My daughter is a card carrying vegatarian from a long line of charred animal flesh folks, making her different, and I don't understand, and it's ok,,, but confusing. So me not understanding is really not all that odd ;-)
 
Grif;

Please read the rest of the thread to get a better perspective. Or, maybe you have. IDK. If you have, no further comment.

PE
 
I did read thru the thread, and just did a quick overview. Not to say I didn't miss the point again ;-) The wife keeps pointing out I seem to communicate "differently" that most of the other folks she thinks she knows well. Re-reading my post, I do think I missed the mark I was aiming for.

Let me try again.
Yes methanol is toxic. Worrying more about it than glacial acetic acid? They're both, along with a lot of other phographic chemicals, toxic and demand some care in their use. If great efforts are being made to avoid the use of something along the lines of methanol based on it's toxicicity level, perhaps a re-evaluation of the other chemicals in the process is in order. I just flipped thru several MSDS's, quite the eye opener.
Anyway,,, It's a hobby,,, be careful.
 
Grif;

Most MSDS's are on the conservative side for legal reasons. They most often overstate the case for many chemicals. Methanol though is more apt to spread out in a lab like ether, than HQ is for example, and this generates more concern that people take stronger precautions.

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