Re: Darkroom hazards, was Levels & Curves

[Arthur Entlich <artistic@xxxxxxxxx>]

As someone else mentioned, some smokers live to a ripe old age, that, in
itself, doesn't prove that smoking is safe.

I don't think anyone in their right mind would suggest sepia toners with
their hydrogen sulfide gas output, or mercury or chromium based negative
intensifiers are safe to use without extreme care, or selenium toners,
or cyanide based bleaches, yet this was commonplace in the early years
of my darkroom work.  It is easy to refer to those who give us early
warning of hazards as "eco-freaks" but history usually bears those early
warnings out.

Much of the problem with determining hazards with chemical contact is
that it is a slow insidious process, often only obvious after years of
contact, and manifested in later years of life.  Genetics and other
factors enter into how people respond.  Asthma levels are up 10 fold
among children, and perhaps indeed it is due to our more sterile
environment and over active immune response, but regardless, they are
more vulnerable to chemical respiratory sensitivities as a result.

My own "profession photographer" experience simply bears out the
concerns.  I have developed a severe, life-threatening sulfite
sensitivity.  I cannot with 100% surety claim it was due to darkroom
work, but that was certainly my main contact with sulfites.  I know of
several other photographers this has happened to.

"Eco-Freak" Art

morris wrote:

 > Ansel was only one of many  photographers that lived very long lives.
 >
 > It seems that the only real concern with photo chemicals that has been
 > documented by true professionals, not a bunch of eco-freaks is skin 
problems
 > from the developers.  This includes color chemicals..
 >
 > ron
 > ----- Original Message -----
 > From: Dave King <kingphoto@mindspring.com>
 > To: <scan@leben.com>
 > Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 8:48 AM
 > Subject: Re: Darkroom hazards, was Levels & Curves
 >
 >
 >
 >>Artist beware isn't about photography, if I recall, photo chemicals only
 >>
 > get
 >
 >>passing mention.  It's about materials that sculptors and painters use,
 >>
 > some
 >
 >>of which are extremely hazardous.  Significant numbers of artists have
 >>
 > been
 >
 >>severely injured before even knowing the potential dangers.  Perhaps
 >>
 > you're
 >
 >>thinking of "Over Exposure", which is about photography specifically?
 >>
 > Which
 >
 >>book are you referring to that came out after Ansel died?
 >>
 >>Whether the information is correct to the point of scientific certainty
 >>isn't the deal here.  It's to alert people to the dangers, and help them
 >>
 > be
 >
 >>avoided.  My memory of the book (it's not at hand) is that 
information was
 >>presented as it existed, some anecdotal, some from controlled tests as
 >>
 > they
 >
 >>existed.  If I recall, caveats about accuracy were given.
 >>
 >>Most darkroom chemicals aren't terribly dangerous in the short term, but
 >>neither is smoking, and my grandmother who smoked all her life lived to
 >>
 > 80+.
 >
 >>The inference using Ansel as example is absurd.
 >>
 >>Dave
 >>
 >>----- Original Message -----
 >>From: morris <morris@jps.net>
 >>To: <scan@leben.com>
 >>Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2001 12:29 PM
 >>Subject: Re: Darkroom hazards, was Levels & Curves
 >>
 >>
 >>
 >>>Thats why Ansel only lived to be 80+.




-
Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate
subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.