Mining and photography

Photo Engineer · Mar 12, 2007

Wayne;

I think you are missing the point entirely, and that is that 100% of the silver recycled "AND RETURNED TO THE PHOTO MANUFACURERS" is used, but only about 60% or so is returned due to failures as noted above.

PE

Wayne · Mar 13, 2007

I understand that. But that isnt what I was asking.

Is theres something preventing photo manufacturers from using ONLY recycled silver in their manufacturing, other than competition for a limited supply? I mean silver recycled from ANY source, not just recycled photo silver.

I dont know how to make it any more clear than that.

Wayne

Roger Hicks · Mar 13, 2007

Wayne said:
Is theres something preventing photo manufacturers from using ONLY recycled silver in their manufacturing, other than competition for a limited supply?

Dear Wayne,

Yes -- the fact that it's completely pointless, quite apart from the fact that you can't tell where silver comes from: the metal refiners (and more importantly for the present argument, the suppliers of silver-based chemicals) cheerfully and entirely reasonably make little distinction about where their silver comes from. You'd need to set up two parallel silver distribution services, one dealing only in recycled silver, one dealing in new-mined metal. The overall demand for silver would not drop; the only difference would be that one industry was buying its silver from source A, not source B.

The net amount of silver recycled is not going to go up if photographic manufacturers use only recycled silver, so the only effect of using nothing but recycled silver in photography would be to salve the consciences of photographers who care about the environment but don't think too clearly. Can you think of any way in which it would actually benefit the environment?

Cheers,

R.

Photo Engineer · Mar 13, 2007

Wayne;

Very little silver is recycled other than that used in photography. It is only there that a clearly established method has been developed for recycling.

Silverware, coinage and jewelry are not ordinarily recycled. Used in electronics, it is much harder to reclaim and often is not.

As for using recycled silver from other sources (if there were any significant amount), since it is probably contaminated with a lot of unknowns, it would have to be re-purified by methods other than those used for former photographic silver.

As indicated by Helen's post, most 'new' silver can be considered mine tailings anyhow.

PE

BrianShaw · Mar 13, 2007

Wayne said:
I understand that. But that isnt what I was asking.

Is theres something preventing photo manufacturers from using ONLY recycled silver in their manufacturing, other than competition for a limited supply? I mean silver recycled from ANY source, not just recycled photo silver.

I dont know how to make it any more clear than that.

Wayne

Have you posed this question to Kodak (Kodak present, not just Ron) or Ilford?

Wayne · Mar 13, 2007

Roger Hicks said:
Dear Wayne,

Yes -- the fact that it's completely pointless,

Not to me

quite apart from the fact that you can't tell where silver comes from: the metal refiners (and more importantly for the present argument, the suppliers of silver-based chemicals) cheerfully and entirely reasonably make little distinction about where their silver comes from. You'd need to set up two parallel silver distribution services, one dealing only in recycled silver, one dealing in new-mined metal. The overall demand for silver would not drop; the only difference would be that one industry was buying its silver from source A, not source B.

I understand that demand for silver would not drop. I dont know enough about silver distribution to know if they can or cant tell where its coming from. That seems like a fixable problem though. Companies that want their customers to know they are selling or using recycled material will find a way to find out.

The net amount of silver recycled is not going to go up if photographic manufacturers use only recycled silver, so the only effect of using nothing but recycled silver in photography would be to salve the consciences of photographers who care about the environment

Precisely. Thats the goal.

but don't think too clearly.

Cough. No comment.

Can you think of any way in which it would actually benefit the environment?

Yes. Photopraphers such as myself could actively oppose destructive new silver/platinum/palladium mining ventures without being hypocrites, assuming I am also doing everything that can to reduce or eliminate other unnecessary raw mining products from their life, which I certainly try to do.

Thats the whole point.

Wayne

Wayne · Mar 13, 2007

BrianShaw said:
Have you posed this question to Kodak (Kodak present, not just Ron) or Ilford?

Not yet, but I will. I think it's gone about as far as its going to go here.

Wayne

Photo Engineer · Mar 13, 2007

Wayne;

You appear to me to be a person searching for an environmental problem associated with photography. I suggest that you direct your energies to the Jewelry and coin collecting segment of the industry for your efforts as being a much better target!

That way you won't be a Quixotic figure to us who understand the reality that photography is a gnat on the side of an elephant which is the mining industry as a whole.

If photograph were to be perfectly "clean", the situation would be in no way seriously affected as far as anyone could probably determine.

PE

Roger Hicks · Mar 14, 2007

Wayne said:
Yes. Photopraphers such as myself could actively oppose destructive new silver/platinum/palladium mining ventures without being hypocrites

Dear Wayne,

You're not just failing to think clearly: you're being dishonest and selfish, and thoroughly hypocritical. Read the rest of this post and see if I am being unfair in this assessment.

What you're saying is,

"I refuse to give up my use of silver, but if I use only recycled silver, thereby depriving someone else of its use and forcing them to use new-mined silver, I can have a clear conscience. Of course, they shouldn't be allowed to use new-mined silver, so they can give up using it, even though I won't."

If you really want to reduce world silver consumption, do your bit, and stop using it. There is no middle ground on this one. Otherwise you're arguing as follows: "My use of silver is important, and yours isn't."

I count myself more environmentally aware than most people: I first attended Greenpeace rallies in the 70s, and today I am a Fellow of the RSA which is working towards a zero-waste economy with some real ideas and initiatives. You might care to consider joining the RSA, which has been around 250 years.

Finally, like others on this thread, I'd suggest that you are making a mountain out of a molehill in order to salve what must be an exceptionally flexible conscience, without making any difference whatsoever to the environment.

Cheers,

R.

firecracker · Mar 14, 2007

This is an interesting topic.

Well, for this kind of moral dilemma, I give you an example, but this is rather an ironic one: I live in a country, pretty resourceless but highly industrial, called Japan. One of the latest news is that there are apparently a countless number of thieves in the country who drive around their pickup trucks at night and steal metals in public to sell them for money. They cut the copper wires from the powerlines, pull out the bike posts from the sidewalks, and take the manhole lids from the streets, etc. Unbelievable. Now what they are doing is truly "recycling", but that's a different story.

But seriously, it might be too hard to have an argument with the silver part of the story. I think what could convince your audience is to go into other areas of recycling or to have a much bigger picture to start related to photography or whatever. I mean, for example, the consumer market dumping tons of still-usable film cameras and lenses seems already harmful enough to the environment and we know it, but we don't quite act so. These cameras have a lot of metals, and how are they being recycled if they are? Are they recycled 100 percent of the time? Or do they just get scrapped, burned, and/or burried somewhere? And where are the dumpsters we use? I don't mean some third-world countries and below, but where do they end up eventually? And you can always argue about the cars, too.

Anyway If I were you to do a research, I would start from there and trace back to where we buy and use to practice photography. Sorry this is more than talking about the use of silver, but it just seems so inevitable.

firecracker · Mar 14, 2007

By the way, is there anything scandalous about getting silver today? I mean, does the silver market invlove immoral and unethical means of getting it to our table like getting diamonds and gold from Africa where some of the money (from certain purchasing companies) goes to the hands of warlords who buy weapons and conduct massacres, etc? I'm just curious. If it does, it's definitely worth discussing.

Photo Engineer · Mar 14, 2007

Most of the silver used by Kodak comes from the US and Canada. IDK about Fuji. The quantity that is 'new' comes from many mines on this NA continent, but some comes from SA IIRC. I've never heard any problems with cartels or illegal activity except for the Hunt brothers.

PE

Wayne · Mar 14, 2007

Roger Hicks said:
Dear Wayne,

You're not just failing to think clearly: you're being dishonest and selfish, and thoroughly hypocritical. Read the rest of this post and see if I am being unfair in this assessment.

What you're saying is,

"I refuse to give up my use of silver, but if I use only recycled silver, thereby depriving someone else of its use and forcing them to use new-mined silver, I can have a clear conscience. Of course, they shouldn't be allowed to use new-mined silver, so they can give up using it, even though I won't."

I dont see any hypocrisy at all for wanting to reduce MY use. I would feel a lot more hypocritical if I didnt. But we're all hypocrites in one way or another, and I will oppose the mines in my area whether I do photography or not and whether photography uses only recycled metals or not.

If you really want to reduce world silver consumption, do your bit, and stop using it. There is no middle ground on this one. Otherwise you're arguing as follows: "My use of silver is important, and yours isn't."

I count myself more environmentally aware than most people: I first attended Greenpeace rallies in the 70s, and today I am a Fellow of the RSA which is working towards a zero-waste economy with some real ideas and initiatives.

It would be difficult for me to use any less photographic silver than I already do.

I wasnt familiar with RSA, but since one of RSAs aims matches one of mine, perhaps you would give your thoughts as to how this RSA aim:

# Encourage sustainability within arts practice

pertains to photography and this thread.

I didnt come into this with any preconceptions, I just wanted to explore the topic. As I said my position as this relates to photography is evolving as I go. I willl be very interested to see how you approach this without avoiding the subject and without being hypocritical- maybe I will learn something.

I do have thoughts on the so-called "necessity" of all the new mines being explored, proposed, and built, but I intend to stay on topic. In order to follow my line of thinking as to how this topic could help make a small overall difference, we would have to go well off-topic and I'm simply not going there, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

You might care to consider joining the RSA, which has been around 250 years.

Finally, like others on this thread, I'd suggest that you are making a mountain out of a molehill in order to salve what must be an exceptionally flexible conscience, without making any difference whatsoever to the environment. Cheers,
R.

Actually I was trying to eliminate a molehill, although a few people seemed to think I was making a mountain of it. Anyway I make a great deal of difference to the environment and I have for years, but that doesnt mean every day is an overwhelming success. Thats the risk of trying.

Wayne

Wayne · Mar 14, 2007

firecracker said:
By the way, is there anything scandalous about getting silver today? I mean, does the silver market invlove immoral and unethical means of getting it to our table like getting diamonds and gold from Africa where some of the money (from certain purchasing companies) goes to the hands of warlords who buy weapons and conduct massacres, etc? I'm just curious. If it does, it's definitely worth discussing.

Define scandalous. You are setting a mighty high bar for it if it has to include mass murders.

Many (not all) Tahltan people of British Columbia feel that the numerous mining projects being proposed for their spectacular, pristine traditional territory to be a threat to their way of life. Is that scandalous enough? I've been there, and I have to agree with them.

http://www.sacredheadwaters.com/

You may want to read about this silver mine in Bolivia and see if the life expectancy of ten years for mine workers there meets your criteria:

http://www.unesco.org/courier/2000_03/uk/dici/txt1.htm

People in Potosi show discontent when they talk about mining. Villalobos understands. Mining, he says, whether in colonial times, or whether by the private sector or by the state-owned Bolivian Mining Corporation, has taken non-renewable resources from the area and left behind only contamination and poverty.

Wayne

Wayne · Mar 14, 2007

Photo Engineer said:
Wayne;

You appear to me to be a person searching for an environmental problem associated with photography.
PE

I'm not looking for that at all-I already have plenty of environmental problems without looking for new ones!

Wayne

firecracker · Mar 15, 2007

Wayne said:
I dont see any hypocrisy at all for wanting to reduce MY use. I would feel a lot more hypocritical if I didnt. But we're all hypocrites in one way or another, and I will oppose the mines in my area whether I do photography or not and whether photography uses only recycled metals or not.

So, it's just a "not-in-my-backyard" kind of deal? I'm sorry, but you are not making any sense to me in your argument. However, I do understand your moral dilemma, and no one is criticizing that, just to be sure. And I don't think we are hypocritical in that way. It's just that we take what we need to consume to live for the most part. Don't take too much. Don't let big businesses and governments take advantage of you and your local resources too much. That's all we can do to prevent further environmental damages.

firecracker · Mar 15, 2007

Wayne said:
Define scandalous. You are setting a mighty high bar for it if it has to include mass murders.

Many (not all) Tahltan people of British Columbia feel that the numerous mining projects being proposed for their spectacular, pristine traditional territory to be a threat to their way of life. Is that scandalous enough? I've been there, and I have to agree with them.

http://www.sacredheadwaters.com/

You may want to read about this silver mine in Bolivia and see if the life expectancy of ten years for mine workers there meets your criteria:

http://www.unesco.org/courier/2000_03/uk/dici/txt1.htm

People in Potosi show discontent when they talk about mining. Villalobos understands. Mining, he says, whether in colonial times, or whether by the private sector or by the state-owned Bolivian Mining Corporation, has taken non-renewable resources from the area and left behind only contamination and poverty.

Wayne

To me any business involving criminal activity is scandalous enough. I would certainly boycott buying certain product(s) and so on if I knew something. Let's say, if a photo product company is buying silver from a business engaged in any criminal activity, it will be a good idea for someone to speak up about it. Is there any? Or if you know a certain mine where workers are currently being treated like sh-t, and we as film photographers are getting silver from them, please warn us.

But like others have already pointed out, you are approaching larger issues here. If I knew how to save silver any more than what's already been discussed, I would tell you. But I don't. If I knew how to save paper and trees, I would tell you that, too, but again I don't any more than what others already know...

Wayne · Mar 15, 2007

firecracker said:
So, it's just a "not-in-my-backyard" kind of deal?

No. I hate NIMBYS.

Wayne

Bryce Parker · Apr 19, 2007

I've come to this a little late I guess, but photographing mines is my BIG thing. So it seems like I should make a comment or two.
Firstly, I stumbled onto this specialty in photography for a list of reasons. Chiefly, they are that as a machinist in a developed country I've been watching jobs and wages and such suffer as manufacturing is moved overseas in part to 'solve' our environmental problems. Which of course is largely balderdash, since moving pollution to places without controls is just cheaper than cleaning it up. Plus, it is out of the consumers' sight.
My next point may seem somewhat contrary. The attached image is from a silver mine in Northern Idaho (sorry, I don't know the mine's name but it enters the same ledge of ore as the infamous Bunker Hill). I'd have used the Bunker Hill but getting in there without permits and a lot of dynamite would be pretty hard today.
The Bunker Hill is not only known as scandalous because of the attempt by the Hunt Brothers to corner the silver market, but also because its operation was an environmental catastrophe. The largest Superfund site in the U.S. is the Couer D'Alene valley, and that is primarily because of lead and zinc emissions from the Bunker Hill's smelting operation. During the 1970's the smelter was run without a scrubber, leading to the contamination of hundreds or thousands of square miles, and a major watershed.
That said, silver usage in photo processes in the present day is fairly low. Among the reasons for Northern Idaho's nearly extinct mining industry is low demand for its products.
If a person wants to make a real difference environmentally, consider where the products you are buying are made. Does that nation and or company make a real effort to minimize their impact? Can you use less of those products? And of course recycle.
I take my spent fixer to a local photo supply store where it is recycled. And I personally intend to continue making my B+W's with silver based film and paper until something truly better comes along. Since my images involve lengthy time exposures, digital isn't a functional alternative yet.

JBrunner · Apr 19, 2007

Yes, I believe a reasoned approach would be to use and return as much silver as possible to recycle. Setting an example where it counts.

Mining and photography

Photo Engineer

Wayne

Roger Hicks

Photo Engineer

BrianShaw

Wayne

Wayne

Photo Engineer

Roger Hicks

firecracker

firecracker

Photo Engineer

Wayne

Wayne

Wayne

firecracker

firecracker

Wayne

Bryce Parker

Attachments

JBrunner

Moderator

Mining and photography

Attachments

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency