What is the less dangerous print toner...

[Sirius Glass]

Finally, by the same token, breaking wind may also be very, very dangerous, as hydrogen sulfide is one of the smelly components in flatus.

Indeed, in the previous century quite a few sewer workers were overcome and died from "sewer gas."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsqbxwQLeEE

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I did some more research on the toxicity of selenium and its compounds. The literature is a bit confusing. You will read such things as "selenium compounds are highly toxic in excessive quantities." Yet "excessive" is not defined. Another site will have "ingestion of any significant quantity is usually fatal." Again no description of just what constitutes "significant." What is apparent is that it really matters as to the actual compound. Sodium selenite is extremely toxic while elemental selenium and insoluble forms such as selenium sulfide are less so. Hence selenium sulfide can be used in dandruff shampoos since it is insoluble in water. When reporting LD50 values it also matters as to the animals were used in the test. However all the values are all in the range of 1 to 10 milligrams per kg of body weight. In light of this selenium toners should be used with extreme care. Use riitrile gloves, a face shield or goggles, and a waterproof lab apron. Any unwanted solutions should be taken for hazardous waste disposal.

Once again we are confronted with confusing information. The MSDS for Kodak Rapid Selenium Toner provides some additional information for the particular product. The toner contains both selenous acid and the disodium salt of selenous acid, 1 - 5%. However it lists the LD50 for rats as being 400 to 800 milligrams per kg of body weight. (Does this mean milligrams of the toner or of selenous acid?) If the former than this agrees with other published values. But if the latter then this is a variation of ~100X among the various values I have found. The product also has a measureable vapor pressure of 18 mm of Hg so there also an added inhalation hazard.

 

[marciofs]

I just decided to give away tonning. At least archivals ones and maybe play with watercolour or Tee just for the colour.

A guess fiber papers today are archival enough and will last longer than myself and my health.

 

[RobC]

I just decided to give away tonning. At least archivals ones and maybe play with watercolour or Tee just for the colour.

A guess fiber papers today are archival enough and will last longer than myself and my health.

Use archival fixing and wash procedures and your prints will last a long time. Use Agfa Stab or Tetenal Stabinal to protect prints (they don't change print colour but close attention to usage instructions must be followed).

 

[marciofs]

Use archival fixing and wash procedures and your prints will last a long time. Use Agfa Stab or Tetenal Stabinal to protect prints (they don't change print colour but close attention to usage instructions must be followed).

This is the one for me.
Thank you very much.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

One can safely use all of the toners. Some require some more attention to safety than others. Sulfide based toners have a high pH and can cause skin irritation. In addition you should avoid contact with acids so as not to generate hydrogen sulfide. Selenium toners can also be used safely. They just need an extra amount of safety precautions than other photo processing. The toner concentrate contains only 1 to 5% of selenium compounds and the working solutions even less. However they should only be used if there is a nearby hazardous waste disposal facility. Do not pour them down the drain.

As pointed out previously selenium toner really cannot provide print archival permanence. The reason for this is that there must be a profound change in image color to provide this protection and most photographers do not want the necessary color change. So a brief dip in dilute selenium toner really does nothing. This finding is a result on studies on microfilm permanence.

 

[Ian Grant]

These posts are quite ridiculous. Forget Photography and mildly dangerous chemistry.

Do you use Bleach to clean your toilet ? Sodium Hypochlorite is quite dangerous used incorrectly.

Brick or Tile cleaner ? Usually concentrated Hydrochloric acid.

Drain cleaner - sometimes Sulphuric acid (conc), other times it's the exact opposite Sodium Hydroxide (or PotassiumHyroxide) crystals.

Oven cleaner, usually based on Sodium or Potassiun Hyroxide.


It apalls me that chemicals we (as someone from a scientific background) treat with quite careful precautions get used as household products with little or no warnngs. OP get a reality check and move on alarmist posts are not needed at all.

Ian

 

[RobC]

These posts are quite ridiculous. Forget Photography and mildly dangerous chemistry.

Do you use Bleach to clean your toilet ? Sodium Hypochlorite is quite dangerous used incorrectly.

Brick or Tile cleaner ? Usually concentrated Hydrochloric acid.

Drain cleaner - sometimes Sulphuric acid (conc), other times it's the exact opposite Sodium Hydroxide (or PotassiumHyroxide) crystals.

Oven cleaner, usually based on Sodium or Potassiun Hyroxide.


It apalls me that chemicals we (as someone from a scientific background) treat with quite careful precautions get used as household products with little or no warnngs. OP get a reality check and move on alarmist posts are not needed at all.

Ian

I just bought some nitromors paint stripper. I hate to think what's in that.

 

[Sirius Glass]

These posts are quite ridiculous. Forget Photography and mildly dangerous chemistry.

Do you use Bleach to clean your toilet ? Sodium Hypochlorite is quite dangerous used incorrectly.

Brick or Tile cleaner ? Usually concentrated Hydrochloric acid.

Drain cleaner - sometimes Sulphuric acid (conc), other times it's the exact opposite Sodium Hydroxide (or PotassiumHyroxide) crystals.

Oven cleaner, usually based on Sodium or Potassiun Hyroxide.


It apalls me that chemicals we (as someone from a scientific background) treat with quite careful precautions get used as household products with little or no warnngs. OP get a reality check and move on alarmist posts are not needed at all.

Ian

Finally someone got it right in this thread! Thank you.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

The cleaning products and other household chemicals mentioned are capable of producing skin irritation and possible chemical burns. (I'm assuming that people have enough sense not to ingest them.) This is very different from systemic poisoning that can be caused by some photo chemicals. However each person must chose their own benefit vs risk decisions.

I can speak from personal experience that I'd much rather have permanent skin damage (not cancer) than permanent neurological damage.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

The cleaning products and other household chemicals mentioned are capable of producing skin irritation and possible chemical burns. (I'm assuming that people have enough sense not to ingest them.) This is very different from systemic poisoning that can be caused by some photo chemicals. However each person must chose their own benefit vs risk decisions.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I can speak from personal experience that I'd much rather have permanent skin damage (not cancer) than permanent neurological damage.

Frankly I would rather not have either.

 

[marciofs]

I leaned that a well washed fibre print will be archival for at least 100. So I don't see the reason to toning my prints and have the risk of accidents with dangeous stuff.

Sking burn is the least of my worries.

Nothing agains selenium or any other toner. Just not for the right stuff for me.

And no, I don't have bleach cleaner at home.

 

[RobC]

Yes if you just want some additoinal protection without colour change then the Tetenal Stabinal or Agfa Ag Stab (formerly Sistan) is the one to use. You must follow the instructions on use to the letter, especially removing all droplets from print surface before leaving to dry.

 

[Ian Grant]

Frankly I would rather not have either.

I don't want either but there's a lack of reality sometimes, you splash or come into contact with something mildly hazardous like bleaches toners, developers etc you wash them off before they can be absorbed through the skin.

And no, I don't have bleach cleaner at home.

Must be a breeding ground for some quite nasty pathogens then. I actually don't believe you.

Finally someone got it right in this thread! Thank you.

I'm not advocating disregard of safety, rather a more honest appraisal of what each process really needs which I'm sure you'd agree with.

Used correctly the most dangerous of toners can be used very safely, used badly even the safest can be toxic.

Ian

 

[MattKing]

I wonder if marciofs pumps his own gas? Or uses a propane gas barbeque?

I have no idea if self-service gas stations or barbeques are common in Germany.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I wonder if marciofs pumps his own gas? Or uses a propane gas barbeque?

I have no idea if self-service gas stations or barbeques are common in Germany.

There is nothing quite like getting a snoot full of hydrocarbons while you are pumping the fuel you are buying.

 

[Jager]

Well, after a couple days of reasonable discussion this one certainly went off the rails. The OP posed a reasonable question. He wasn't being provocative. He wasn't suggesting he was careless or sloppy or inattentive. And he certainly wasn't suggesting that other household chemicals one might occasionally be exposed to weren't as much, or more, hazardous.

He simply wondered, among the range of toners available, which posed the fewest health risks.

I'm reminded of Harry Daghlian, Jr., one of the scientists on the Manhattan Project. I'm sure he felt quite smug about his knowledge of nuclear physics and criticality and all the rest. And I'm sure he felt quite confident in his ability to manage everything, up until the moment he fumbled that core.

There are risks, then there are risks, then there are RISKS. Seeking to understand the distinction between those is a sign of wisdom, IMO. Pretending that it all falls under the umbrella of "just handle it properly" is... well, just ask Harry.

[h=1][/h]

 

[marciofs]

I wonder if marciofs pumps his own gas? Or uses a propane gas barbeque?

I have no idea if self-service gas stations or barbeques are common in Germany.

I don't have car and my oven is eletric.

But it is not the point.
I agree that if used in a safe manner there is no danger.
What I am saying is that I don't want use it myself.

I am not arguing against the product itsrlf.

 

[RobC]

There is nothing quite like getting a snoot full of hydrocarbons while you are pumping the fuel you are buying.

An example of how not to use a petrol pump...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34374121

 

[MattKing]

I don't have car and my oven is eletric.

But it is not the point.
I agree that if used in a safe manner there is no danger.
What I am saying is that I don't want use it myself.

I am not arguing against the product itsrlf.

I understand what you are saying, and would certainly support the choice you have apparently made - because it is a reasonable choice to make. It is just different than the choice I have made.

If there was a "rhetorical question asked to promote consideration" emoticon I would have added it to my post.

Which was intended to point out that many people quite successfully assume some quite large risks, and very little goes wrong.

I really appreciate the benefits of toning - the fine control of image colour, the ability to increase dMax, the creative possibilities of multiple toning choices and some archival benefits. So I'm disappointed if someone decides to exclude themselves from those benefits based on what may be an over-estimation of the associated hazards.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

or red wine

 

[pentaxuser]

An example of how not to use a petrol pump...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34374121

Brilliant A variation on the old one about looking for a gas leak with a candle

pentaxuser

 

[pentaxuser]

...for the health?

I think that we all assumed that based on your question above that you had a desire to try toners but were just trying to avoid the more dangerous in terms of chimicals used or the processing method.

Normal printing might involve as many potential hazards as some if not all toners if they are handled correctly so maybe some here and that includes me were surprised at your decision not to try any toners

Now it seems that your question was simply a desire for knowledge and that toners were not something you had a great desire to try. That's fine as well.

pentaxuser

 

[marciofs]

I think that we all assumed that based on your question above that you had a desire to try toners but were just trying to avoid the more dangerous in terms of chimicals used or the processing method.

Normal printing might involve as many potential hazards as some if not all toners if they are handled correctly so maybe some here and that includes me were surprised at your decision not to try any toners

Now it seems that your question was simply a desire for knowledge and that toners were not something you had a great desire to try. That's fine as well.

pentaxuser

I have being working with Selenium toner. Toners are not something I haven't tried yet.
I just don't think it is appropriate for my room, where I work with my development and prints.