Mining and photography

[Roger Hicks]

I tend to agree, but I dont have any hard data to back it up. I would
love to see it quantified somehow, since so many people assume digital is cleaner. Thats really a seperate topic, but one I've often wondered about.

I'm not sure that the pollution effects of halide versus digi are quantifiable, as they involve too many assumptions about 'average' life, degree of recycling of materials, and indeed what consitutes 'pollution': how much toxic cadmium equates to how much inert landfill, etc.

But I did like the warning at the beginning of the Leica M8 instruction book, to the effect of, 'Do not dispose of this camera in household waste. Take it to a recycling centre.'

In Europe, of course, the WEEE (Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment) directive is now beginning to bite; manufacturers and retailers are obliged to accept products for recycling, and prices (at least here in France) include an 'eco-participation' fee to pay for this. The biggest difficulty is going to be persuading people to recycle small products such as digi printers or (worse still) mobile phones that they can just chuck in the bin.

The whole quantifiability thing is interesting. I have an old, thirsty car (20-25 mpg). But it's 35 years old this year, and should be good for another 50 years, so that's a lot of manufacturing energy/materials saved. I work at home, so I don't commute. I have only travelled by air twice in the last 18 months, both times on business, not for pleasure. My séjour (sitting room) is heated by wood, but the rest of the house by electricity: I can't install solar panels on my south-facing roof because the village is a site classé (conservation area). And so forth. There are endless compromises and all we can do is make the ones we think are least harmful to the planet while still preserving a reasonable standard of living, e.g. not going back to bacteriologically dubious water from my well, growing all my own food (backbreaking work, especially as you grow older) and so forth.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Wayne;

If sulifdes are your concern then what about the high level of sulfides in Lead mining. Lead is used in automobile batteries. What about the sulfur released by burning coal, or the sulfide released by 'cleaning' coal to make low sulfur coal? What about coke manufacture which releases sulfur byproducts?

Sulfides can also come from other sources than the mining operation and are used in many places. And, this does not address Selenides or Tellurides which come along with sulfur and are much much more toxic and are used in doping electronic products.

Just to repeat something I posted elsewhere, an environmental group got after Kodak here for release of methylene chloride into the air. It turned out that the air sampling equipment they used used methylene chloride in its manufacture, and outgassing of the solvent was contaminating the air samples. Kodak had been clean in the area tested and the group lost a lot of credibility. My point is that they had their eyes focused on Kodak and were not looking at the plastics industry as a whole which is far more guilty than EK at the present time. They were so sure that Kodak was guilty, that they were blinded to other possibilities.

PE

 

[BrianShaw]

Even the bond that companies often post for cleanup can be inadequate to cover the cost. The spiel about state of the art technology has been around for a long time, I tend not to have much faith in that either. I'm sure that every single mine that has polluted or violated environmental laws promised left and right that they wouldnt. And even "clean" mines, if there really are any, are wasteful energy hogs.

Yes, I'm sure these are true statements. Mining is not, and can probably never be, fully environmental friendly. Nor can corporate greed ever ensure that promises will be met or government regulations/controls really be complied with. Fines for environmental violations are appaullingly low - a couple of thousand bucks, for instance - for a major incident; It is spit in the ocean compare to their daily cost of operation or profit; This seems to empower them to not care so much.

I seem to recall someone posting this kind of question/issue before. Can you expand a bit on the thesis of your project? Is it the question of "new vs recycled" in photographic materials as you mention in the OP or something broader?

But the real question is, are new ones really necessary?

An excellent question. I assume that an economist would be better suited to answer than I; I also assume that there is a market for virgin commodities otherwise the mining companies could not economically consider new mines. Who/what is the market they are responding to?

If there are unreasonable obstacles to recycling of certain commodities versus seeking virgin commodities, the reason for such obstacles might be another "real question".

 

[Alex Hawley]

Thanks for the replies, I have to go out but I will reply tonight. I do detect a tone seeping in that could cause rapid degeneration of the topic, and I really would like to keep it civilized. I am not insulting, criticizing, or patronizing anyone else's beliefs, attitudes, or actions, so please try to have the same respect for mine.


Wayne

Hate to say it, but this is a red herring topic. How can this be taken seriously? Mining is a old as civilization. If you want a world free of mining and its consequences, then we would be back to mud huts, grazing on grass, ect. If that's what you would like to do, then by all means do it. But why post such a topic base on fallacious logic?

 

[Wayne]

Hate to say it, but this is a red herring topic. How can this be taken seriously? Mining is a old as civilization. If you want a world free of mining and its consequences, then we would be back to mud huts, grazing on grass, ect. If that's what you would like to do, then by all means do it. But why post such a topic base on fallacious logic?

My topic isnt a red herring, but yours is a straw man. I never said I wanted a world free of mining.


Wayne

 

[Photo Engineer]

Wayne;

I think that there are several points being lost here.

1. Mining of any mineral is essential to the functioning of our society. Most minerals are toxic in some way or another. In other forms, the same material is non-toxic. These interwoven effects are very hard to single out and rank order for benefit or disadvantage. Some things are hidden to the average person.

An example of this is the use of Barium Sulfate. It is uesed for an opacifier in X-Rays and as a whitening agent in Baryta FB papers. The sulfate is so insoluable as to be non-toxic, but most other Barium salts are quite toxic.


2. Almost all mining produces toxic byproducts as well as the intended chemical.

An example of this is the mining of simple table salt which produces an effluent rich in salt and harmful to the environment. The mines, which use salt pillars for support in some cases, render them particularly dangerous to the workers.

So, IMHO, all mining is dangerous and all of it produces damage to the ecology in the surrounding area or somewhere where the product is processed. An example of this latter is the mining of coal, and the production of coke from the coal. There are adverse effects at both ends of the chain. You are stretching, if you wish to cast just silver in a bad light and discard the use of photography. Give up TV, it uses lots of lead and arsenic as well as selenium. More people around the world use TV than cameras too, I would guess. And, it is optional. A car is as well. Mass transportation was used and very effective up until the mid 20th century.

Good luck, but I think that you are way out on a limb here.

PE

 

[johnnywalker]

Almost all metals and non-metals that we use in all forms of life are mined. Arsenic and Selenium and Sulfur are mined.

PE

We are not going to live on this planet without leaving some kind of mark on it, and mining probably leaves the least repairable mark. Even tropical deforestation might repair itself given a thousand years or so. The trick I think is to leave as small and as gentle a footprint as possible. Doing so won't be accomplished by one country or one industry alone.


As an aside, Sulfur is a by-product of the oil and gas industry, but is it mined as well?

 

[Alex Hawley]

My topic isnt a red herring, but yours is a straw man. I never said I wanted a world free of mining. Wayne

OK, that's fair. I deserved that and sorry.

Wayne, I think if you did a little research, the raw minerals used in photography are a very small fraction compared to what is used in general industry. The materials used for one automobile could make how many cameras?

I'm always very skeptical of any sort of "activist group". In general, their claims are typically exaggerated and unsubstantiated to a large degree.

Way back in the 1800s, the gold smelters of Leadville, Colorado were dumping huge amounts of lead and other bad stuff into the Arkansas river. The river in that area got to where it would not support any aquatic life. Then the smelting industry there quit. In not too many years, the river water was drinkable and aquatic life returned. This was all way before any environmental laws or government funded clean-ups existed. To this day, environmental scientists cannot explain how the river recovered without any "intervention", but it did. Even at the height of the polluting, there was scant concern in any of three states downstream of Colorado on the Arkansas.

This is not to say that sort of polluting is OK. Its not in my book. But I think it does illustrate a lot of environmental science is still plenty rudimentary.

PE, I would have of disagree with you on the salt mining. It is perhaps the safest mining that their is because the salt formations are the most stable of any geological formation. Salt mines have operated in my old neighborhood for well over a century now. No poison or explosive gas, no cave-ins, no flooding. I can't remember a miner ever being killed in them unless it was an industrial type accident. Their safety record is as good as it gets. Never heard any grumbling in the bars about it neither. The brine that you talk about is pumped back down into abandoned caverns. There's no trace of it all on the surface.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Johnny;

Sulfur is mined in some locations. But you are right about the other sources as well.

Alex;

Lots of salt mines around here as well. Yes, they do have a very good safety record. The brines can leach out into soil just as any other effluent though, and when a salt mine gets flooded, the salt pillars tend to dissolve causing a total collapse of the overlying countryside. This happend at a nearby mine recently.

As for overall mining, I didn't say that I thought we should go around ravaging the countryside and laying waste to the ecology, I merely said that our civilization relied on mining, could not do without it, and produced many more toxic items than silver.

I come from Pennsylvania. The hills behind my family home were dotted with abandoned coal mines about 100 years old. At the time I was growing up, there was virtually no sign of the mines, except for the occasional sinkhole that we were warned to avoid. I was told that someone fell into one and got trapped. In any event, the damage to the ecology was primarily from the use of coal and steel. We had the coke works and the Bessemer plant nearby that produced huge amounts of toxic waste both in gas and solid form. The air today still smells strongly from the mills, but due to hard work the hills are coming back to life and the rivers are clear now.

When I was a teen, the Monongahela river was brown sludge, and now it is clear and loaded with fish. But, the coke works is still there and in operation. The mines have left no sign. Even the piles of tailings have overgrown with trees and bushes.

PE

 

[Wayne]

A lot of points have been brought up so I will try to strip this down to the bare minimm. My thesis, Brian, if you can call it that, is evolving as I go. I started this because I am not in favor of new mines in my neighborhood, and yet I use silver for photography and metals for other things. I cant honestly claim no responsibility. I also use other mining products as do we all, and I do my best to get those from responsible sources and to use them wisely, or not at all if possible. Thats mostly beyond the scope of a photography forum though. Dont assume that I am not doing what I can to conserve in all areas of my life, PE. You would be wrong. Am I perfect? Hell no, and thats why I'm not criticizing any individual for what they are or arent doing. I'm sure you could find as much fault with my daily routine as I could with yours, so its really not productive to go there. I would like to find better options, thats all.

Photographic metal use is just one piece of a bigger set of problems, thats true, but I'm trying to find a bite that can be chewed. Nobody is going to stop using doorknobs. I think it would be a small but tangible victory if the photo industry was trying to be responsible. Who (other than a few exploration geologists and those invested in mining) would be hurt if the photo industry made a conscious effort to use recycled material for as much as possible, even all of our needs? This is a serious question, I'm not presuming to know the answer. PE, you could probably address this if I can get your head out of the salt lead and coal mines for a minute. I dont know the practicality of it, or the expense of it, it just sounds good to me. Its an idea. Maybe its a good idea and maybe it isnt. Maybe the industry is already doing something. I doubt it because industry generally doesnt unless nudged, but I dont know that either.

Would it save the world, or stop all mining? Of course not. But it could be a tiny, measureable step towards reducing it. I think it would be nice to know that the industry that supplied my photo materials wasnt contributing to destructive new mining ventures. If I could say I buy my supplies from XYZ photo, and they use 80% recycled metals, that would be a step in the right direction. Would that mean the industry was enviro-neutral? Of course not, and its never going to be perfect. Its just an idea, and just one step that could help curb one of the most destructive activities that go into photographic materials, but everything has to start somewhere.

Wayne

 

[Photo Engineer]

Wayne;

Actually, a major portion of the silver used in making film and paper is recycled from fix and blix. I think that point has been missed here. In fact, photography uses less 'new' silver than any other silver using endeavor.

Most all processing plants sent their silver back to the various reclamation plants and then that silver is sent to Kodak or other manufacturers for processing into ingots which are then made into silver nitrate.

PE

 

[Alex Hawley]

In the bottom line Wayne, nearly all manufacturing is powered by electricity, no matter what country it may be in, as is your dwelling. The electricity is generated by consuming some sort of fuel; petroleum of some sort, coal, or uranium. Coal is by far used the most, and uranium is used a lot too. Both fuels must be mined and further processed before use. So its virtually inescapable. Its awful, awful hard to determine which mine the coal that you are burning in your light bulbs today came from. Tomorrow, your electric power could be coming from an entirely different source, maybe a uranium burner. I can tell you first hand that 3% of the fuel my power plant burns comes from recycled Russian nuclear warheads. So, if by chance your light bulbs are running off my electricity today, some percentage of that energy was mined in the old USSR to make a nuclear warhead that was likely aimed at the USA. Tomorrow, your light bulbs could be powered by electricity originating in Tennesee from Wyoming coal. And so on, and so on, and so on.

I don't have recent statistics available, but most of the commonly used metals like iron, steel, aluminum, brass are recycled to a great extent and have been for many years.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I've been thinking of the last post I made. Here are some guesstimate figures for you to think about.

One silver dollar contains about 25 grams of "new" silver. One square foot of film contains about 0.250 grams of silver. The silver in the film is about 50% or more "old" silver and 50% or less "new" silver. Therefore, the first difference is that silver usage in a silver doller is about 100X higher than in one square foot of film. Considering recycling, this rises to as much as 200X.

Now, factor in the jewelry you and your significant other use, and you have a huge disparity in consumption in all other silver using areas. In fact, about 1 square foot would just about equal 1 roll of 35mm film, so you could use about 200 rolls of 35mm B&W film before you equalied on newly minted US silver dollar.

Add in jewelry, and you find that disparity continues to grow.

Yes, I know that the silver consumption of the photo industry is huge, but a lot if it is that "old" silver.

PE

 

[Helen B]

Here are some numbers for Novagold's new mine at Galore Creek:

Very roughly:
3 million tonnes of copper, worth $10 billion;
150 tonnes of gold, worth $2.8 billion;
2,600 tonnes of silver, worth $740 million.

 

[Alex Hawley]

Here are some numbers for Novagold's new mine at Galore Creek:

Very roughly:
3 million tonnes of copper, worth $10 billion;
150 tonnes of gold, worth $2.8 billion;
2,600 tonnes of silver, worth $740 million.

Helen, is that what has been produced so far or the potential yield of the mine? I would guess it's the expected yield.

 

[Helen B]

Hi Alex,

Maybe I should have said that these are proven reserves for a large open-pit mine that is due to go into production. The economic viability of the mine is not dependent on the silver. I gave it as an example of a mine that may produce a significant amount of silver, but which doesn't exist for the silver.

Here are some more numbers, this time from the Silver Institute:

"Demand and Supply in 2005

Demand
Total silver fabrication demand, led by surging industrial demand, rose to its highest level in 2005 since 2001. Total silver fabrication rose by 3 percent in 2005, to 864.4 million ounces (Moz), its highest total since 2001. Industrial fabrication contributed the most to the increase, with its sharp 11 percent rise (41 Moz) to record levels of 409.3 Moz - growth that has taken its share of total fabrication to 47 percent from 37 percent ten years prior. Indian offtake in industrial fabrication rose an outstanding 58 percent last year, while Japan experienced a 15 percent increase in 2005. China posted an impressive 6 percent increase in industrial demand to reach 31.8 Moz. The United States topped 100 Moz. Electrical and electronics demand, with its 10 percent rise globally, accounted for much of the industrial category's growth.

Despite higher silver prices, jewelry and silverware fabrication posted a modest increase in 2005, to 249.6 Moz. Much of the growth occurred in China and India. Chinese silver jewelry and silverware demand rose by a stunning 20 percent in 2005, to 16.4 Moz. Indian fabrication for this category rose by 8.5 percent to 48.9 Moz in 2005 while North America experienced its fourth successive year of growth.

Photographic demand decreased by 9 percent or just over 16 Moz last year, to 164.8 Moz. The bulk of the decline came from a reduction in the output of color film. Photographic demand accounted for just 19 percent of fabrication demand in 2005.

Coins and medal fabrication demand fell by 4 percent in 2005. Despite higher fabrication in the U.S. and Germany, lower minting in a number of European countries, together with some weakness in China, resulted in the slip."

 

[Alex Hawley]

Thanks Helen. Interesting stuff.

 

[richard ide]

If I recall correctly:
In 1981, when the Hunt brothers were making a reputation for themselves, my Kodak rep told me that Kodak used 125 million ounces of silver per year. A large percentage was reclaimed silver. Even with my small business I recycled over 3000 ounces of silver. It is good economic sense to recover it apart from the heavy metal hazzards.
Jewellery manufacturers process their floor sweepings.

Each of us has to do what we can for our surroundings. Unfortunately the corporate world seems to be only interested in money to the detriment of us all. I heard on the news today that GWB is trying to set up an ethanol cartel with the Brazilians which means higher costs for us.
BTW George wanted to know "How many in a brazilian"

 

[Photo Engineer]

And these statistics and the last few posts render the initial post rather meaningless, IMHO. The silver in the photographic cycle is as close to a closed loop as recycling science and people can make it, therefore rendering it a very minor player in this entire scheme of silver production.

PE

 

[Wayne]

In the bottom line Wayne, nearly all manufacturing is powered by electricity, no matter what country it may be in, as is your dwelling. The electricity is generated by consuming some sort of fuel; petroleum of some sort, coal, or uranium. Coal is by far used the most, and uranium is used a lot too. Both fuels must be mined and further processed before use. So its virtually inescapable. Its awful, awful hard to determine which mine the coal that you are burning in your light bulbs today came from. Tomorrow, your electric power could be coming from an entirely different source, maybe a uranium burner. I can tell you first hand that 3% of the fuel my power plant burns comes from recycled Russian nuclear warheads. So, if by chance your light bulbs are running off my electricity today, some percentage of that energy was mined in the old USSR to make a nuclear warhead that was likely aimed at the USA. Tomorrow, your light bulbs could be powered by electricity originating in Tennesee from Wyoming coal. And so on, and so on, and so on.

I don't have recent statistics available, but most of the commonly used metals like iron, steel, aluminum, brass are recycled to a great extent and have been for many years.

As of next month, all of my electricity effectively comes from wind. For a slightly higher fee the amount of electricity that I buy from my provider will no longer be bought by them from other, dirtier sources like coal, and will be bought from wind generation instead. Please dont point out that fuel and mining products are used in the manufacture of wind power, or that wind power isnt entirely perfect. There seems to be an undercurrent in this thread that if something could be worse, there's no use in trying to make it better. I am at a loss to understand that.

Wayne

 

[Wayne]

And these statistics and the last few posts render the initial post rather meaningless, IMHO. The silver in the photographic cycle is as close to a closed loop as recycling science and people can make it, therefore rendering it a very minor player in this entire scheme of silver production.
PE

Glad to hear it. Now we're getting somehwere Why didnt you say that before? Can you provide some numbers? How close is the loop to closed? You earlier said "a major part" of photgraphic silver is recycled. Does that mean greater than 50%? Why cant it be 100%? (ie why is it the loop "as close as science and people can make it"). Is there some scientific reason it cant be 100%?

(edit-I just saw your other post with some of the numbers, which I am digesting now)


Wayne

 

[Photo Engineer]

Both Helen and I posted figures. The reasons it is not 100% include the following:

1. Inefficiencies, as no chemical process is 100% efficient.

2. Indifference, as not everyone returns used fix to the appropriate place for recycling.

3. Loss, as in someone spilling the bucket on the way to recycling.

4. The silver remaining in B&W photos.

Silver retained in B&W photos is estimated at about 30% on average of the useable amount, the remainder is fixed out. Color is about 98% removed. Color represents a large fraction of the silver usage.

The recovery process probably varies in ability from 50% - 95% or so depending on operator. I stated earlier that it was greater than 50% but I don't remember the value.

Therefore, the overall process, I would estimate, is about 60% or higher in efficiency, but the figures are published somewhere. Since I don't feel inclined to 'do your homework' for you, and feel very comfortable with the silver position vis a vis mining, I am not going to look it up any further.

PE

 

[Wayne]

Both Helen and I posted figures. The reasons it is not 100% include the following:

1. Inefficiencies, as no chemical process is 100% efficient.

2. Indifference, as not everyone returns used fix to the appropriate place for recycling.

3. Loss, as in someone spilling the bucket on the way to recycling.

4. The silver remaining in B&W photos.

Silver retained in B&W photos is estimated at about 30% on average of the useable amount, the remainder is fixed out. Color is about 98% removed. Color represents a large fraction of the silver usage.

The recovery process probably varies in ability from 50% - 95% or so depending on operator. I stated earlier that it was greater than 50% but I don't remember the value.

Therefore, the overall process, I would estimate, is about 60% or higher in efficiency, but the figures are published somewhere. Since I don't feel inclined to 'do your homework' for you, and feel very comfortable with the silver position vis a vis mining, I am not going to look it up any further.

PE

We seem to be talking two diferent things, and Helen didnt post anything that wasnt discussed already earlier in the thread, except the Galore Creek mine numbers.

I realize 100% cant be recovered from processed material, thats not what I am asking. I am asking why 100% recycled silver cant be used to manufacture all new film and paper, at least in theory. I realize there are other industries placing demands on a limited amount of recycled silver product, but 100% seems theoretically possible because less silver is used each year than is available in recycled form. I mentioned that very early on, using the very numbers that Helen brought up once again.

I looked at the numbers you posted and they arent really helpful. Its just more of the "other things are worse so why try to make photography better" mentality that I dont understand. I sometimes feel like I'm proposing fuel rations at a Nascar Convention.


Wayne

 

[Alex Hawley]

But can a precious metal photographer oppose NEW mining of precious metals, either in specific instances or as a general rule, without being a hypocrite?
Wayne

Let's go back to your original question and answer it plainly. No, you cannot oppose mining without being a hypocrit. You seem to be wanting a Utopian answer which of course doesn't exist.

That's nice that you are able to selectively buy electricity generated by wind. But without copper, aluminum, silver (yes, silver) and gold, electrical transmission is impossible. (And that applies to the entire world. There just ain't a better way of doing it.) What enables your selective buying is a very sophisticated electric transmission switching and trading network that didn't exist even fifteen years ago. What enables that network is the sophisticated computer network whose computers are based upon many mined minerals such as silver (again), gold (again), aluminum (again), lead (that nasty stuff), antimony, arsenic (known poison), silicon, germanium, tin, and a bunch others I have forgotten. Similarly, the wind generators are viable now because of the computer control system on them. Twenty years ago, there were just had too many problems with controlling them to be commercially viable.

Finally, two things last things. A good part of the current demand for some of these materials is due to the building of electrical transmission infrastructure in China and India. Some day, those people may be able to enjoy selective generation source buying, but for now, they would just like to have light bulbs and refrigerators. Last but not least, many of the dietary supplement minerals that we depend on for good health come from mining. Calcium, magnesium, iron, ect., all that stuff that builds strong bodies, is extracted from rocks.

But, its certainly a free country, so if you want to oppose mining, then by all means do it.

 

[BrianShaw]

My thesis, Brian, if you can call it that, is evolving as I go. I started this because I am not in favor of new mines in my neighborhood, and yet I use silver for photography and metals for other things. I cant honestly claim no responsibility. I also use other mining products as do we all, and I do my best to get those from responsible sources and to use them wisely, or not at all if possible.

(snip)

Photographic metal use is just one piece of a bigger set of problems, thats true, but I'm trying to find a bite that can be chewed.

(snip)

Thanks for replying to the question, Wayne. I didn't see your reply until just now due to the weekend. I understand the ethical issue you raise. I don't know the answer, but wish you well in finding something - ANYTHING- that can make a real and meaningful difference.

Throughout my career I have been associated with three different industries that have been known major pollutors (one of them being mining). All three industries have made significant efforts to clean up their act, but sometimes the act cannot ever be fully cleaned up as you have said several times in this thread. In each I can see an odd mix of technological accomplishment, fulfillment of a human need, support for communities that really need a source of employment... but then there is the residual effect - often in environmental damage that seems to accompany technology.

In terms of "making a difference" it seems to me that some of the discussion here is indicative of a difference in philosophy: chew the small bites first versus pick the low hanging fruit. Who knows which is the "best" approach.

Good luck to you however you choose to proceed!