Why wouldn't you ask her doctor?

Unless she was selenium toning with skin contact or bathing her hands in
developer for prolonged periods, it's unlikely you've done any harm.
There are many professions for which the practitioners pay with
shortened lifespans -- chemists, for instance, have a high incidence of
cancer and organ failures due to solvents used in their work, as do
painters and auto body workers.  Photographers have show no such effect,
even those who spend literally decades in daily darkroom work.

There are some people who become sensitized to certain chemicals --
metol, aka Elon, is one, various aldehydes used in non-metal gelatin
hardeners are another (glutaraldehyde is the most common, but it's used
mainly in X-ray processing to protect emulsion at very high process
temperatures needed for rapid results).  Pyrogallol is toxic, but not
significantly more so than many other chemicals we use regularly,
including permanent hair dyes.  Color developers, bleach, and especially
stabilizer are others for which skin contact should be avoided.

Of these, AFAIK only pyrogallol and metol are known to have significant
skin contact risks, and pyrogallol is rarely if ever used in instruction
for photography; most likely the developer she was using for printing
was Dektol or similar containing metol and hydroquinone.  If she doesn't
have a relatively immediate reaction, she's not sensitive, and it's my
understanding metol isn't signifcantly absorbed through the skin.
Developers also typically contains a good bit of sodium sulfite as a
preservative and silver solvent.

Stop bath isn't anything to worry about -- acetic acid, same as vinegar;
if you have a variety without indicator dye, you could drink it without
harm.

Fixer has sodium thiosulfate or ammonium thiosulfate, sodium sulfite as
a preservative (sodium sulfite is also used as a food additive), sodium
metabisulfite (another food additive), and acetic acid (vinegar again).
 Sodium thiosulfate is the specific antidote for cyanide poisoning; it
isn't a recommended dietary supplement, but isn't significantly toxic.
The biggest hazard from fixer is sulfur dioxide evolved from a reaction
of the thiosulfate with acid, and this is in very low concentrations.

Used developer and fixer both contained dissolved silver compounds and
complexes, but these aren't normally a skin absorption hazard.

Overall, I'd be surprised if there were a problem -- there's a much
bigger risk if she had a few glasses of wine or beer in the last couple
weeks before learning of the conception, IMO.

Disclaimer: I'm neither a toxicity expert nor a physician -- everything
I've said here should be checked with someone who is qualified to verify
it.  Chemical names you'll want besides those above are phenidone,
dimezone, pyrocatechin, and p-aminophenol hydrochloride, benzotriazole,
potassium iodide, sodium perborate, sodium metaborate, sodium carbonate,
possibly sodium hydroxide if using Rodinal (these last four alkali
activators for developers), tetrasodium EDTA, Calgon, and similar
sequestrants and chelators.

To give some idea how harmless a developer *can* be, you can develop
film in coffee with sodium carbonate added...

    GASP !!!!! GADZOOKS !!!!! LAWDY LAWDY !!!!! HOW COULD YOU ....
!!!

    (:>)

    No but what I would lecture you on is completely over-reacting
to the folklore about darkroom chemistry. The fact is that your wife
would be at the same or greater risk if she uses laundry detergent,
bleach, dandruff shampoo, perfume, air freshener, drinks coffee or tea
or is otherwise exposed to the many other numerous commonly used
chemical concoctions around the average household.

    FYI, most developers are not easily absorbed through the skin.
Most developing agents are relatively benign and in fact some have
medicinal uses. Stop bath is simply an acidic solution usually
comprised of acetic acid (think vinegar) and water. Fixer is simply
ammonium thiosulfate which is not known to be toxic when used
accordingly.

    That said, if she should drink a cocktail of the above
solutions she may indeed suffer severe cramps which could
theoretically induce an abortion. Given that this isn't likely I would
just recommend that she make sure there is adequate ventilation and
that she take plenty of breaks to prevent varicose veins and other
problems.

Regards,

  John S. Douglas, Photographer -  http://www.puresilver.org
       Vote "No! for the status quo. Vote 3rd party !!

The most likely consequence of this case will be the baby's exposure will be
to his/her father's alarmist presumptions. You are advised to consult a
professional, not Usenet (for God's sake) for answers, and possible
treatment for your anxiety lest you infect the child.

i wouldn't worry about it jason-
it's nice to see your concern for both your wife and future child.
all sarcasm aside, she would probably have to soak in a bath of fixer for a
week before any problems would arise if they did at all.  i have known
several professional women photographers and they all continued darkroom
work during their pregnancies with no problems (at least not due to their
work...)
one poster's advice is best - good ventilation, frequent breaks (vericose
veins, ciculation etc).  also if she is really worried, there are these
things called tongs that many use to fish their prints out of chemical
baths!

good luck with your family-
-c.

 The question is: is there any reason to believe something  
bad has happened already to the baby at this time? A more important question
is does she consume alcohol and smoke cigarettes? A simple blood test
might confirm if any chemistry was absorbed into her blood stream, my
uneducated guess is no and your worries are more than likely just that.
& Needless of course I am not an expert in prenatle care nor do I pretend or intend to
be all opinions expressed are my own and consequently bear no responsiblity
for misuse or misunderstanding of their content. (Standard disclaimer in this context)
Seek a doctors help in the event such side effects from reading these contents produces
nervousness or shortness of breath.

Got enough money for college and diapers?

The amount of chemical absorbed through the skin is minute. I would not worry.

  Here is what Kodak has on their web site:

Working With Photoprocessing Chemicals During Pregnancy

We are frequently asked about the potential hazards of
working with photographic processing chemicals during
pregnancy and if this presents a health concern for the
mother or fetus. We are aware of no substantiated reports of
adverse reproductive effects among people working with KODAK
photoprocessing products.

All users are encouraged to follow the handling instructions
on the product labels and material safety data sheets (MSDS)
and abide by applicable country-specific regulations
concerning potential occupational exposures during
pregnancy. In addition, if you are pregnant, you should also
provide your physician with this information. A general
recommendation is to minimize skin, eye, and inhalation
exposure by using good industrial hygiene practices. These
include the use of gloves or tongs (for use in tray
processing), goggles or other eye protection, rubber aprons
or other suitable protective clothing, and working in a
well-ventilated area. Unless otherwise stated on the MSDS,
good industrial strength neoprene rubber or nitrile gloves
should be used whenever there is a potential for skin
contact.

There are no chemicals in any Kodak photoprocessing product
associated with adverse reproductive effects in humans.
There are a limited number of Kodak photochemical products
that contain a minor component that has been associated with
reproductive toxicity in animals through feeding studies.
Ingestion, the route of exposure in these laboratory
studies, is not an expected route of exposure for humans
working with these photoprocessing chemicals. For these
products, information regarding the potential health
hazards, in addition to safe handling guidelines, can be
found on the product label and Material Safety Data Sheets
(MSDSs). There is no evidence that any component of or
emission from a Kodak photoprocessing chemical can cause
reproductive effects in animals or humans by skin contact or
through inhalation.

Typical airborne emissions from Kodak photographic
processing solutions can include irritating gasses such as
sulfur dioxide, ammonia, and acetic acid. Since these
chemicals may have unpleasant odors, they can be detected at
low concentrations in the air. The ability to detect a
chemical by odor does not mean that it is present at a
concentration that will cause an adverse health effect.
However, if room ventilation is not adequate, the vapors may
cause transient headache, nausea, or eye, nose, and throat
irritation. Typically, the symptoms will clear when the
person is away from the exposure for a day or two and
reappear when the person is again exposed.

To speak with a Kodak toxicologist about this issue or any
other health issue related to a Kodak product or process,
please contact KES.

 KES is Kodak Envirionmental Services. They can be
contacted at:

http://www.kodak.com/cgi-bin/webGenericSurvey.cgi

Or, if you are in the US you can call customer service at 1
800 242 2424

  B&W chemistry has very low toxicity when at working
strength. I don't think you have anything to worry about.

From MSDS of 4-Aminophenol(p-aminophenol, para aminophenol) :

"Possible mutagen and teratogen"

"A teratogen is an agent that can cause malformations of an embryo or
fetus"

Metol and a few other very commonly used developing agent contains
Aminophenol.
If you happen to consult a doctor, please mention this.

As others have already mentioned, the quantity of the chemical that
might have been absorbed by the system is likey to be very small.

-Sreenath

nov404 from Lloyd Erlick,

What you 'did' was not stupid. Many people over a very
long time have exposed their fingers to ordinary
darkroom chemicals with no consequences. For many, many
years commonly available ordinary darkroom chemicals
have been close to innocuous. Even drinking them would
not be likely to cause death. Skin exposure is a minor
danger, hardly meriting the word.

However, chemical skin exposure is also completely
unnecessary in the darkroom.

I use the single-tray method of print making, and find
that my bare skin (I find no need for gloves or even
hand 'barrier' cream, which just gets on the negs and
enlarger...) never gets a drop of solution. In fact, I
think with a small effort one could prevent one's hands
from even getting wet. As long as the tray is rocked
gently enough that no tiny splashes occur (tiny
droplets sometimes go flying out, inevitably onto the
hands), there should be no need to wash the hands in
tap water. I've never experimented to see if this could
be done, but I find my hands wet in general so seldom
that I'm confident it's possible. It's just
unnecessary.

In the past I used a lot of Rodinal, a liquid developer
concentrate. I used a glass pipette to extract a
certain amount for dilution. Of course, a pipette is
basically a straw, and one day I was careless and got a
big slug of Rodinal in my mouth. There was no
possibility of swallowing! When one suggests that
darkroom solutions wouldn't even be harmful if you
drank them, it's purely theoretical. Actually getting a
mouthful down would be close to impossible. It would
require great effort and concentration, or perhaps
felonious assault.

The Rodinal didn't burn my mouth either. I was
surprised, given that it contains potassium hydroxide.

I have several articles on my website -- Non-acid
processing, selenium toning, single-tray work, are all
possibly helpful. Look in the table of contents, under
'technical'. www.heylloyd.com

I hope you're photographing your wife's pregnancy! I
don't think she's at any risk from darkroom chemicals.
Your child will be delighted to learn mother made those
beautiful prints herself ...

regards,
--le