Som Honest Inf about Pyro

[steve simmons]

There has been so much BS about pyro posted all over the net and in some magazines that View Camera and CamraArts have posted a rational and considered essay on its health aspects. The article is in the Free Article section of both web sites

www.viewcamera.com
www.cameraartscom

This article was written by Richard Knoppow and we have posted it with his permission.

steve simmons

 

[lee]

The camera arts link needs a dot before com for it to link.

www.cameraarts.com

Steve,
I just looked at both sites and could not find the article that Richard has written. Am I just not looking in the proper place or what?


lee\c

 

[Donald Miller]

I thought that I was the only one that couldn't find it.

 

[glbeas]

Looks like Steve works faster than his webmaster, it will probably be up pretty soon.
Wish we could get Richard Knoppow here on Apug, he's a gold mine of information and history.

 

[roy]

I don't see it either.

 

[John_Brewer]

http://www.cameraarts.com/pyro.html

 

[bmac]

There has been so much BS about pyro posted all over the net and in some magazines that View Camera and CamraArts have posted a rational and considered essay on its health aspects. The article is in the Free Article section of both web sites

No offense Steve, but there is no new info here. "Pyro: Some Truthful Informaion About Health Considerations" should be changed to "Pyro: Another opinion" This essay is full one the authors opinion, with no backup to why he feels this is the "truth".

 

[steve simmons]

No offense Steve, but there is no new info here. "Pyro: Some Truthful Informaion About Health Considerations" should be changed to "Pyro: Another opinion" This essay is full one the authors opinion, with no backup to why he feels this is the "truth".
__________________
Brian McGuiness Photography http://bmacphoto.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

If you have info that says the posted info is incorrect please share it.

steve simmons

 

[Donald Miller]

Steve,

Thank you for posting this essay by Mr. Knoppow. I respect Mr. Knoppow both for his knowledge and his experience. I am a user of Pyro based developers and enjoy the benefits of those developers in my photography.

I think what I gather from this essay by Mr. Knoppow is nothing different then what I have heard repeated time after time after time. The point that Bmac makes is valid. Mr. Knoppow does not offer any validation (apart from his opinion) for his points of view.

To offer a rebuttal to Bmac of Mr. Knoppow's viewpoint is simply an opportunity to interject another view point which would serve no good purpose. By Mr. Knoppow's own admission, no tests have been performed of the long term effects of pyro exposure. I respect his viewpoint of prudent measures to limit exposure. But again these are nothing new.

Insofar as the effects of pyro on the film itself, I find Sandy King's article (www.unblinkingeye.com) to be much more informative and lucid in the basis of it's stated position and the reasoning pertaining to that position.

Thanks again for your efforts and your service to the photographic community.

 

[bmac]

I'm not saying it isn't correct. I am saying it is yet another opinion article that is posted as "the truth". For what it's worth, I am a Pyro user (Rollo Pyro, and Pyrocat HD). I have no info that says what you have posted is incorrect, if I did, I'd let you know. My question to you was basically, Where is the truth in that article? So Mr Publisher, where is the backup to his opinion?

 

[steve simmons]

I'm not saying it isn't correct. I am saying it is yet another opinion article that is posted as "the truth". For what it's worth, I am a Pyro user (Rollo Pyro, and Pyrocat HD). I have no info that says what you have posted is incorrect, if I did, I'd let you know. My question to you was basically, Where is the truth in that article? So Mr Publisher, where is the backup to his opinion?
__________________
Brian McGuiness Photography http://bmacphoto.com>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


Since you appear to be challenging the article I would expect you to have info that Mr. Knoppow's info is incorrect. If you don';t have any supporting evidence that Mr.Knoppw is incorrect I am not sure what your posts are all about.

This is precisely the kind of thing I find so curious about these discussion groups. Peaple coming on challenging a previous post but not really having any good reason for doing so.

Mr. Knoppow as not 'invented' any pyro formulae and does not have an ax to grind. His poice is well written and unbiased. He states very clearly that no long term reseach as been done showing pyro's harmful effects. This clearly flies in the face of the doomsayers who keep saying it is dangerous and needlessly scaring people.

steve simmons

 

[Annie]

Various effects of various types of exposure on poor wee beasties here.....

Dead Link Removed

One conclusion from the study... "Lifetime dermal exposure of mice and rabbits to low doses of pyrogallol did not induce toxic effects" however, those that bellied up to the pyro-buffet on a daily basis were doin' the big snooze in short order....... Be careful out there!

(can't seem to get the link in right.... you will have to scroll to the top)

 

[bmac]

Steve, My sole intent was not to challenge the article. I am seeking clarification. I have no new information either way, and never presented myself as if I did. My intent was to get clarification / backup to the point of view of the author, and you. You open yourself up to this when you post on public forums.

This may come as a surprise to you, but the purpose of these forums is to foster discussion on issues. People post a topic, members discuss it. I'm truly sorry if you are unhappy with my response, but like I said, I'm a member of this forum asking for clarification to something you posted here.

Your prove me wrong then attitude is very disturbing to me. And for your information, I do have a very good reason to post this. As a member of this forum, and the Large format community, I want to learn as much as I can about the materials I use. I'm sorry if that isn't "a good reason" for you.

 

[Aggie]

Pyrogallol is the main ingredient in topical ointments used to treat psorisis (direct contact with skin). It is a big ingredient in red hair dyes. both are in constant contact with the skin. Pyrogallol acid is also known as antiseptic. These references from the Merck Manual. As for pyrocatcachin (sp) all of us should know that when we urinate, we are peeing out a small portion of pyrocatachin (sp). When these substances are toxic to humans is when the DRY form is breathed into the lungs. It is immediately uptaken into the blood stream, and has a chance to reach the brain. It will cause nerve damage in this form (dry). That is the powsered form, NOT the liquid form or where it has been added to substances which are wet by nature. IN that form it has partially oxidized and reduced it's toxicity. The big thing you need to be aware of is proper ventilation when mixing the dry form. Use a chemical hood, do it outside, or wear a good face mask to prevent inhalation.

Pyro will not turn your skin to rock, it will not cause serious diseases, it will not kill you if you take proper handling precautions. People who are senstive to chemicals on their skin, should always wear gloves no matter what chemical you are handling. Use common snese.

As for this continued debate, it is getting silly. We are all capable of looking up the truth about the products we use here on line.

 

[Jorge]

This is something I do know about and I agree with Brian, there is really no new information or toxicological analysis of the required doses for long term or short term harmful effects. It is not a bad article, but as Brian stated, is more an opinion than a definitive article with proofs or analysis.

There is one small mistake, it is not pyrogallic acid. It is pyrogallol which is derived by heating gallic acid at high temperatures and pressures.

Although your intentions are good, the article itself does not settle one way or another the health risks when one is exposed to pyrogallol.

I agree with Don, Sandy's article is far more complete, and at risk of tooting my own horn, my analysis of the data response on the perils of pyro thread does more to explain the myth of pyro toxicity than the article presented.

 

[moose10101]

Since you appear to be challenging the article I would expect you to have info that Mr. Knoppow's info is incorrect. If you don';t have any supporting evidence that Mr.Knoppw is incorrect I am not sure what your posts are all about.

This is precisely the kind of thing I find so curious about these discussion groups. Peaple coming on challenging a previous post but not really having any good reason for doing so.

Mr. Knoppow as not 'invented' any pyro formulae and does not have an ax to grind. His poice is well written and unbiased. He states very clearly that no long term reseach as been done showing pyro's harmful effects. This clearly flies in the face of the doomsayers who keep saying it is dangerous and needlessly scaring people.

steve simmons

If no long-term research has been done, why would Mr. Knoppow's opinion (and in the absence of research it is only that, an opinion) be in any way reassuring to a pyro user? And who are you to try to transfer the burden of proof from the author to the audience? Very disappointing.

 

[mobtown_4x5]

Jeez guys, Steve's heart is in the right place, why doncha go a little easy on him?
Knoppow's assertion that the pyro toxicity fears might be a bit premature seems to be shared by most of the knowledgeable folks aound here...

 

[Alex Hawley]

This is precisely the kind of thing I find so curious about these discussion groups. Peaple coming on challenging a previous post but not really having any good reason for doing so. steve simmons

Quite so. I fail to see what use all this "celebrity bashing" is all about. Seems every time someone notable tries to help out, the bashing starts.

This clearly flies in the face of the doomsayers who keep saying it is dangerous and needlessly scaring people.

steve simmons

Junk science is just that - junk. Hydrogen Dioxide kills thousands of humans each year. Its hazards are well known and highly documented. Many, many workshops are conducted each year teaching people how to survive its hazards. Reading all the evidence, the only rightful conclusion that can be reached is there is a vast Government conspiracy misleading "the people" about the truth!! We are entitled to be protected from WATER!

 

[Jorge]

Quite so. I fail to see what use all this "celebrity bashing" is all about. Seems every time someone notable tries to help out, the bashing starts.




Junk science is just that - junk. Hydrogen Dioxide kills thousands of humans each year. Its hazards are well known and highly documented. Many, many workshops are conducted each year teaching people how to survive its hazards. Reading all the evidence, the only rightful conclusion that can be reached is there is a vast Government conspiracy misleading "the people" about the truth!! We are entitled to be protected from WATER!

Uh, you mean dihydrogen monoxide?....Frankly I dont see why Simmons got all upset about Brian's opinion. The article does not offer any hard data or backup literature, it is only the author`s opinion, Brian said this and Simmons got offended. There is no bashing here, only the freedom to express our own opinions.

 

[Alex Hawley]

Uh, you mean dihydrogen monoxide?....

Uh, yeah. So much for my own junk science and junk opinion. Thanks Jorge.

 

[Aggie]

Various effects of various types of exposure on poor wee beasties here.....

Dead Link Removed

One conclusion from the study... "Lifetime dermal exposure of mice and rabbits to low doses of pyrogallol did not induce toxic effects" however, those that bellied up to the pyro-buffet on a daily basis were doin' the big snooze in short order....... Be careful out there!

(can't seem to get the link in right.... you will have to scroll to the top)

Going through the full article and study it would be interesting for each of you who have a scale at your disposal to measure out 700mg of a substance and see what volume the study is talking about that was administered daily. Granted it did not cause a problem at 22 weeks, only did it start to cause problems at 58 weeks.

How many remember the scare about sacchrine (sweetner) and it causing cancer? the study was done similary to this. In that study (sacchrine) mice were fed massive unreasonable doses daily. It took from a year to 2 years and each rat did develop cancer. What was the dose they gave the rats? It was the equivelent of giving each rat 1000 cans a day of artificially sweetened soda. No one is going to ingest that much let alone a rat.

Yes there is a risk for workers in in an environment where they are massively exposed on a continual basis day in and day out with no precautions at all. When that study is viewed as to what the protocals were for exposure it becomes ludicrous. We as photographers are not going to be swimming daily for long extened periods (10 or more contstant hours) to pyrogallol. The study also avoided saying what form they used to test with. Only the oinments administered were cited, and those did not until covering the enitre rat cause a problem. It senstized, or caused a rash after nearly a year. in conclusion, wear gloves if you are going to have your hands submersed for hours on end each day.

 

[DeanC]

Jeez guys, Steve's heart is in the right place, why doncha go a little easy on him?
Knoppow's assertion that the pyro toxicity fears might be a bit premature seems to be shared by most of the knowledgeable folks aound here...

I don't know where Steve's heart is, but his knee is in its usual place.

Brian made the comment that the author of the article asserts some facts and provides no evidence to back them up, an observation that any thoughtful reader could have made. Steve's response was what it usually is when someone is at all critical of his publications or his postings: He disallows the possibility that the other person has a valid viewpoint and attacks them or the whole forum structure as being un-reasonable. People are harsh on Steve because that's all he hears whether they're trying to be or not.

 

[garryl]

Well, I blame this whole thing on Howard Bond.

 

[steve simmons]

Herte is a quote from te posting on our eb sites

"Pyrogallic acid is toxic but one must be careful in interpreting MSDS: mostly they are written for industrial users of substances who use and store them in very large quantity. Pyro is a sensitizer and can cause very strong skin reactions. It should be kept out of the eyes for the same reason. It is capable of causing life threatening damage if ingested in fairly large quantity. It will irrate the lungs and respiratory system if inhaled. Pyro can penetrate the skin but so can many other substances used in photography.

There have been NO studies of the chronic effects of Pyro exposure. Pyro is no more hazardous than several other developing agents. It should be treated with respect but there is no unusual hazard in using it. Since airborne Pyro is dangerous to breath in its wise to mix Pyro developers while wearing a dust mask and facial protection. You should wear nitrile gloves. Try to avoid getting the stuff into the air. It is in light flakes which become airborne easily so some care is needed."

Since there have been no studies on the longterm effects those posting/writing about the health hazards are just blowng smoke and trying to appear to be an expert when in fact there is no evidence to support their theories. This was the point of my posting this article on our web sites. If my critics have evidence to the contrary then please share it so we can all learn something.

To repeatedly come on and criticize a constructive effort and yet admit to not having any evidence the post on our site is wrong seems a little hollow.

I am sure someone will come on and crticize this post as well. I hope that when they do so they will add new info to the question of pyro's health hazards rather than just be negative about my efforts to clear things up.

ste simons

 

[jovo]

Wow Steve. Just reading what you posted above begs clarification. In one sentence it is stated there are "NO studies on the chronic effects of pyro." and in a subsequent sentence it is asserted: " Pyro is no more hazardous than several other developing agents." Without a study of the chronic effects, how can that claim be made??

I have no position pro or con regarding pyro...I started a veeeery long thread that has addressed my concerns extensively. But your article seems tautological and not much more than an opinion. In other words it does in behalf of pyro what it's detractors did against it. The most indisputable statement in the article reports NO STUDIES ON THE CHRONIC EFFECTS OF PYRO. That doesn't help much at all.