FX of Photographic Chemicals on Health?

[Bruce Schultz]

A recent thread brought up the matter of Edward Weston's disease, Parkinson's. I t made me wonder about the long-term effects of photo chemicals, and I can't hel p 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 leav e your hands in Pyro long enough, you can actually develop an odd taste sensatio n. Who knows what else it does?

[Jeff Buckels]

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)

[robert lyons]

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

[tim atherton]

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

tim a

[Walter Glover]

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.

A must have for all photographic alchemists.

Safe working ... Walter

[tim atherton]

I think this is it - Health Hazards for Photographers

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1558211810/qid% 3D1007500255/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F0%5F1/104-6261784-5629525

[kthompson]

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.

[N Dhananjay]

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

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).

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).

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).

Cheers DJ

[Bill Smith]

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

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....

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

Bill

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

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.

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!

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