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
That's fine within the confines of a commercial facility, but way over the top for the darkroom.
MSDS data was originally an idea to let firemen know what kind of danger they were walking into. Now it has devolved into an agenda.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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'tand safety is truly the primary goalthen 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.
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.
Acetone's nice. I like it. Don't go beating up on my acetone with your MSDS hooey. We need more nail salon ladies. Single ones. I'll be glad to rescue one from all that nasty acetone. I don't need a damn MSDS sheet and a lot of spectres of legal action on these gals cutting in on MY action. Your anti-acetone ideas turn these girls into welfare recipients watching Jerry Springer all day and eating potato chips. Who wants that? I wish activists would think first, and reason out the probability of the Law of Unintended Consequences coming into play. It actually has a very high probability percentage. Perhaps as high as 80%.
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 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.
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).
RattyMousel; said:No one has made any valid points as far as I can see that discredits in any way the usefulness of MSDS'.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?