ZoneImaging Photochemicals: A new photochemical company

faberryman · Jun 27, 2022

The English Technical Data Sheet for 510 Pyro has been taken down on the Zone Imaging website. The Technical Data Sheets for France, Germany, Spain, and the Netherlands still use the toxic symbols. Could the change in classification be as a result of Brexit, with the UK now having more lax regulations than the EU?

pentaxuser · Jun 27, 2022

faberryman said:
The English Technical Data Sheet for 510 Pyro has been taken down on the Zone Imaging website. The Technical Data Sheets for France, Germany, Spain, and the Netherlands still use the toxic symbols. Could the change in classification be as a result of Brexit, with the UK now having more lax regulations than the EU?

A good question: If a U.K. commercial site selling 510 Pyro is no longer bound by law, be that European or U.K. law to display a Tech Data Sheet then ZoneImaging, whatever we think of its integrity, is operating within the law but I'd be surprised in U.K. law has changed in this respect. However, as a U.K. citizen I am surprised by many facets of what we do these days

Many someone with knowledge of U.K. law in respect of chemicals can reply. If it is against the law to have done what ZoneImaging has done then James Lane is taking major risks in his business

We all need to make up our minds as to Mr Lane's integrity and what kind of a risk-taker he is. We have a lot of info now on which to do this

pentaxuser

Ian Grant · Jun 27, 2022

The change in the datasheet has come about after Jemzyboz/Lane has claimed that a chemist has told him it's not Toxic. He just hasn't changed it yet in the other languages.

It's worth noting that Bostick & Sullivan with over 40 years experience do mark it and other developers correctly with all the warning symbols, actually on the bottle labels. It's a requirement in all countries.

Ian

Ian Grant · Jun 27, 2022

darr said:
I recently purchased a bottle of 510 Pyro from ZoneImaging.
Shipped to Florida USA, it arrived within 7-10 days. The parcel was crushed, but the contents were unharmed.

Last night I was able to use the 510 for the first time with a few sheets of 4x5; everything came out fine.
Will I purchase it again from the UK? No, because since the purchase, I found I can get it from Bostick & Sullivan in Santa Fe, NM, saving me postage (I think).
I am hoping the days of me mixing pyro chemicals are over if I find 510 Pyro will replace the pyro hd mix I have used in the past.

I have no complaints about my experience with ZoneImaging.

It's also roughly half the price from Bostick & Sullivan.

Ian

Raghu Kuvempunagar · Jun 27, 2022

darr said:
I recently purchased a bottle of 510 Pyro from ZoneImaging.

Last night I was able to use the 510 for the first time with a few sheets of 4x5; everything came out fine.

Since it is a recent purchase, the bottle you got must be from a batch that uses the supposed new way of mixing. What is the colour of the concentrate?

pentaxuser · Jun 27, 2022

darr said:
I recently purchased a bottle of 510 Pyro from ZoneImaging.
Shipped to Florida USA, it arrived within 7-10 days. The parcel was crushed, but the contents were unharmed.

Last night I was able to use the 510 for the first time with a few sheets of 4x5; everything came out fine.
Will I purchase it again from the UK? No, because since the purchase, I found I can get it from Bostick & Sullivan in Santa Fe, NM, saving me postage (I think).
I am hoping the days of me mixing pyro chemicals are over if I find 510 Pyro will replace the pyro hd mix I have used in the past.

I have no complaints about my experience with ZoneImaging.

Yes,darr, and I haven't seen anyone who has bought 510 from ZoneImaging have a complaint in terms of what it does which is what 510 is supposed to do. How it performs and does it match what 510 is supposed to be/do was never the point of any posts

It does what Jay de Fehr's 510 is supposed to do. Nor was there ever any reason to doubt that ZoneImaging is/was selling genuine 510

What is/was of concern is the claims made that it is better/different and what it is that makes it better than Jay de Fehrs 510 and now the claim that it is non toxic and the fact that any reference to the chemicals involved has now been omitted

His market is not Photrio as became clear to him quite quickly when Raghu introduced us to the thread that began this whole saga

That's fine. As a business ZoneImaging needs to know where its market lies but what worries me is that the market in question probably consists of newcomers to film and developers who may not know enough to distinguish what is marketing blurb and what is genuine factual claims backed by evidence. They take non toxic at face value i.e. not harmful

OK all photographic chemicals should be respected but some are clearly more dangerous than others and to omit any reference to the dangers of 510 risks naive users maybe taking less precautions when using it or ensuring that this stuff is kept well away from anyone else, especially minors.

pentaxuser

Raghu Kuvempunagar · Jun 28, 2022

darr said:
The staining looks fine on my film, but it will be a few days before I can get to digitizing.

Thank you! The concentrate appears to be dark if not very dark unlike the golden brown brew shown in Jay's video. I guess one can't rely on colour as the indicator of the level of oxidation for this developer.

Raghu Kuvempunagar · Jun 28, 2022

Ian Grant said:
Jemzyboz/Lane is now claiming this about 510 Pyro:

the concentrate is not toxic enough to be classified as toxic so the toxic symbol has been removed

Ian, I just now checked this page for information on toxicity of Pyrogallol and here is what I found:

"4. 4 = Very toxic: Probable oral lethal dose (human) 50-500 mg/kg, between 1 teaspoon and 1 ounce for 80 kg person (150 lb).

Gosselin, R.E., H.C. Hodge, R.P. Smith, and M.N. Gleason. Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products. 4th ed. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1976., p. II-128"

So, even 1g of Pyrogallol can be potentially lethal depending on the person. 510-Pyro (100ml) contains 10g of Pyrogallol and should be indeed lethal. So it's bizarre how one can claim that the concentrate is not toxic unless I'm missing something.

Raghu Kuvempunagar · Jun 28, 2022

Here is a useful reference on the toxicology of Pyrogallol for the interested.

halfaman · Jun 29, 2022

Raghu Kuvempunagar said:
Here is a useful reference on the toxicology of Pyrogallol for the interested.

Pyrogallol is forbidden in Europe as a component of cosmetic products (like hair dyers) since 1992 more or less.

International regulation indentifies pyrogallol as acute toxic and mutagenic by several contact ways.

Alan Johnson · Jun 29, 2022

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/61e9dd3504ed6d3cbf4f5077/t/62b5ecb047fe1177a9cc4736/1656089777827/510+Pyro+SDS+-+Revision+1.pdf

Here is the English msds. I don't see anything wrong with it.

Raghu Kuvempunagar · Jun 29, 2022

Alan Johnson said:
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/61e9dd3504ed6d3cbf4f5077/t/62b5ecb047fe1177a9cc4736/1656089777827/510+Pyro+SDS+-+Revision+1.pdf
Here is the English msds. I don't see anything wrong with it.

Please see post #224 by Ian for the context. And also this post by Zone Imaging.

FotoD · Jun 29, 2022

Alan Johnson said:
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/61e9dd3504ed6d3cbf4f5077/t/62b5ecb047fe1177a9cc4736/1656089777827/510+Pyro+SDS+-+Revision+1.pdf
Here is the English msds. I don't see anything wrong with it.

That's an odd address, how did you get there? When I try

https://zoneimaging-photochemicals.co.uk/s/510-Pyro-SDS.pdf

I get this:

Alan Johnson · Jun 29, 2022

Zone Imaging

We focus on pushing the boundaries of black and white photochemistry technology to new heights of innovation and to make it more environmentally friendly. We are the manufacturer of 510 Pyro.

zoneimaging-photochemicals.co.uk

Try this?

pentaxuser · Jun 29, 2022

So did Zone Imaging take the sheet down based on an earlier post simply to revise it? It is now dated 24/6/2022 Was he was just mistakenly advised by a chemist that it was non toxic and then realised he had to amend matters? If so he was (a) poorly advised and (b) for an owner of a business using a chemical like pyrogallol was worryingly lax in his own investigation of pyrogallol's toxicity

As I said before we each of us need to decide on the above questions based on everything we can gather from the thread in its entirety.

I have heard nothing that really causes me to change my mind. Is there an explanation that James Lane could give us that covers all the issues raised? Possibly but we are unlikely to hear it as ostensibly James Lane has never ever been on Photrio. We have only heard from a supporter, in the form of a grateful consumer who appears to know him called Jemzyboz who felt we were not welcoming and left

pentaxuser

FotoD · Jun 29, 2022

Alan Johnson said:
Zone Imaging

We focus on pushing the boundaries of black and white photochemistry technology to new heights of innovation and to make it more environmentally friendly. We are the manufacturer of 510 Pyro.

zoneimaging-photochemicals.co.uk

Try this?

Yes, that works. The link on the 510 product page doesn't work though.

Raghu Kuvempunagar · Jun 29, 2022

New:

Old:

The differences are quite apparent - toxicity related warnings have been removed from the new MSDS as stated by Zone Imaging in their post that I shared.

Alan Johnson · Jun 29, 2022

Raghu Kuvempunagar said:
Please see post #224 by Ian for the context. And also this post by Zone Imaging.

They are just comments. So long as the MSDS is OK what is the problem?

faberryman · Jun 29, 2022

Alan Johnson said:
Zone Imaging

We focus on pushing the boundaries of black and white photochemistry technology to new heights of innovation and to make it more environmentally friendly. We are the manufacturer of 510 Pyro.

zoneimaging-photochemicals.co.uk

Try this?

That link takes you to the previous SDS dated October 21, 2021.

When I checked his website yesterday, the link to the English SDS was dead. The links to the SDSs in other languages were still up.

Today, a link to a new English "SDS" is up, and the SDSs in other languages are all taken down. Actually, the English document is not an SDS. It is a technical data sheet. It does contain the following section entitled Safety:

Safety

510 Pyro contains pyrogallol which is a toxic product for the health causing kidney, liver and circulatory disorders. Pyrogallol is toxic by inhalation, skin contact or ingestion. It is also a phenoland thus can cause chemical burns. Use gloves and clean all equipment with water. Brief skin contact may cause a dark, non-scalding stain. Prolonged skin contact may cause a chemical burn that is very similar to a heat burn.

In case of contact with the product, rinse thoroughly with water. In case of more extensive contact or contact in the eyes, consult a pharmacist. In case of inhalation or ingestion, inform a doctor.

510 Pyro is biodegradable.

Full information can be found on the Safety Data Sheet at www.zoneimaging-photochemicals.co.uk

The link to the SDS in the last sentence doesn't take you to an SDS. It takes you back to the sales page. So there appears to be some confusion.

Fortunately, I live in the United States and can buy 510 Pyro from Bostick & Sullivan for a lower price and without all of the puffery.

Raghu Kuvempunagar · Jun 29, 2022

Alan Johnson said:
They are just comments. So long as the MSDS is OK what is the problem?

See post #246. The new MSDS has removed toxicity related warnings.

FotoD · Jun 29, 2022

Alan Johnson said:
They are just comments. So long as the MSDS is OK what is the problem?

That's the very problem. You and other customers believe the "MSDS is OK" and then expose themselves to significant risks they are not aware of.

Alan Johnson · Jun 29, 2022

FotoD said:
That's the very problem. You and other customers believe the "MSDS is OK" and then expose themselves to significant risks they are not aware of.

From the msds section 8.2,

Tightly sealed safety glasses or face shield......
Protective gloves..........
Protection against splash.......
Suitable respiratory protection......

I don't understand why these precautions and others mentioned in the msds are regarded as inadequate.
What significant risk?
Maybe you mean H301 relating to toxicity in case of ingestion, present in French but not English.

Ian Grant · Jun 29, 2022

It's not so simple, it's about Lane trying to illegally ship 510 Pyro by air, something he could already be fined £50.000 for. He's changed the MSDS to say it's a benign developer in terms of the Hazard symbols.

In perspective, Ilford, Adox, and other companies can't send developers containing Hydroqinone by air freight or via the Channel Tunnel, 510 Pyro is far more toxic. It’s about fraudulent breeching of International Regulations by falsifying the MSDS data.

There's far more that stays very private for now. Ask Jemzyboz why he only has a Diploma in Economics after 3 years at Birmingham University, that's all you get when you fail your degree or drop out past a certain point.

The best analogy is contact with Jemzyboz/James Lane is like accidentally getting dog poo on your shoes, you want it gone and disinfected.

Ian

Paul Verizzo · Jun 29, 2022

Ian Grant said:
There's some issues here, first EDTA is biodegradable by bacteria at sewage treatment plants, the second is the Pyrogallol used in 510 Pyro is more toxic than Hydroquinone. The main reason Hydroquinone has a bad name is its now illegal use in skin whiteners, causing poisoning, so there are some restrictions on its transport. This has caused problems shipping chemistry that contains Hydroquinone by air freight, they have to go by sea, or over-land.

When I worked in the precious metal industry we recovered silver from spent fixer and blix, we also took spent developers, B&W and Colour there were no issues with disposal to sewers/foul drains provided the Silver level was below 5ppm and the pH was close to neutral. While I wasn't involve with this process directly, I was responsible for liaising and negotiating with UK water boards and getting relevant permissions. UK practice was identical to the US, we were working with a US, NY state, company.

Ian

When Kodak built it's photo paper plant near Greeley, Colorado, along time ago, there was so much silver in the water from the mountains that they had to clean it up cleaner than the intake!

Ian Grant · Jun 29, 2022

darr said:
I just called Bostick & Sullivan about purchasing their 510 Pyro and if it can be shipped by air:

510 Pyro Developer

510 Pyro Developer -a versatile single part easy-to-use black and white film developer; produces dense negatives with a long tonal range. Formulated by Jay DeFehr. Use 1:100 to 1:500, makes 10-50 liters depending on your dilution.

www.bostick-sullivan.com

"Oh, yes, it can go by air, it is not hazardous."

I was married to an airline pilot that flew internationally, he told me, flying rules are "international."
So, I do not know why this is an issue if the other supplier in the U.S. says it is no problem to air transport it.
That is unless the ingredients differ. I will be purchasing from a U.S. supplier now that I know I can.

European restrictions are sometimes much tighter, Bostick & Sullivans own MSDS shows the true toxicity, but there's also the issue of the volume, safety packaging etc.

Ian

ZoneImaging Photochemicals: A new photochemical company

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency