Where do people get the idea that photo chemicals are hazardous materials?

Question

I often see responses on here indicating that there is something highly dangerous or corrosive about photo chemicals which means that they shouldn't be handled in the house.

Besides being a hobbyist photographer who has his own darkroom, I'm also currently working toward a bachelor of science degree in Chemistry, and planning to pursue a career as a chemist.

As such, I'm done a fair amount of research on the chemical processes that are going on, as well as just what exactly is in the chemicals.

There are a few highly toxic developing agents, such as Pyro formulas, which few use anyway.

Normal developers, such as D76, are actually quite safe to handle. In fact, hydroquinone, one of the developing agents in D76, is used in some medicines. D76 also contains borax, available as a cleaner, and sodium sulfite, used as a preservative. The only other thing is metol, which is non toxic, although it does cause an allergic reaction in some people.

Where do people get all of these ideas

Traditional “hypo” fixers contained sodium thiosulfate, which is a common additive to table salt.
Yes, used fixer does contain dissolved silver. All heavy metals are dangerous with ingestion, but not just with normal skin contact. Silver can also cause problems with septic tanks and sewage systems, although with most home darkroom users
(a few rolls a week, at most), Kodak says that it’s okay to dump fixer down the drain. I personally play it safe and remove the silver. Many people just toss some steel wool into a bucket with their spent fixer and let a silver sludge precipitate out, making a solution which is 100% safe to pour down the drain in any quantity. I personally use hydrochloric acid to precipitate out silver chloride, which I then filter out. The remaining solution can be poured down the drain, and the solid silver chloride can be landfilled.

Stop bath contains a very dilute solution of acetic acid, which is commonly known as vinegar. The acetic acid concentration in a typical stop bath is even lower than that of distilled white vinegar, though.

Fair points from both of you all.

There are very few chemicals which are good for your eyes. It's for that reason that I make it a point to wear eye protection when handling most any chemicals, whether working in the lab, cleaning the bathroom, or working in the darkroom. For the darkroom and cleaning the bathroom, prescription glasses are generally sufficient protection, and the protection I employ, as they prevent anything potentially dangerous from splashing into your eyes. I suggest the same precaution to everyone, as your eyes are particularly delicate. When working in the lab, I always wear at a minimum polycarbonate safety glasses with side shields, or, depending on the circumstances, full protection visor-type goggles or even a full face shield.

I suppose that the point I failed to explicitly make in all my rambling was the notion I often see regurgitated here that photo chemicals require some sort of special HAZMAT disposal.

Anyway, thanks for the responses so far.

Fhotoace,

One of my favorite developers is the Sprint developer, which is sold concentrated and diluted 1:9 before use. For each 35mm roll, I use about .8 ounces of developer concentrate. For a few rolls a week, that amount is so incredibly insignificant compared to the rest of the water that goes down the drain at my house in the course of a week that it's not even worth considering. If I were to take 500+ gallons of fresh tap water(typical weekly home water usage in the US) and mix in 3 ounces of developer concentrate, the water would still be perfectly safe to drink, since the concentration would be so low it wouldn't be an issue.

Stop bath is nothing more than diluted vinegar. Again, completely safe and harmless to the environment.

After silver recovery in the manner I have describe(treating with hydrochloric acid), fixer is nothing more than saltwater. Again, completely hazardous to the environment.

Answer 1

I think you're asking the wrong people, my friend. Unless these agents have been designated 'hazardous' by or fall under regulation of the occupational safety and health administration (OSHA) that oversees the regulation and handling of hazardous materials, your point only goes to assure people who don't know better, that these materials are in fact safe. If they are not, and display so in labeling, than people will have to trust that the regulating body that controls the handling of those chemicals have researched the effects of those chemicals to adequately deem them, hazardous. As a rule of thumb, I assume that anything that will not interact well with my eyes, should be handled with care and would warrant a warning. I don't develop film, so I don't know. But I have to assume that metol is not good for my eyes. I can tell you that businesses under control of OSHA are required to maintain an MSDS (material safety data sheets) on developer and other related chemicals. So there must be something in the combination of chemicals that could serve to detriment the safety of those who use them. Afterall, warnings come from experience in the safety of users of any chemical, that was compromised in some way, by that chemical. Better to be safe, than sorry.

Answer 2

1

Answer 3

People probably get the wrong idea and think "hazardous" means it will kill you as soon as you come in contact with it.

Hazardous simply means that it will harm you if you don't handle it properly, e.g. if it will burn your eyes and poison you if ingested.

To know if a photo, or household, chemical is hazardous to your health, simply check the warning labels on the bottles (or, if you want to really get to the bottom of it, the MDS sheets).

Just because a chemical is used in medicine and household product (or even in our "food") does not mean it is safe. We are sadly finding this out and pulling off cold medicine for infants as we speak...

Be careful, just because you don't feel anything now does not mean it's not hurting you. Through prolonged exposure, some of these chemicals accumulate until they tip the balance and your health declines...

But follow the safe use of the photo chemicals and you can enjoy your darkroom for many years...

Answer 4

Sprint Photo Chemicals

Answer 5

In my laymans terms, I'd guess if you can ingest them or splash them on your face with eyes open and have little or no effect then they aren't hazardous.

If on the otherhand you can be harmed by them even by doing stupid things like pouring them into an open eye, they are by default hazardous and although I'm a firm believer in darwinism, they need to be marked as that. If anything so that chemical companies can avoid potential lawsuits and also to properly warn those of us who are a bit more cautious and actually read warning labels before we use something.

Answer 6

I've been a photographer for 25 years and I'll tell you that having your hands in these chemicals for long periods of time IS dangerous. Everyone ( including myself ) I know that worked with me is sick. I needed a liver transplant. Don't be so complacent. These things are concentrated beyond what is safe. I still develop my own at home, but wear gloves adnd don't get the chemicals on my hands. Also, the government says Fixer is a Hazardous Product and shipping it indicates that.

Answer 7

If you are constantly bothered with exactly what can happen to your family members, to your youngsters? All of us wish to really feel safe and the very best method to have this safety is finding out the self-defence throw this website https://tr.im/vsZ3F
By blending moves of various disciplines and making alterations based upon scientific study, the Patriot Self Defense system offers you a collection of transfer to dumbfound and bewilder also the most hardened road punks.
Do not throw away anymore time and discover how to safeguard yourself and your passion ones with the Patriot Self Defense system.

Answer 8

Read the MSDS sheets on the chemicals involved. C-41, E-6, or B&W chemistry?

Answer 9

2