Because of EPA regs.
https://petapixel.com/2021/07/06/fu...ntinue-velvia-100-film-in-the-u-s-by-the-epa/
Jim B.
https://petapixel.com/2021/07/06/fu...ntinue-velvia-100-film-in-the-u-s-by-the-epa/
Jim B.
Okay, so I’ve got 20 years worth of frozen E6 films from Agfa, Fuji, Kodak and Konica, frozen since new. I have no idea if any used this chemical in manufacture over that time. So the question: is this just a uniquely Velvia 100 thing in the history of emulsion chemistry, or is the EPA going to produce a list of films (past and present), or are labs just going to start refusing anything but current, known emulsions that the EPA has green lighted?
How many rolls of E6 do you shoot each year, say a ballpark average over the past five years? I am trying to imagine the size of your freezer.Okay, so I’ve got 20 years worth of frozen E6 films from Agfa, Fuji, Kodak and Konica, frozen since new.
This announcement is one of the biggest nonsense I ever read.
Proposition 65 (formally titled The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986) is a California law passed by direct voter initiative in 1986 by a 63%–37% vote. Its goals are to protect drinking water sources from toxic substances that cause cancer and birth defects and to reduce or eliminate exposures to those chemicals generally, such as consumer products, by requiring warnings in advance of those exposures.
How many rolls of E6 do you shoot each year, say a ballpark average over the past five years? I am trying to imagine the size of your freezer.
The following are excluded from the prohibition in this final rule:
- Processing and distribution in commerce of PIP (3:1) for use in photographic printing articles and PIP (3:1)-containing photographic printing articles until January 1, 2022.
Yes they will. Send the film to me and I will take the responsibility for environment friendly disposalOkay, so I’ve got 20 years worth of frozen E6 films from Agfa, Fuji, Kodak and Konica, frozen since new. I have no idea if any used this chemical in manufacture over that time. So the question: is this just a uniquely Velvia 100 thing in the history of emulsion chemistry, or is the EPA going to produce a list of films (past and present), or are labs just going to start refusing anything but current, known emulsions that the EPA has green lighted? I’m sorry, I’m an environmental nut, but I think the EPA is going a bit overboard with this, and especially the timeframe. At least give Fuji time to rework Velvia 100 if they choose to do so.
It might be just too much fuss and expense to re-tweak this product for sake of one country, especially since they already have a reasonably close substitute choice. Ordinarily EU enviro standards for chemicals are far more strict than the US, so who knows what will happen there down the line.
Try to keep in mind that the EPA was severely budget hamstrung and understaffed under the previous administration, and that there has been a pandemic going on. With all kinds of horrific Superfund sites and ongoing gross pollution violations to deal with, the question of a single more stop of necessary exposure in a tiny overall market is not likely to get priority attention.
It's either blanket rulings or endless nitpicky haggling. That's always seemingly been the case with the EPA. Some rulings have made a lot of sense over the long run when it comes to public safety, while certain other stipulations make you scratch your head. But somebody has to do the job, and it's often a hazardous despised line of work.
What amazes me is that you can freely buy as many paracetamol tablets as you like, when even a moderate overdose can severely damage your liver and even be fatal. In contrast, several comparatively innocuous substances are either verboten or severely restricted.Ah. Let me hand you an even larger piece of nonsense. I present, for your consideration, Proposition 65:
By itself, it's not unreasonable. But any item that contains any amount of a known carcinogen, even if it's present in an immutable, inaccessible form, must be labeled. Most hammers for sale in this country carry a Prop. 65 label, along with Starbucks coffee-- in spite of the fact that you'd have to eat several hundred hammers (or drink a few thousand gallons of coffee a day) to run any statistical risk of cancer, and the side effects of trying would likely be far deadlier than the actual carcinogen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_California_Proposition_65#Controversy_and_claimed_abuse
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?