Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
PhotoKB Home
Discussion Groups
Digital Photography
Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot Cameras
Film Photography
35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther Equipment
Photo Technique
Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique General
General Photo Topics
General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK Photography
DirectoryPhoto Clubs

Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / October 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Cancer.  Photo chemicals.  Are they linked?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Shakti V. - 20 Oct 2006 08:09 GMT
I mix my own chemicals now.  It just worries me, because as of the recent
reports, the rates of cancer, are rising.  Would you know if exposure to
photographic chemicals, from the raw chemicals to the pre-packed chemicals
that we use, could trigger, or contribute to the development of cancer- -any
kind of cancer?

Signature

+Shakti V.

Claudio Bonavolta - 20 Oct 2006 09:04 GMT
Shakti V. via PhotoKB.com a écrit :

> I mix my own chemicals now.  It just worries me, because as of the recent
> reports, the rates of cancer, are rising.  Would you know if exposure to
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> Message posted via PhotoKB.com
> http://www.photokb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/photo-darkroom/200610/1

I don't know if there are any study putting in relation photography and
increase in the number of cancers ...

If the increase of cancers is just recent, then we may reasonably say
that traditional photography is probably not the cause as photographers
are working that way for more than a century ...
Maybe digital photography is responsible for such a recent increase of
cancers :-)

There are some ingredients used in some products that are known
carcinogen, using them correctly is good way to reduce the risk close
to nil.

Just use common sense and avoid physical contact with the chemicals.
Pay particularly attention to dry chemicals that can be airborne and
inhaled and avoid the most dangerous ones.

Some years ago in France, developers in shops had to be kept in closed
cupboards because hydrochinone was found to be carcinogen.
It's true it is carcinogen, the problem was that some black skin people
used it in to bleach their skin ...
So the real danger of a chemical depends mostly on how you use it.

Anyway, if you feel unsecure, you've better to stop it, there are no
valid reasons to continue a hobby that makes you unconfortable.
In these digi-days, you can find substitutes :-)

Claudio Bonavolta
http://www.bonavolta.ch
John - 20 Oct 2006 12:10 GMT
>Maybe digital photography is responsible for such a recent increase of
>cancers :-)

Given the amount of low level radiation produced by some monitors I
daresay you're right !

==
    John S. Douglas
    Photographer & Webmaster
    Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net
Tom Phillips - 24 Oct 2006 05:15 GMT
> >Maybe digital photography is responsible for such a recent increase of
> >cancers :-)
>
> Given the amount of low level radiation produced by some monitors I
> daresay you're right !

As opposed to zero radiation from my enlarger :)
David Starr - 24 Oct 2006 22:27 GMT
>As opposed to zero radiation from my enlarger :)

Uh, what about photons???  Next time I see Spock I'll have to ask him how many
it takes to make a torpedo.  :)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Retired Shop Rat: 14,647 days in a GM plant.
Now I can do what I enjoy: Large Format Photography

Web Site: www.destarr.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
John - 20 Oct 2006 12:09 GMT
>I mix my own chemicals now.  It just worries me, because as of the recent
>reports, the rates of cancer, are rising.  Would you know if exposure to
>photographic chemicals, from the raw chemicals to the pre-packed chemicals
>that we use, could trigger, or contribute to the development of cancer- -any
>kind of cancer?

Only if you bathe in it, swallow a lot of it and stay out in the sun
for too long.

==
    John S. Douglas
    Photographer & Webmaster
    Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net
David Nebenzahl - 20 Oct 2006 18:18 GMT
Shakti V. via PhotoKB.com spake thus:

> I mix my own chemicals now.  It just worries me, because as of the recent
> reports, the rates of cancer, are rising.  Would you know if exposure to
> photographic chemicals, from the raw chemicals to the pre-packed chemicals
> that we use, could trigger, or contribute to the development of cancer- -any
> kind of cancer?

If you're concerned about this, you ought to check the MSDS for each of
the chemicals in question. They're out there, and will list the
carcinogenic risks, if any, of using the chemicals.

Signature

Just as McDonald's is where you go when you're hungry but don't really
care about the quality of your food, Wikipedia is where you go when
you're curious but don't really care about the quality of your knowledge.

- Matthew White's WikiWatch (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm)

John - 20 Oct 2006 22:49 GMT
>Shakti V. via PhotoKB.com spake thus:
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>the chemicals in question. They're out there, and will list the
>carcinogenic risks, if any, of using the chemicals.

Note that most MSDS sheets written by qualified people are hard to
understand and even harder to put into perspective of the casual
darkoom user.

==
    John S. Douglas
    Photographer & Webmaster
    Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net
David Starr - 21 Oct 2006 22:51 GMT
>Note that most MSDS sheets written by qualified people are hard to
>understand and even harder to put into perspective of the casual
>darkoom user.

For grins I once read the MSDS for water.  If you didn't know better, you'd
never go near the stuff.  

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Retired Shop Rat: 14,647 days in a GM plant.
Now I can do what I enjoy: Large Format Photography

Web Site: www.destarr.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
j - 22 Oct 2006 00:48 GMT
Whatever physical issue is of concern to any of us who does darkroom work
becomes suspect.

I am sixty years old and have developed what might be Parkinsons. I can look
to the literature and find other photographers who have had the same.

We are human beings and susceptible to err. Dorethea Lang fell to
Parkinsons. Her illness appears to have nothing to do with photography,
although I am sure many of us in the same vector would be suspicious. Stats
do not support the suspicion.

So let us be careful regarding the impressions.

And be well.

We were not designed to live forever.

Peace,
j
John - 22 Oct 2006 23:40 GMT
>We were not designed to live forever.

Hmmmm, may I upgrade yet ?

    ;>)

==
    John S. Douglas
    Photographer & Webmaster
    Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net
Greg "_" - 22 Oct 2006 03:17 GMT
> >Note that most MSDS sheets written by qualified people are hard to
> >understand and even harder to put into perspective of the casual
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> Web Site: www.destarr.com
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I wouldn't swim in parts of the Chesapeake Bay now if you paid me a lot
of fricking money. Not to mention the Delaware Bay home of Dupont.

In one place here at home slightly offshore Lindy Chemical formerly
Union Carbide dump truck loads of god knows what on adjacent landscape
for twenty years. In my days of landsurvey we did a boundary on the
property. It is noted the tree on the dump site were how shall we
say,....unnaturally small.
Signature

Reality-Is finding that perfect picture
and never looking back.

www.gregblankphoto.com

David Nebenzahl - 22 Oct 2006 08:05 GMT
David Starr spake thus:

>>Note that most MSDS sheets written by qualified people are hard to
>>understand and even harder to put into perspective of the casual
>>darkoom user.
>
> For grins I once read the MSDS for water.  If you didn't know better, you'd
> never go near the stuff.  

Don't think so; sounds like an urban legend to me.

Just for ha-has, I looked up water in a MSDS database (Cornell
University's). Though I didn't find the sheet for just water, here's the
data for water as part of another product (propylene glycol & water
mixture):

  Ingredient Name: WATER
  Ingredient CAS Number: 7732-18-5 Ingredient CAS Code: M
  RTECS Number: ZC0110000 RTECS Code: M
  =WT: =WT Code:
  =Volume: =Volume Code:
  >WT: >WT Code:
  >Volume: >Volume Code:
  <WT: <WT Code:
  <Volume: <Volume Code:
  % Low WT: % Low WT Code:
  % High WT: % High WT Code:
  % Low Volume: % Low Volume Code:
  % High Volume: % High Volume Code:
  % Text: BALANCE
  % Enviromental Weight:
  Other REC Limits: NOT ESTABLISHED
  OSHA PEL: NOT ESTABLISHED OSHA PEL Code: M
  OSHA STEL: OSHA STEL Code:
  ACGIH TLV: NOT ESTABLISHED ACGIH TLV Code: M
  ACGIH STEL: N/P ACGIH STEL Code:
  EPA Reporting Quantity:
  DOT Reporting Quantity:
  Ozone Depleting Chemical: N

The fact that most of these fields are blank indicates that it's not
considered to be a hazard for those parameters.

Someone might be able to retrieve the actual MSDS for water by using the
CAS number given here (7732-18-5). By the way, this searchable database
is at http://msds.ehs.cornell.edu/msdssrch.asp.

Signature

Just as McDonald's is where you go when you're hungry but don't really
care about the quality of your food, Wikipedia is where you go when
you're curious but don't really care about the quality of your knowledge.

- Matthew White's WikiWatch (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm)

David Nebenzahl - 22 Oct 2006 08:15 GMT
David Nebenzahl spake thus:

> David Starr spake thus:
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Don't think so; sounds like an urban legend to me.

For more MSDS-myth debunking and reality checking (as well as some
actual humor), check out http://www.ilpi.com/msds/faq/partf.html. Among
other things, they answer the question, "Are MSDS's really any good? For
example, the MSDS for water says to flush with water in case of skin
contact".

Signature

Just as McDonald's is where you go when you're hungry but don't really
care about the quality of your food, Wikipedia is where you go when
you're curious but don't really care about the quality of your knowledge.

- Matthew White's WikiWatch (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm)

Rod Smith - 22 Oct 2006 15:59 GMT
> David Starr spake thus:
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Don't think so; sounds like an urban legend to me.

David was reporting his PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. As such, that can't be an
urban legend, although he could be mistaken or lying. (I don't believe he
is, though.) FWIW, I once did the same thing. I found (via a Web search) a
variety of MSDSes for water. Most sounded pretty innocuous, although they
sometimes stated obvious things in long-winded and technical ways that
made them sound scarier than they'd be if they'd been stated in a more
conventional way. For instance, from
http://www.hsegroup.com/hse/text/water.htm:

: Unusual Fire and Explosion Hazard: Rapid temperature rise of liquid can
: result in explosive vaporization, particularly if in a sealed container.

I do recall finding one or two water MSDS pages that would fit David's
description. They outlined every conceivable water hazard in highly
technical terms. If you showed this to the average person on the street
and didn't mention it described water, they'd probably all sign petitions
to ban the stuff. Unfortunately, I didn't save the URLs for these MSDS
pages, and I couldn't find them again in a quick search. (Incidentally,
I'm also aware of the "joke" dihydrogen monoxide [DHMO] pages, and I'm
certain I'm not confusing an MSDS page for one of these DHMO pages.)

This does illustrate one of the problems with interpreting MSDS data,
though: Two sources may provide differing levels of data. Thus, if you
compare an MSDS for substance A from source X to an MSDS for substance B
from source Y, it may be hard to calibrate which one is the more hazardous
substance unless you're already enough of an expert to not need to refer
to the MSDSes to begin with. Using a single source for MSDS data could
help, but this isn't always possible, particularly for commercial
photochemistry.

Signature

Rod Smith, rodsmith@rodsbooks.com
http://www.rodsbooks.com
Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking

j - 23 Oct 2006 00:31 GMT
> David was reporting his PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. As such, that can't be an
> urban legend, although he could be mistaken or lying.

Look up monohydrogen dioxide. :)
Rob Novak - 20 Oct 2006 19:56 GMT
>reports, the rates of cancer, are rising.  Would you know if exposure to
>photographic chemicals, from the raw chemicals to the pre-packed chemicals
>that we use, could trigger, or contribute to the development of cancer- -any
>kind of cancer?

You can become hypersensitized to Metol, and in some cases
hydroquinone, which is why some chemistries were formulated with
phenidone in place of Metol.  In any case, the symptoms are usually a
localized dermatitis, though France considers hydroquinone a potential
carcinogen, and the MSDS lists it as such.

Dry developers/fixers are normally packaged in a crystalline form that
minimizes dust.  They can be toxic or irritating in concentrated form.
If preparing chemicals from primary components, be aware that some of
them may be available in different forms than those you find in
pre-formulated versions, and may have increased risks.

When mixing liquids, or handling wet film, I recommend using
nitrile-rubber gloves.  Especially with color chemistries, where the
stabilizers are sometimes formaldehyde-based.  Formaldehyde is most
definitely a carcinogen, and will permeate latex in a short time.

Practice good chemical handling practices, and you won't have a
problem.  Provide ventilation, wear eye protection if there's the
possibility of splashing, and wear gloves.  Your exposure should be
minimized.

Photochemistry info here:
http://www.jackspcs.com/chemdesc.htm
Signature

Central Maryland Photographer's Guild - http://www.cmpg.org
Strange, Geometrical Hinges - http://sgh.rnovak.net

Nicholas O. Lindan - 20 Oct 2006 20:40 GMT
On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 07:09:54 GMT, "Shakti V. via PhotoKB.com"

> ... the rates of cancer are rising ...

Be careful with the statistics -- what is happening in many
cases is the reporting rates are rising but the
incidence is the same.  However, "Cancer Rates Aren't Changing"
as a headline makes for lousy newspaper sales and generates no
tort fees.

> Would you know if exposure to photographic chemicals ...
> could trigger, or contribute to the development of cancer

Far, far less than the contents of the average cleaning closet.
Keeping your hands in detergent will wreck your skin faster
than keeping them in developer.  Gargling with fixer is better
than gargling with Drano.

The best way to avoid cancer is to choose your parents wisely.
If you choose well you won't die of cancer and you can take your
pick of heart disease, stroke, alcoholism, dementia, diabetes,
AIDS, TB, septicemia ...

And excess worry and anxiety will take years off your life.

Common sense is all that is needed:  use tongs when making
prints; rinse your hands if you get chemicals on them; pour
powdered chemicals slowly; wipe up spills...  Some of the
older color chemicals are nasty but they will have lots
of warnings on them.

Signature

Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
http://www.nolindan.com/da/index.htm
n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com

John - 20 Oct 2006 22:46 GMT
>>reports, the rates of cancer, are rising.  Would you know if exposure to
>>photographic chemicals, from the raw chemicals to the pre-packed chemicals
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>localized dermatitis, though France considers hydroquinone a potential
>carcinogen, and the MSDS lists it as such.

Well that's the Frenchies for ya ! Wouldn't it be nice to actually
find some data that supports the belief that hydroquinone is a
carcinogen ? I've been looking for something for a while and haven't
found it yet.

==
    John S. Douglas
    Photographer & Webmaster
    Legacy-photo.com - Xs750.net
Tom Phillips - 24 Oct 2006 05:22 GMT
> >>reports, the rates of cancer, are rising.  Would you know if exposure to
> >>photographic chemicals, from the raw chemicals to the pre-packed chemicals
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> carcinogen ? I've been looking for something for a while and haven't
> found it yet.

Think I would have died from the big C by
now if that were the case. Been immersing
my hands in hydroquinone for a few decades.
I haven't largely because I quit smoking
34 years ago, and since I took up photochemical
exposure been way too healthy...
Alan Smithee - 21 Oct 2006 01:27 GMT
> I mix my own chemicals now.  It just worries me, because as of the recent
> reports, the rates of cancer, are rising.  Would you know if exposure to
> photographic chemicals, from the raw chemicals to the pre-packed chemicals
> that we use, could trigger, or contribute to the development of cancer- -any
> kind of cancer?

I come from a farm and for many years lived in the countryside. I'm 40 now.
Back when my father was young cancers were much less common as a cause of
death. But then again people never lived as long either -- for other
reasons. The one thing that changed on our farm over the years was the
amount of tilling we had to do to the soil. It wasn't uncommon to have to
plow a field between three and six times a year depending on what happened
the year before and the crop that was currently on the field. The amount of
tilling has steadily decreased over the last few decades. The reason?
Sprays. Now thanks to various sprays we only have to till a field one or
twice a season. Saves a lot on fuel. Saves money, makes food cheaper to
produce. These days it's common for people from the city move to the
countryside -- near farms -- residing in small rural subdivisions and
developments that dot the landscape. They want the fresh air and tranquility
that the pastoral surrounding provides. They think they've moved to greener
pastures, I think they've just moved next to an unregulated industrial zone
that pours thousands of gallons of chemicals on every square mile of the
land two to four times per year. The darkroom, in my opinion, is probably
one of the safest place to be...at least most things are labeled and you can
choose your chemicals and or change the way you work and when necessary take
appropriate precautions when dealing with hazards. Changing the way we
produce our food...that's going to take centuries to fix.
Greg "_" - 21 Oct 2006 14:19 GMT
> I come from a farm and for many years lived in the countryside. I'm 40 now.
> Back when my father was young cancers were much less common as a cause of
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> appropriate precautions when dealing with hazards. Changing the way we
> produce our food...that's going to take centuries to fix.

I echo your line of reasoning, unregulated nitrates are to blame for
huge amounts of environmental damage (IE Chesapeake Bay),

& at Gettysburg there are warnings in the reststops regarding nitrate
levels in the water- warning not to drink it!!!

A causal link has also been shown that frequent eaters of bacon, sausage
and other processed meats have 33% more likelyhood of developing
intestinal & stomach cancer. Nitrates are also used to process meat in
addition to crop fertilization. Hell putting weed killer/fertilizer on
that nice suburban lawn is probably creating just as much indirect
exposure as working in an average darkroom that has adequate
ventilation......

So drinking fixer is probably safer than going to the ballpark at eating
several hotdogs or mowing the grass :)
Signature

Reality-Is finding that perfect picture
and never looking back.

www.gregblankphoto.com

Lloyd Erlick - 21 Oct 2006 15:05 GMT
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 09:28:25 -0400, "Greg
\"_\"" <grey_egg@greg_photo.com> wrote:

>Hell putting weed killer/fertilizer on
>that nice suburban lawn is probably creating just as much indirect
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>So drinking fixer is probably safer than going to the ballpark at eating
>several hotdogs or mowing the grass

October 21, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick,

Maybe so for an average darkroom as they
actually exist, but even then I doubt it.
Certainly a darkroom that has received a few
moments' thought is much safer than the sort
of lawn you're talking about.

The most careless darkroom worker probably
has nothing like the herbicides and bug
killers used at home. And let's not forget
anthrax comes from the soil.

You're just not safe outside the darkroom...

regards,
--le
________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
website: www.heylloyd.com
telephone: 416-686-0326
email: portrait@heylloyd.com
________________________________
--
 
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



©2008 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.