 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / March 2004E6 Chemicals and Septic Systems...
I've gotten mixed information regarding E6 chemistry and it's reaction in a septic system. Some say it's harmful, some say that in small batch amounts it's not a problem. Does anyone know if anything has been written about this? I'm running an ATL2000 with about 1-2 litres of chemistry a week. >>I've gotten mixed information regarding E6 chemistry and it's reaction in a septic system.<< Wingnut, there's information on this in the environmental section of the Kodak web site. Generally, if the amount of photo chemicals disposed of is minor compared to the volume of household waste going to the septic tank, it should be safe. However, there are now stronger EPA regulations, and you can only dispose of photo chemistry via a septic system if you are a home hobbyist type user. If this is a commercial darkroom/lab, it is not legal to put any "hazardous" waste into a septic system. Bernie Thank you and my apologies for wasting room on the group! I've been on the Kodak site quite a bit but hadn't seen that. Just what I was looking for. bob > >>I've gotten mixed information regarding E6 chemistry and it's reaction in a > septic system.<< [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Bernie Don't know the answer to your question directly, but I don't think that you really need to know. Maybe it is more important to consider what it will cost to pump your septic versus the cost to transport the waste chemicals to where they can go through a waste treatment plant. Since it cost me over $1200 when I had to pump the septic last year, I decided that I can carry a few liters from my darkroom to a treatment system every few weeks at practically nil expense. It did not seem worth risking harming the septic action. (I also don't dump chlorine bleach into the septic. Bleach is a highly effective antibacterial agent and the septic is a bacterial digester after all.) There is a parallel in the excessively extended debate over global warming. It is two by two matrix. The first dimension is: Global warming is real or not real. The second dimension is: We take action or we don't. There are four combinations. The most dangerous outcome is that it is real and we do nothing. Man loses. The other three outcomes provide for the survival of man. I can't see any cost savings that is worth the plausible extermination of mankind. That's what I see as the intelligent way to consider it. PSsquare > I've gotten mixed information regarding E6 chemistry and it's reaction in a > septic system. Some say it's harmful, some say that in small batch amounts > it's not a problem. Does anyone know if anything has been written about > this? I'm running an ATL2000 with about 1-2 litres of chemistry a week. >Global warming is real or not real. To me, as cold as this winter is, we could use a little more global warming. Larry > To me, as cold as this winter is, we could use a little more global warming. I realize this is a lighthearted joke, but I agree with PSsquare, and have trouble appreciating humor when it comes to environmental degradation. I especially take offense because I love winter, and I can't stand the thought of being just stuck with just one season, warm weather, all year long ;-) I, too, am looking to dispose of color processing chemicals, mostly RA-4 chemicals, I have some unused Ilfochrome chems too. It is difficult to find out how to do this! But in looking, I came across this page at Ilford: http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/sds/Waste/waste2.html which suggests what PSsquare did, taking it to a licenced waste disposal company. Now I just have to find one that I can trust, that won't charge me a lot. Anyone know of any in the Washington, DC area? (I'm finding some, I hope, under Environmental Services in the yellow pages). Brook Brook... I took the advice of one of the posters and went up on the Kodak site. They actually have a program to hook people up with a company for disposal. But first, this is what they have to say about disposal of chemicals in septic at this link: http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/environment/kes/faq/faq400.jhtml#q1 FAQ-401(ENG) How do I dispose of photographic processing effluents? Most photographic processing effluents and washwaters contain chemicals that are biodegradable. They are, therefore, compatible with aerobic (with oxygen) biological treatment systems and are effectively treated when discharged to municipal sewer systems such as Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs). Septic systems operate with anaerobic (without oxygen) biological treatment. Therefore, septic systems do not have the ability to properly treat photographic processing effluents. Septic Systems If you are discharging to a septic system, Kodak recommends you manage your photographic processing effluents off-site. For additional information, refer to Information on Septic System Disposal. They're answer is the Kodak Relay Program. Here's the link to that: http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/environment/kes/waste/relay.jhtml They have an agreement with Safety Kleen which I think is a national company. I was thinking of one other thing - other than environmental - which for me is important especially because I have a drilled well on my property as well. I wonder what it would do to the resale value of my home if the new owners were to do an environmental inspection of some sort on the waste in my septic tank. I would think that over time, even with hobby usage, chemicals would build up. > > To me, as cold as this winter is, we could use a little more global > warming. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Brook ON Mon, 23 Feb 2004 16:58:21 -0500, "Brook Halvorson" <b.rookATNOSPAMcorvidcreations.com> WROTE: >I realize this is a lighthearted joke, but I agree with PSsquare, and have >trouble appreciating humor when it comes to environmental degradation. I >especially take offense because I love winter, and I can't stand the thought >of being just stuck with just one season, warm weather, all year long ;-) Have hope. The latest unproven theory from the global warming front is that it will result in an ice age. This seems logical, as the early proponents of global warming were warning of an ice age about 2 decades before they discovered global warming. This new theory nicely eliminates being "dinged" for that bit of turn around, as has occurred with some minor frequency. But then, the Max Planc Institute, Woods Hole, etc. seem to have some problems with the "new" theory as it rests on erroneous assumptions in older (less "mature") computer programs for forecasting. But hey, if Fortune magazine's editors find the ice age theory compelling, what do people from the Max Planc Institute's meteorology department know? The theory that I most recently heard is that global warming will change weather patterns such that an ice age (or at least much colder weather patterns) will occur, but not worldwide, primarily over northwestern Europe and maybe northern North America as well. Temperatures would still rise elsewhere. Can't remember where I heard it, but it's interesting... > ON Mon, 23 Feb 2004 16:58:21 -0500, "Brook Halvorson" > <b.rookATNOSPAMcorvidcreations.com> WROTE: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups > ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- ON Mon, 23 Feb 2004 01:58:41 GMT, "PSsquare" <pschmitt@stny.rr.com> WROTE: >Don't know the answer to your question directly, but I don't think that >you really need to know. Maybe it is more important to consider what it will [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > >PSsquare You must have a huge septic system. The last time I had my two systems pumped (2 1000 gal systems plus grease trap), it cost me $250.00. Alternatively, you live either on the East or West coast. West seems most likely, given the remainder of the post. ON Mon, 23 Feb 2004 01:58:41 GMT, "PSsquare" <pschmitt@stny.rr.com> > There is a parallel in the excessively extended debate over global warming. > It is two by two matrix. The first dimension is: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > We take action or we don't. Humankind is not really bright enough to take care of its future. Changes happen in catastrophic circumstances. The best thing that could happen to the USA is for gasoline to hit $5.00 a gallon tomorrow and remain expensive forever. Perhaps global warming will be a moot issue when Yellowstone launches itself into the stratosphere, as it _must_ do. It's a no-brainer. It's going to happen, humans be damned. > Humankind is not really bright enough to take care of its future. Changes > happen in catastrophic circumstances. The best thing that could happen to > the USA is for gasoline to hit $5.00 a gallon tomorrow and remain > expensive forever. Perhaps global warming will be a moot issue when > Yellowstone launches itself into the stratosphere, as it _must_ do. It's a > no-brainer. It's going to happen, humans be damned. Yeah well there's faults all over, when I was much younger I wanted to be a geologist, I had a huge rock collection and could spout all kinds of data. In my studies with a local geologist I found out about an eastern Fault that runs through MD, Pennsylvania etc....which sits under an area very close to my last home about 15 miles from here. The fault has not been active for millions of years, I collected chromium samples and lava from extrusions about ten miles from my house. Interestingly several small tremours have in more recent years begun to occur in this area,...makes you think! I think $5.00 a gallon gas would be painful indeed, but its all relative. There really is no difference between high and low prices if good wages and job availablity are present. Back to the septic, don't dump E6 in the water at all ! I always say if don't want to drink it don't dump it.  SignatureLF website http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank > gasoline to hit $5.00 a gallon tomorrow > and remain expensive forever. That'd be cheaper than most users pay in the UK. The UK pay 80 pence per litre, that's about 1.48 USD per litre. one US gallon is 3.786 litres. So 1.48 * 3.768 = 5.57 USD per gallon. >> gasoline to hit $5.00 a gallon tomorrow >> and remain expensive forever. > > That'd be cheaper than most users pay in the UK. Things are a lot closer in the UK. I bet some people in the US commute a distance equal to London to the Scottish border. Nick >>> gasoline to hit $5.00 a gallon tomorrow >>> and remain expensive forever. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Things are a lot closer in the UK. I bet some people in the US > commute a distance equal to London to the Scottish border. Commute? Every day? People do that in the UK, but they'd use trains (about 5 hours) or planes. > Don't know the answer to your question directly, but I don't think that > you really need to know. Maybe it is more important to consider what it will [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > PSsquare Too much b&w thinking. (pardon the pun) There's another scenario to consider (and perhaps others I'm not aware of): Global warming is a natural phenomenon. Any geologist can tell you abou the (oft-ignored) Little Ice Age form about 1200 to 1850. But now they talk about the last 10,000 years, with human development and expansion, being a period of constant global warming. What a sham. We've all been taught that the last great Ice Age ended about 10,000 years ago. So if an ice age ends, what happens? The earth gets warmer. Sheesh. What a manipulative piece of propaganda. The issue is not whether Global Warming exists, but who controls the Global Warming political rhetoric and to what end? (Hint: They're Marxists who continue to tout Sustainable Development and anything else that would eliminate economic growth in a capitalistic/free system. That's those who control the rhetoric, not the poor souls who've swallowed it. They're just sheep. Albeit well-intentioned sheep, but sheep none-the-less.) Collin (please don't flame me) Brendemuehl :) >They're just sheep. Albeit well-intentioned sheep, but sheep none-the-less. > Collin (please don't flame me) Brendemuehl Well, not that I'm one to flame, but how can you tell us not to flame you when you call environmentalists "sheep"? That's flaming to me, and it's hypocritical to tell one group not to flame you when you flame them. You're also defining those that consider global warming to be real as marxists. I think that's a bit of B&W thinking myself. The majority of the people in this world would like to see a growing capitalist/free market system where they could get rich, but I would wager that most of them would not want it to come at the cost of our planet's environment. Okay, that's the bleeding heart in me, I'm prone to thinking that the well being of the world and it's people (the common good) is something which everyone wants, which clearly it isn't. But, what point is there to getting rich in this world if we can't live in it? I have read studies, by geologists (no, they don't all think the same and have the same conclusions), that studied samples of ice in polar regions. Samples of ice that have been drilled down, in a continuous core, tens to hundreds to thousands of feet (I don't know how deep) tell those that study them a lot about the climate over the years, decades, centuries, millenia. These samples show, over the millenia, as you say, ice age after ice age, at varying intervals, with varying cycles of climate in between. Some of these studies also show that, since the industrial revolution, the mean temperature of the Earth's atmosphere has risen faster than it ever has before. Rhetoric or science? I've never met a scientist whose lifetime goal is, through his or her professional research, to create rhetoric to influence economic systems. Hope this adds a little color to the picture... Brook > > Don't know the answer to your question directly, but I don't think that > > you really need to know. Maybe it is more important to consider what it will [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > Collin (please don't flame me) Brendemuehl > :) ON Fri, 27 Feb 2004 18:15:56 -0500, "Brook Halvorson" <b.rookATNOSPAMcorvidcreations.com> WROTE: >>They're just sheep. Albeit well-intentioned sheep, but sheep >none-the-less. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >when you call environmentalists "sheep"? That's flaming to me, and it's >hypocritical to tell one group not to flame you when you flame them. Your statement presupposes that only people who are, or consider themselves to be, environmentalists subscribe to the theory of global warming. There are a number of people who think there is a large segment of any given population who are "sheep" (i.e. following the lead wherever they are led without any particular thought about the direction). >You're also defining those that consider global warming to be real as >marxists. I think that's a bit of B&W thinking myself. The majority of the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >which clearly it isn't. But, what point is there to getting rich in this >world if we can't live in it? He stated, IIRC, that (he believes) those who control the political rhetoric of global warming are Marxists. Unless you believe every person who considers the theory to be proven scientific fact is controlling the political rhetoric, you couldn't possibly include "all" in the "Marxist" designation. And that is a nice twist in rhetoric. You are, in essence, stating that you believe those who consider the global warming theory to be just that, a yet to be proven theory, to be opposed to "...the well being of the world and it's people (the common good)...". You might consider that there are some people who simply prefer to have scientific proof, or at least 95% or greater agreement among qualified scientists that the computer projections on which the theory is based are correct, prior to taking actions which may result in very significant economic damage to the global economy. >I have read studies, by geologists (no, they don't all think the same and >have the same conclusions), that studied samples of ice in polar regions. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >goal is, through his or her professional research, to create rhetoric to >influence economic systems. In science a differentiation is often easy. Has the data, and results, been peer reviewed or simply presented in non-scientific media. Often today the peer review process is short circuited, either by design or by the general media's desire for a hot headline (pardon the pun). The computer projection on which the UN's position and recommendations, and the Kyoto Accord are based has recently (within the past year or two) been subjected to true peer review (i.e. replicated by two Canadian [IIRC] scientists). The reviewers found, in replicating the study, that data had been erroneously entered (human data entry error) and left out (listed in the study as non-existent when it did exist - strangely this latter data tended to skew the results toward global warming if eliminated). The reviewers also found (IIRC)some errors in coding the computer program (code entry errors). I personally don't find most of these errors to be unusual, humans are involved and I'm not aware of any scientific work performed in academe which doesn't involve the use of students for mundane work like data entry. Not all the students so employed will have a burning desire to ensure absolutely no errors have been made. After the discovered errors were repaired, the results were significantly different, showing normative values. But of course the reviewer's replicated study has been subjected to criticism - so we are left with either waiting for further study or accepting the earlier results on faith. >Hope this adds a little color to the picture... And color is what E-6 is all about - so now we're back on topic! :-) >Brook Guys, Why don't you both start a different newsgroup? Call it: rec.off.topic Go there to engage in this silliness. You will have, apparently, enough company. PSsquare > ON Fri, 27 Feb 2004 18:15:56 -0500, "Brook Halvorson" > <b.rookATNOSPAMcorvidcreations.com> WROTE: [quoted text clipped - 87 lines] > http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups > ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.