Neurological Problems

[Conrad Hoffman]

Proving cause and effect on this kind of thing is very difficult. When you're involved in some way, or even if you're not, there are a ton of human biases that make objectivity impossible. Thus the use of double blind tests and statistical analysis. We want things to have nice neat explanations, but sometimes they just don't. Peoples sensitivity to various things differs greatly. There's also the issue of how careful people are with darkroom chemicals. Some, as mentioned above, and known serious hazards. Some people may take good and reasonable precautions, others may think they do, but have some flaw in their methods, and others may just be sloppy. Out of that mix, how many actually have problems caused by their darkroom activity? All we can say for sure is, it's a really small number. Not much consolation if you're one of them. I'd research the known problems like reaction to Metol, poisoning from toner components, and odd developing agents (if you've used 'em) like pyro, ppd, and phenidone (which may not be as safe as once thought), and see if the published tox data has a lot in common with what ails you. Think about other things you might have been exposed to as well, like lead, mercury, and things from the workplace.

[Steve Clark]

Austin, quit whining! I have a wife, three daughters, ( two of them teenagers ) two female cats, and a female dog. Don`t misunderstand me, I love `em dearly, it`s just that there is always something going on that I don`t understand! Oh, and we had fish. They died. I suspect they were males that couldn`t cut it...Aram, sorry I got sidetracked. I too, had problems that were blamed on chemicals that I was using, until they discovered that it was the luck of the draw...heredity...

[austin granger]

Now I feel bad about my above hasty post (I do that sometimes). Firstly, I am infinitely blessed to have my expanding family; I didn't mean to come off as whiny. My family obviously doesn't read this forum, but I feel better having typed that.

Secondly, I didn't mean to off as flippant regarding people's ailments. In all seriousness, the risks of using chemicals like selenium do weigh on my mind.

A side note; I have a close friend whose wife and brother, both in their mid-thirties, have recently been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. They're not photographers, but they grew up in the same neighborhood, went to the same schools, etc. It makes me wonder...

[Andre Noble]

I apologize Aram, I wish you good health as well.

Andre

[Joe Smigiel]

Aram,

Other than the allergic dermatologic reactions to metol and the toxic effects of certain toners that have already been mentioned, I know of only one firsthand report of a problem caused bydarkroom chemicals, specifically hydroquinone. However, exposure to several metals used in photography may cause rare physiological problems, at least according to the sources I've read. Argentism is such a malady but these incidences are very rare. That's not very reassuring if you happen to be that one in a million who becomes susceptible to the effects. I hope you discover the true cause of whatever malady has caused you to investigate photochemistry as a possible source.

[Dominique Labrosse]

Aram,

After a bout with optic neuritis, some numbness on my chest and after an MRI revealed a lesion on my spine and a small series of lesions in my brain, I was diagnosed with a mild case of Multiple Sclerosis about 3 years ago. I have had about 4-5 years of regular exposure to darkroom chemicals about 15-10 years ago (mixed Kodak & Ilford). And a shorter burst of exposure about 3-4 years ago. Until now I had not considered a link between darkroom chemicals and my illness. I do recall not liking the use of tongs or gloves in the darkroom, and almost always used my bare hands. Though this method of research is hardly empirical, please keep us informed.

Regards & Good luck

[Andre Noble]

One thing I've generalized from L.A. Times obituaries is that photgraphers (and architects) live long lives.

[Donald Qualls]

I've read a number of times that, statistically, photographers and darkroom workers don't have any shorter life expectancy than other professions, and a good bit better than some (chemists at least used to be at serious risk for cancers due to the solvents they handled routinely, and never mind the acute toxicity of many chemicals). Most of the chemicals we handle routinely, for most people, are no more hazardous than paint or floor wax (some less so). Certain people are sensitive to certain things -- it's fairly common to develop a skin sensitivity to the Metol in some developers, for instance. Pyrogallol is significantly toxic (though you'd have to drink your developer to die from it on an acute basis), a number of bleach chemicals used in reducers and reversal processes are known carcinogens, as are formaldehyde and its derivatives, used in C-41 color processing. And there have been some very drawn out cases involving glutaraldehyde and related chemicals used as hardeners in film for high-temperature processing (X-ray film, mostly, but the potential is there in C-41). Some people react to acetic acid vapor (presumably in higher concentration than in salad dressing) and more to the low level of sulfur dioxide that can be produced by acid fixer, or ammonia from alkaline fixer. The latter pair are by far the most likely to provoke a respiratory reaction.

And if your homeopath suspects photo chemicals of causing your tumor, shouldn't he be treating you with phenidone and sodium thiosulfate (in micro-doses, of course)?

If you shoot traditional B&W, process in common chemicals, and take routine precautions to avoid ingestion, inhalation, eye contact and skin contact with the chemicals, there's no reason to believe darkroom chemistry will harm you in any way.

Your spinal tumor is very unlikely to be related to darkroom chemistry -- there are literally hundreds of chemicals we're all exposed to every day that are more hazardous, many of them known carcinogens (like gasoline, to pick a very, very common example); there is growing evidence that some cancers are caused by viruses and even by bacteria (most stomach cancers may be related to the same bacterium, helicobacter pylori, that causes ulcers). For those without specific sensitivities, a darkroom might be the healthiest place they could spend their time short of hiking in the wilderness (which has its own hazards ranging from falls to wild animals). The fact your homeopath has another patient with similar problems and similar habits is simple coincidence. Two cases does not constitute a cluster under anything approaching valid statistics.

And if your homeopath suspects photo chemicals as the cause of your tumor, shouldn't he be treating you with phenidone and sodium thiosulfate (in micro-doses, of course)?

[paul owen]

Off on a slight tangent but (sort of) relevant! My mother died of cancer 10 weeks ago, aged 61 years. She had NO contact at all with photo chemicals BUT, even more worrying perhaps - she had a very aggressive brain cancer. Brief history - good health, didn't smoke or drink excessively, started acting weird in June 2004 - forgetting things, half ironing clothes, went to doctor in mid June who diagnosed nervous exhaustion, second opinion confirmed this diagnosis. By the end of June she was becoming more and more tired and confused - admitted to hospital with suspected stroke. A scan revealed a brain tumour and surgery followed next day. Biopsy showed that she had aggressive cancer, radiotherapy followed, died late December. Reason I'm relating this is that it has been suggested to us that the cancer may have been as a result radiation from her PC and laptop! She became converted to the home computer some 3 years ago and used it daily. Now I'm no expert!! But, obviously during my mum's illness I trawled the web looking for "cures" and was horrified to see the obvious recent increase in brain cancers - most of these still go unexplained but are related to exposure to radiation. I'm not "scaremongoring" here the point I'm trying to make is that there are obviously many causes of cancer/illness that the medical profession cannot account for.

[Scott Rosenberg]

From the National Cancer Institute...

"In the U.S., the incidence of all cancers has increased 54.3% during the past 45 years, and the death rate for all cancers has increased 9.6%"

it would seem to me that if exposure to photographic chemicals was a significant cause of cancer, we wouldn't see this sort of trend over a period when the number of folks in darkrooms has dropped off so precipitously.

although, i am making a few assumptions:
1. that the number of folks in darkrooms has dropped off precipitously
2. that other environmental factors are not contributing more strongly than the corresponding effect caused by fewer folks in darkrooms... have you ever thought about how much radiation we subject ourselves to everyday? it's a good thing the visible light spectrum is so narrow!