Effects of photographic chemicals on health?

A recent thread brought up the matter of Edward Weston's disease, Parkinson's. It made me wonder about the long-term effects of photo chemicals, and I can't help but wonder if Weston's illness wasn't brought on or worsened by Amidol, Pyro, and who knows what else. After all, he used his hands for the entire process, so his body must have absorbed large amounts of poison. I've read that if you leave your hands in Pyro long enough, you can actually develop an odd taste sensation. Who knows what else it does?

The question of Edward Weston's disease is pretty fuzzy. I don't

think it's all that certain he had Parkinson's. It certainly is not

clear how he, or anyone else for that matter, got Parkinson's (if

that's what he had). The cause of Parkinson's Disease is unknown. A

study published in the New England Journal of Medicine a couple years

ago found a hereditary link in the case of early-onset Parkinson's,

but only early-onset. In any event, whatever Weston had did not

appear till late middle-age.... Pyro is an MSDS sheet certified

carcinogen, which can get in the system by contact with the skin. I

use it and wear gloves. As far as I know, no case of cancer or any

other major disease has ever been attributed to photographic use of

pyro (or of amidol, for that matter, which certainly stains fingers,

trays, photographic prints, etc.).... Compared to what I do with pyro

and amidol (occasional use w/ gloves), Edward Weston may as well have

bathed in the stuff every day.... What happened to dear old EW is a

shame. -jeff buckels (albuquerque)

i think it would be hard to attribute any specific life threatening

diseases to photographic chemicals,at least many we might routinely

use throughout the past 30-40 years. of course we need to use some

precautions but there are many examples of photographers who have had

very long lives( berenice abbott, aaron siskind, harry callahan,

alvarez bravo, helen levitt) and therefore i think we should be

careful about looking at "causes." all this said, there are many who

have various dermatological problems from chemistry so handling should

be done with

There is a really good book out there on the dangers posed by

photographic chemicals, but for the life of me I can't remeber the

title

 

<p>

 

tim a

I'm sure that the book to which you're alluding is "overExposure"

by Susan D. Shaw & Monona Rossol (Allworth Press, New York

ISBN: 0-9607118-6-4.

 

<p>

 

A must have for all photographic alchemists.

 

<p>

 

Safe working ... Walter

I think this is it - Health Hazards for Photographers

 

<p>

 

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1558211810/qid%

3D1007500255/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F0%5F1/104-6261784-5629525

Tim, you may be thinking of "Overexposed"...it's similar to the

"Artists

Beware" type books.....about 10 years back the NPPA put out a

great booklet called "Making Darkrooms Saferooms", if you all can find

a copy of that, it's a good overview of safety in the darkroom and

covers alot of ground. Another good book, although not a safety book

directly, is Dr. Richard Henry's "Controls in B&W Photography"....I

believe he was a chemist or something similar by trade, and there's a

great basic chapter in chemical safety that's not quaite as hard-core

as the Overexposed book....the NPPA book has a few chapters dealing

with some health surveys amongst different age groups and technical

occupations in regards to photographers, although it's mainly geared

towards newspaper staffs and b&w and color processes. It was a pretty

in-depth study for the membership, and dealt with working with

employers to upgrade darkrooms to OSHA specs.

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0054mW

 

<p>

 

I wouldn't for one instant suggest treating any chemicals flippantly.

But I think photo chemicals often get an unjustified bad rap on this

count. A neighbour of mine was shocked that I used sodium sulphite

till I pointed out that mountains of the stuff are used in food

processing. And some of the stuff under your sink (bleaches,

cleaners, pest killers etc are a lot more deadly).

 

<p>

 

Yes, pyro is toxic and dermal absorption is a problem (as it is with

catechol). The link between pyro and things like Parkinson's is

speculative, no firm evidence for that link (unlike the link between

pyro and kidney failure etc which has lots more evidence).

 

<p>

 

I think that this means, if one is using pyro or catechol (or any

chemical), get upto speed about the potential hazards of the

chemicals and use appropriate precaution. Although that is probably

good advice to follow for anything in life (from driving a car to

crossing the street).

 

<p>

 

Cheers

DJ

I have been processing film in the dark for over 40 years.

 

<p>

 

My skin is dry, my hair has fallen out, my joints hurt, I have

arthritis, my wife says I need viagra, my dentist says my breath

stinks, my teeth are yellow....

 

<p>

 

Nope, no adverse effects from the chemicals I can think of.

 

<p>

 

Bill

Most Benzen derivatives are considered carcinogens. Catechol (o-

dihydroxybenzen) and pyro (1,2,3 trihydroxybenzen) as such are

considered carcinogens. they are usually absobed through the skin and

the organs they mostly damage are the liver, CNS, and if I remember

correctly the eyes, but do not take my word on the last one. The

funny thing is that Hydroquinone (p-dihydroxybenzen) which is very

similar to catechol does not seem to scare anybody. In the quantities

used to make developers, the risk of overexposure is minimal.

 

<p>

 

 

Bottom line, do not bathe in it, if you work daily with these

chemicals minimize exposure so that the cumulative dose is less than

the recommended by OSHA, and if you only develop a roll a month, do

not worry!

 

<p>

 

BTW, The book by Susan Shaw is full of mistakes and unnecessary scare

tactics.

DJ, I'll bet you my jar of cyanide that photo chemicals are taken far

too lightly and far too often the results are far too costly to our

health. Ken

If we can all be as fit as Bill Smithe at the age of thirty I doubt

if we have anything to worry about, but I have made the decision not

to use Pyro and I now wear gloves since having orange fingernails for

three weeks after using amidol.

Ken, like I said, I'm not for one moment suggesting one should be

flippant about it. I'm merely saying that it is important that one

should get the <b>correct</b> information on these issues. The fear

about photochemicals (especially those used in B&W) is also, in some

ways, somewhat irrational. After all, these are the same people who

seem less concerned about the benzene derivatives or whatever in

Raid, stuff in household cleaners like toilet cleaners, oven cleaners

etc, paint thinners, descalers and the like. How many folks wear a

dust mask when using an aerosol cleaner? At the risk of trivializing

this, how about BigMacs? Now, I'm not for a moment saying that two

wrongs make a right. I'm merely saying that chemicals (of any kind)

should be treated with respect and the first step in that is getting

<b>accurate</b> information about it.

 

<p>

 

To clarify, I'm all for using appropriate precautions. I'm just

saying one should get informed about what the actual hazards rather

than making unwarranted conclusions based on Weston's Parkinson and

the fact that he used pyro and Amidol. And for one example of Weston

who used pyro and contacted Parkinson's, one could offer counter-

examples of Morley Baer, Ansel Adams, Michael A. Smith, Ron Wisner

etc etc. Its just not a scientific or an accurate way to come to

conclusions about toxicity hazards etc. The fact that Weston died of

Parkinson's does not worry me. The fact that ORAL-RAT LD50 is 789 mg

per kg does. Pyro is a known carcinogen and is toxic and dermal

ingestion is a real danger. However, its mechanism is quite

different - it crosses the blood brain barrier, it will do in your

kidneys etc. Its links to Parkinson's etc, however, are without

evidence. Was Weston careless to have had his hands in pyro?

Probably, although its toxicity was probably less understood back

then.

 

<p>

 

Taking the required precautions against the known hazards of pyro and

amidol are ridiculously simple. Don't get your hands in the soup -

use gloves or rock the tray or use a rotary processing technique. Buy

a premixed liquid kit from the formulary or wear a dust mask when

mixing the solutions. Don't drop powders into the solution from a

height. Instead, submerge the package under the water and cut it open

or lower the paper with the weighed chemicals into the water.

 

<p>

 

Like I said, I'm not suggesting flippancy in dealing with chemicals

of any kinds, photo or otherwise. All I'm saying is that coming up

with appropriate precautions requires accurate understanding first.

 

<p>

 

Good health, DJ.

The body absorbs materials through the skin. Regardless of what we

do or don't know about photo chemicals, are they something you want

to absorb into your system (of course we breathe in plenty anyway)?

I where gloves. They're a pain, but on the other hand they help me

to slow down and be more methodical.

I've taken photography classes for several years now and never had a problem when working in the darkroom until recently. I'm trying to find out what kind of mask I can use. At times I feel like I'm breathing in Ammonia.

I find that I can deal with the anxiety caused by my exposure to these chemicals with high doses of alcohol (ingested orally) married with the inhalation of good second hand smoke from a Cuban cigar. It makes the blacks in my fibre based prints "blacker" and the highlights seem to have a more silvery luminosity.

Instead of getting a mask, it is much better to improve the ventilation. Or to replace the offending chemicals with less noxious ones. Is the ammonia smell from the fixer? There are low odor fixers.

<p>I developed many serious health problems including CFS as a result of exposures to photographic chemicals. The chemicals used to process color films are very harmful with many side effects.<br>

I cannot say photo chemicals affects all photographers because every-body is different. Did you know that some people can have adverse reaction just by inhaling a perfume? One must be “genetically predisposed.”<br>

For example: George Burns, the vaudeville tv comedian, started smoking 10-20 cigars a day when he was 15 yet he lived to be a 100 yrs old. We all know that according to scientific studies, smoking or inhaling tobacco, can have adverse effects on your health. For most people, the effect is cumulative. For some, all it takes is a few puffs, or inhalation. The same for photo chemicals.<br>

According to the Material safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for Kodak E-6 Color Developer it contain “4-(N-ethyl-N-2-methanesulphonylaminoethyl)-2-methylphenylenediamine sesquisulphate monohydrate (25646-71-3), 2,2-Ethylenedithiodiethanol (5244-34-8), Sodium sulphite (7757-83-7)”, and “4-(N-ethyl-N-2-methanesulphonylaminoethyl)-2-methylphenylenediamine sesquisulphate monohydrate(25646-71-3), Citrazinic acid (99-11-6)”.<br>

These photo chemicals are highly regulated and controlled ( with special labels and warnings ) when they are shipped, and stored, because they are corrosive, flammable, combustible, with harmful vapors. When these chemicals are used for processing color films, the Kodak MSDS warns not to breath the dust, fumes, or vapors, and to wear protective gloves, face/ eye, and clothing. Of course the chemicals may not be labeled as carcinogen but some of the side effects when one is exposed is kidney damage or death.<br>

If you happen to accidentally spill any of these chemicals on the floor, you are required to call environmental safety, and they will respond with protective suite that makes them look like astronauts. They will probably look at you and wonder why you, the user, is not wearing the required protective mask, gloves, etc.<br>

After you mix and use these chemicals, you cannot just dump them down the drain. They must be placed in special containers, and later disposed by specially trained and certified carriers. I know because I have worked with commercial, private, and military Photo Laboratories. Despite of the safety precautions I have later taken, I was still affected by the accumulated effects of being exposed to these very toxic and hazardous chemicals.</p>