How bad is film/darkroom chemistry for the environment?
Old 10-02-2010   #1
mooge
Registered User
 
mooge is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Austenite Bay, Canada
Age: 27
Posts: 1,022
How bad is film/darkroom chemistry for the environment?

Hi all,

I figure when I pour 600mL of HC-110, Dil-B down the drain (or dead fixer, or that pink stuff that washes out ), it's probably not going to create some sort of environmental disaster, but it's probably not that great.

but just how bad are the chemicals involved? anyone know?

cheers.
__________________
mjautek on instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-02-2010   #2
mooge
Registered User
 
mooge is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Austenite Bay, Canada
Age: 27
Posts: 1,022
nyah, I bike and bus to school.

I was gonna put this in the Film vs Digi section... but such debates are kind of inconclusive- it would really depend on how you shoot.

... don't you guys have electronics recycling in the states?
__________________
mjautek on instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-02-2010   #3
lacavol
Registered User
 
lacavol is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 60
We have recycling here in LA, just drop off any Saturday that it isn't raining at various stations. Of course it rarely rains here in the desert. Water is a major import. As Mark Twain said "Whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting."

You don't know where it goes from there though, there have been news investigations. I think it's getting better as the private firms are on notice.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-02-2010   #4
Creagerj
Incidental Artist
 
Creagerj's Avatar
 
Creagerj is offline
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 595
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragunov View Post
nyah, I bike and bus to school.

I was gonna put this in the Film vs Digi section... but such debates are kind of inconclusive- it would really depend on how you shoot.

... don't you guys have electronics recycling in the states?
I'm fairly certain that the environmental impact of film is quite a bit less than digital. This is based on nothing but my own assumptions, but I have a feeling that it is true. Just buying something new is environmentally (not to mention financially) detrimental.
__________________
Joe

Last edited by Doug : 10-05-2010 at 13:39.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-02-2010   #5
heatherselkie
Registered User
 
heatherselkie is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: west coast canada
Posts: 40
Hmm, one of the things to lure people away from film was the environmental factor. my mom had a dark room for years but got sick from the chemicals-but we are a sickly hypersensitive allergic bunch my family.

Last edited by Doug : 10-05-2010 at 13:50. Reason: not really about digital...
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-02-2010   #6
jpberger
Registered User
 
jpberger is offline
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 73
This is all a little beside the point insofar as the real issue with darkroom chemistry is that it needs to be treated with respect and disposed of responsibly. The potential for environmental or health effects is real and should not be trivialised, yet if chemistry is handled properly it's not dangerous. Small amounts of fixer arn't a big deal but silver persists in the aquatic environment so large amounts (say from a dentists office or big lab can be a problem) you might as well give it to a photolab to get rid of-- they should be happy to do it because the silver is reclaimed for profit. Developer is a potential alergen so you should avoid all skin contact and inhalation. Proper ventilation is really important. Developer is also a problem insofar as it's a reducing agent-- if you were to say dump a whole bottle of rodinal down the drain you could potentially be killing fish big time by sucking all the oxygen out of a water body. However by diluting your spent developer with lots and lots of water you minimise the potential for harm-- run the water starting several minutes before you begin to dump. Stop is acetic acid -- i.e vinegar so again if dilute not a big deal. Film doesn't need to be washed with a million gallons of water- the ilford wash technique of filling the tank inverting five times and repeating the fill and dump cycle with 10-20-and 40 inversions works just fine and uses only five or so litres.

Last edited by jpberger : 10-02-2010 at 22:48.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-02-2010   #7
bobby_novatron
Photon Collector
 
bobby_novatron's Avatar
 
bobby_novatron is offline
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: the Great White North (Canada)
Age: 50
Posts: 1,237
Yeah, this is a question that has crossed my mind often since I started home-developing my B&W and colour film.

I have taken some of my used photo chemicals to the haz-mat waste service here (run by my municipal gov't -- they take noxious stuff for free to keep it out of the waste stream) but generally I dispose down the drain.

I did lots of research about this online earlier this year because I didn't want to screw up the environment with my hobby. Basically, for small-scale users (like us) things can pretty much go down the sink with lots of water -- as was stated here earlier.

The only thing that really concerns me is the C-41 kit I use -- the box has a big ominous "X" on it, as well as an evil graphic of a dead tree and a dead fish. I think the developer & blix in C-41 kits is considerably more toxic than B&W, but that's just a hunch.

I just know that when I'm pouring that warm Blix into my Paterson tank, the horrific smell tells me there's something very bad about that stuff...
__________________
my Flickr:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/bobby_novatron
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-03-2010   #8
Steve Karr
Film tank shaker
 
Steve Karr is offline
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 195
I recycle & am Vegetarian ... but I also shoot 8x10 wet plates so I think its a wash...
__________________
What the heck is film and why does that man have an accordian with him?

http://www.SteveKarrShoots.com

http://www.SteveKarrAssists.com

Last edited by Doug : 10-05-2010 at 13:53.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-03-2010   #9
sam_m
Registered User
 
sam_m's Avatar
 
sam_m is offline
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Newcastle, Australia.
Age: 35
Posts: 225
I live on rain water and have on-site sewage (septic tank, ALL water is recycled and used on the lawn and trees, not the veges though, just to be safe!) so I walk down to the road and splash it across the road. I figure when it rains it will get so diluted that it will be no worse than the polutants in the rain itself.
__________________
My Website
My Blog
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-03-2010   #10
Freakscene
Deregistered user
 
Freakscene's Avatar
 
Freakscene is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: In exile
Posts: 1,692
I am an environmental scientist. I frequently work on determining safe release concentrations for toxicants. What is safe depends on what you are discharging and where it goes.

Photo chemicals are fairly innocuous. The ANZECC Guideline, one of the scientifically best supported systems for determining safe release concentrations of toxicants, says that it is safe to release 1.4 micrograms per litre of silver into a marine environment and 0.05 micro grams per litre into freshwater.
http://www.mincos.gov.au/__data/asse...-vol2-8-3b.pdf

But that is just silver. Silver plus silver thiosulfate might be lower. Or higher. We need to work on that. And that's at the discharge to the environemnt; and it depends on processing. So it depends on where what you discharge goes, what happens to it before it is discharged

The safe discharge concentrations for everything else in photography are higher. But also remember that using is not manufacturing. Ektalure (now discontinued) had chromium in it, and Neopan 400 120 format had perfluoroctanesulfornic acid (PFOS) in it, both of which led to the demise of those products. They are both environmentally damaging and hazardous for human health.

I have never seen a total energy + chemical analysis from manufacture to purchase for any photo products, but I am guessing that if comparing the old tech from the analogue media vs the plastic and new tech digital media, the digital would be worse. The components take more making. But it's just a guess. I could work it out - seriously, that's what I do - but I'd need data that I think Kodak, Fuji, Epson, Nikon, Canon etc would be reticent to give out. In 50 years all companies will give it freely, or we'll be back to living in caves.

That might not be so bad.

Marty

Last edited by Freakscene : 10-04-2010 at 02:52.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-03-2010   #11
btgc
Registered User
 
btgc's Avatar
 
btgc is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,754
Bring exhausted fixer for proper disposal (I take it to local photolab), silver is extracted from it, too.
__________________
MyFlickr

Last edited by Doug : 10-05-2010 at 13:57.
  Reply With Quote

I'm serious...
Old 10-03-2010   #12
George Bonanno
-
 
George Bonanno is offline
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Northern New Jersey & Vũng Tu
Posts: 566
I'm serious...

Ya know, this year I dumped most of my expired photo chems on my onion, basil and tomato plants. That included many gallons of HC110B, Rodinal 1:31, Ilford rapid fixer and Photoflo. The onions died almost overnight but the tomatoes and basil survived very nicely. In fact the tomato plants harvested a bumper crop. It's now Fall here in NNJ and there are still around 40+ green tomatoes on the vines ready for the grill before the frost sets in. So... what's the story Jerry ?

My take is it's all the good stuff from that 120 Lucky and Shanghai filum I've been shooting in Brooklyn and NYC events.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-03-2010   #13
MartinP
Registered User
 
MartinP is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 2,031
Someone stated that silver is a dangerous heavy-metal. No it's not a heavy-metal and no it's not especially dangerous (unless a large lump of it falls on your head - it is certainly quite dense, but that is not the chemical meaning of "heavy-metal"). The commercial limits on fixer are, for example, due to large lab-sized quantities of the silver compounds working as a bactericide and zapping some of the bacteria used for sh!t-digestion in your sewage works.

The biggest use of modern fixer (ammonium thiocyanate) is swimming pools. You swim in it, rather more diluted of course. It is used to regulate the chlorine etc. in the water.

Stop bath is the stuff you put on your chips (fries for the N.Americans).

Developers vary. If you really want to use a mercury-based process from 150 years ago then you can, and could end up as "mad as a hatter" (Google it for an interesting example of industrial pollution). Modern commercial developers are relatively innocuous, especially in amateur quantities. You can look at Xtol or Ilfosol for easy-to-use ascorbate (vitamin-c) based developers, for example.

Last edited by MartinP : 10-03-2010 at 13:42. Reason: Apparently I can't write the colloquial word for human solid waste here.... ;)
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-03-2010   #14
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
 
semilog is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,670
Thanks, Marty. I'd been waiting for your $0.02.
__________________
There are two kinds of photographers:
those who are interested in what a particular camera can't do,
and those who are interested in what it can do.

semilog.smugmug.com | flickr.com/photos/semilog/
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-04-2010   #15
mooge
Registered User
 
mooge is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Austenite Bay, Canada
Age: 27
Posts: 1,022
wow, lots of info here...

... and I just noticed I hit the 300 post mark recently. man, I better get back to work!

thanks !
__________________
mjautek on instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-05-2010   #16
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freakscene View Post
I am an environmental scientist. I frequently work on determining safe release concentrations for toxicants. What is safe depends on what you are discharging and where it goes.

Photo chemicals are fairly innocuous. The ANZECC Guideline, one of the scientifically best supported systems for determining safe release concentrations of toxicants, says that it is safe to release 1.4 micrograms per litre of silver into a marine environment and 0.05 micro grams per litre into freshwater.
http://www.mincos.gov.au/__data/asse...-vol2-8-3b.pdf

But that is just silver. Silver plus silver thiosulfate might be lower. Or higher. We need to work on that. And that's at the discharge to the environemnt; and it depends on processing. So it depends on where what you discharge goes, what happens to it before it is discharged

The safe discharge concentrations for everything else in photography are higher. But also remember that using is not manufacturing. Ektalure (now discontinued) had chromium in it, and Neopan 400 120 format had perfluoroctanesulfornic acid (PFOS) in it, both of which led to the demise of those products. They are both environmentally damaging and hazardous for human health.

I have never seen a total energy + chemical analysis from manufacture to purchase for any photo products, but I am guessing that if comparing the old tech from the analogue media vs the plastic and new tech digital media, the digital would be worse. The components take more making. But it's just a guess. I could work it out - seriously, that's what I do - but I'd need data that I think Kodak, Fuji, Epson, Nikon, Canon etc would be reticent to give out. In 50 years all companies will give it freely, or we'll be back to living in caves.

That might not be so bad.

Marty
Dear Marty,

This is indeed what most people tend to forget. Same with cadmium. Very nasty stuff -- but in the quantities in which it was found in Super XX and Forte Polywarmtone, substantially irrelevant in the home darkroom. It was the manufacturing plant that mattered.

A story that will amuse you concerns Ilford. They concentrate their waste water and store it in a cistern for regular collection. Years ago, they got a 'phone call from the disposal agency asking about the cadmium content. It took a while before they worked out that they must indeed have put some cadmium into the water, processing Polywarmtone. What they couldn't work out was how the hell anyone could detect this, even in concentrated waste water. The answer, apparently, was gas chromatography, and the concentration was parts per billion.

Later, they found that one of their American customers thought that 3 parts per billion was a higher concentration than 3 parts per million. Well, a billion is bigger, isn't it... Maybe he sat on the waste-water management board.

A rule of thumb I've used for years is that laws banning all release of photographic chemicals into municipal sewage systems were passed by arts graduates, whereas ones that limit discharges were passed by those who knew what they were talking about.

And Martin's point about silver not being a heavy metal is one I've given up trying to get across to anyone who doesn't have at least a modicum of scientific knowledge. My favourite silver figure is from the CDC in Atlanta. As far as I recall, spills of under 1 tonne don't need to be reported. I love the idea of spilling a tonne of silver and not bothering to pick it up.

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-05-2010   #17
Freakscene
Deregistered user
 
Freakscene's Avatar
 
Freakscene is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: In exile
Posts: 1,692
Hi Roger,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
This is indeed what most people tend to forget. Same with cadmium. Very nasty stuff -- but in the quantities in which it was found in Super XX and Forte Polywarmtone, substantially irrelevant in the home darkroom. It was the manufacturing plant that mattered.
Absolutely. Users generally don't get regulated anyway, even if it's illegal to dump photochemicals try doing it and see if you get caught (I don't seriously recommend that).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
A story that will amuse you concerns Ilford. They concentrate their waste water and store it in a cistern for regular collection. Years ago, they got a 'phone call from the disposal agency asking about the cadmium content. It took a while before they worked out that they must indeed have put some cadmium into the water, processing Polywarmtone. What they couldn't work out was how the hell anyone could detect this, even in concentrated waste water. The answer, apparently, was gas chromatography, and the concentration was parts per billion.

Later, they found that one of their American customers thought that 3 parts per billion was a higher concentration than 3 parts per million. Well, a billion is bigger, isn't it... Maybe he sat on the waste-water management board.
Yes, unfortunately LCMS and GCMS methods are too sensitive when you want to be practical and not sensitive enough when you want to be scientifically precise. It's been a fact of my existence for a long time. Similar happens with DNA based detection systems for organisms.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
A rule of thumb I've used for years is that laws banning all release of photographic chemicals into municipal sewage systems were passed by arts graduates, whereas ones that limit discharges were passed by those who knew what they were talking about.
I suspect some controls were passed when there were a lot more darkrooms. The weakest link in the average assessment chain is the estimation of use and the frequency or coincidence (Sting et al. would call it synchronicity) of release. These inherent difficulties mean you need to set controls based on overestimates of the number of darkrooms and assuming almost everyone puts their chemicals down the sink at the same time. It's a general problem with pollution impact assessment. It's also safer to say "no" and to try to scare _most_ users away from discharging. Ultimately most people are compliant, even if they don't care too much about the environment.

Having said that, I don't think that I'd be super keen on eating vegetables or fruit regularly waters with fixer. The reality of "developing" (sorry, too tempting) argyria - silver accumulation, characterised by skin going dark bluish-black in the sun - however, is mainly cosmetically impairing rather than toxic. Blumberg and Carey (1934) reported argyria in a severely underweight adult female who had ingested about 6.4 g of silver nitrate over a year. East et al. (1980) reported symptoms of argyria in one adult after 6 months of exposure to unknown quantities of silver acetate. Stay away from large amounts of organically chelated or colloidal silver, or you'll go blue. But you would have a hard time making yourself sick, let alone dying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
And Martin's point about silver not being a heavy metal is one I've given up trying to get across to anyone who doesn't have at least a modicum of scientific knowledge. My favourite silver figure is from the CDC in Atlanta. As far as I recall, spills of under 1 tonne don't need to be reported. I love the idea of spilling a tonne of silver and not bothering to pick it up.
Silver is toxic to bacteria. The acute toxicity of silver compounds to higher animals appears to occur only when HUGE amounts are consumed. Oral LD50 values for mice reported for colloidal silver and silver nitrate are 100 mg/kg and 129 mg/kg, respectively; for silver cyanide, the LD50 for rats is 125 mg/kg. An LDLO of 2820 mg/kg for rats is reported for the relatively insoluble silver oxide (Venugopal and Luckey, 1978). Similar values for humans are likely and I can find no reports in the literature of acute silver poisoning in a human.

Print carefully, wear gloves, don't drink from the trays. Obey the law to avoid prosecution. Enjoy.

Marty

Blumberg, H. and T.N. Carey. 1934. Argyremia: Detection of unsuspected and obscure argyria by the spectrographic demonstration of high blood silver. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 103: 1521-1524.

East, B.W., K. Boddy, E.D. Williams, et al. 1980. Silver retention, total body silver and tissue silver concentrations in argyria associated with exposure to an anti-smoking remedy containing silver acetate. Clin. Exp. Dermatol. 5: 305-311.

Venugopal, B. and T.D. Luckey. 1978. Metal Toxicity in Mammals: 2. Chemical Toxicity of Metals and Metalloids, Chapter 1. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 32-36.

Last edited by Freakscene : 10-06-2010 at 00:14.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-05-2010   #18
tammons
Registered User
 
tammons is offline
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 122
B+W chems not bad so down the drain they go.
I use mostly coffee for developer anyway so thats no big deal.

Color slide and C41 chems are toxic from what I understand.

Silver is a heavy metal but not toxic to the human body in the way
other heavy metals are like cadmium and lead etc.

Silver nitrate drops are put into newborn babies eyes
in the hospital to kill bacteria etc.

Silver kills bacteria, fungus etc on contact, IE colloidal silver is commonly available in healthfood stores.

That said it might not be a good idea to flush a lot of fixer into your septic tank since that works on a bacterial reaction.

Silver will cause Argyrosis (blue skin) if you get enough of it into your body, which I think is around 4-8 grams. Basically your skin turns bluish purple but you will not die from it.

People that typically get Argyrosis get it from drinking too much and usually too strong colloidal silver home made solutions.

Colloidal silver solution is used to treat lyme disease, and works wonders on fungal infections. Cured my constant ear problems with 3 drops in each ear. It is also used as a water purifier.

Where people get into trouble is when they start drinking large doses of home made super strong colloidal silver to treat such things as lyme disease.

I calc'd out roughly one day that to get 4 grams of silver into your body at normal colloidal silver concentrations you would need to drink a couple of gallons a day for 10 years.

Here is a photo of a blue guy.
http://www.silvermedicine.org/argyria.html

Last edited by tammons : 10-05-2010 at 09:13.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-05-2010   #19
Freakscene
Deregistered user
 
Freakscene's Avatar
 
Freakscene is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: In exile
Posts: 1,692
"Heavy metal" is an undefined term. Silver does not biologically act like some other transition metals like chromium that are highly acutely and chronically toxic and accumulate in biological systems.

John H. Duffus ""Heavy metals" a meaningless term? (IUPAC Technical Report)" Pure and Applied Chemistry, 2002, Vol. 74, pp. 793-807.

Marty
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-08-2010   #20
kossi008
Photon Counter
 
kossi008's Avatar
 
kossi008 is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Dresden, Germany
Age: 53
Posts: 927
I take my silver to the local municipal waste disposal place in canisters marked "contains silver". The guys down at the plant take it, listen to my explanation and say "OK", but their faces say "Yeah, whatever", so I have the strong suspicion that I am in fact pouring it down the drain after all... well, I tried...
__________________
Photon Counter
My flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-08-2010   #21
Glenn2
Registered User
 
Glenn2's Avatar
 
Glenn2 is offline
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 351
Kodak used to market silver recovery filters that were just a canister filled with steel wool. Iron is higher in the electromotive series and replaces the silver in solution. You were meant to pour your exhausted through the filter, then send the filter back to Kodak when its iron was used up.

Some friends built an electroplating device for fixer silver recovery. It worked very well and they were able to get around an ounce per gallon from fixer used on x-ray film. A local company that made high pressure pipe had to x-ray all their pipe to certify its rating and this provided fodder for their machine. The machine used a rotating stack of thin stainless steel disks for the cathode. After ~1/2" of silver had built up, the disks were removed and flexed to break off the metal.

With silver currently at $23.20 a troy ounce recovery is certainly worth while. http://goldinfo.net/gold1.html

Glenn
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-08-2010   #22
JohnTF
Registered User
 
JohnTF's Avatar
 
JohnTF is offline
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Home is Cleveland, Summers often Europe, Winters often Mexico.
Posts: 2,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn2 View Post
Kodak used to market silver recovery filters that were just a canister filled with steel wool. Iron is higher in the electromotive series and replaces the silver in solution. You were meant to pour your exhausted through the filter, then send the filter back to Kodak when its iron was used up.

Some friends built an electroplating device for fixer silver recovery. It worked very well and they were able to get around an ounce per gallon from fixer used on x-ray film. A local company that made high pressure pipe had to x-ray all their pipe to certify its rating and this provided fodder for their machine. The machine used a rotating stack of thin stainless steel disks for the cathode. After ~1/2" of silver had built up, the disks were removed and flexed to break off the metal.

With silver currently at $23.20 a troy ounce recovery is certainly worth while. http://goldinfo.net/gold1.html

Glenn
You mean you don't drop your old copper pennies in the used fix? ;-)

Regards, John
__________________
To capture some of this -- I suppose that's lyricism.

Josef Sudek
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-08-2010   #23
Freakscene
Deregistered user
 
Freakscene's Avatar
 
Freakscene is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: In exile
Posts: 1,692
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn2 View Post
Kodak used to market silver recovery filters that were just a canister filled with steel wool. Iron is higher in the electromotive series and replaces the silver in solution. You were meant to pour your exhausted through the filter, then send the filter back to Kodak when its iron was used up.

Some friends built an electroplating device for fixer silver recovery. It worked very well and they were able to get around an ounce per gallon from fixer used on x-ray film. A local company that made high pressure pipe had to x-ray all their pipe to certify its rating and this provided fodder for their machine. The machine used a rotating stack of thin stainless steel disks for the cathode. After ~1/2" of silver had built up, the disks were removed and flexed to break off the metal.

With silver currently at $23.20 a troy ounce recovery is certainly worth while. http://goldinfo.net/gold1.html Glenn
I tested these and the leave the fixer in a bucket with steel wool method. The fixer left after both processes still contains too much fixer to safely discharge under most local laws.

X-ray fixer is typically used a lot more than photographic fixer. A film fixer, for long term stability of the negs, should not have more than 6 g per litre of silver in it. You can, if you are patient enough, recover about 4 g of that - or ~15g/gallon. But there is typically a lot of silver sulfide in it too, so you're getting less silver than you think.

There are better methods for silver recovery, including one outlined here: http://www.japanexposures.com/2007/1...onsumed-fixer/

Marty
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-05-2019   #24
ironhorse
Joe DuPont
 
ironhorse's Avatar
 
ironhorse is offline
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Brooklyn, New York
Posts: 330
Marty, thank you for sharing your expertise in answering this question. I have been looking for a straight answer for a while.
__________________
Regards,

Joe

"The whole point of taking pictures is so that you dont have to explain things with words." - Elliott Erwitt
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-05-2019   #25
sepiareverb
genius and moron
 
sepiareverb's Avatar
 
sepiareverb is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: St Johnsbury VT
Posts: 8,381
That was an excellent read from a pretty great period here.
__________________
-Bob
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-05-2019   #26
Freakscene
Deregistered user
 
Freakscene's Avatar
 
Freakscene is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: In exile
Posts: 1,692
Quote:
Originally Posted by ironhorse View Post
Marty, thank you for sharing your expertise in answering this question. I have been looking for a straight answer for a while.
You're welcome. I did environmental assessments for a lot of photo labs back in the day.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sepiareverb View Post
That was an excellent read from a pretty great period here.
The past is a foreign country, they do things differently there. (David Cecil, not LP Hartley as often/usually assumed).

In 40-50 years, half a generation, a lot of 20th century technology and knowledge will be lost, and I don't think there is anything we can do about it.

Marty
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-06-2019   #27
charjohncarter
Registered User
 
charjohncarter's Avatar
 
charjohncarter is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Danville, CA, USA
Posts: 8,919
I haven't read all the post, so if this is a repeat, jump on me. But there are so few developers in this world today that the impact is next to zero. I recycle my stuff, but it is nothing compared to the cosmetics that are dumped in the SF bay from Oakland.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-06-2019   #28
BernardL
Registered User
 
BernardL is offline
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 151
Seems to me this discussion is the ecological equivalent of "penny-wise, pound-foolish"


Cadmium-Nickel batteries remained legal in portable tools decades after it was banned in photographic products, and I'm convinced that far more Cadmium was released into Nature from uncontrolled disposal of such tools than ever was from photo papers.

It is (at least here in EU) the perfectly legal use of pesticides in agriculture that has caused an order-of-magnitude decrease in the population of insects (anyone can see just looking at your windscreen during a summer road trip, no rocket science or advanced statistics here), and, as a consequence, birds as well. Not photo chemicals.

Discussing the discharge of photo chemicals from amateur darkrooms is a pastime for a photo forum. Disclosure and message to the holier-than-thou: I took my decades-old Mercury intensifier to a recycing facility, and I reduce my dichromate to Cr(III) before disposal.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-07-2019   #29
peterm1
Registered User
 
peterm1's Avatar
 
peterm1 is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,812
How bad is film/darkroom chemistry for the environment?

Given almost no one uses it anymore (comparatively speaking). Not very. Don't obsess.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-07-2019   #30
traveler_101
American abroad
 
traveler_101 is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 1,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by BernardL View Post
Seems to me this discussion is the ecological equivalent of "penny-wise, pound-foolish".
Quite probably true but I don't like violating the law. Is there anything wrong with collecting the used fixer and bringing it to a hazardous waste collection site? That's what I have been doing. What do they do with it? Should I affix a sticker: "contains silver"? Currently I have written "photographic materials" and "poisonous" on the bottle. Most of the stuff in the collection shed where I drop off the fixer is classified as solvents, oils, paints etc. No specific place for fixer. I put it under solvents -

What about D-76? I am reluctant to put that down the drain though I have done - mixed with stop bath (I use diluted vinegar) which supposedly compensates for the alkaline nature of the developer. But the developer also has carcinogens in it - according to the label. I am planning on using Fomadon LQN (like Ilfosol 3) and Adox HR developer. What to do with these poisons?
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-07-2019   #31
skopar steve
Registered User
 
skopar steve's Avatar
 
skopar steve is offline
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 397
What about toners. I hear they are dangerous.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 19:47.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.