 |
 | 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 / February 2006citric acid stop
anyone know the capacity and/or approximate shelf life of a 15 g/liter working solution ? Have you any litmus paper? If not see www.microessentiallab.com . Dan should you really bother? The stuff is so cheap (buy bulk) you don't need to store it. Just make yourself fresh stop bath and after your print session, just discard it. | anyone know the capacity and/or approximate shelf life of a 15 g/liter | working solution ? Right, Jan! This guy's an a.shole...pay no attention to him... > should you really bother? The stuff is so cheap (buy bulk) you don't need to > store it. Just make yourself fresh stop bath and after your print session, > just discard it. > > | anyone know the capacity and/or approximate shelf life of a 15 g/liter > | working solution ? Never re-use stop bath. Always dilute from the bottle and discard. > anyone know the capacity and/or approximate shelf life of a 15 g/liter > working solution ? even the commercial ones e.g. with indicator...? Never used anything else, and I only discard it when it's color flips. I don't have enough output to take serious advantage of bulk chemicals BTW. | Never re-use stop bath. | | Always dilute from the bottle and discard. | | > anyone know the capacity and/or approximate shelf life of a 15 g/liter | > working solution ? > anyone know the capacity and/or approximate shelf life of a 15 g/liter > working solution ? I appreciate the comments, but would anyone care to address my actual question? I haul all my used chemicals into town to dispose of them, and I really dont need several extra liters or gallons a week if I can avoid it. Is there no published info on citric stop? What about Ilford's? I have a Ph meter that I've used in the past, but it still doesnt answer my basic question. Dilute and discard down the drain. No harm will be done. > > anyone know the capacity and/or approximate shelf life of a 15 g/liter > > working solution ? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Ilford's? I have a Ph meter that I've used in the past, but it still > doesnt answer my basic question. > Dilute and discard down the drain. No harm will be done. You know so much about my personal drain situation that I feel very fortunate for your informative, authoritative and detailed replies. > > Dilute and discard down the drain. No harm will be done. > > You know so much about my personal drain situation that I feel very > fortunate for your informative, authoritative and detailed replies. If your drain is an ordinary household drain (and you have not told us otherwise) there is no reason to worry. If your situation is different, it is up to YOU to tell US. RIGHT? > > > Dilute and discard down the drain. No harm will be done. > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > otherwise) there is no reason to worry. If your situation is different, > it is up to YOU to tell US. RIGHT? I didnt ask you anything about my drain. You decided to change the question to suit your answer What the f.ck is your problem, a.shole? Pour the stop bath down the drain, UNLESS you tell us otherwise, there is NO HARN DONE! > > > > Dilute and discard down the drain. No harm will be done. > > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I didnt ask you anything about my drain. You decided to change the > question to suit your answer > What the f.ck is your problem, a.shole? > > Pour the stop bath down the drain, UNLESS you tell us otherwise, there > is NO HARN DONE! Well, umm, as you say....a.shole....since you dont know a thing about my drain, I didnt ask about it, and it isnt relevant to my question, why are you getting your panties in such a bundle? Five replies from you on this topic, and not one indicated that you comprehended (or even read) my very simple question which involved working life and capacity. Only. Not disposal, not safety, not harm being done. I have those things covered, thank you. Have a nice day. The noraml practice is dilute and discard. If you CANNOT do this, you have to tell us why, because that is the normal way of doing it! > > What the f.ck is your problem, a.shole? > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > capacity. Only. Not disposal, not safety, not harm being done. I have > those things covered, thank you. Have a nice day. > The noraml practice is dilute and discard. > > If you CANNOT do this, you have to tell us why, because that is the > normal way of doing it Normal doesnt necessarily mean better. Why would I discard something that is still good? I try to be a conserver, not a consumer. If it was no longer good I wouldnt risk using it, which is why I asked the question. Its only stop bath though, not developer. It isnt one-shot. It's CHEAP. How do you know BEFORE you use it, whether the acid will be OK? If you're developing film, and you pour it out and it's blue, you're hosed, dumbass! ALWAYS use fresh stop bath for film! ALWAYS! > > The noraml practice is dilute and discard. > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > no longer good I wouldnt risk using it, which is why I asked the > question. Its only stop bath though, not developer. It isnt one-shot. Joe spake thus: >> The noraml practice is dilute and discard. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > question. Its only stop bath though, not developer. It isnt > one-shot. I've got to admit that he (UC) is right here. Having said that, I also admit that I also conserve stop bath (I use dilute vinegar; not cheaper, but available everywhere). So sue me. By the way, you'll find some of the most vehement foaming here from the "one-shotters", the ones who *insist* that single-tray processing and one-shot use (some go so far as to suggest it for everything, not just developer) is the One True Way to process prints. May work for them, but I find it peculiar and a little precious. Whatever.  SignatureIf the United States government, with all its capacity to collect and interpret information, did not see Hamas doing very well in the Palestinian election in the wake of these other Islamist victories, then it is either willfully blind or totally incompetent—- and neither possibility is a very comforting thought. - Rami G. Khouri, editor at large of the Beirut-based _Daily Star_ The reason not to reuse stop bath is that it is cheap and that you cannot tell if it's any good before you use it unless you mix it fresh. If you re-use stop bath with an indicator, and it looks yellow and you pour it into your tank and it does not have enough acidity, development will continue longer than desired, and you won't know it until it's too late, when you pour it out and it's blue. With paper processing, this is no big deal. You place a print into the stop-bath and the stop-bath turns blue. Big deal Make another print. NEVER re-use stop bath for film. I re-use fixer, of course, because 1 gallon of rapid fixer will fix about 125 rolls! I use one-shot developers, because I don't like bromide to build up in the developer. I need all the speed I can get. Years ago, I used to use UFG and replenish it. I don't re-use PermaWash or PhotoFlo, because I want to have fresh working solutions for these important steps. Developer: One-shot Stop-bath: One shot Fixer: Re-use Wash aid (Perma-wash): One-shot PhotoFlo: One shot > Joe spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > - Rami G. Khouri, editor at large of the Beirut-based _Daily Star_ I recommend you open a New Church of One-Shot Stop Bath. Take it to Arizona, as far as possible. #The reason not to reuse stop bath is that it is cheap and that you #cannot tell if it's any good before you use it unless you mix it fresh. #If you re-use stop bath with an indicator, and it looks yellow and you #pour it into your tank and it does not have enough acidity, development #will continue longer than desired, and you won't know it until it's too #late, when you pour it out and it's blue. # #With paper processing, this is no big deal. You place a print into the #stop-bath and the stop-bath turns blue. Big deal Make another print. # #NEVER re-use stop bath for film. # #I re-use fixer, of course, because 1 gallon of rapid fixer will fix #about 125 rolls! # #I use one-shot developers, because I don't like bromide to build up in #the developer. I need all the speed I can get. Years ago, I used to use #UFG and replenish it. # #I don't re-use PermaWash or PhotoFlo, because I want to have fresh #working solutions for these important steps. # #Developer: One-shot #Stop-bath: One shot #Fixer: Re-use #Wash aid (Perma-wash): One-shot #PhotoFlo: One shot # # #David Nebenzahl wrote: #> Joe spake thus: #> #> > #> >> The noraml practice is dilute and discard. #> >> #> >> If you CANNOT do this, you have to tell us why, because that is the #> >> normal way of doing it #> > #> > Normal doesnt necessarily mean better. Why would I discard something #> > that is still good? I try to be a conserver, not a consumer. If it #> > was no longer good I wouldnt risk using it, which is why I asked the #> > question. Its only stop bath though, not developer. It isnt #> > one-shot. #> #> I've got to admit that he (UC) is right here. #> #> Having said that, I also admit that I also conserve stop bath (I use #> dilute vinegar; not cheaper, but available everywhere). So sue me. #> #> By the way, you'll find some of the most vehement foaming here from the #> "one-shotters", the ones who *insist* that single-tray processing and #> one-shot use (some go so far as to suggest it for everything, not just #> developer) is the One True Way to process prints. May work for them, but #> I find it peculiar and a little precious. Whatever. #> #> #> -- #> If the United States government, with all its capacity to collect #> and interpret information, did not see Hamas doing very well in the #> Palestinian election in the wake of these other Islamist victories, #> then it is either willfully blind or totally incompetent-- #> and neither possibility is a very comforting thought. #> #> - Rami G. Khouri, editor at large of the Beirut-based _Daily Star_ As I understand it - Joe asked for info on citric acid based stop bath. Smeone offered info from Ilford. Someone else insists on Joe changing his habit. It is not, what Joe wants. Joe was satisfied with Ilford recommendations. Would "better knowing" people concentrate on their own problems, since Joe is happy? Why 0 insists that 1 should use his method/workflow? Isn't US a free country? Or you have too many zealots of all kinds? #Joe spake thus: # #> UC wrote: #> #>> The noraml practice is dilute and discard. #>> #>> If you CANNOT do this, you have to tell us why, because that is the #>> normal way of doing it #> #> Normal doesnt necessarily mean better. Why would I discard something #> that is still good? I try to be a conserver, not a consumer. If it #> was no longer good I wouldnt risk using it, which is why I asked the #> question. Its only stop bath though, not developer. It isnt #> one-shot. # #I've got to admit that he (UC) is right here. # #Having said that, I also admit that I also conserve stop bath (I use #dilute vinegar; not cheaper, but available everywhere). So sue me. # #By the way, you'll find some of the most vehement foaming here from the #"one-shotters", the ones who *insist* that single-tray processing and #one-shot use (some go so far as to suggest it for everything, not just #developer) is the One True Way to process prints. May work for them, but #I find it peculiar and a little precious. Whatever. > As I understand it - Joe asked for info on citric acid based stop > bath. Smeone offered info from Ilford. > Someone else insists on Joe changing his habit. It is not, what Joe > wants. Many people make assxumptions before they ask questions. I would be remiss not to mention problems with those assumptions. Re-using stop bath, wetting agent, or wash aid are not good. These products are cheap and should be used once only. It is false economy to reuse them. > Joe was satisfied with Ilford recommendations. > Would "better knowing" people concentrate on their own problems, since [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > but > #I find it peculiar and a little precious. Whatever. # #nailer wrote: #> As I understand it - Joe asked for info on citric acid based stop #> bath. Smeone offered info from Ilford. #> Someone else insists on Joe changing his habit. It is not, what Joe #> wants. # #Many people make assxumptions before they ask questions. I would be #remiss not to mention problems with those assumptions. Re-using stop #bath, wetting agent, or wash aid are not good. These products are cheap #and should be used once only. It is false economy to reuse them. # #> Joe was satisfied with Ilford recommendations. #> Would "better knowing" people concentrate on their own problems, since #> Joe is happy? #> Why 0 insists that 1 should use his method/workflow? #> Isn't US a free country? #> Or you have too many zealots of all kinds? #> #> #> On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 13:03:11 -0800, David Nebenzahl #> <nobody@but.us.chickens> wrote: #> #> #Joe spake thus: #> # #> #> #> #>> The noraml practice is dilute and discard. #> #>> #> #>> If you CANNOT do this, you have to tell us why, because that is #> the #> #>> normal way of doing it #> #> #> #> Normal doesnt necessarily mean better. Why would I discard #> something #> #> that is still good? I try to be a conserver, not a consumer. If it #> #> was no longer good I wouldnt risk using it, which is why I asked #> the #> #> question. Its only stop bath though, not developer. It isnt #> #> one-shot. #> # #> #I've got to admit that he (UC) is right here. #> # #> #Having said that, I also admit that I also conserve stop bath (I use #> #dilute vinegar; not cheaper, but available everywhere). So sue me. #> # #> #By the way, you'll find some of the most vehement foaming here from #> the #> #"one-shotters", the ones who *insist* that single-tray processing and #> #one-shot use (some go so far as to suggest it for everything, not #> just #> #developer) is the One True Way to process prints. May work for them, #> but #> #I find it peculiar and a little precious. Whatever. >Normal doesnt necessarily mean better. Why would I discard something >that is still good? I try to be a conserver, not a consumer. If it was >no longer good I wouldnt risk using it, which is why I asked the >question. Its only stop bath though, not developer. It isnt one-shot. Actually I re-use print developer quite a bit as well. Specifically Dektol cut 1+1. I've seen it get as dark as tea and still work quite well. == John - Photographer & Webmaster www.puresilver.org - www.xs750.net > >Normal doesnt necessarily mean better. Why would I discard something > >that is still good? I try to be a conserver, not a consumer. If it was [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Dektol cut 1+1. I've seen it get as dark as tea and still work quite > well. But that's not FILM!!!!! You can't replace a negative as easily as a print. Most negatives are unique and can't be replicated! Processing film needs to be as consistent and reliable as possible. You can always make another print. > == > John - Photographer & Webmaster > www.puresilver.org - www.xs750.net UC spake thus: >>> Normal doesnt necessarily mean better. Why would I discard >>> something that is still good? I try to be a conserver, not a [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > consistent and reliable as possible. You can always make another > print. Well, OK, point taken: one ought to take more care with film, since you may never be able to recreate what's on it. (I should probably post that in great big letters somewhere: the last roll of film I shot, I almost ruined because I opened the back of the camera before it was rewound. Doh! SignatureIf the United States government, with all its capacity to collect and interpret information, did not see Hamas doing very well in the Palestinian election in the wake of these other Islamist victories, then it is either willfully blind or totally incompetent—- and neither possibility is a very comforting thought. - Rami G. Khouri, editor at large of the Beirut-based _Daily Star_ > Well, OK, point taken: one ought to take more care with film, since you > may never be able to recreate what's on it. (I should probably post that > in great big letters somewhere: the last roll of film I shot, I almost > ruined because I opened the back of the camera before it was rewound. Doh! I have to admit I have done this, but very, very few times. Maybe once or twice in my lifetime. In fact, you'll be cleaning the drain. We use undiluted citric acid to clean toilets. Citric acid is a solid. Undiluted means no water equals solid. Citric acid will not remove grim, fats etc, but will nicely eat into glazed porcelain. check again, what do you use to clean your toilet. #In fact, you'll be cleaning the drain. We use undiluted citric acid to #clean toilets. >Citric acid is a solid. Undiluted means no water equals solid. Citric >acid will not remove grim, fats etc, but will nicely eat into glazed >porcelain. >check again, what do you use to clean your toilet. Probably a 2~5% solution. See: http://www.wd40.com/Download/?/Brands/pdfs/msds-x14_oxy_citrus.us.pdf == John - Photographer & Webmaster www.puresilver.org - www.xs750.net it contains hydrogen peroxide, very strong oxidiser in acidic solution (courtessy of citric acid). So, acid provides proper condition for H2O2 to act. However, citric acid will remove rust stains from prcelain. #On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 05:25:34 GMT, nailer <me@home.universe.org> wrote: # #>Citric acid is a solid. Undiluted means no water equals solid. Citric #>acid will not remove grim, fats etc, but will nicely eat into glazed #>porcelain. #>check again, what do you use to clean your toilet. # #Probably a 2~5% solution. See: # #http://www.wd40.com/Download/?/Brands/pdfs/msds-x14_oxy_citrus.us.pdf # # #== # John - Photographer & Webmaster # www.puresilver.org - www.xs750.net >> anyone know the capacity and/or approximate shelf life of a 15 g/liter >> working solution ? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > avoid it. Is there no published info on citric stop? What about > Ilford's? Ilford's info for Ilfostop is at: <http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/pdf/Chemical%20sundries.pdf> I'm puzzled why stop bath would require special disposal. Citric acid isn't toxic and a small amount of developer carried over is hard to get excited about. I understand being concerned about silver in spent fixer and possibly some developers, but I wouldn't have thought that stop bath would be any problem. Peter. Signaturepirwin@ktb.net > Ilford's info for Ilfostop is at: > <http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/pdf/Chemical%20sundries.pdf> Thanks, that answers my question. > > Ilford's info for Ilfostop is at: > > <http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/pdf/Chemical%20sundries.pdf> > > Thanks, that answers my question. For the record, in case anyone should be so unfortunate as to ask this question again, the capacity is 30 8x10's per liter and the working solution's life is 7 days, for the Ilford product anyway. didn't I? | I appreciate the comments, but would anyone care to address my actual | question? Ilford has answered you questions. what do you do with your washig effluent? Collect gray water, add your citric acid spent bath and discard. plants will love it, that small quantity of dev agents does not matter. #anyone know the capacity and/or approximate shelf life of a 15 g/liter #working solution ? He probably has a septic tank and erroneously thinks these highly dilute amounts will harm it. He should [but won't] read Kodak's information on the subject. For his photography it probably doesn't matter anyway. > Ilford has answered you questions. > what do you do with your washig effluent? Collect gray water, add your [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > g/liter > #working solution ? Ah good, the Usenet septic system experts are coming out of woodwork again anyway, despite my best efforts to keep them in their holes. tell me, which state's extension program do you work for again? By the way, when you mentioned Kodak information, were you referring to this? "Kodak does not recommend the use of septic systems for disposal of photographic processing chemicals because the disposal of photographic processing solutions may affect the proper operations of the septic system. Septic tank systems are used for the disposal of domestic waste, primarily in areas where municipal sewers are unavailable. Therefore, they are engineered for that stated purpose, and operate with anaerobic (in the absence of oxygen) biological action to accomplish the treatment of discharged wastes. Discharge from septic tank systems may adversely affect sources of underground drinking water. Regulations have been established by the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and many states to minimize that potential. Your U.S. EPA Regional or State Administrator of the Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program and/or local health department should be contacted to determine whether the discharge of photoprocessing effluents into your septic system is allowable. " > He probably has a septic tank and erroneously thinks these highly dilute > amounts will harm it. He should [but won't] read Kodak's information on the > subject. For his photography it probably doesn't matter anyway. The amount of fluids from a home darkroom is very small. If you mix the stop bath with developer on the way down, they will tend to neutralize one another. > Ah good, the Usenet septic system experts are coming out of woodwork > again anyway, despite my best efforts to keep them in their holes. tell [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > amounts will harm it. He should [but won't] read Kodak's information on the > > subject. For his photography it probably doesn't matter anyway. > Ah good, the Usenet septic system experts are coming out of woodwork > again anyway, despite my best efforts to keep them in their holes. tell [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > amounts will harm it. He should [but won't] read Kodak's information on the > > subject. For his photography it probably doesn't matter anyway. It really depends upon the exact chemical being discharged and how much- but blanket classifications are rather idiotic IMOP. Certain chemicals like acetic acid can easily be neutralized with common baking soda. The EPA it is noted allows small businesses to store up to 50, 55 gallon drums of chemical discharge on premisses-for latter removal. EK refers to developers, fixer, color chemistries. Most packaged developers btw when developer is mixed with stop bath is neutralized to the point it could be dumped down the drain, I however have strived over the years to dispose of developer by absorbing into shreaded newspaper and then throwing it away as was suggested by my "Extension Agent". Far worse stuff gets dumped down the drain by the average household than most photo chemistry, which is not an excuse to dump chemicals down the drain,...just merely a statement. Liquid plumber, cleaning solvents, motor oil, etc for instance. Signature"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 greg_____photo(dot)com >Far worse stuff gets dumped down the drain by the average household >than most photo chemistry, which is not an excuse to dump chemicals down >the drain,...just merely a statement. Liquid plumber, cleaning solvents, >motor oil, etc for instance. Clorox, Comet, Tide, Easy Off, Simple Green, Raid, Off, WD-40 and many, many others. What cracks me up is that they consider hydroquinone a hazardous substance. Yeah. So is dihydrogen oxide. == John - Photographer & Webmaster www.puresilver.org - www.xs750.net > Yeah. So is dihydrogen oxide. Specially when you end up passed out and face down in it. Signature"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 greg_____photo(dot)com >> Yeah. So is dihydrogen oxide. > >Specially when you end up passed out and face down in it. February 14, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick, Then surely we should have strict regulations for this substance to protect people should they find themselves in this situation. I'll have Shirley get right on it. Shirley notes the special nature of the situation: you end ... up passed ... out face ... down The exercise might be good for you. regards, --le Signature________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. voice: 416-686-0326 email: portrait@heylloyd.com net: www.heylloyd.com ________________________________ > >> Yeah. So is dihydrogen oxide. > > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > net: www.heylloyd.com > ________________________________ I don't like swimming that much :) Signature"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 greg_____photo(dot)com G- Blank wrote: then > throwing it away as was suggested by my "Extension Agent". Sounds your extension agent is an idiot, and its probably illegal if you follow his advice. > Far worse stuff gets dumped down the drain by the average household > than most photo chemistry, which is not an excuse to dump chemicals down > the drain,...just merely a statement. Liquid plumber, cleaning solvents, > motor oil, etc for instance. All of these are to be avoided in septic systems, and can contribute to failure of the system. > G- Blank wrote: then > > throwing it away as was suggested by my "Extension Agent". > > Sounds your extension agent is an idiot, and its probably illegal if > you follow his advice. And your suggestion is? The explanation is the chemistry is not really very hazardous, by absorbing the water the chemical component can be safely sent to the landfill, ever been to a landfill? Lots and lots of more toxic stuff ends up there. > > Far worse stuff gets dumped down the drain by the average household > > than most photo chemistry, which is not an excuse to dump chemicals down [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > All of these are to be avoided in septic systems, and can contribute to > failure of the system. Never the less lots of people don't avoid them-which was my point. Signature"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 greg_____photo(dot)com > > G- Blank wrote: then > > > throwing it away as was suggested by my "Extension Agent". [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > And your suggestion is? I dont have any suggestions, though I can tell you what I do. I haul mine to the nearest town and dump it right in the tanks at the sewage plant. You might ask if you can do the same. It would be a less messy way of dealing with anyway. > > All of these are to be avoided in septic systems, and can contribute to > > failure of the system. > > Never the less lots of people don't avoid them-which was my point. And lots of people have failing septic systems-thats MY point! In my area >50% of septics are failing. The percentage of people who know their septics are failing before they have completely failed hovers around 0%. >And lots of people have failing septic systems-thats MY point! In my >area >50% of septics are failing. The percentage of people who know >their septics are failing before they have completely failed hovers >around 0%. Hmmm, I wonder if they have the same attitude towards their vehicles ? Septics need maintenance just like cars need their oil changed and just about as often. == John - Photographer & Webmaster www.puresilver.org - www.xs750.net > >And lots of people have failing septic systems-thats MY point! In my > >area >50% of septics are failing. The percentage of people who know [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Septics need maintenance just like cars need their oil changed and > just about as often. Except for tank only systems, they usually only need pumping every few years. I hope you change your oil more than that.;) The most frequent cause of failure is excessive water use. >And your suggestion is? The explanation is the chemistry is not >really very hazardous, by absorbing the water the chemical component >can be safely sent to the landfill, ever been to a landfill? Lots and >lots of more toxic stuff ends up there. Yes. Like computers and low grade radioactive waste. But hey ! What's a little heavy metal between friends ! == John - Photographer & Webmaster www.puresilver.org - www.xs750.net >motor oil, etc for instance. February 14, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick, I live in a city that slopes toward a lake. Every drop of car effluent that dribbles onto the pavement either evaporates or gets washed into the lake. At least, its reaction products do. Just another reason to avoid drinking out of Lake Ontario. Bathing in it is harder to avoid ... regards, --le Signature________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. voice: 416-686-0326 email: portrait@heylloyd.com net: www.heylloyd.com ________________________________ only asking ;-{) #Ah good, the Usenet septic system experts are coming out of woodwork #again anyway, despite my best efforts to keep them in their holes. tell #me, which state's extension program do you work for again? By the way, #when you mentioned Kodak information, were you referring to this? # #"Kodak does not recommend the use of septic systems for disposal of #photographic processing chemicals because the disposal of photographic #processing solutions may affect the proper operations of the septic #system. Septic tank systems are used for the disposal of domestic #waste, primarily in areas where municipal sewers are unavailable. #Therefore, they are engineered for that stated purpose, and operate #with anaerobic (in the absence of oxygen) biological action to #accomplish the treatment of discharged wastes. #Discharge from septic tank systems may adversely affect sources of #underground drinking water. Regulations have been established by the #federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and many states to #minimize that potential. Your U.S. EPA Regional or State Administrator #of the Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program and/or local health #department should be contacted to determine whether the discharge of #photoprocessing effluents into your septic system is allowable. " # # #Alecj wrote: #> He probably has a septic tank and erroneously thinks these highly dilute #> amounts will harm it. He should [but won't] read Kodak's information on the #> subject. For his photography it probably doesn't matter anyway. citric acid resides in many plants, it is biodegradable and won't harm septic tank. but it it his problem. Or, all the sauces can be left to dry out and the remaining solids taken to waste contractor. at will #He probably has a septic tank and erroneously thinks these highly dilute #amounts will harm it. He should [but won't] read Kodak's information on the #subject. For his photography it probably doesn't matter anyway. # #"nailer" <me@home.universe.org> wrote in message #news:a5tlu196p4784gvlrc0ro01h8n29t67r4f@4ax.com... #> Ilford has answered you questions. #> what do you do with your washig effluent? Collect gray water, add your #> citric acid spent bath and discard. plants will love it, that small #> quantity of dev agents does not matter. #> #> #> On 6 Feb 2006 08:32:51 -0800, "Joe" <in2deep@airpost.net> wrote: #> #> #anyone know the capacity and/or approximate shelf life of a 15 #> g/liter #> #working solution ? # >anyone know the capacity and/or approximate shelf life of a 15 g/liter >working solution ? ILFOSTOP PRO Capacities & Replenishment films/litre - 24x13536 (unreplenished) RC papers/litre (8x10 inch) (unreplenished) - 90 20.3x25.4cm FB papers/litre (8x10 inch) (unreplenished) 45 20.3x25.4cm Replenishment rate - Film -100200ml/sq.m Paper - 100200ml/sq.m == John - Photographer & Webmaster www.puresilver.org - www.xs750.net |
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.