Neurological Problems

[Aram]

Hi,

I have two questions:

Is anyone out there who has or had some strange illnesses, like neurological problems which no doctor could tell where it came from?

If yes, which darkroom chemicals did you use?

It would be very helpful if you could answer me.

Thank you.

Aram

[Andre Noble]

Aram, are you a lawyer looking for work? A hypochondriac? What's up?

[bob carnie]

Aram

I use dectol now for 30 plus years and I have this strange problem, I still want to go back into dimly lit rooms with soft amber glow. Is there something wrong with me , should I get help???

[Jim Galli]

Why didn't you ask this question before all the deep pockets went broke?

[David R Munson]

<fear>Just look what happened to Weston!</fear>

[RJ Hicks]

My eyes really hurt after staring at a computer screen all day. ( Sorry, couldn't resist, but they do.)

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

well, some in this forum beleive those of us who use pyro in any of it's forms are insane.....does that qualify?

[Graeme Hird]

I've noticed that every time I drink beer in excessive amounts I have trouble focusing my view camera. Do you think it's serious? Should I stop drinking beer? Or should I stop playing with my camera when I can't see past my nose?

[Andre Noble]

Graeme, you might wish to try limiting yourself to a single 24oz can until the first few sheets have been exposed. (Then of course, you'll need to replenish - but I'd suggest at a moderate rate, like no faster than 12 oz per sheet.)

[RJ Hicks]

Well, if I were the late Hunter S Thompson I would say you need to definately drink more beer while playing with your camera.

[Brian Vuillemenot]

I think that most anyone who is attracted to large format photography is somewhat emotionally unbalanced to begin with.

[Jeffrey Arthur]

When I was younger I almost died from inhaling fumes from pyro and other chemicals without proper ventilation while developing holograms. It took a good year to unswell my eyes and breath normally again. I used a heavy mask with filters but this was obviously not enough protection when a strong fan was necessary. A dear friend of mine who was an avid photographer and darkroom junkie got Parkinsons and is soon to be spending the rest of his days in a nursing home.

[Steve Baggett]

Taking all the "usual" photo chemicals that have been in use for decades, coupled with the hundreds of millions of man-hours (and woman-hours) spent in the darkroom over this same period with these chemicals by millions of people, it is my opinion that if any of these "usual" chemicals had even a moderate propensity to cause neurological damage this fact would have come to light by now. Strictly as my personal opinion, any problems you are having could be either (1) a typical allergic reaction to one of the chemicals which is manifesting itself as more "neurological" rather than "dermatological" or (2) some unusual chemical or substance in your darkroom that is not generally categorized with the "usual" photo chemicals that is genuinely causing you a neurological problem. There have simply been too many people who have used the full range of photo chemicals for too long a time for there to be an undocumented causal relation between a "neurological" problem of some sort and one of the chemicals in question. Allergic dermatitis is a known risk for a few people working with certain darkroom chemicals. No two people being alike, however, means that it is a possibility (a small one IMO) that your reaction to one of these is different and more neurological in nature (possiblity #1, above). All of this is just my unprofessional opinion based on years of working in the darkroom and talking to my peers who have done likewise. You can check the MSDS for each chemical you are working with to determine the most likely candidates, assuming that you are indeed having a "reaction" to one of them.

[tim o'brien]

Aram,

Youo ain't gettin no intelligent replies here, I am not suprised. Not everyone wants to think about it.

I suspect no one is going to admit this issue to you. I also suspect you have gotten some news that upsets you and you are looking for support of one type or another.

I have neer seen any empirical links between photo chemicals and neurological problems but the possibility is there I suspect.

Only you know what your habits are as far as protecting yourself from danger. I got out of platemaking because everyone I heard of eventually died of cancer. Not my choice of ways to go.

I take precautions when playing with chemicals, no matter what the solution, I suspect you should too. I also suspect that you might wish to give yourself some space away from the things you suspect are poisoning you, see if you eventually feel better.

tim in san jose

[austin granger]

The last couple of years I've spent a tremendous amount of time in the darkroom. My mother keeps telling me how tired I look. Perhaps there's a connection there. But then again, I do have a three year old son, so the darkroom work may be a bit of a red herring.

Oh, I'm also getting some gray hairs, and I'm only thirty-four. Again though, those may be from The Boy as well... (and when my wife delivers The Twins in July, I imagine I'll age forty years overnight)

On a more serious note, I think that the time the chemicals may take off the end of my life will be balanced out by the deep rewards that photography has given me. And no, I don't think I'll feel any differently on my deathbed.

[John Kasaian]

Aram,

You might take a look at The Darkroom Cookbook by Anchell. Theres a lot of interesting precautionary information about photographic chemicals in there that might help you out.

FWIW, I'm conviced that most neurological disorders occuring in the U.S. are the result of the Dewey and James influenced educational system.

[neil poulsen]

Darkroom chemicals can obviously have an effect. I know one photographer who had spent countless hours in a color lab transferring prints from one tray to another with his bare hands. He told me he had just learned that he had about 60% of his liver function remaining.

Another problem comes with mixing powder chemicals without a good mask.

Selenium toner is one of the more dangerous chemicals we have in a black and white darkroom.

There's got to be something written somewhere about maladies that can result from darkroom chemical exposure.

Here's a book that might be informative: Overexposure: Health Hazards in Photography, written by Susan D. Shaw.

Another interesting link with some information: http://www3.telus.net/drkrm/safety.htm. This reference makes a connection between Pyro and Parkinsons disease.

[Aram]

The reason for my question is not because I am a lawyer; it is because I was very sick! About 7 years ago, I was 28, I got paralyzed and the doctors diagnosed a tumor in my spine, I only had 35 kg when they finally putted me in hospital. The doctors had no explanation for this tumor. Few weeks ago my homeopathic doctor told me about a patient he has who has the same problem, so he tried to find similarities. We both are photographers, worked in the darkroom and used Ilford chemicals. Perhaps there are other photographers out there who had similar problems.

Aram

[Kirk Gittings]

One of best friends, who has done traditional photography for twenty years, recently was diagnosed with a cancerous tumor in his kidney, also another traditional photo friend of twenty years was recently diagnosed with a brain tumor. Both used some Ilford. I know because at various times I let them use my darkroom. Very scary and very sad.

I'm not aware though of any studies that have been done that has found any correlation between darkroom chemical exposure and any particular diseases. Though these friends were both photographers they were also my friends. So maybe I am the issue.

I have used Ilford products off and on for 28 years and have no problems that I am aware of. Good luck! I wish you well.

[Kevin Crisp]

Both of my parents died of cancer, one was prostate the other colon cancer. Both of them used large amounts of Kodak film. Both of them used Retina cameras. There are no explanations for many, many cancers.

[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!

[Steve Clark]

Austin, Sorry, I wasn`t trying to beat you up. A "dry" sense of humor is difficult. Maybe we need smileys? Good luck with three kids, better sleep now while you still can...

[Kirk Keyes]

Sorry Aram, but when I see the phrase "homeopathic doctor", I felt really sorry for you. I'm sorry about your poor health, but seeing a "homeopathic doctor" will most certainly be of little benefit.

Homeopathy has no basis in science - it is based on ideas that have been demonstrated to be scientifically false. A primary tennant of homeopathy is the "law of infinitesimals" - most critics of homeopathy balk at this "law" because it leads to remedies that have been so diluted as to have nary a single molecule of the substance one starts with. Hence Donald's comments about treating you with photo chemicals. In actual practice, a homeopathic remedy should only have materials in them that cause a similar effect to the problem that is patient is seeking to cure. But since the remedy is administered at such an exceedingly low dose to have any effect, it probably really wouldn't matter if the actual agent causing the illness or the homeopathic "cure" were used. So Donald's question is a good one

SOrry for being off topic, but if anyone really wants to find out more about homeopathy - the history, the basic ideas behind it, and why it does not work, I suggest looking at this page:http://skepdic.com/homeo.html

[CXC]

I think if there were a risky connection between the darkroom and cancer, we would have heard about it before now. I used to work in the cancer industry, and I can tell you that there are many types that have no discernible environmental cause.

Remember, "anecdotal" evidence is statistically worthless; studies aim to have a sample of 1200 to ensure statistically valid conclusions.

Best wishes for your speedy recovery.

[Aram]

Thank you for your answers, there where some very interesting ones.

Aram

[Richard Schlesinger]

You might want to have a look at Dr. Richard Henry's book " Controls in Black and White Photography" (ISBN #0-240-51788-1). He was both a medical doctor and a research chemist. Chapter 4 of his book addresses the problem of safety in the darkroom with particular emphasis on chemical handling. GOOD LUCK!

[Steven Nestler]

Aram,
I am struggling with severe peripheral neuropathy, of unknown origin. I've been tested for just about everything, and the medics have thrown up their hands. I've spent over 35 years on and off, using black and white chemistry. For years, I agitated prints using my bare hands in selenium toner. The doctors don't see a link, but I can't help but wonder.
Does anyone out there have information about this?

Aram, good luck to you.

[Wayne]

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

And during the past 100 years, lifespan has increased by 50% and more people are living long enough to get cancer rather than dying young. Not to mention out ability to detect cancer has improved.

[Randy_5067]

The thing is, what chemical affects one person, may not bother another. EX: I had an uncle that worked in a refinery. He was diagnosed with cancer in his 50's. They started to operate to remove the cancer, opened him up, and sewed him right back up. They said he was so full of cancer there was no need in trying to remove any of it. Within a year, he died. The doctors said there was a probability it was caused from exposure to the chemicals he was around every day. BUT, there were friends of his working alongside him every day that died healthy at an old age. No affect from the chemicals. Could problems stem from photo chemicals? Maybe. Maybe not. Like I started, they may affect one person, and not the person standing next to you doing the same thing.

[dipndunk]

Hi Steven,
I wonder if you'll read this twelve and a half years on!?
I was diagnosed with polyneuropathy today having had many tests, without success, to diagnose a cause for my horrible condition. I have worked in professional and college darkrooms for some years until quite recently, working as an E6/C41 technician in the 90's. Also I've dabbled with wet plate more recently.
Did you manage to find the cause of your peripheral neuropathy? I hope you recovered.
Love the work on your site btw.
Regards,

[xkaes]

You might want to have a look at Dr. Richard Henry's book " Controls in Black and White Photography" (ISBN #0-240-51788-1). He was both a medical doctor and a research chemist. Chapter 4 of his book addresses the problem of safety in the darkroom with particular emphasis on chemical handling. GOOD LUCK!

All this time, I thought I was the only one who knew about this great book. It's nice to know that I'm not alone. And along this line, here is a web page that has plenty of information and a list of resources/books:

http://www.subclub.org/darkroom/safety.htm

[Tin Can]

Conrad has a grip on reality some posters do not.

I worked in industrial test labs most of my life. I quit one company in 1972 when the testing of asbestos was not handled properly. Later I worked on asbestos replacement in engines. The genius engineers never took the replacement material's cyanide outgassing serious. They never told me until i complained. I got very bad headaches before finding ways to test under vent hoods. The lab used a lot of nastly stuff, usually with very good vent hoods, if fools would use them. One dead fool was a friend who insisted on daily cleaning his desk surface with 'Clean Off' our own product. It was aerosol cans of Trichlorethylene 111. I couldn't stop him. The factory used 100 gallon dunk tanks of it. Workers died. We stopped retail sales, but had a warehouse full of it, so the lab kept using it by the case. It is a fantasic degreaser. My fool coworker died as I was pounding on his high rise doors. I knew he was sick. He didn't call or come to work for 3 days. His name was not on the door bell. His lover never called 911 and let him die while 'caring' for him. I nearly struck that person at the funeral.

In 3 decades I never saw or heard of OSHA checking anything. Seems that all went on in the front office...

Be careful and know what you are exposing yourself to. You may not regret your own mistakes, but you must regret your poor example.

http://www.toxipedia.org/display/toxipedia/Trichloroethylene


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.

[Pere Casals]

Be careful and know what you are exposing yourself to. You may not regret your own mistakes, but you must regret your poor example.

This is very good advice.

One can operate with photographic chem very safely, but is necessary to follow your advice for it. Since internet era one can find plenty of information from good sources to know what one has to do and how, so it is a matter of being aware.

Xtol is not the same than stain developers, and permanganate not the same than dichromate, so when one makes a choice one has to also know how to operate, an example is deactivating dichromate after usage, the orange chomium(VI) is reduced to the green chromium(III) which is much less toxic and harmful...

Here there is a well summarized guide: https://www.fau.edu/facilities/ehs/info/Photo-Chemicals-Safety.pdf

McCann, Michael. Photographic Processing Hazards, Art Hazard News can be found used very cheap...

[ic-racer]

...my homeopathic doctor...

Have you considered asking your question to a physician with a medical degree, who can interpret the peer-reviewed scientific literature on your tumor?

[Jac@stafford.net]

[...] We both are photographers, worked in the darkroom and used Ilford chemicals. Perhaps there are other photographers out there who had similar problems.

Given that this group's constituency is photographers then the commonality of darkroom exposure is given; therefore it is also irrelevant. You may as well include cookies and milk. All a survey would demonstrate is likely a distribution of ailments similar to the general population.