Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => The Wet Darkroom => Topic started by: pflower on March 04, 2007, 09:40:08 am
-
I am going to set up a new darkroom. We are not on the main sewers but instead have a very efficient septic tank. Anyone got any ideas as to whether it is feasible to use a small domestic darkroom (mostly silver film and paper processing but also selenium toning) in conjunction with a septic tank? If not what then might be the alternative?
-
I think you need to ask a drainage consultant for a proper answer: but my off-the-cuff reaction would be (a) putting poisons* into the tank might inhibit the bacterial action and (b ) you can be fined £100,000s for environmental pollution in the UK at least, so best not to risk it.
* One isn't recommended to put relatively innocuous substances, like enzyme washing powders and bleach, down the drains for that very reason. And our tank-emptier says if he gets even a whiff of untoward taint in the tank (e.g. MEK from cleaning paintbrushes), he will take it to a hazardous waste tip and charge accordingly.
-
Sounds like a bad idea! We're on a septic and you have to be very careful what you dump down there. Nasty stuff.
-
I have done some further research and it looks as if you are both right - the problem is mostly silver. Some people suggest using a "silver magnet" which would recover the silver from fixer so that you could safely dispose of the fixer absent the silver. But I am also concerned about selenium which is a pretty nasty material. In any event I suspect that fixer even absent a silver content would not appeal to all the nice little bacteria working away in my septic tank and I wouldn't want to upset them!
I don't think dumping the waste from my darkroom into a septic tank is a good idea.
But then what on earth can I do? I could pour all the spent fixer, developer and selenium toner into a tank - but then what?
There must be an alternative solution - or is that you can only have a darkroom which is connected to the main sewers?
-
Don't dump chemicals into your septic OR into the sewers. Contact the local municipality to find out where/when to take hazardous waste and let them deal with it properly. Yes, people have been dumping stuff for years, and yes, it's always been a bad idea.
Mike.
-
Jeez! Don't create problems where there are none. If the chenicals are harmful to the natural biological processes of your sceptic tank, then just dump them on a spare piece of ground. If you are on a sceptic tank system, then it is easy to divert grey water to any location you want.
-
Jeez! Don't create problems where there are none. If the chenicals are harmful to the natural biological processes of your sceptic tank, then just dump them on a spare piece of ground. If you are on a sceptic tank system, then it is easy to divert grey water to any location you want.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=104955\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Don't create a problem on that spare piece of ground either. Dispose of the chemmies properly.
-
I built a darkroom (b & W) years ago and have a drain that goes right into the septic system. Never gave it a thought (although I don't use the darkroom and have not dumped anything down the drain yet).
Exactly right about the working enzymes in the system that breaks down the waste.
It would be really a bad idea to interfer with the septic system.
I would assume that you deliver your chemicals to someone who can dispose of them properly. (aka they dump it down their drain to the city sewer system?)
-
I am going to set up a new darkroom. We are not on the main sewers but instead have a very efficient septic tank. Anyone got any ideas as to whether it is feasible to use a small domestic darkroom (mostly silver film and paper processing but also selenium toning) in conjunction with a septic tank? If not what then might be the alternative?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=104553\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I ran a small but busy commercial photography business from the farm buildings behind my house with full colour and b/w processing facilities (E6, C41 and print etc). We had only a septic tank at first (some 23 years ago) and then a biodisc sewage processor so disposing of waste was always a problem. When I asked them, Kodak suggested that the wash off from film and paper wasn't a serious problem to a septic tank as the silver and other chemistry was so diluted but we should never throw used chemistry down the sink as that would de-oxygenate the whole sewage process. We finished up paying a fortune to a company called Silver Lining (don't know if they still exist) to take all the waste away. That's the nice thing about shooting digital!
Bets of luck
Tony Pickhaver
-
Don't create a problem on that spare piece of ground either. Dispose of the chemmies properly.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105002\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Which is more important, your own health or the biological health of a small piece of ground? If the chemicals used in a darkroom are so harmful that they would do serious long term damage to a small patch of ground, despite oxidation and dilution by the elements, I'd be very reluctant to breath in the fumes of such chemicals. However, even a conventional toilet cleaner will upset the biological processes in a sceptic tank.
-
Which is more important, your own health or the biological health of a small piece of ground? If the chemicals used in a darkroom are so harmful that they would do serious long term damage to a small patch of ground, despite oxidation and dilution by the elements, I'd be very reluctant to breath in the fumes of such chemicals. However, even a conventional toilet cleaner will upset the biological processes in a sceptic tank.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105540\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Shucks! I guess I'd better give up on my idea of keeping a small tray of fixer next to my computer, just for the nostalgia of that good darkroom smell.
-
Shucks! I guess I'd better give up on my idea of keeping a small tray of fixer next to my computer, just for the nostalgia of that good darkroom smell.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105563\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
My father was a keen amateur photographer from the age of 15 when he got his first camera. I was raised in a household where there was a permanent darkroom. I believe that the fumes from those chemicals could eventually prove harmful to anyone spending several hours every day in such an environment. My father lived to the ripe old age of 96.
The original question was in relation to setting up a small scale, domestic darkroom, not a large scale, commercial enterprise. Small quantities of waste developer and fixer should not be a problem tipped into a small pit in the garden.
If you were really fussy, you could line the pit with builders' plastic and fill with sawdust. The sawdust would allow the chemicals to slowly evaporate and the plastic would prevent any chemicals from seeping into the soil. Then once every 5 years or so, you could remove the plastic, leaving the dried chemicals and sawdust compost, and try growing tomatos. You might need a bit of lime .
-
The original question was in relation to setting up a small scale, domestic darkroom, not a large scale, commercial enterprise. Small quantities of waste developer and fixer should not be a problem tipped into a small pit in the garden.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105601\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The original question also included selenium toner. Selenium is a heavy metal and very toxic. Kodak (a maker of this toner) recommends using rubber gloves to handle it and to not even dump it into a sewer without first depleting the toner and filtering.
I still recommend proper disposal of all chemicals, at least until the "should not be a problem" is resolved. This might be better than "Geez, I didn't see that coming."
++++++++++++++++++
My father never had a dark room and died at 59. Maybe this junk is really good for you. Fun with jumping to conclusions.
-
My father never had a dark room and died at 59. Maybe this junk is really good for you. Fun with jumping to conclusions.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105649\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Just about the time I stopped using my darkroom a few years ago I ran across a "longevity" website that urged people to take a selenium supplement daily! So maybe toning in selenium does make the photographer more "archival."
-
Just about the time I stopped using my darkroom a few years ago I ran across a "longevity" website that urged people to take a selenium supplement daily! So maybe toning in selenium does make the photographer more "archival."
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105664\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Small doses may perserve life. Large uncontrolled doses may perserve the body.
Kodak makes toner, not pills. They may be (arguably) better informed about the effects of toner on people and the environment.
Then again, maybe if the filter were the photographer's kidneys, he could get his daily dose of selenium and protect the environment at the same time. Just drink the used toner instead of dumping it into the family garden. But then, it might end up in the septic tank anyway.
All things considered, I still think proper disposal is safer. But then I am not a Nobel winning chemist.
-
The original question also included selenium toner. Selenium is a heavy metal and very toxic. Kodak (a maker of this toner) recommends using rubber gloves to handle it and to not even dump it into a sewer without first depleting the toner and filtering.
I still recommend proper disposal of all chemicals, at least until the "should not be a problem" is resolved. This might be better than "Geez, I didn't see that coming."
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105649\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
There are many substances which are toxic whilst 'fresh' but harmless after decomposition and chemical breakdown. When I harvest my mangoes, I fully immerse them for a minute or 2 in a bucket of poisonous insecticide, to kill any fruit fly larvae that might be under the skin. I'm assured that after a few days, by which time the mangoes are ripe, the insecticide residue on the skin has completely broken down and is quite harmless.
Below is an amusing comment on the selenium issue I gleaned from the net.
Unfortunately, when we buy a bottle of selenium toner concentrate, we are buying a soluble form of selenium. So the bottles of selenium toner we have on hand contain a toxic substance, although not a hugely toxic nor highly concentrated one. It does not travel through the air to poison us, although the powerful odor of ammonia could make us believe it does. That odor comes from the ammonium thiosulfate which comprises a large part of the selenium toner concentrate. (Examine the ingredients listed on the label of Kodak Rapid Selenium Toner.) Ammonia is a dangerous substance in itself, although it is also a very common household chemical. Ventilation is advised to get rid of ammonia if we are going to be closeted with it in the darkroom.
Selenium itself, in its soluble compound form in selenium toner, does not travel through the air (unless we are spraying a mist of the stuff around the darkroom!) To avoid getting it in the body, avoid drinking it and avoid contact with the bare skin. If a splash occurs and it gets on bare skin, there is no need to fear. Washing it off immediately with soap and large amounts of water suffices.
Ansel Adams is reputed to have exposed his hands to selenium toner, as well as every other darkroom substance. I would very much like to have corroboration for the intriguing darkroom myth that he left instructions for his body tissues to be analyzed after his death to provide information as to the results of his chemical exposures.
To put it in perspective, cleaning a cat litter box might expose us to more ammonia than a tray of selenium toner. If the cat box is left too long between cleanings, the biodegradation of the cat urine in the box will release a good deal of ammonia. It is not necessary to fear a cat box or a tray of selenium toner. Proper measures are easy to take: clean the box regularly and ventilate the darkroom.
-
There are many substances which are toxic whilst 'fresh' but harmless after decomposition and chemical breakdown. When I harvest my mangoes, I fully immerse them for a minute or 2 in a bucket of poisonous insecticide, to kill any fruit fly larvae that might be under the skin. I'm assured that after a few days, by which time the mangoes are ripe, the insecticide residue on the skin has completely broken down and is quite harmless.
Below is an amusing comment on the selenium issue I gleaned from the net.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105747\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Wel Ray, I'm sure you are convinced you are right. I think you are irresponsible for posting advice to dispose of chemicals that is contrary to instructions. All in all, I still think proper disposal is best.
-
Wel Ray, I'm sure you are convinced you are right. I think you are irresponsible for posting advice to dispose of chemicals that is contrary to instructions. All in all, I still think proper disposal is best.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105762\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Every opinion is right to the holder of the opinion, until proven wrong. I take no pleasure in being right if in fact I am wrong. I'm a rational person with an open mind. Most people with sceptic tanks are on a larger than average block of land. If it's against the law to dispose of small amounts of darkroom waste in the manner I've suggested, then I would admit to a degree of irresponsibility. However, all reports of irresponsibility of toxic waste disposal that I've come across have involved businesses that have been paid to dispose of waste in a so-called proper manner, but have failed to do so in order to save money.
I see no evidence in this thread that small amounts of darkroom waste might do irreparable damage to a small patch of land. Show me the evidence and I'll change my mind.
-
Every opinion is right to the holder of the opinion, until proven wrong. I take no pleasure in being right if in fact I am wrong. I'm a rational person with an open mind. Most people with sceptic tanks are on a larger than average block of land. If it's against the law to dispose of small amounts of darkroom waste in the manner I've suggested, then I would admit to a degree of irresponsibility. However, all reports of irresponsibility of toxic waste disposal that I've come across have involved businesses that have been paid to dispose of waste in a so-called proper manner, but have failed to do so in order to save money.
I see no evidence in this thread that small amounts of darkroom waste might do irreparable damage to a small patch of land. Show me the evidence and I'll change my mind.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105813\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray, the purpose of disposal instructions is to make it unnecessary to determine what is proper on a case by case basis, not to make life overly difficult for Ray. And to protect others from Ray. I have no idea, nor do I care, what would be proof to Ray. I'm not Australian or Ray so I don't know how many two headed dingos constitute proof of improper dumping. Ray will do what Ray wants to do anyway.
+++++++++++++++++++++
A quick Google check on disposing of photographic chemicals produced guidance for proper disosal. Most notable were the State of Florida, Purdue University and Princeton University. None said to dumo them in Ray's or anybody else's backyard.
-
A quick Google check on disposing of photographic chemicals produced guidance for proper disosal. Most notable were the State of Florida, Purdue University and Princeton University. None said to dumo them in Ray's or anybody else's backyard.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105843\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Instead of these vague, unhelpful statements, Howard, show us the relevant part of the 'no doubt' long-winded document you refer to which deals with the problem being discussed in this thread.
I've provided a practical, cost effective solution which I believe would work and which lays full responsibility on the person who has created the waste. Your solution is to pass on the responsibility to someone else and hope the business operator taking your money does the right thing.
Sometimes in life you just have to use your common sense, Howard.
-
Instead of these vague, unhelpful statements, Howard, show us the relevant part of the 'no doubt' long-winded document you refer to which deals with the problem being discussed in this thread.
I've provided a practical, cost effective solution which I believe would work and which lays full responsibility on the person who has created the waste. Your solution is to pass on the responsibility to someone else and hope the business operator taking your money does the right thing.
Sometimes in life you just have to use your common sense, Howard.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105945\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray, you are often wrong but never in doubt. Look it up ypurself.
-
Ray, you are often wrong but never in doubt. Look it up ypurself.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105956\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm always in doubt and probably rarely completely right on any subject. However, I have done a Google search on the subject and have taken the trouble to post what I thought was a relevant extract on the toxiciity of darkroom chemicals, which is more than you have done.
My advise to the original poster is; exercise some common sense. Don't upset the delicate biological processes of your sceptic tank. If you can find a convenient and economical way of getting someone to collect your slightly toxic waste, then fine. If not, don't worry. Dilute your waste with lots of water and pour it in a pit near the corner of your block. Throw in some organic matter as well and after a period of time, try growing tomatos in that pit and inform us of the results, if we are still around to read your post .
-
A couple last thoughts.
The world's population has topprd 6.5 billion people. We are likely past the time we can think like independant cowboys and do whatever we want with no regard for others around us.
Australia has finally cleaned up its garbage dumps in Antarctica. I guess they decided their block wasn't just their block. Maybe the idea that we can dump whatever we want whereever we want has gone by, even for the free spirited Australians.
I find it interesting that a good place to dump waste is in the "corner of your block." As far from "me" as possible and yet as close to others (who have little input to what "me" is doing) as possible?
And finally, why tomatoes and not radishes or rudibagas?
I still say dispose of properly, even for cowboys.
-
Well I started this thread and I thank everyone who has contributed. My take on it is as follows:
1.Routing my darkroom into my septic tank is a very bad idea and I won't do it.
2.My local Council has no strategy beyond major industrial use to dispose of small (i.e 5-10 litres at a time) of chemicals.
3. Ray's suggestion of a small pit lined with plastic and sawdust seems to me the most logical and practical. I have a big enough garden to do this without ever having to grow anything on top of this.
4 But.... can we be confident that animals, my dog for one, are smart enough to avoid it and not drink from it? Sure no dog is going to drink neat fixer or developer but when heavily diluted... I guess some kind of mesh cover is called for. Actually leaving a small hole in the bottom might be a good idea to discourage the moles! Ok no I'm not going to do that.
That is what I am going to do - dump the water from my wash through the septic tank but decant the developer, fixer, toner and hypo clearer into containers and put them in a pit lined with plastic and sawdust, left open to evaporate and then burn the residue.
But do I really want to do this? Read my other thread about papers. I have just taken my last box of Oriental Seagull out of the freezer. (processing in London on the main sewers). Once that is gone I am not sure I am going to find another paper I really want to print on.
Maybe the only thing left is digital.
Is the silver gelatin print now dead?
A couple last thoughts.
The world's population has topprd 6.5 billion people. We are likely past the time we can think like independant cowboys and do whatever we want with no regard for others around us.
Australia has finally cleaned up its garbage dumps in Antarctica. I guess they decided their block wasn't just their block. Maybe the idea that we can dump whatever we want whereever we want has gone by, even for the free spirited Australians.
I find it interesting that a good place to dump waste is in the "corner of your block." As far from "me" as possible and yet as close to others (who have little input to what "me" is doing) as possible?
And finally, why tomatoes and not radishes or rudibagas?
I still say dispose of properly, even for cowboys.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106079\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Animals can and do drink spilled auto antifreeze and die. A dog drinking photo chemmies doesn't seem out of the question. Dogs aren't as smart as most of us. What this stuff smells and tastes like to you may be very different to your dog. Your dog will eat its own vomit. Would you eat your dog's vomit or lick your dog's gonads?
What you do with your chemmies is of course your decision. This is exactly why there are generic disposal directions on the packages. Silly as they seem to some, they mean you don't have to worry about what your dog will drink.
-
Maybe the only thing left is digital.
Is the silver gelatin print now dead?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106122\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It's a storm in a tea cup. Everyone reading this thread whould have assumed you would not be doing wet processing for long, except Howard perhaps, who's been behaving as though this is a new technology which is going to have a major environmental impact on the planet as hundreds of millions of people begin disposing of waste darkroom chemicals in their backyard.
-
Same ignorance and arrogance that brought us Thala Valley, just a different scale and type of garbage.
Here in the USA, we used to think the air, land and water had an infinite ability to suffer abuse. So we were wrong. So what?
-
just a different scale and type of garbage.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106141\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The scale and type of garbage is everything. This principle runs through just about everything we do. Too little is inconsequential. A bit more can be beneficial. Too much is harmful. Even atomic radiation can be beneficial in small doses.
Before I met you, Howard, I used to think engineers were practically oriented people with their feet firmly on the ground, able to appreciate the practical benefits of doing things one way as opposed to another.
-
I have found this Howie-Ray slugfest quite informative. Thus, I am hereby resolving never again to dump my used chemicals in Ray's back yard.
Then again, I haven't used my wet darkroom in about two and a half years, so a bigger ongoing concern for me now is how to recycle (meaningfully) all sorts of old computer equipment. I did just recently discover a place that recycles old floppy disks, CDs, DVDs, and magnetic tapes.
-
The scale and type of garbage is everything. This principle runs through just about everything we do. Too little is inconsequential. A bit more can be beneficial. Too much is harmful. Even atomic radiation can be beneficial in small doses.
Before I met you, Howard, I used to think engineers were practically oriented people with their feet firmly on the ground, able to appreciate the practical benefits of doing things one way as opposed to another.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=106154\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It is thought by some that small amounts of radiation are good for people. Not adequately demonstrated yet. Large doses can be beneficial for some folks.
I like to think engineers are practical people with the feet firmly on firm ground. I do not know any responsible engineer that would recommend just dumping chemicals at least until they knew what the chemicals were, what they reacted with and how, and the effects of dumping on the unsuspecting and environment. "B&W chemicals" includes many chemicals in varying concentrations. The engineers that put the disposal procedures on the label just might have a better idea than you and I about what is in the package. It is not in the manufacturer's best interest to make disposal intructions unnecessarily difficult. The public may not buy their product. Then again, engineers do not want to help create a disaster.
No, this is not new technology. That may be one reason disposal intstructions are what they are instaed of more restrictive. Nor do the instructions say to dump your last try in the garden. The purpsoe of the instructions is not to make life hard, but to help keep cowboys safe and the world safe from cowboys. (A cowboy in this example is a nonthinking freelancer.)
It is interesting that it was esay for folks to believe these chemicals might hurt their septic system (did they ask an expert?) but suddenly know better than the experts that dumping in the garden is fine. But maybe not for the family dog. How much more valuable is the family dog that the family?
How you dispose of this waste is a matter of how responsible you are and to what (you are willing to risk whatever for a few $$.)
-
The engineers that put the disposal procedures on the label just might have a better idea than you and I about what is in the package. It is not in the manufacturer's best interest to make disposal intructions unnecessarily difficult. The public may not buy their product. Then again, engineers do not want to help create a disaster.
I doubt it's the engineers who recommend putting disposal procedures on labels but lawyers in order to protect their companies from possible litigation. But let's have a look at some of these labels. Can you show us a few to see if they are applicable to pflower's situation or whether they consist of anything more than motherhood statements?
Pflower has already stated that his local council has no strategy for disposal of small amounts of toxic waste. People on sceptic tank systems are generally some distance from densely populated areas, which makes it probably inconvenient and expensive to dispose of these small amounts of waste in the manner you suggest.
In such circumstances, a more creative approach is required, but one also based on common sense.
It is interesting that it was esay for folks to believe these chemicals might hurt their septic system (did they ask an expert?) but suddenly know better than the experts that dumping in the garden is fine. But maybe not for the family dog. How much more valuable is the family dog that the family?
Howard, I really find it difficult to believe you are/were an engineer. It seems to me that you couldn't even pass a preliminary test to determine suitability for that profession.
Question: I've dug a hole about 1 metre square and half a metre deep which I've filled with organic matter, such as sawdust. The purpose of the hole is a receptacle for chemical waste from a darkroom. Such waste is diluted significantly with water so it is only mildly toxic. However, I have some dearly loved dogs running around and I'm worried they might try to drink such water, or even eat the chemically impregnated sawdust. I'm confident it wouldn't kill them but it might make them ill for a few days. I want to spare them this learning process. What should I do?
Answer: Cover the hole with a piece of rigid, heavy duty galvanised iron mesh and secure all 4 sides with slabs of rock, bricks or anything fairly heavy. Pour the diluted waste chemicals through the mesh. There should be no need to remove the mesh, except occasionally to replenish the sawdust.
Howard, you surprise me. If I ever find myself in charge of a business that has a vacancy for an engineer, please don't apply.
-
Lawyers do get involved with labeling, but they do not write the procedures. Most lawyers have no idea what to do with a batch of fixer. Not all products require or have protective labels. These are usually reserved for products that can or have done harm. Labels are different if the harm is done to the user of the product only or could involve the general public. In the case of public health and safety, "probably" won't hurt isn't good enough. Responsibility requires more.
Frequently, when the public health and safety is involved. there is an analysis done of the risks and consequences. Procedures for the use and disposal are based on minimizing the risk and consequences. When something different than the analyized situation is proposed, another, simpler analysis may be done to determine whether the proposed changes are bounded by the existing analysis. Frequently, the question that must be answered is can the dumping this stuff in your garden cause a result different or more severe than the approved method of disposal. If not, either the proposal is not adopted or it is analized for safety.
New or different kind of problrm? Likely not, The results are likely the same as drinking or inhaling the fumes. More severe is likely where we are. The probablity of a real problem is likely increased significanly. What is safer? Diluted and down a sanitary sewer or dumped into ypur garden?
I doubt that dumping chemicals in your garden is covered by the existing analyes. If it were OK, Kodak might recommend that. Therefore, it is very difficult to say what the consequences may be. The consequences could vary from severe health problems to really great tomatoes. It just doesn't seem responsible to assume no harm when someone else's health and safety is concerned.
Ray, are you be willing to personally assume all the responsibility ($$$) for harm done by anyone following your advice to dump their photo chemicals in their garden? I doubt it, but you might be. Are you willing to live with the knowledge you killed or maimed someone or even made them very sick?
The only benefit offered so far seems to be money (cheaper to dump than to dispose of as directed) and convienece (easier to dump that follow the directions).
I don't know that anyone has ever sued Kodak because they dumped their chemicals in the garden and grew really fine tomatoes. But let their dog get sick or their child grow an extra toe, ... . Even if not guilty, the cost could be way more than any perceived benefit. Try telling the mother next door (or her lawyers) you were just trying to save a buck and a few minutes.
-
Short of launching it into outer space, we have only 3 places into which we can put our garbage: the water, the ground, and the air. No matter which we choose, it will be with us for a while so it is incumbent on us to think carefully about how we dispose of our waste material. This isn't a new or even radical idea. My cat knows enough not to defecate where it eats.
-
Short of launching it into outer space, we have only 3 places into which we can put our garbage: the water, the ground, and the air. No matter which we choose, it will be with us for a while so it is incumbent on us to think carefully about how we dispose of our waste material. This isn't a new or even radical idea. My cat knows enough not to defecate where it eats.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=107527\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Does that mean that even your cat knows things some people don't about waste management? I would suggest changing "think carefully" to simply "think."
-
It doesn't appear that your original question was ever really answered. I also live on a septic system and would never think of putting anything, even developer, down the drain and into my backyard. Check to see if you city or county has a hazardous waste disposal site or some communities have special collection days. The county I live in has a site where they will dispose of all of my expired chemsitry. Depending on your community, there may be a small fee, but it's nothing when I consider the health of my yard, my neighbors and my planet.
-
Check to see if you city or county has a hazardous waste disposal site or some communities have special collection days.
He has and they don't. The irrational part of some of the arguments in this thread is the notion that it's okay to breathe in the fumes, and expose the skin to the fumes of chemicals that are so dangerous that, even when diluted and poured into a pit in the corner of your block where they will no doubt break down, oxidise and gradually be dispersed, is not okay.
You can't have it both ways. If the darkroom chemicals really are so dangerous that it would be irresponsible to dispose of them in the way I have recommended in this thread, bearing in mind that people who have sceptic tanks are on larger than average blocks of land, then I for one would simply refuse to work with such chemicals. I've got more respect for my health.
If you really are concerned about not contributing to the pollution of the planet, then don't produce the pollution in the first place; that is, don't buy the polluting chemicals.
So far, the only mention in this thread of possible dangerous components of these waste chemicals that won't break down, is selenium. As it so happens, selenium is an essential trace element which appears to be deficient in the soil in many areas, particularly in the UK; so much so that bakers over there are considering adding it to the bread. Most of the other elements in the waste are probably just nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen carbon, sulphur, silver sodium etc, none of which seem particularly dangerous to me.
It's not my problem of course, but if anyone is aware of any components in darkroom waste that are particularly inert, that have a long life, which are likely to resist breaking down in the soil when exposed to air and rain, and which are particularly toxic, then speak up.
-
You just don't seem to get it or understand chemistry. Heavy metals like selenium don't decay or break down. They can get into the ground water or into runoff and they get concentrated by the ecosystem. It works its way up the food chain getting concentrated and you may find your favorite bird or mammal imperiled.
Another difficulty is that somebody can buy the house or other property to build a house on, and then a child plays in the yard and gets sub-clinical toxicity that is not detected but degrades their learning ability.
You don't breath heavy metals but dumping them into the environment is foolish in the extreme.
You haven't posted any sound chemistry that I have seen, so I suggest you dispose of chemicals according to the manufacturer's guidelines and conforming to all laws because there is a much higher chance they have been written with a greater understanding of chemistry and ecology and childhood development than you have exhibited.
Please, don't hurt animals and people through willful ignorance.
-
Read up on selenium contamination in California before you continue to natter on about it being a food supplement.
There is a huge difference between an adult taking a nutritional supplement after careful study and unwitting consumption of poisons dumped into the environment by someone else.
-
A quick check at Kodak's website (quote below):
"Most photographic processing effluents and wash waters contain chemicals that are biodegradable. They are, therefore, compatible with aerobic (with oxygen) biological treatment systems and are effectively treated when sent to an efficient sewage treatment facility. Permission from the local treatment authority may be needed (a written consent or permit is usually needed and limits what can and can't be discharge). Contact your local authorities to see if you need consent and to determine local discharge limits." [emphasis added]
This may eliminate septic systems. I don't know whether your garden is considered an "efficient sewage treatment facility." I still urge you do dispose of chemicals properly and responsibly.
-
You just don't seem to get it or understand chemistry.
You don't seem to have read what I've written. I understand enough chemistry to know that an element is an element, and the element selenium is a vital trace element that is lacking in many soils. I'm not talking about continuous dumping of large amounts of darkroom waste over a number of years in a small back yard, but small amounts of waste from a small domestic operation, which is the original poster's situation. To suggest, say a one acre block of land (I'm on 5 acres and have a sceptic tank) could become seriously polluted with excess selenium from such a small operation is ridiculous.
You haven't posted any sound chemistry that I have seen, so I suggest you dispose of chemicals according to the manufacturer's guidelines and conforming to all laws because there is a much higher chance they have been written with a greater understanding of chemistry and ecology and childhood development than you have exhibited.
Nor have you posted any sound chemistry. You are simply scaremongering and seem to have got things quite out of proportion. Perhaps my view is influenced by the fact that most seriously toxic chemicals are banned in Australia, such as dieldrin and aldrin which used to very effective for creating a barrier to white ants when sprayed on the ground before laying a house slab. They would remain toxic for many decades.
-
A quick check at Kodak's website (quote below):
"Most photographic processing effluents and wash waters contain chemicals that are biodegradable. They are, therefore, compatible with aerobic (with oxygen) biological treatment systems and are effectively treated when sent to an efficient sewage treatment facility. Permission from the local treatment authority may be needed (a written consent or permit is usually needed and limits what can and can't be discharge). Contact your local authorities to see if you need consent and to determine local discharge limits." [emphasis added]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=109628\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, thank you Howard. It is as I thought. Most of the chemicals are biodegradable. If one were to suspect that selenium might be a problem, and if one was particularly worried about it, one could have one's soil analyzed to determine the degree of selenium deficiency, then after diluting the selenium waste, one could spray it over a large area of garden and water it in well.
I don't know whether your garden is considered an "efficient sewage treatment facility." I still urge you do dispose of chemicals properly and responsibly.
Quite efficient I would say. There's stuff there that's breaking down and bio-degrading all the time. It's a natural and continuous process. As for disposing of chemicals responsibly, I could do no less since I'm a responsible person .
-
Biodegradable simply means "capable of decomposing rapidly under natural conditions." Decomposing into what is the question and problem. Usually one composts natural organic trash, like leaves, grass, garden vegitation and such. Because these are hydrocarbons (mostly carbon, hydogen and oxygen), that's usually not a problem. Compounds of sulphur, silver and selenium (photo chemicals) decompose into those elements or other compounds of those elements. Elements (carban, hydrogen oxygen, sulpfur, silver, selenium and many others) are not biodegradable.
Stop bath, for instance, is acedic acid (vinegar). You can make salad dressing from vinegar and safely eat it. You can drink acedic acid and get burned, sick or die.
Photo chemicals also react with ecah other to produce different chemicals.
Selenium toner stinks, but it is not the selenium you are smelling. It is other volitile compounds, likely a toxis sulphur compound gas. Heavy metak poisoning is frequently not instantantly fatal or even noticed. Sublethal doses over a long period can do damage. We are familiar with W. Eugene Smith's image of a Japanese man with mercury poisoning. I think it was a parent that was exposed. Oh, and FTI, W. Eugene is not a relative. (I did check on the internet and my great, great, great, grandfather was a rapist and a murderer and Australian. However, this condition wasn't his fault because he was from England where his father didn't get enough selenium. FYI my great, grandmother was a modest womwn traded by Australia to the USA. They had no use for her but needed more murderers. Australia got one plus a draft pick.
We are familiar with the story that Ansel Adams put his hands into selenium toner regularly and lived to be 80-something. Proof selenium is good for you. But such anecedotes are worthless eveidence. Adams is said to have want post mortem tissue samples tested for photo chemical accumulation. I have never seem that these were done or what the results were. Who knows, maybe his great, great, great, grandson will be a kook that thinks seleinium might be dangerous.
The chemists at Kodak are arguable not studid or ignorant but may know what they are making and how to dispose of it better than the users, or readers of LL. Kodak recommends sending wastes to sewage treatment plants, period. They do not suggest composting in the garden. Kodak does not say you can safely compost the stuff in small quantities once or so.
As for practicle mattera, it may be much cheaper and easier to cart off a quart of toner to the local sewage plant than have your soil tested for selenium and then decide how much you could add as a trace element. It's up to you of course.
-
Compounds of sulphur, silver and selenium (photo chemicals) decompose into those elements or other compounds of those elements. Elements (carban, hydrogen oxygen, sulpfur, silver, selenium and many others) are not biodegradable.
I don't know where I might have given the impression that I'm not familiar with the Periodic Table. I understand perfectly well that elements by definition cannot be broken down or transformed into other elements, excepts by atomic fusion or atomic fission.
Most of these elements are already in the soil through natural processes, and the quantities that are in the soil will vary enormously depending on location and geology. A major health concern around the world is trace element deficiency in the diet due to the soil not containing sufficient quantities of trace elements. Even in wealthy Western countries, monoculture farming practices tend to cause the soil to become depleted of essential trace elements which are not included in the chemical fertilisers that modern farming practices rely upon. You've probably heard of the disastrous effects of iodine deficiency in countries like Bangladesh where the soil has so little naturally occurring iodine.
Stop bath, for instance, is acedic acid (vinegar). You can make salad dressing from vinegar and safely eat it. You can drink acedic acid and get burned, sick or die.
Let's get things in perspective. You could also die (so I've heard from a qualified nutritionist) if you were to eat a cupful of apple seeds. That doesn't stop you eating apples, does it? Have I suggested anyone drink their waste stop bath on the grounds that it's similar to vinegar? Of course I haven't. What I've suggested is that you dilute it heavily and pour it into a compost filled pit. If you find the soil is becoming too acidic to grow things, then add a bit of lime. Every gardening novice knows that.
Photo chemicals also react with ecah other to produce different chemicals.
Indeed! But I don't believe plants automatically take up whatever compounds are in the ground. If there's an increase in selenium, or iodine or molybdenum in the soil, then some plants will take up a greater quantity of those trace elements, but I doubt that digging potassium cyanide into the ground and growing tomatoes would result in deadly poisonous tomatoes, otherwise it would have been the plot of an Agatha Christie novel .
Selenium toner stinks, but it is not the selenium you are smelling.
Quite so! But I wouldn't be surprised if the odd selenium atom is carried up in those vapours. Perhaps the message here is, if you spend a lot of time in the darkroom using selenium toner, you are less likely to be suffering from selenium deficiency. In which case, give those selenium enriched tomatoes to friends who don't spend time in a darkroom .
The chemists at Kodak are arguable not studid or ignorant but may know what they are making and how to dispose of it better than the users, or readers of LL. Kodak recommends sending wastes to sewage treatment plants, period. They do not suggest composting in the garden. Kodak does not say you can safely compost the stuff in small quantities once or so.
My method is only for sensible people. This thread is about a specific set of circumstances. Someone living away from the city centre, on a larger than average block of land, who is probably only going to continue darkroom processing for a very few years at most and who is not going to produce large quantities of waste. His local council does not have facilities for disposal of small quantities of waste.
The chemists working at Kodak are probably not agricultural chemists nor necessarily waste disposal experts. As I've mentioned before, such generalised warnings on labels are partly for legal reasons. They are not designed to be a practical and detailed guide to meet every set of circumstances.
(I did check on the internet and my great, great, great, grandfather was a rapist and a murderer and Australian. However, this condition wasn't his fault because he was from England where his father didn't get enough selenium. FYI my great, grandmother was a modest womwn traded by Australia to the USA. They had no use for her but needed more murderers. Australia got one plus a draft pick.)
Nice story. I didn't know America contnued to accept British convicts, whether indirectly from Australia or not, after the War of Independence. They then relied upon African slaves, didn't they. Perhaps we should re-write history.
-
Folks, keep on topic. It's not hard to do.
If you dispose of chemical waste (and photography chemicals count) on your property, you are required by law to disclose this fact to any buyers or heirs or giftees, in any jurisdiction that I can imagine. This will not increase the value of the property.
-
I have to agree with the last post by Monito. There seems to be a lot of useless arguing about who is right on this board.
It is always better to err of the side of caution. Dumping photo chemicals down the drain on a septic system has always been, and always will be a bad idea.
Another suggestion would be to check with a nearby community college or university. If they have a photo program that is teaching wet darkroom technique, they have a way to get rid of the chemicals that are hazardous that will be in compliance with your state. Get to know the photo faculty and see if they would let you dump your chemicals through them.
The university I'm with has a hazardous waste disposal department and requires that selenium is disposed of through them even though I am the only person on the campus who uses it and I don't even use that much of it.
Maybe it's time to make some new friends or audit a class to take advantage the school's facilities.
-
Folks, keep on topic. It's not hard to do.
If you dispose of chemical waste (and photography chemicals count) on your property, you are required by law to disclose this fact to any buyers or heirs or giftees, in any jurisdiction that I can imagine. This will not increase the value of the property.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=109926\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
All waste is chemical. I think some of you guys have spent too long in the city and have lost touch with rural reality.
-
Dumping photo chemicals down the drain on a septic system has always been, and always will be a bad idea.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=109969\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
And not one person in this thread has suggested otherwise.
-
All waste is chemical. I think some of you guys have spent too long in the city and have lost touch with rural reality.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=109973\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That is about as true and as useful as saying that all waste is nuclear because of a trace amount of radioactive decay.
-
That is about as true and as useful as saying that all waste is nuclear because of a trace amount of radioactive decay.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110012\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's not quite the same, is it. All substances without exception are 100% composed of chemical compounds and elements. The issue is, how dangerous are the chemicals under discussion and how resistant are they to biodegradation?
As I mentione before, the sale of all dangerous and toxic chemicals to the public has been banned in Australia. This makes pest control difficult and expensive, because the substitute chemicals do not last long and have to be reapplied every few years. If there are any dangerous, toxic darkroom chemicals that are non-biodegradable, then I certainly would not want to have anything to do with them.
My solution for disposal of relatively small quantities of biodegradable darkroom waste is based on evidence that working in a darkroom is not particularly, or not necessarily harmful to health, although I understand that some darkroom workers after spending several hours of most days over a number of years working with darkroom chemicals, can develop health problems.
I still fail to see the logic and rationality of being concerned about the effects of diluted darkroom waste spread on the ground and well watered in, and not being concerned about exposing one's skin to, and breathing in, the fumes from such chemicals when working in the darkroom.
-
Neighbors can take exception to improper disposal of chemicals and you might be exposed to civil tort and liability.
-
Neighbors can take exception to improper disposal of chemicals and you might be exposed to civil tort and liability.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110048\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Then don't tell them. You really are making things difficult for yourself, aren't you.
This is what you could do. Dilute one litre of darkroom waste to 10 litres of water, and with a watering can, water the roses. You might find they'll really thrive and your neighbours will praise your wonderful roses and ask you what's the secret.
But you won't tell them.
(To avoid any quibbling about the degree of dilution, make it 1 litre of waste to 20, or 40 litres of water if you like.)
-
Monito et al.,
This thread is making me laugh. If you guys are so concerned with wet darkroom chemicals, then take a look at the eco-friendly SilverGrain products found at DigitalTruth - http://www.digitaltruth.com/ (http://www.digitaltruth.com/)
Regards, Art.
-
Monito et al.,
This thread is making me laugh. If you guys are so concerned with wet darkroom chemicals, then take a look at the eco-friendly SilverGrain products found at DigitalTruth - http://www.digitaltruth.com/ (http://www.digitaltruth.com/)
Regards, Art.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110148\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Which is why I wrote on the fifth post in this thread, "Jeez! Don't create problems where there are none. If the chenicals are harmful to the natural biological processes of your sceptic tank, then just dump them on a spare piece of ground. If you are on a sceptic tank system, then it is easy to divert grey water to any location you want."
-
Several things come to mind:
1. Go ahead and run the wash water into the septic system. The concentrations of potential "anti-septics" should be low enough to not cause problems.
2. Save the actual chemicals for proper disposal NOT in your septic system.
Ok, how to do that?
I work for an environmental laboratory. I also have done work for other labs in the area. One lab supplies equipment for the local hospital to use monitoring the silver concentration in the sanitary sewer system just downstream from the hospital's "point of entry" into the sewer system. The equipment gathers composite samples for later analysis.
The city does not want high concentrations of silver to be disposed of into the sanitary sewer because the silver is a strong antiseptic and thus kills off the bacteria at the wastewater treatment plant. BUT, they go by concentration so simply capturing as much silver as possible and then diluting the effluent suffices to keep the hospital out of hot water with the city.
So the point is that the regional wastewater plant will accept some of this waste as long as it meets their criteria. So you may well be able to get their permission to just dump your collected darkroom chemicals into their system in some way. Just ask them.
If it turns out that you cannot do that, then a very common way of reducing the cost of disposal of water-based hazardous waste is to simply allow the water component to evaporate off and then you're left with only the dry residue to dispose of.
So you could set up an evaporation system and then collect the dry residue and pay to have that properly disposed of. And if you're lucky, it's possible that such waste would be accepted by a local landfill if you can properly identify what's in it for them.
You'd be surprised at what most landfills will accept.
I do not recommend dumping the stuff directly onto the ground because not only is it a very nasty thing to do, but you also open yourself up to potentially expensive problems anywhere down the road. There doesn't seem to be any statute of limitations on how long you'll be liable for the cleanup of such a site. Don't do it.
Bottom line:
Just ask the local wastewater plant and/or the landfill if they'll accept it or not. Chances are, they'll take it if things are done properly.
Good luck
Oh, and just an anecdote: A locally famous photography teacher died of an unusual form of Cancer here recently. That particular cancer is associated exclusively with exposure to D-76. Nice to know I spent my youth with my hands dunked in that stuff and breathing the fumes from it!
Jim H
-
That's enough to persuade anyone to go digital.
-
That's enough to persuade anyone to go digital.
I think that was the point of some people in this thread. Making mountains out of mole hills to make a point. Using unscientific fears to convert - nay enlighten people.
Meanwhile miles and miles of earth is being ripped up to get the precious metals required to make electronic circuitry, but we can't see that, so it must be more environmentally friendly! Not to mention the disposal of batteries, ink, etc...
Regards, Art.
-
Meanwhile miles and miles of earth is being ripped up to get the precious metals required to make electronic circuitry, but we can't see that, so it must be more environmentally friendly! Not to mention the disposal of batteries, ink, etc...[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110246\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The cost of a digital camera is a capital cost. A computer, also a capital cost, is almost always used for much more than digital photographs alone. The capital cost to the environment (one time) of ripping materials from the earth is less in the long run than the operating cost (ongoing and repeated) of ripping materials from the earth for chemical photography. Yes, digital is more environmentally friendly.
-
The cost of a digital camera is a capital cost. A computer, also a capital cost, is almost always used for much more than digital photographs alone. The capital cost to the environment (one time) of ripping materials from the earth is less in the long run than the operating cost (ongoing and repeated) of ripping materials from the earth for chemical photography. Yes, digital is more environmentally friendly.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=112249\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It's not at all easy to determine such matters; which is more environmentally friendly. I was amused to hear recently that supermarkets in the U.K are beginning to advertise a 'carbon' component to the price of imported fruit. For example, a kilogram of apples imported from Chile might be half the price of a kilogram of similar apples grown in the U.K. The idea is, if you advise people that the cheaper apples are less 'environmentally friendly' because they have to be transported across vast distances by ships which spew CO2 into the atmosphere (and you attach a figure to this), then responsible, environmentally aware consumers are more likely to buy the more expensive product. Having done so, they are slightly poorer than they could be, from the monetary point of view, but feel good that they have helped the environment.
This is a 'feel good' idea which is totally fallacious, however. It doesn't take into account such facts that the British apple picker and orchard worker probably spews CO2 into the atmosphere as he drives to work each day and, with his much higher wages than his Chilean counterpart, buys more items like computers and darkroom chemicals, TV sets and a new car every few years which all contribute to some degree of environmental destruction.
Unless you have precise details on the entire chain of production, from the mining of the basic metal ores (to build the machinery and ships) and production of all components associated with the final product, to the living standards and consumption habits of the workers involved in all facets of the production, including the ways in which the owners of such operations spend their profits, then the best general guide to the 'environmentally friendliness' of a product is its price tag.
A $100 cup of coffee is likely to be less environmentally friendly than a $2 cup of coffee.
-
I think you are making too many assumptions about Chilean workers and their economic station in life and too many assumptions about the UK worker and their environmental awareness.
I wonder if you think any environmental concern or any effort at conservation is merited.
But of course it is easier to introduce diverting anecdotes about UK apple orchard workers than it is to address the issue of digital capital cost versus film/chemical operating costs.
-
But of course it is easier to introduce diverting anecdotes about UK apple orchard workers than it is to address the issue of digital capital cost versus film/chemical operating costs.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=112321\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The point of the anecdote is that neither is easy. In order to make such assessments, you need vast amounts of information. However, whatever product you are talking about, the price of that product is generally a fair indication of the amount of energy already expended in its production plus a profit component that will be expended on further energy in the future. It doesn't make much difference if you are talking about apples from Chile or DSLRs from Canon. If the energy is supplied from the burning of coal and oil, as most of it is, then pollution goes into the atmosphere. It doesn't necessarily make a difference to the environmental impact if the energy was used for a capital item or not, although it seems to be the case that for the (busy) working photographer, the capital cost of a digital camera is paid for within a fairly short period of time by the savings in film, chemicals and processing costs, in which case one could argue that a digital camera is more environmentally friendly than the old-fashioned film camera.
However, I doubt this is the case for the amateur. I took around 14,000 shots with my first digital camera, the Canon D60, more photos than I had previously taken in my entire life with film cameras, yet the cost of buying and developing the 389 rolls of 36 exposure film which would have given me 14,000 shots was little more than half the cost of the camera plus flash cards.
Considering that I would never have taken 14,000 shots in that time period had I continued using film, I think it's a fair assumption that my move into digital photography has contributed to environmental degradation.
-
Oh never mind ... not worth it.
Regards, Art.
-
If you have a question on any chemical get a Material Safety Data Sheet {MSDS} from the manufacturer. They are free and may even be available on the internet. The MSDS will tell you the dangers of the chemical and the proper means of disposal.