Re: glyoxal v. formaldehyde
Although preferring alt prints to inkjet prints, I remain an ignoramus on these toxicity questions, with nothing to commend me except a certain fluency on google and a profound respect for Bertrand Russell's dictum that an element of doubt is a prerequisite to rational thought. From which standpoint I am left with a couple of questions: 1. Is it not important to be aware that glutaraldehyde is much more toxic than formaldehyde in terms (for example) of a splash in the eyes? 2. (Even more naively perhaps) if f'de will outgas at room temperature but g'de will not, what implications does that have in terms of the comparative residual toxicities of the hardened size on prints? Apprehensively Don Sweet ----- Original Message ----- From: "Judy Seigel" <jseigel@panix.com> To: <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca> Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 4:40 PM Subject: glyoxal v. formaldehyde > > > > On Mon, 7 Apr 2008, Christina Z. Anderson wrote: > > > > > My bottom line is that as far as toxicity, glyoxal and formalin are just as > > toxic and that tends to be downplayed in comparative discussions about glut. > > > This is a supposition, tho it jibes with my experience: I've worked with > both glyoxal and formalin a lot -- with students, too: The actual > strength of the solutions is low: (from memory) about 20 cc per liter? > When you read the hazards lit, they're talking about industrial strength > 40 hours a week. We use it for maybe an hour a couple of times a year. > In other words, I doubt the risk from any of them in those amounts for > that time is even measurable (and no way as lethal as canned sardines). > > J.
|