Health Risk of Pyro

[Annie M.]

Just a reminder for pregnant women....... Pyrogallol in many studies was found to be mutagenic for In Vitro Mammalian Systems ..... Some of these studies are mentioned in the link Jorge posted. Also, the amount of material necessary to damage the fetus is much smaller than the amount which can injure an adult. The most sensitive time for chemical interference with normal development is from the 18th to the 60th day after conception. Although people are not dropping like flies from dying their hair most doctors do recommend that women not dye their hair during pregnancy. So be careful.... and stay out of the darkroom if there is a possibility you are pregnant.

[Michael Kadillak]

There seems to be a distinct polarity of those that find pyro as one of many tools to express themselves with their photography and accept and deal intelligently with the issues by using gloves, breathing security apparatus, adequate darkroom ventilation and performing all of your chemical mixing outdoors and those that do not want to go there. Great. Do what you want to do.

I guess setting aside the technical studies (or lack thereof), I find that in the common era of which we have been a part of there are just to many intelligent people in this art form that have been using various forms of pyro safely for years and they use their head when doing so to become overly stressed out about it. Many photographic chemicals have some degree of risk associated with them and common sense in using them is the key.

I just completed a basement and darkroom and when I consider all of the dangerous materials that I used in my project and construction workers use every day in the business such as bag cement and mortar (silica), liquid nails, adhesives for carpets and other chemicals, I would never have done the work myself if I did not feel that the risk in using them could not be safely mitigated. I feel the same about photographic chemistry and that includes pyro.

If you chose to continue to be excessively concerned about your personal health or safety you do have a choice. Go digital or have someone do all of your processing for you. All I ask is that we as a group leave innuendo and half truth out of this discussion so that those that are coming into this forum can draw their own conclusion on the subjects that we cover.

Cheers!

[Paul Kierstead]

"If you chose to continue to be excessively concerned about your personal health or safety you do have a choice. Go digital or have someone do all of your processing for you. All I ask is that we as a group leave innuendo and half truth out of this discussion so that those that are coming into this forum can draw their own conclusion on the subjects that we cover."

I am guessing that you believe that your first sentence does not contain innuendo? Or are you not subject to your own request? In any case, your argument sounds eerily like the "I know people who have smoked for years and they are ok" kind of argument. If you want some reasoned discussion, then don't imply that those who are concerned have "excessive" concern. You are a guilty as the naysayers.

Mr. Keye's offers some useful information. Thank you for that.

[Kirk Keyes]

Your welcome Paul, I'm glad you found some useful information in my post.

After reading all the opinions of people in print and on this and other internet forums, I've come to the conclusion that what we really need to do is try and better educate people when it comes to handling chemicals of any kind. I'm an analytical chemist, and I have a good amount of experience handling hazardous materials. I realize that most people doing darkroom work are not forutunate enough to have a background like mine.

First off, Mr. Kadillak's statement above "Many photographic chemicals have some degree of risk associated with them and common sense in using them is the key" is not quite right. It should say "ALL chemicals have some degree of risk..." Even simple and common chemcials such as water, oxygen, sand, and sodium chloride (table salt) have risks, however low they typically are, but in the right conditions and amounts, they are also deadly and hazardous materials.

So whether there is a percieved hazard or not, we all need to assess the level of risk we are willing to accept. In order to assess that risk, that means also putting the risk into the proper context. Things that need to be considered are: What are the intrinsic hazards of the chemical? What are the types of exposure that will be encountered? What is the lenght of time to which we will be exposed? What is the actual amount of material to which we will be exposed? And even special conditions like Annie mentioned above like pregnancy or other medical conditions such as allergies/sensitivities should be considered.

Then we need to think about what level of personnal protective equipment (PPE) could we use while handling the chemical? Simple things like gloves, safety glasses, lab coats, and particle masks are easily available to all of us. We can all greatly increase our level of personal safety by wearing these simple things.There are times where we would only need one or two of those items, and other times where we would want to wear all of them. And like I said above, if there are special conditions that are more hazardous than others, say if dust inhalation has greater risks, then we can combine the use of PPE with techniques such as I mentioned in my previous post above to reduce the hazard in the first place. In our dust exposure example, we can use tools such as a spoon to transfer powders so that the amount of dust created is greatly reduced. By finding ways to reduce the hazard (decreasing the amount of dust generated), using PPE (to limit the amount of exposure), and cleaning up our work area afterwards (to limit the time of the exposure), we can greatly reduce many hazards.

None of the chemicals that are used in the vast majority of photographic processes are so hazardous that we can not handle them in the home darkroom, IF we take the proper precautions. By using the guidelines and the type simple techniques I mention above, we should all be able to handle these chemicals with very little risk. None of them are as hazardous as some other chemicals where a drop on the skin will cause serious injuries. (Or in the case of something like dimethyl mercury where a few drops on the glove of caused the rapid death of a researcher a few years ago.)

So if someone makes an educated choice and decides not to accept the risk of using a pyro developer, or any other photographic chemicals for that matter, that is fine. But let's help them make a decision that is based on facts and not opinions.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

The procedure for performing an LD50 test is usually done as an acute LD50, where a one-time dosage, not the amount being added to a daily diet,



Kirk that was not how it was explained to me, but it does not matter, the truth is whether it is a one time dose or a periodic doses over a short period of time the studies show that pyro is not as toxic as it has been purported to be by that Susan Shaw woman, and that in the concentrations we use it really poses little risk of causing harmful effects.

The funny thing is that Simmons and most of us are on the same side on this issue. Pyro has gotten a bad rep mainly because of a few people who had little or no experience handling chemicals. Unfortunately we cannot unring the bell, so if we are to set the record straight we need to use the best possible analysis backed by scientific data, and here is where Simmons went wrong. The article, which contained no analysis and no data to back up the analysis was just another opinion by another photographer....people here and in other forums said so, and it seemed to have bothered Simmons...

[Francis Abad]

I am no chemist (I trade options for a living) BUT my negatives developed in Pyrocat HD are the best I have ever done! Long Live Pyrocat! Oh and wear gloves...please!

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I am no chemist (I trade options for a living) BUT my negatives developed in Pyrocat HD are the best I have ever done! Long Live Pyrocat! Oh and wear gloves...please!



Oh! so you are the SOB that has all my money, uh?....that is it Francesco, you are on my shit list from now on... :-)

[Kirk Keyes]

Jorge, you are right! I was kind of nitpicking, but for a better, more accurate understanding, I hoped.

I agree with you about the Shaw book, it is quite poorly done, and it is the most "authoritative" book commonly available to photographers out there on this subject, and for 20 years now!

And yes, Mr. Simmons did not approach this issue well. And becoming defensive about it doesn't help his side of the arguement. And it reflected poorly on Richard Knoppow, who I'm sure you know is a wealth if good, valuable, and researched information. I get the feeling that Simmons simply cut and pasted a posting of Mr. Knoppow's from rec.photo.whatever. It is out of context and did not help with the issue at hand.

Kirk

[Paul Kierstead]

Hmm...now, IMO, it is getting constructive.

One thing you left out on the risks are the ramifications of an accident. One of the things that concerns me with a powdered agent it what happens in the event of a serious spill. Lets face it, containers get knocked over. So, I have a few questions:

In the event of a serious spill, what would the procedure to clean up be? The particle size -- if small enough -- could be disastrous to vacuum (for example). The concern I have is kicking up the powder for a long time afterword be entering/exiting the room, etc. This is one of those instances where a liquid agent makes me considerably more happy.

What is the most effective method of reducing the severity of such a spill? Obviously splitting it into smaller containers helps...but is there accepted methods for this exact problem? (Other then don't do that )

Although I imagine sensible procedures can help prevent kicking up dust, in the event of a spill (launching a lot of powder into the air) what would the best defense be?

For those who might think I am too cautious, hogwash. I am willing to take much larger risks (and have taken them), but take *informed* risks with a known value on the outcome and known parameters on the activity. I want to establish that for Pyro (or other photographic chemicals, for that matter).

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Paul, the best answer, although you dont want it is dont spill it.....I am not being a smart ass, what I am trying to say is that you have to acquire sensible laboratory methods.



If you work at a chemistry lab and you measure something and leave the opened bottle next to the scale while you go do something else, the lab manager will hand you your ass along with with the bottle to close. If you get in the habit of opening the bottle, measuring out the amount you want, closing the bottle and replacing in the shelf before you do anything else I guarantee you, you will never have a spill....I have done this for years and never had one. Spills are not accidents, but events that occur due to carelessness.



Of course unforeseen causes might produce a spill, here once again sensible laboratory practices make all the difference. First, Pyro comes in different forms depending on how it was produced. Commonly it comes as a white fluffy powder, if you do spill it, put on some gloves, pick up the powder with a wet rag, wash the rag and then mop the area immediately and wipe all counter surfaces. Pyro does not go airborne easily so breathing massive amounts is not a worry, once again, take into consideration the doses that you will be inhaling, most likely if you clean up immediately, if there is any pyro left that you missed, the amount will be so small as to be able to be processed by your body.



Of course, if you do a weekly cleaning of your darkroom, wipe clean all surfaces and mop the floor, the chances of continuous exposure are greatly diminished. This once again is just common sense.



Now Paul, you are getting too paranoid about this. I dont say this to offend you, but tell me what do you do when you spill D76, or ID11? They contain developers which are in the same family as pyro, yet this does not seem to bother you. Your reaction is understandable given the misinformation that has been given about pyro. Bottom line, of you spill pyro you do the same you would do if you spill any other developer.