Hydrochloric Acid is pretty nasty! Oleum with SO3 (Very concentrated Sulfuric Acid) is also bad.
Sulfurous Acid is bad as is Hydro Sulfuric Acid (H2S).
PE
Sulfurous Acid is bad as is Hydro Sulfuric Acid (H2S).
PE
Safe concentration of Acetic Acid
-
A
- Thread starter Rudeofus
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale 5x7 Lisco Regal II Sheet Film Holders - $75 Each
- Started by berarthbun
-
For Sale Nicca Type 5 (m3 loading barnack!) and Nicca type 33 with nicca 50mm 2.8
- Started by Gram Nylén
-
Found 4x5 sheet film boxes (US-Texas)
- Started by Franswa
-
For Sale NIKON F100
- Started by Acere
-
Sold SOLD!
- Started by B.S.Kumar
Forum statistics
… and of course mixing two common household chemicals, bleach and ammonia, is extremely dangerous since toxic vapors will be produced.
MattKing
Moderator
I agree that MSDS sheets are both good and bad.
They are good, because they help specifically inform people who are reasonably well informed generally.
But they are bad, because they don't do a good job of telling the relatively un-informed how to effectively and productively and safely handle materials.
For many photographic purposes, they need to be supplemented with good instruction sheets.
They are good, because they help specifically inform people who are reasonably well informed generally.
But they are bad, because they don't do a good job of telling the relatively un-informed how to effectively and productively and safely handle materials.
For many photographic purposes, they need to be supplemented with good instruction sheets.
Nope, not at all. The safety requirements for the dark room are the same as anywhere else. MSDS' are written for anywhere. A chemical spill in the mail room? Consult the MSDS. A chemical spill in the dark room? Consult the MSDS. The only problems caused are by people who do not understand how to read an MSDS.
I'll laugh heartily the next time I submit paperwork for an MSDS write up. Another chance for our toxicologist to imprint her nasty agenda!!!
The MSDS for D-76 informs you how to handle the material properly. Don't eat it, don't breathe it, keep it out of your eyes, and keep it off your skin.
Sadly, these simple instructions are beyond some people. I dont know how you dumb this down further.
It's not a question of dumbness. It's a question of appropriateness and scope.
Those four simple instructions you highlight? They say that about every substance, from the innocuous to the lethal. The problem for the non-specialist becomes the Cry Wolf Syndrome.
If everything is potentially deadly to the same degree, then the message itself quickly loses its intended impact. Nobody bothers to read the documents any longer. Then when they do come across something that is truly lethal, they miss the true danger in that substance and end up unwittingly relying on blind luck not to get hurt.
Now one can take the absolutist position and say they are all dumbasses. But while that might feel good, it doesn't address the ultimate issue of safety. One has to look beyond and realize that the safety "system" itself has more variables in it than just the immediate properties of the substance in question.
Human nature has as much to do with ultimate levels of safety as flash points, toxicity, and reactivity.
If you create a document that spells out all of those physical properties and dangers, but a poor presentation in terms of appropriateness and scope means that a significant percentage of the intended audience does not read and/or understand it, then safety has been compromised and the effort has failed.
One could well argue that, regardless of the reasons why, if MSDS documents are being ignored, then by definition that approach to safety has failed. And that failure would be independent of how correct the information presented in those documents truly is...
Ken
Where on the D-76 MSDS does it say the material is potentially deadly? I dont see the word deadly or fatal or anything like that.
Why are you reading stuff that simply is not there? If you read the text that *is* there, you will learn the appropriate level of hazards working with this chemical entails.
http://www.freestylephoto.biz/pdf/msds/kodak/D76_Developer.pdf
Why are you reading stuff that simply is not there? If you read the text that *is* there, you will learn the appropriate level of hazards working with this chemical entails.
http://www.freestylephoto.biz/pdf/msds/kodak/D76_Developer.pdf
Apologies for stepping out of this thread in half an hour or so. My flight to Japan is almost here and my week long holiday begins. I have no idea if I'll have access to good ol' APUG in my hotel room. I have not been able to confirm that there is internet there.
MattKing
Moderator
The MSDS tells you some of the things you shouldn't do. What would really help though, would be to combine that information with some of the things you should do.
For example, mixing instructions that include positive directions, and directly relevant cautions.
Matt said it well. Some harmless chemicals appear deadly in the MSDS sheets.
Some are eventually corrected.
PE
Some are eventually corrected.
PE
Alcohol, a poison which we all love to pour down our gullets. It is classed as a Group 1 carcinogen.
Read the MSDS http://www.nafaa.org/ethanol.pdf
A night in the pub will never be the same again if dressed appropriately for handling alcohol.
Cheers
p.s. does anyone give a stuff about what the MSDS says.
Read the MSDS http://www.nafaa.org/ethanol.pdf
A night in the pub will never be the same again if dressed appropriately for handling alcohol.
Cheers
p.s. does anyone give a stuff about what the MSDS says.
One day at the lab, a chemist (K) was sitting at her desk removing nail polish from her nails using a store bought remover. Another chemist (D) walked in, smelled the acetone, and told K that she should be wearing gloves while using it. Ummmm.
But this thread was not about D-76. It was about acetic acid, which presumably can be lethal under the right circumstances of misuse. More specifically, dilutions below "glacial" that could be considered safe for use by non-chemist darkroom workers. And the need to ask that question here because in general MSDS documentation sounds overly alarmist to non-professionals for even relatively harmless substances.
My point was that due to unavoidable human nature those overly alarmist warnings for everything soon fade into the background static. They become part of the unnoticed white noise we all ignore. And those who design safety systems, including MSDS documentation, need to take that unavoidable fact into consideration.
If they don't—and safety is truly the primary goal—then the fault for a bad outcome lies with them for designing and implementing an insufficiently inclusive system.
And yes, that does mean that sometimes potentially inexperienced users must be protected from themselves. Every industry does that. After all, it's the inexperienced users that are the biggest potential risk to the safety system.
I just now finish installing a new water heater.* In the installation guide there was an entire section devoted to user selection and installation of the correct over-pressure relief valve. Also included was a small paper insert telling me to ignore those carefully written technical selection instructions, as the manufacturer had already selected and installed the correct valve at the factory.
Pre-installing that valve was, in software development terms, an assertion point. That valve is either correct, or you can't go any further because you won't have a water heater in your hands into which you can install an incorrect valve.
It was also a tacit admission that no matter how well-written and well-meaning those instructions originally were, they were failing in terms of audience appropriateness and scope.
Ken
* April 16 was the DOE deadline, if you didn't want to deal with the new heat-pump designs.
Last edited by a moderator:
Alcohol, a poison which we all love to pour down our gullets. It is classed as a Group 1 carcinogen.
Read the MSDS http://www.nafaa.org/ethanol.pdf
A night in the pub will never be the same again if dressed appropriately for handling alcohol.
Cheers
p.s. does anyone give a stuff about what the MSDS says.
PLEASE learn to read the MSDS. It says quite clearly in the link you provided, "Not Classifiable as a Human Carcinogen".
All this hysteria from make believe issues.
Just read the document folks.
(half way to Japan now, sitting in the Qingdao airport).
The way to determine if a chemical can be lethal is to consult the MSDS. The document for acetic acid covers the information for the specific state that it is sold in (example: glacial). If it is further diluted, then you have changed the state that it is in and so may need to do your own research on the level of hazard presented.
The VAST MAJORITY of MSDS' are written with the correct information, with the correct level of severity. Finding a few examples that contain errors or are overtly alarmist in no way diminishes the usefulness of 99% of MSDS documents.
I've been reading MSDS' for 25 years. I've seen them work as designed virtually 100% of the time. Never have I seen one lead someone astray. It is incumbent upon the reader to do their part and use the information presented them.
Inexperienced people will gain access to chemicals. I suggest that the vast majority of those who lack the skill to handle such substances wont even bother to read the MSDS. What should we do then, have the bottles read out the instructions via some type of recording?
I bought a bread machine once that made really nice tasty bread. The instruction manual contained the very clear and strong warning: DANGER, use of this machine is known by the state of California to cause cancer. WTF??? I called the manufacturer and asked what the hell was wrong with their bread machine.
They replied that the power cord contained a chemical that caused the state of California to mandate that label. I was told that as long as I dont eat the power cord, I will not get cancer. OK then.
I bet in many cases (most?) alarmist language on many chemical documents are mandated by out of control governmental organizations.
Acetone is VERY nasty stuff. I pity the poor nail salon ladies that sit exposed to those fumes day after day.
And of course there are risks attached to commonly consumed items that an MSDS won't refer to ... such as the (clinically well attested) increased risk of oesephagal cancers associated with long term excessive use of alcohol.
But all this debate batting the value of MSDS back and forth doesn't get us anywhere. They're clearly of great use in the majority of cases in formalising the known dangers of substances. Nevertheless at the same time they can't be taken simply at face value, they require interpretation in the light of other knowledge .
At the same time, if I want to (e.g.) make up some reversal bleach, reading the MSDS for Sulfuric acid and Potassium dichromate simply won't tell me or anyone else how to do so safely without poisoning myself (or anyone else), nor how to dispose of it safely after it is exhausted and jammed with yet another dangerous chemical.
Yet amateurs have been mixing a few grams of dichromate into solution for decades and are still doing so. Some will have been careless and suffered as a result, but the vast majority have either got lucky somehow, or taken simple precautions like gloving up, mixing it outdoors on a calm day and so on, and all without donning a NBC suit or owning a fume cupboard.
I still think a sticky section on APUG detailing how to safely but simply manage some of the more noxious photochemicals and mixtures would be helpful to many. The trouble is of course that it would require contribution from authoritative members, who may have neither the time nor inclination to do so.
But all this debate batting the value of MSDS back and forth doesn't get us anywhere. They're clearly of great use in the majority of cases in formalising the known dangers of substances. Nevertheless at the same time they can't be taken simply at face value, they require interpretation in the light of other knowledge .
At the same time, if I want to (e.g.) make up some reversal bleach, reading the MSDS for Sulfuric acid and Potassium dichromate simply won't tell me or anyone else how to do so safely without poisoning myself (or anyone else), nor how to dispose of it safely after it is exhausted and jammed with yet another dangerous chemical.
Yet amateurs have been mixing a few grams of dichromate into solution for decades and are still doing so. Some will have been careless and suffered as a result, but the vast majority have either got lucky somehow, or taken simple precautions like gloving up, mixing it outdoors on a calm day and so on, and all without donning a NBC suit or owning a fume cupboard.
I still think a sticky section on APUG detailing how to safely but simply manage some of the more noxious photochemicals and mixtures would be helpful to many. The trouble is of course that it would require contribution from authoritative members, who may have neither the time nor inclination to do so.
If the UPS delivery guy spills a 1 liter bottle of Kodak HC-110, *all* that he has to go with regarding the safety of this situation is the MSDS. He's got nothing else to "interpret". Nor should he need more.
But RattyMouse, we're not discussing HC110, and I haven't mentioned HC110. What has HC110 got to do with it?
The thread started out as a discussion about a raw chemical, Acetic acid, and has devolved into a discussion about MSDS and their value (or otherwise) in helping casual darkroom users deal with other raw chemicals.
Riding your hobby horse endlessly about how great MSDS is (are?) for commercial products doesn't move the discussion forward, and doesn't acknowledge the perfectly valid points about the shortcomings of the MSDS system made by Matt, Rudeofus and others.
The thread started out as a discussion about a raw chemical, Acetic acid, and has devolved into a discussion about MSDS and their value (or otherwise) in helping casual darkroom users deal with other raw chemicals.
Riding your hobby horse endlessly about how great MSDS is (are?) for commercial products doesn't move the discussion forward, and doesn't acknowledge the perfectly valid points about the shortcomings of the MSDS system made by Matt, Rudeofus and others.
Right, the discussion devolved into MSDS' after several mocked the usefulness of these very important documents. No one has made any valid points as far as I can see that discredits in any way the usefulness of MSDS'.
Regarding the OP, if I wanted to know about the safety of acetic acid, I'd consult the MSDS for the appropriate information. I'd search for the most applicable dilution since that is a key parameter that influences safety.
One key point is that MSDS documents do NOT cover the use of said chemicals. If you are questioning the safety of adding certain chemicals to a particular product, that's a whole different ball of wax.
God I wish my flight to Osaka would get here sooner............3 more hours to go.
And later you say:
RattyMousel; said:
Please learn to do your research properly.
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer...cinogens/known-and-probable-human-carcinogens
The MSDS I posted a link to is clearly wrong and you trust them.
| 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:  |