Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / October 2006
Cancer. Photo chemicals. Are they linked?
|
|
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 ________________________________ --
|
|
|