[Leica] Health Survey of Darkroom Folk (LONG)

["David L. Duff" <duffdl@uswest.net>]

After having read the Tri-X, developer and related posts, I'm inspired
to ask by posing these questions to the LUG. I'll make results known
later, (respondants will be kept anonymous if you respond privately).
And please, no flames, I realize the topic in some circles is not
without contention both pro and con.

  The following questions should only apply to those who do or who have
performed darkroom work.

  1. How many of us enjoy (or even do it without enjoyment) getting
their hands into the chemistry? ie. do not use gloves or PPE (personal
protective equipment).

  2. How many of us eat, drink, or store/prepare food/drink in the
darkroom (whether chemistry is "open" or not)?

  3. How many of us know a photographer (who does or did darkroom work)
who now has non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, or a blood, marrow, or kidney
disorder? (even hypertension frequently can fall under kidney disorder)
For those in New York state, one wrote the introductory letter to
"Overexposure, Health Hazards in Photography, 2nd ed".

  4. How many of us know a photographer (who does or did darkroom work)
who now has developed so-called/unexplained "allergies/sensitivities"
who and can no longer work in the darkroom without getting "sicker"? For
us Portland Oregon people that would be the PSU professor who won a case
against the U. and their subsequent decision to end their liability by
closing the darkrooms. 

  As an aside to #4 above, sometimes you can detect these people in your
prescence if they have an aversion to food/drink that is naturally high
in hydroquinone or arbutin (a naturally occuring substance, tho' not in
the human body other than as a metobolite of something else) while you
are at a restaurant. These foods, according to Kodak, include, but are
not limited to: broccoli, wheat, pears (esp. the skins), coffee, tea,
red wine, and some cranberry teas. Kodak's medical journal articles even
suggest that one can suffer "hydroquinone toxicity" from dietary means
(without including that which might be absorbed dermally).

  5. How many of us caught the change a couple of years ago in the
wording of the cautions on the side of some chemistry bottles? These
never before mentioned any problem other than eye irritation or skin
irritation and allergic reactions. They now read: "can cause C(entral)
N(ervous) S(ystem) effects, can cause kidney damage,...may cause blood
disorders,... and liver damage based on animal data. Harmful if inhaled,
absorbed through skin, or swallowed".

  Another aside for #5, how many of us Medline surfers caught all those
medical journal articles recently re: hydroquinone and catechol being
isolated as some of the primary culprits in lung cancer formation for
those who smoke. Hey, I'll leave the smokers out now, I've been there,
done that.

  6. How many of us have read a recent MSDS (Material Saftey Data Sheet)
for what we use?

  7. How many of us have noticed the difference in wording from an MSDS
in one country to another (ie, US, Britain, Australia, etc.), or even
from one manufacture to another?

  8. How many of us noticed on the few MSDS's that mention it, the US
DOT code that alerts delivery folk that some of these compounds should
not be shipped in the same truck/van/train (whatever), with foodstuffs.

  9. How many of us play "mad-scientist" by mixing chemistries from
different manufacturers because "fixer is fixer, and it seems to work"?

 10. How many of us follow a manufacturers instructions on chemical
replenishment. ie. in cutting corners to make a buck or deadline, do we
push a weekly instruction to a monthly, quarterly?

 11. Related to #'s 9 and 10 above, how many of us are aware that many
processing systems, ie. processor, chemistry, and film/paper, are
proprietry and safety data are not available because when the proper
guidelines are followed, the manufacturer feels they are safe (and they
may well be!)?

  Aside to #'s 9, 10, 11. According to an industrial hygeinist for a
european film manufacturer that I spoke with, "they were exempt from
providing safety data for proprietry chemistry. If push came to shove,
they could list such things and prove safety if directions were
followed. But if one were to allow chemistry to accumulate and thereby
concentrate through poor work hygeine (against the makers recommend), or
to mix chemistries from other makers with their process, then all bets
were off and the person doing this would be indeed a "mad-scientist". No
one, not even the "mad-scientist" could be helped with known toxicology
information as no one would know the concentrations nor the constituents
of such potions he/she had brewed".

  May our time in the darkroom be as safe as we can make it, so there
will be tomorrows that we can spend there, as well as with our loved
ones, and of course the LUG!

  Oh, and to head off the quips from the digital folks, their stuff only
moves the problem to someone elses backyard.

  Sorry for the long post, I won't make a habit of it and I hope it will
do us all some good. Comments on how to make a better survey are
welcome, as I plan on issuing a similar one to the membership of the
Biological Communications Association for print in their journal.

  Best of Light (and dark!),
  David Duff, Medical Photograher, Portland VA Medical Center
  Safety Representative - American Federation of Government Employees