Tray Processing Film: Gloves or No Gloves?

[f/90]

You don't have to explain basic toxicology to me, as I said, lab guy here.

Even in low concentrations, repeated exposure to small amounts of especially carcinogens can have effects beyond what would be expected for a single dose (take metol, it is specifically advised against repeatedly exposing oneself to it, as it is linked to organ damage). Besides, something in the order of a few grams per litre is not a low concentration for a heavyweight carcinogen like quinone.

Regarding the statistics of cluster outbreaks, well, I have not seen one that stated there is no significantly higher level of cancer among darkroom workers. Might be an interesting study to do, especially as they are mostly retired at the moment.

Avoiding ANY exposure to potentially harmful reagents is a key principle of all lab work. It seems interesting to me that this has not been widely adopted.

Giving that developers are aqueous solutions, even relatively cheap gloves (think latex, or PVC) should do a good enough job at keeping the stuff off your hands. The internet is your friend, commercially speaking. Why subject yourself to the risk (even if it were small) if a few cents a session can make it magically disappear....

[Maris Rusis]

[QUOTE]

You don't have to explain basic toxicology to me, as I said, lab guy here.

Lab guy here too. Well, now retired, but was a research scientist specialising in advanced toxicology, nerve poisons, teratogens, carcinogens, ionising radiation; all the nasties. Basic toxicology is not a good guide to darkroom hazards. There are often dramatic differences in toxicity according to the mode of contact. Inhalation is generally more potent than ingestion and skin contact might be essentially benign.

Even in low concentrations, repeated exposure to small amounts of especially carcinogens can have effects beyond what would be expected for a single dose (take metol, it is specifically advised against repeatedly exposing oneself to it, as it is linked to organ damage). Besides, something in the order of a few grams per litre is not a low concentration for a heavyweight carcinogen like quinone.

Dubious assertions. There is no general principle identifying acute or chronic exposures delivering alarmingly different outcomes for the same dose; depends on the substance. Quinone is not a carcinogen in a clinically characterised sense.

Regarding the statistics of cluster outbreaks, well, I have not seen one that stated there is no significantly higher level of cancer among darkroom workers. Might be an interesting study to do, especially as they are mostly retired at the moment.

The statistics of cancer clusters, in the absence of an overt carcinogen, tend to follow probability. This is interesting mathematics rather than an indication of widespread carcinogens in the environment.

Avoiding ANY exposure to potentially harmful reagents is a key principle of all lab work. It seems interesting to me that this has not been widely adopted.

I had an extended career in analytical chemistry and everybody I worked with (me too!) avoided careless contact with hazardous materials as routine laboratory practice.

Giving that developers are aqueous solutions, even relatively cheap gloves (think latex, or PVC) should do a good enough job at keeping the stuff off your hands. The internet is your friend, commercially speaking. Why subject yourself to the risk (even if it were small) if a few cents a session can make it magically disappear...

Gloves have uses but they are no guarantee of safety and they can promote overconfidence and carelessness. Don't use latex gloves if you think you may have latex allergy. The internet is not a good guide to toxicology because a lot of material originates with chemical anxiety "freaks" rather than from established science.

I may not be the most adroit searcher of clinical reports on the internet or elsewhere but I cannot find a single medically substantiated and published case of harm from darkroom chemistry, to anyone anywhere in the world in the last few years. Sure there are anecdotes, conjectures, anxieties, and alarms even on forums like this but no well defined and unambiguous cases at all. And if we are careful in our darkroom practice, and that seems generally to be the case, there won't be any future medical incidents either.

[f/90]

Lab guy here too. Well, now retired, but was a research scientist specialising in advanced toxicology, nerve poisons, teratogens, carcinogens, ionising radiation; all the nasties. Basic toxicology is not a good guide to darkroom hazards. There are often dramatic differences in toxicity according to the mode of contact. Inhalation is generally more potent than ingestion and skin contact might be essentially benign.

See what you quoted...

Dubious assertions. There is no general principle identifying acute or chronic exposures delivering alarmingly different outcomes for the same dose; depends on the substance. Quinone is not a carcinogen in a clinically characterised sense.

Can't seem to follow the first sentence, bioaccumulation is an established concept, as well as the fact that doses sufficient for chronic poisoning are usually lower than those causing acute problems. Of course it varies, depending on the half life on the particular substance and elimination mechanism, but the general idea is not really up for debate and applies to a large proportion of toxins.

Secondly, I beg to differ. Hydroquinone is oxidised in vivo to p-benzoquinone, which is a rather nasty hemotoxin and has been proven to form DNA adducts. It is considered likely to cause leukemia and has been shown to cause tumors in lab rats or similar. Might not directly translate to humans, but you get the general impression.

The statistics of cancer clusters, in the absence of an overt carcinogen, tend to follow probability. This is interesting mathematics rather than an indication of widespread carcinogens in the environment.

I was trying to express a lack of data on that topic. I cant seem to find anything relating to darkroom work and cancer, so quite possibly it has never been studied. Therefore, there is neither supportive nor contradictory evidence on any of this.

Gloves have uses but they are no guarantee of safety and they can promote overconfidence and carelessness. Don't use latex gloves if you think you may have latex allergy.

I will gloss over that second bit for obvious reasons, but I have to comment on the first one. This is the sort of patronizing nonsense they tell you in college, and it is exactly that - nosense. If you are paying at least the slightest amount of attention to what you are doing and don't act like a complete moron, there is no heightened risk to wearing gloves. There are a few pitfalls to avoid, but you have to be grossly incompetent to do harm by wearing them. The "substance in gloves all day" can be avoided fairly easily, and apart from that there is no problem to speak of.

The internet is not a good guide to toxicology because a lot of material originates with chemical anxiety "freaks" rather than from established science.

I have other sources.

I may not be the most adroit searcher of clinical reports on the internet or elsewhere but I cannot find a single medically substantiated and published case of harm from darkroom chemistry, to anyone anywhere in the world in the last few years. Sure there are anecdotes, conjectures, anxieties, and alarms even on forums like this but no well defined and unambiguous cases at all. And if we are careful in our darkroom practice, and that seems generally to be the case, there won't be any future medical incidents either.

Some people died from it, but that was mostly drinking, so not relevant. The point is not that there is damage done with a two-year warranty, the point is that there might be damage done, be it short-term or in the long run. And as I said, given that a pair of gloves is two or three cents, why expose yourself to the risk if you can take measures to avoid exposure altogether (supposing sufficient ventilation is provided)?

[djdister]

Hmm, with the assertions and counter-assertions going on here, it might be best for credentials to be established and references to be cited. And no, it is not enough to simply say "I was a lab guy." Talk is cheap, where is the academic rigor in this discussion?

[Tin Can]

As I well know, most people, especially techs, have no idea what they are doing. The chemists think they do, but often ignore common sense.

Been there done that. I am a careful tech who only got A's in HS science classes and then quit college science, as the road to perdition. I did not like who was hiring.

Then I worked in automotive laboratories for the duration. Very happy to have labs to myself on night shift, 'government work' was a top priority. lol

[f/90]

Alright, the academic rigor is here:

https://www.freestylephoto.biz/pdf/m...76_1464817.pdf

Safety Data Sheet of Kodak D76, it specifically states that gloves are to be worn when handling the material. If the developer was to come into contact with your hands, 15 mins of washing are due, as well as the removal of contaminated clothing.

It contains a review of the carcinogenicity of hydroquinone, which it concludes to be nonexistent based on official classifications, however those are out of date (2012).

http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/201481217439502.pdf

Safety Data Sheet for Multigrade. Classifies hydroquinone as a "suspected carcinogen", based on GHS (2014). Seems to be a bit more up to date, safety measures and precautions are the same, as is for Tetenal ultrafin and a bunch of others.

One could probably argue about the toxicity and mutagenicity of hydroquinone, metol and the likes for days, but that would quite possibly not yield any useful results. As this seems to be the case here, I shall retire from this thread, with the note:


Do what it says on the bloody bottle! Wear gloves!

With the kindest of regards

f/90, definitely not a lab tech, and perfectly aware of my actions ;-)

[Tin Can]

Reading is good, no argument there.

Don't be shy, you are new here.

[Donald Qualls]

Do what it says on the bloody bottle! Wear gloves!

Sometimes the bottle is excessively alarmist, likely prompted by liability concerns (and lawyers). For instance, I recall a warning on the bottle of HC-110 concentrate that contaminated clothing should be discarded. If it were hazardous enough to make that a reasonable precaution, I doubt Ansel Adams (who used it a lot, based on his writings) would have live to the age he did.

You can make your case on cumulative exposure, but I'd also suggest that at the age most of us have already reached, long term effects are of less concern than they would have been had we known in our 20s what we think we know now. Still; I'm reminded of something I heard in one of my first college chemistry lectures, back in 1978: Chemists typically die younger than the average, an effect that was then believed to be due to chronic low-level exposure to cyclic hydrocarbon solvents (benzene derivatives). I've never heard a similar claim about expected lifetime of photographers, barring a collection of symptoms in x-ray lab techs that was determined to be almost certainly due to exposure to formaldehyde based film hardeners used in the rapid access processing machines.

I'll continue to wear gloves for processes I consider hazardous, and I might experiment with them for routine tray processing of prints and negatives; I have no latex sensitivity and routinely wear nitrile gloves all day at work (I repair power tools, it's the only way to prevent blackened skin that takes weeks to clear by regular washing) -- and I can buy gloves from my workplace at a discount. Whether I can feel the film well enough to handle it in the dark is the issue; I have a deficit in fine texture sensitivity in my fingertips from years of my work (I routinely have to apply strong pressure to seat small parts), and have in the past had times when I couldn't feel the film well enough to handle it efficiently in the dark even without gloves. If the gloves cause problems, they're gone.

[Maris Rusis]

Donald, your post makes good sense. And it is prudent to be cautious. And gloves mostly work and sometimes fail. And you are right; most product safety data sheets start off as chemistry but are ultimately published by accountants and lawyers averting expensive lawsuits.

I was deeply shocked by the death of Professor Karen Wetterhahn in 1997 from dimethyl mercury poisoning. She only had a small drop on her latex gloves but enough diffused through in minutes to consign her to certain death. When I think of the stuff I handled during my laboratory work my blood runs cold. Photo-chemistry is nothing like that and safety lies in being alert and informed rather than relying on fear and panic.

[Darin Boville]

Since you asked about gloves I just wanted to emphasize the importance of ventilation.

--Darin